posted on July 2, 2005 02:23:09 PM new
LOL....I always love it when I make a NEW point....and then get to hear 'that's NOT what we're discussing'.
Like no one is supposed to say anything that the left here doesn't want mentioned. LOL
On the partial birth abortion issue.....it was O'Connor's vote that made the USSC rule roe vs wade wouldn't be touched....therefore keeping partial birth abortions legal...even though BOTH the House and the Senate VOTED they be banned.
Having her retire now opens up a seat that hopefully will be filled by a more conservative, pro-life justice. And the next time this gets voted on...the decision will go differently.
See....there was no law in our Constitution about abortions. Once again our forefathers would be rolling over in the graves at the thought of all these senseless murders of babies. BUT the liberal, lefties did convince the liberal, leftist judges that they should MAKE LAW about this subject. Rather than turning it over to the correct branch of government who SHOULD be making our laws....our legislature....NOT THE COURTS.
I have full confidence that this ruling will be reviewed something in the future....and with two or three new conservative judges on the USSC....we may just be successful.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 2, 2005 02:40:15 PM new
::LOL....I always love it when I make a NEW point....and then get to hear 'that's NOT what we're discussing'.::
No, you didn't make a "New Point" Linda, you attempted to change the subject when your assumption of the number could not be supported.
As for your interpretation of of the mindset of men that have been dead for 200 years, you should put those chanelling abilities to better use. Additionally the world has changed considerable in the past 200 years. They would probably be rolling over that women can vote too but should we roll that one back?
Come Linda - Join us here in the 21st century.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on July 2, 2005 02:45:12 PM new
LOL.... my knowledge of my own thinking is better than what anyone else assumes about me or what I do.
And as I said, I fully support stricter restrictions being place on abortions....not this 'on demand' garbage.
And whether you wish to face it or not....public opinion HAS been changing on the subject of abortions.....and that's why the democrats are SO AFRAID of getting a pro-life judge seated.....they KNOW there's a good change things can/will change if that happens.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 2, 2005 03:56:44 PM newand that's why the democrats are SO AFRAID of getting a pro-life judge seated.....they KNOW there's a good change things can/will change if that happens.
Not that there's any such thing as a conservative activist judge of course.
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y salió trasquilado...
posted on July 2, 2005 04:07:19 PM newDon't you know that activist judges are the ones who don't do what you want?
Ron, thanks for stating my point. That's exactly what I'm getting at with Linda. Notice in her last reply to me, she'll happily use the term "liberal activist judges", but she won't even consider that there could be such a thing on the conservative side. A conservative judge, who hands down consistent, dogmatically conservative opinions is just doing his or her job, not putting forth any sort of activism. When Justice O'Connor made her vote in Roe v. Wade, she became an "activist" in the eyes of arch conservatives. God forbid she dared to think for herself, and form her opinions on the basis of her interpretation of law, rather than dogma.
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y salió trasquilado...
posted on July 2, 2005 04:54:39 PM new
the profe says: [i]Notice in her last reply to me, she'll happily use the term "liberal activist judges", but she won't even consider that there could be such a thing on the conservative side.
FALSE....failed the test on reading. Might want to re-read MY statement again.
which was:
profe you asked - So in other words, a conservative judge by definition cannot be an activist judge. That's only for Liberals. Correct?
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y salió trasquilado...
Linda_K
posted on July 2, 2005 08:50:02 AM edit
No, profe...not correct.
But it is my position that conservative judges side more with the 'intent' of our Constitution than do the liberal, activist judges. Liberal, activist judges change the 'intent' and go with what is currently popular at the time.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 2, 2005 05:01 PM ]
posted on July 2, 2005 08:45:48 PM new
lINDA_K SAID THESE WORDS,
"Once again our forefathers would be rolling over in the graves at the thought of all these senseless murders of babies. BUT the liberal, lefties did convince the liberal, leftist judges that they should MAKE LAW about this subject. Rather than turning it over to the correct branch of government who SHOULD be making our laws....our legislature....NOT THE COURTS."
If you are sick of this WACKO RIGHT WING MINORITY CRAP. You can make a difference in 2006. If you like PEOPLE LIKE Linda_K's words and thoughts plus what else is happening to American under this White House along with the republican control of both houses. Just keep voting republican YOU WILL GET WHAT YOU VOTED FOR AND A LOT MORE.
posted on July 2, 2005 09:12:41 PM new
I re-read your statement Linda, and it reads the same.Pardon me for leaving out your comma . It should read, "liberal, activist judges", which is no different than "liberal activist judges". More importantly, my point is still this: In your mind, an activist judge is a liberal judge, or, a liberal judge is an activist judge, but there is no such thing as a conservative activist judge.
I suppose you wouldn't consider, say, Janice Brown to be a conservative activist judge, would you?
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y salió trasquilado...
posted on July 3, 2005 07:01:16 AM newI suppose you wouldn't consider, say, Janice Brown to be a conservative activist judge, would you?
Of course she wouldn't, there is no such thing as a conservative activist judge to a conservative. Why? Beacuse the conservatives don't feel they (conservatives) have an agenda. Second, why would a conservative go against another conservative. Only people having a view that differs from the conservative viewpoint have an agenda, therefore anyone that has a differing view from a conservative judge is an activist judge.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on July 3, 2005 12:59:38 PM newIf you are sick of this WACKO RIGHT WING MINORITY CRAP. You can make a difference in 2006
Wrong place to post this in bigpeepa remember the majority of 2/1 there are more liberals than conservatives and the conservative ones in here don't listen to you. So keep screaming and posting away. I
_________________
posted on July 3, 2005 01:36:15 PM new
I guess it all depends on what one's definition of 'activist' is. Yes, I understand the LEFT thinks she is....but I don't think most see her that way. Reason being she was re-elected as California Supreme Court Justice with 76% voter approval.
Now we ALL know CA is NOT a conservative state by any stretch of the imagination....so that means she was re-elected with much support from the democratic side of the aisle.
I personally think she will be great in this Federal seat......and no, I don't see her as an activist judge. I see her as a judge who actually reads and rules by our Constitution, as written, and applies that to her decision making process.
I think one of the problems the left has with her, and others this administration have placed in important positions, is that they see whenever a minority women is put into a position of power....that threatens what they consider to be their 'base' voters. Because the left has long believed that the minority 'groups' belong to them. But they're beginning to see that's changing and feel threatened by it.
Hey...profe....considering the possibility that President Bush MIGHT consider her for O'Connor's seat? LOL
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 3, 2005 04:00:51 PM newHey...profe....considering the possibility that President Bush MIGHT consider her for O'Connor's seat? LOL
Nope, I just pulled her out of my hat as the quintessential conservative activist judge. I wanted to see your rationale for why she's not.
My original point with you Linda was and is that for you, there isn't any such thing as a conservative activist judge, and you have proven my point quite handily.
Thanks!
(I actually did laugh out loud upon reading your rationale)
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y salió trasquilado...
posted on July 3, 2005 04:04:48 PM new
Meant to add, what I can't understand is why you won't just come out and say it. "There isn't any such thing as a conservative activist judge", or "No conservative judge would ever let his or her political bias influence a legal decision." Something like that....I'll be the first to admit that I've seen liberal bias influencing judge's decisions. Some of those decisions I liked and some I didn't. That you refuse to see that this is something that can affect the judiciary on both sides of the fence makes your position profoundly hypocritical.
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y salió trasquilado...
posted on July 3, 2005 09:49:27 PM new
profe says: what I can't understand is why you won't just come out and say it. "There isn't any such thing as a conservative activist judge", or "No conservative judge would ever let his or her political bias influence a legal decision." Something like that....I'll be the first to admit that I've seen liberal bias influencing judge's decisions. Some of those decisions I liked and some I didn't. That you refuse to see that this is something that can affect the judiciary on both sides of the fence makes your position profoundly hypocritical[/i].
LOL profe. I didn't say it because it's NOT how I feel....no matter how YOU think I feel/see it.
Your initial statement implied/asked if I EVER think a conservative could be an activist judge. My answer is yes....they CAN be...but more liberals are the one's I see as ususally being the activists.
Then I explained....that imo, an activist judge is one that MAKES LAW instead of interpreting law....and again, imo, I see MORE liberal judges doing just that.
We need only to look at the USSC decision about same-sex marriage in Mass. to see a GREAT example of what I'm referring to. THEY weren't interpreting law they FORCED the State to legalize homosexual marriage by forcing them to write a law legalizing it. [b]To me THAT's activism[/i].
We also see much activism from liberal judges who sit on the court in the 9th circuit. About nine in 10 of their decisions GET REVERSED by the USSC. Why??? Because they're NOT following Constitutional LAW. That too is another example of 'activisit judges'.
So call me whatever you'd like to call me, but you won't be telling me how I think or that I don't believe at times a conservative judge CAN be an activist....meaning making a ruling that's not according to our Constitution, as written, but rather because it might currently be 'popular' but NOT Constitutional at all.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 3, 2005 10:12:36 PM newYour initial statement implied/asked if I EVER think a conservative could be an activist judge. My answer is yes....they CAN be...but more liberals are the one's I see as ususally being the activists.
Was it terribly hard for you to finally answer the question? I hope not. Thanks!
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y salió trasquilado...
posted on July 3, 2005 10:29:32 PM new
You said everything except "yes, they can be", Linda. You gave yourself every possible out. This is the first succinct answer you've given.
Gotta go now, I have two 12 guage slugs with coyotes' names on them, and tonight's the night.
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y salió trasquilado...
posted on July 3, 2005 11:21:09 PM new
profe - You're nitpicking again. It was REAL clear, by my FIRST answer to your questions, that I didn't hold the 'opinion' you were trying to imply I did.
profe - posted on July 1, 2005 08:13:42 PM
quoting part of what I said: "I prefer conservative judges who apply what our Constitution actually says....usually referred to as Federalists and not some twisted interruption of the liberals who sit on the benches.
Then YOU stated: "So in other words, a conservative judge by definition cannot be an activist judge. That's only for Liberals. Correct?"
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y salió trasquilado...
My NEXT reply was: Linda_K - posted on July 2, 2005 08:50:02 AM edit
No, profe...not correct.
But it is my position that conservative judges side more with the 'intent' of our Constitution than do the liberal, activist judges. Liberal, activist judges change the 'intent' and go with what is currently popular at the time.
--------------
Here's hoping you get the culprit(s).
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 19, 2005 04:29:47 PM new
If he picks Luttig, from my home town, at least we'll know where he stands on the death penalty since his father and mother were followed into their own garage and his father was murdered for his car by three young hoodlums several years ago.
