Deranged Rhino Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 And keeping power at all costs?? By asking an 80 year old women to step down so a successor can replace her? Ever hear of taking one for the team? And this is why I can't be a democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 You are really outdoing yourself today. You've surpassed your normal level of idiocy, and are just going balls-to-the-wall full retard today. It is highly entertaining. Probably more entertaining than one of your childrens books... And this is why I can't be a democrat. The Republicans would love it if more left leaning people hated to be on a team. Without organization you have nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 The Republicans would love it if more left leaning people hated to be on a team. Without organization you have nothing Doubly hilarious given that you don't even see the irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Doubly hilarious given that you don't even see the irony. Did you hit happy hour today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) Yes, you agreed with the five republicans and agreed Bush should win and against the four Democrats and Al Gore. You saying it was "correctly" decided only means you favored the Republican interpretation What are we arguing about again? No, I supported the "correct" interpretation; which was the continuation of 200+ years of federal election policy, the continuation of 200+ years of a state's rights to validate it's own election resluts, and the denial of favorable, hand picked election recounts, which would have politicized future Courts., in favor of a uniform federal election policy. The decision was not one to decide an election; it was a decision to decide the Court's role in all future elections. All SCOTUS decisions are primarily about establishing or acting on precedent. So, if the above is the Republican interpretation, which is a laughable notion to begin with, what !@#$ing lunacy was the Democratic interpretation? The destruction of 200+ years of Constitutional precedence, the discarding of State's rights in regards to conducting their own elections, and the ultimate politicization of the Court, placing them as the final deciding factor in who will be elected in all future federal elections in which they decide to assert themselves? Edited March 20, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 The Republicans would love it if more left leaning people hated to be on a team. Without organization you have nothing The issue is, I am on a team, team America. And what you are positing here goes against every fiber of the Constitution. Political affiliation is what is destroying this country, not Republicans. It's Republicans AND Democrats that are messing it up for everyone else (with an assist from the media). The court is designed to be a-political. Judges are not meant legislate from the bench and saying something like "taking one for the team" is as dangerous to the fundamentals of what makes us free as any of the GOP social conservatism nonsense that you (rightfully) disagree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 No, I supported the "correct" interpretation; which was the continuation of 200+ years of federal election policy, the continuation of 200+ years of a state's rights to validate it's own election resluts, and the denial of favorable, hand picked election recounts, which would have politicized future Courts., in favor of a uniform federal election policy. The decision was not one to decide an election; it was a decision to decide the Court's role in all future elections. All SCOTUS decisions are primarily about establishing or acting on precedent. So, if the above is the Republican interpretation, which is a laughable notion to begin with, what !@#$ing lunacy was the Democratic interpretation?The destruction of 200+ years of Constitutional precedence, the discarding of State's rights in regards to conducting their own elections, and the ultimate politicization of the Court, placing them as the final deciding factor in who will be elected in all future federal elections in which they decide to assert themselves? So the four liberals on the court had the incorrect interpretation of the Constitution, right? But really, you agree with the majority opinion, yes? And Obama is worse than Bush, you also said, yes? What are we arguing about again? The issue is, I am on a team, team America. And what you are positing here goes against every fiber of the Constitution. Political affiliation is what is destroying this country, not Republicans. It's Republicans AND Democrats that are messing it up for everyone else (with an assist from the media). The court is designed to be a-political. Judges are not meant legislate from the bench and saying something like "taking one for the team" is as dangerous to the fundamentals of what makes us free as any of the GOP social conservatism nonsense that you (rightfully) disagree with. Oh, the country is being destroyed now??? Ummmm ok. You can pretend all you want that judges are not political but that's just silly. Should a President be criticized for choosing a judge that is from his political leaning? When has that ever happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) You can pretend all you want that judges are not political but that's just silly. Should a President be criticized for choosing a judge that is from his political leaning? When has that ever happened? There is a massive difference between identifying with a political party as a judge and marching to the beat of said party's drum. Oh, the country is being destroyed now??? Ummmm ok. Over a decade of constant war, the absolute shredding of the 4th amendment by consecutive administrations, Creationism being taught in public schools, an economy that's still in the shitter for 90% of the nation's population, blue collar jobs being outsourced for over three decades now, helping play a part in obliterating the economic middle class in this country. And just this month, the rebirth of the Cold War to top it all off. I don't know how you would describe the state of the country -- but it sure ain't rainbows and unicorn farts. Edited March 20, 2014 by GreggyT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 There is a massive difference between identifying with a political party as a judge and marching to the beat of said party's drum. No, if you believe in the policies and goals of the party why wouldn't you want your successor to carry on your policies? You actually think Thurgood Marshall shouldn't have cared if someone less sympathetic to civil rights might replace him? Are the judges not suppose to care about what they stand for? And you are crazy if you think--any of you--that Republicans don't think the same way. Anyone that thinks Scalia can be divorced from his Conservativism are nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) No, if you believe in the policies and goals of the party why wouldn't you want your successor to carry on your policies? Because individual parties change their policies the way some folks change their sheets. You actually think Thurgood Marshall shouldn't have cared if someone less sympathetic to civil rights might replace him? The mere fact you assume everyone in a political party subscribes to a group-think mentality is insane. That's not reality and certainly isn't how we should hope the judicial branch is run. Are the judges not suppose to care about what they stand for? They absolutely should care about issues. But the paramount issue for any judge should be the US Constitution, not how their party feels about an issue. And you are crazy if you think--any of you--that Republicans don't think the same way. Anyone that thinks Scalia can be divorced from his Conservativism are nuts. You're justifying your own poor intellectual judgment by pointing out others' poor intellectual judgment... that's not a real argument. That's the argument a child makes when they don't get their dessert after dinner. No one is denying that political affiliation doesn't factor in when POLITICIANS make their nominations. But you're suggesting the judges themselves should be beholden only to their political affiliation rather than the rule of law. And that's what makes your statement so absurd. Edited March 20, 2014 by GreggyT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 pBills, is this you? if it's anyone, it's Hogboy. it has to be an act....nobody could be that oblivious and still know to breathe. do you remember Combo? I fell for that one, and am starting to think I'm falling for it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Because individual parties change their policies the way some folks change their sheets. So today's Democrats are not still the defenders of the New Deal from the 1930's?? Big government, protecting the poor? You don't see ideological consistency there? The mere fact you assume everyone in a political party subscribes to a group-think mentality is insane. That's not reality and certainly isn't how we should hope the judicial branch is run. Yes, if one side is going to organize you'd be foolish to not follow suit. United we stand, divided we fall. It's all great to preent you are so high and mighty and stand above that but in reality it doesn't work. Again, the Republicans would love if the Democrats didn't have a political party that was coherent. They absolutely should care about issues. But the paramount issue for any judge should be the US Constitution, not how their party feels about an issue. That's not the question. Who's interpretation of the Constitution is the issue. Conservatives very much have their interpretation and so do Liberals. Welcome to reality You're justifying your own poor intellectual judgment by pointing out others' poor intellectual judgment... that's not a real argument. That's the argument a child makes when they don't get their dessert after dinner. Oh look! You know how to be insulting! I stand in awe of your awesome intellectual powers, lol No one is denying that political affiliation doesn't factor in when POLITICIANS make their nominations. But you're suggesting the judges themselves should be beholden only to their political affiliation rather than the rule of law. Yes, because judges are suppose to be pure as the driven snow, above human wants, needs and desires. They are angels, in fact. What, did you just take a Poli Sci class or something? And that's what makes your statement so absurd. Just being realistic, that's all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 If Ginsburg goes early Obama could nominate a nice young Liberal judge who could serve for decades. I like that idea. Be even better if Democrats keep the white house and get to appoint several more judges ensuring a Liberal majority for a few decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 So today's Democrats are not still the defenders of the New Deal from the 1930's?? Big government, protecting the poor? You don't see ideological consistency there? First of all, I take issue with your position that "today's Democrats" are all united under common beliefs. They are not, nor is the GOP. If you don't believe me, go read up on FDR's platform planks while running and compare those to the current party's beliefs. Be specific... We will all wait. Yes, if one side is going to organize you'd be foolish to not follow suit. United we stand, divided we fall. It's all great to preent you are so high and mighty and stand above that but in reality it doesn't work. History shows quite the opposite. Those people who are willing to think for themselves and dare to speak differently than the sheep are the ones who find success. But if you're happy following the ass of another lemming off a cliff, more power to you. That's not the question. Who's interpretation of the Constitution is the issue. Conservatives very much have their interpretation and so do Liberals. Welcome to reality I studied law. I worked in law for years. For that reason, I subscribe to the belief that liberal interpretation of the constitution has caused more harm than good in this country. There are mechanisms built into the document that allows for change, but those mechanisms are purposefully slow to prevent wild swings in public opinion shaping the law of the land. Now, you will read that second sentence very differently from how it's intended, I bet. Which will just show how little you actually understand about the issue you're trying to debate. Oh look! You know how to be insulting! I stand in awe of your awesome intellectual powers, lol I'm actually trying really hard NOT to be insulting. But you make it so very difficult with this type of response. Yes, because judges are suppose to be pure as the driven snow, above human wants, needs and desires. They are angels, in fact. What, did you just take a Poli Sci class or something? I never said Judges were angels. If they were angels, then I wouldn't have to worry about their motives. But, because I realize how the system works after years of experience in it, I know more than most how disgraceful some Judges comport themselves on the bench. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 if it's anyone, it's Hogboy. it has to be an act....nobody could be that oblivious and still know to breathe. do you remember Combo? I fell for that one, and am starting to think I'm falling for it again. Don't remember Hogboy or Combo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Don't remember Hogboy or Combo. Hogboy was Crayonz, but with teeth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Do you really think Republicans would be any different? It must be frustrating for a good little statist like you to watch your best hope for domination come falling down all around you in an unprecedented avalanche of incompetence. You'd think at one point the odds of Obama being competent simply by mistake would have to take place. But no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) First of all, I take issue with your position that "today's Democrats" are all united under common beliefs. They are not, nor is the GOP. If you don't believe me, go read up on FDR's platform planks while running and compare those to the current party's beliefs. Be specific... We will all wait. Not what I said, I said consistency not that they are all united. Generally Democrats subscribe to activist government, as do many Republicans. And activist government takes many forms. I'm sure cap and trade wasn't on FDR's 1932 platform. History shows quite the opposite. Those people who are willing to think for themselves and dare to speak differently than the sheep are the ones who find success. But if you're happy following the ass of another lemming off a cliff, more power to you. Oh, here we are going off a cliff again. What is your silly fascination with our perceived fast approaching doom? Chicken Littlism is pretty funny and makes it hard to take you seriously. I studied law. I worked in law for years. For that reason, I subscribe to the belief that liberal interpretation of the constitution has caused more harm than good in this country. There are mechanisms built into the document that allows for change, but those mechanisms are purposefully slow to prevent wild swings in public opinion shaping the law of the land. Iknow, look at the yellow pages, huge section on lawyers. What do you mean by "liberal Interpretation" since you alluded to it almost in footnote? . I never said Judges were angels. If they were angels, then I wouldn't have to worry about their motives. But, because I realize how the system works after years of experience in it, I know more than most how disgraceful some Judges comport themselves on the bench. But you do feel there are pure of heart judges out there that will shut out all party and ideology and just look at The Constitution. Can you name one supreme court justice that has been like that? I loved to hear this, lol ] Edited March 20, 2014 by gatorman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 ...(snipped for space) Sigh. This is entirely my fault. You win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Sigh. This is entirely my fault. You win. The argument isn't for him, it's for lurkers, and otherwise bright folks who've only heard the political narrative of this discussion. It's an opportunity for them to hear the nuanced arguments presented by knowledgable folks who speak to the topic well. Without your voice, without my voice; there is only gatorman's voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts