posted on July 9, 2005 12:21:32 AM new
I am very confused. After listening to all of the Supreme Court nominee talk there is a very strange trend that I have noticed that I was wondering if maybe someone could explain.
Whenever anyone suggests that Bush should consult with the democratic leaders about his nominee conservatives scream and yell and stomp their feet and insist that he's the president and it's his right to nopminate the the candidate he wants and no one has the right to tell him differently or try to stand in the way of that candidate.
The interesting part though is when someone suggests the the prtesident will nominate Gonzalez and then the conservatives once again seem to scream and yell and stomp their feet and insist that this is not the type of justice that they want and that is is too questionably moderate regarding abortion issues and that they will fight his nomination.
So... how do those two views coincide?
While you are at it... could someone please explain how anti abortionism is a sign of strict constitutionalist and pro choice is the sign an "activist judge"? Did I miss the part of the constitution where abortion was discussed? Seems to me that any concept, pro or con, formed on the issue would be an interpretation as opposed to a strict adherance considering that there is no policy stated for one to strictly adhere to.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
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 9, 2005 01:39:46 AM new
Okay....I'll give it a shot.
suggests that Bush should consult with the democratic leaders about his nominee
Because, by our Constitution there is NO 'rule/law' that says the Senate can choose FOR a president. Otherwise the Constitution wouldn't have given this power to the President....they would have given it to the Senate. Basically the Senate is to voice any serious objections on a candidate based on moral reasons....some infraction of the law, etc....and to present why they see the nominee as unfit. It's not meant to judge their ideological differences and say, as kerry did, that if they are pro-life....they will NEVER meet his litmus test.
[i]conservatives scream and yell and stomp their feet and insist that he's the president and it's his right to nopminate the the candidate he wants and no one has the right to tell him differently or try to stand in the way of that candidate[i].
Yes, imo, that comes from some on the right being angry that they are always the one's asked to 'compromise'....to 'work together'....and feel that having done so in the past hasn't been advantageous to them. And I agree, it hasn't.
I think they also look at nominees that the left has presented....and make note that they didn't have an out-and-out war over allowing say Ginsburg to get the up-or-down vote....so why do dems think it should be different just because it will now be someone more moderate/conservative? It shouldn't be.
The interesting part though is when someone suggests the the prtesident will nominate Gonzalez and then the conservatives once again seem to scream and yell and stomp their feet and insist that this is not the type of justice that they want and that is is too questionably moderate regarding abortion issues and that they will fight his nomination.
I think there are many who would be happy with a Gonzalez nomination. But imo again, for those who aren't it's because of appointees like Souter. Thinking he was conservative and he's turned out to be the most liberal judge on the court. They're afraid of repeating that terrible appointment. I don't blame them.
Then I think there are also many who ONLY want to see strict constitutionalists ..Period...end of any discussion. They strongly feel that's the only way to actually have our country run....by strickly enforcing our constitution....rather than the way the liberals do with this...'living constitution' thought process...where rulings are made according to popular belief rather than the intent of our founding fathers and the document they created.
So...how do those two views coincide?
Does my above answer come close to making the two coincide, in your opinion?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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 9, 2005 01:57 AM ]
posted on July 9, 2005 01:49:15 AM newcould someone please explain how anti abortionism is a sign of strict constitutionalist and pro choice is the sign an "activist judge"? Did I miss the part of the constitution where abortion was discussed? Seems to me that any concept, pro or con, formed on the issue would be an interpretation as opposed to a strict adherance considering that there is no policy stated for one to strictly adhere to.
Again, imo and from what I've read.....really strict constitutionalists believe that if ANY issue is not mentioned in the constitution then the states should individually make those calls. [decide in their own states what the law is]...rather than have it made a Federal law. I've also read their references - made to this as being mentioned in our constitution - as the way our government was set up to be done.
While I know dems aren't ususally open to reading conservative sites.....a good one, imo, to better understand just where those who are for strict constitutional judges being the ones who are needed to save our republic as it was originally would be the Federalist Patriot. If you'd like, I can provide their website.
\
"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 9, 2005 02:08:29 AM new
Linda - on the judges - I understand the view on each individual point but what I don't understand is the conservative message right now seems to be... "All you liberals just sit down and shut up and accept that the President gets to do what he wants because he got the majority vote .... but damnit he better do what we want or there is going to be hell to pay.". Just seems a bit strange to me. It's been twisting in my mind for the past week but I had to laugh tonight after hearing Coulter basically express that sentiment tonight.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
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 9, 2005 02:10:58 AM new
I'll post a couple of paragraphs from The Federalist Patriot....
this is one...
Our Constitution prescribes that the President (not the Senate) is responsible for judicial nominations. Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 66, "[I]t will be the office of the president to nominate, and with the advice and consent of the senate to appoint. There will of course be no exertion of choice on the part of the senate. They may defeat one choice of the executive...but they cannot themselves choose -- they can only ratify or reject the choice, of the president."
The notion that judicial nominees need pass a litmus test before a floor vote is anathema to our Constitution.
Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the most liberal of jurists, said of such tests, "In accord with a longstanding norm, every Member of this Court declined to furnish such information to the Senate. ... When a [nominee] promises to rule a certain way on an issue that may later reach the courts, the potential for due process violations is grave and manifest."
----
edited to add the other part I wanted to share....from The Federalist Patriot site.
THE PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE
Top of the fold--Supreme consequences...
There is no greater threat to American liberty and the future of the Republic than a central government not bound by the limits and constraints placed upon it by our Constitution.
Thus, it was providential that on the eve of Independence Day this past week, there were two significant Supreme Court assaults on liberty, capped by the retirement announcement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (with that of Chief Justice William Rehnquist likely to follow). It was providential because, as we contemplated the birth of American liberty and the sacrifice it has taken to sustain it, we were confronted with what has become the greatest threat to our liberty--judicial tyranny from within, or what Thomas Jefferson called the "despotic branch[/i]."
Last week's decisions pertaining to property rights and religious freedom make plain how critical it is that the Supreme Court be composed of jurists who are constitutional constructionists--those who, in the words of Ronald Reagan, are "bound by the Constitution to interpret laws, not make them."
This, as opposed to the now-countless judicial activists who populate the federal courts--those who, in the words of the venerable Senator Sam Ervin, "interpret the Constitution to mean what it would have said if [they], instead of the Founding Fathers, had written it."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"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 9, 2005 02:32 AM ]
posted on July 9, 2005 02:21:37 AM new
still up huh? thought you'd be in bed by now.
To answer your question I think it's just this bitterness between the parties that we witness here daily. Civility is losing in this division we now find ourselves in.
I read something this past week that referenced how long USSC judges state in their seats. They mentioned it used to be an average of something around 12.5 years [don't recall the year]....and now it's 24.[something] years. That it's been 11 years since clinton appointed his two judges.
So we all know how very important any nominations are going to be....for years and years to come.
Imo, that's what the real right-wingers want to see.....at least two conservative judges seated. And they don't want any more Souters seated.
Also I do think they've decided since the left would do/has done as it pleases....then they want to see the President do the same thing.
And yes, there's going to be some REAL screaming if he chooses a moderate to replace O'Connor. They feel this is their chance....to begin to change the USSC as it currently is now.....too left leaning. Too many 5-4 decisions. They want at least two, but know they need three judges to change the USSC completely.....and they're EXPECTING this President to deliver it to them. Should he not.....there will be he11 to pay.....I have no doubt about that.
"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 9, 2005 03:27:11 AM new
Sleep? I now do that twice a day for two, maybe three hours if I am lucky. Generally ends up being around 4am and 4pm. that's part of the reason I end of catching so much Fox programming. There is nothing on late night/early morning once the West Wing reruns on Bravo are done
I gotta say - I think things are going to be interesting and probably damn funny once he announces his nominees (He has picked my favorite republican, Fred Thompson, to guide the fatted calf thru the process.) I predict much yelling at the TV for the following few weeks and more than a few late night proclimations of "IDIOT!" coming from my office during the middle of the night during reruns of Hannity & Colmes. I can't help myself, no one makes me want to scream at my TV more than Sean... oh and the Blond during the day with studio audience along with her oh so ditzy current stand-in from the morning show.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
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 9, 2005 03:42:43 AM new
You know, the funny thing about the property issue judgement that just came down from the court is that as you read the judgement, it seems that even those those rule in favor of it, seemed to disagree with the ramifications. It was not a liberal decision and I don't believe it was an activist type decision. It almost seems to be a very constitutionalist decision. Their judgement seemed to say "Look, we cannot find a reason to make a judgement against this so the states need to make sure that they do what we cannot." As horrible as the ramificationa are and as much as the public at large disagrees with the statement, wouldn't a truly liberal activist judge have overturned the decision without thinking twice?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
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 ...
- Ann Coulter
[ edited by fenix03 on Jul 9, 2005 03:43 AM ]
posted on July 9, 2005 03:55:30 AM new
Boy...I don't know how you do it. I can usually only sleep 5 hours at a time...but then there's my nap - even if I don't sleep at least I rest. One of the nice things about being retired.
It's funny when you mention Fox...the blond you're referring to, I believe, is Linda Vestor...or something close to that. I can't stand her, kind of like how you've stated you feel about Katie C. And listening to Sean Hannidy makes me extremely anxious, truly. Plus when I did watch him and Alan...I always wanted to tell Alan to speak up....defend your side - he's such a mouse, imo. LOL. Just different personalities, I know.
The only ones I really enjoy watching are O'Reilly and Brit Hume and especially with his 'panel', and the Beltway Boys. Other than that I rarely watch/listen to them anymore.
I've never heard of Thompson until I also read he'd be the 'director' of the President's choice. Hope he's got lots of fortitude....he's going to need it.
posted on July 9, 2005 04:07:42 AM newIt was not a liberal decision and I don't believe it was an activist type decision. It almost seems to be a very constitutionalist decision.
This is where the 'strict constitutionalists' disagree. If you'd like I can c&p how they see that particular ruling. And they see it as totally going against what the Constitution says about individual property rights and what the constitution says the government can't do. That's why so many want these type of judges seated....they aren't called 'strict' for nothing. I could also provide the link....but it requires registration. They could argue their case better than I.
posted on July 9, 2005 09:17:08 AM new
Linda - You may not have heard of Thompson but I bet you a buck you would recognize him. He's also an actor and while he was a Senator from Tennessee he also appeared in a few movies. these days you an catch him on Wednesdays as the DA from Law & Order. He has great presence and a great voice... I'm, glad he never ran for president because he is a smart man with great delivery. He absolutely could win over the "I have no idea what he's talking about but I like how he says it" crowd
As for Alan and his "mousiness", I really believe that is the role he is supposed to play. Half the time I don't even think they turn his mic on. BTW - ever notice how unattractive the liberals on Fox are, there is the geeky looking Alan and then "that chick with the voice". I have no idea what her name is because the voice is so bad it makes me want to hide under a desk until it goes away.
I think you are right about it being Vestor and her new sub is even worse. Vestor is very tabloidesque but the sub has taken that attitude and added a dash of ditz. Do they sctreeen their audience? I may just have an opinion I have a need to share next time I am in New York
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
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 ...
- Ann Coulter
[ edited by fenix03 on Jul 9, 2005 09:17 AM ]
posted on July 9, 2005 10:21:10 AM new
Well, I see no "explanations"...just a lot of pussy-footing around -- with some disgusting sucking sounds back and forth.
posted on July 9, 2005 10:38:24 AM new
Helen - I know the concept is an anathema to you but there are actually people in the world that are actually capable of simultaneous disagreement and civility. I realize that you disapprove of such things but such is life.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
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 9, 2005 10:50:21 AM new
I see it as more than a simple disagreement, fenix. I have disagreed with many people here while maintaining a civil relationship with them.
posted on July 10, 2005 04:31:55 AM new
Me. Helen and I have disagreed on more than one occasion and yet we manage to remain civil toward one another. She's far more liberal than I and I can respect that. I could respect the more of the conservatives on this board (yes, there are some I do respect) except their minds are so closed to other possible ideas and solutions that it's like talking to a brick wall and when you try to tell them there are other ways, they call you anti-American or the newest one, a terrorist supporter. That I cannot respect.
posted on July 10, 2005 06:45:28 AM new
Thanks for going to the trouble of posting Thompson's picture, fenix. I do recognize him after all.
I vaguely remember a female with a terrible voice, but can't put a name with the voice. But I did crack up when reading your, "Half the time I don't even think they turn his mic on." LOL Maybe THAT'S the problem.
----------------
Oh helen....everyone here can see you can't be civil with anyone on the right. You're fooling no one but yourself. Whenever anyone new comes aboard....if they don't hold the complete leftist view on each and every issue....you've got them on your radar and you hone in and never let up. Doesn't matter what they say after that....they're YOUR enemy.
--------------
And then we have poor delusional cheryl. Who obviously can't read or comprehend what's said....and continues to misrepresent the comments I've made. Decides in her own confused mind to take on my words to another poster, on a non-political subject....and repeat a falsehood.....yep that's cheryl alright.
sad, sad, sad.
"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 10, 2005 06:50:59 AM new
How "civil" is this from LindaK
--And then we have poor delusional cheryl. Who obviously can't read or comprehend what's said....and continues to misrepresent the comments I've made. Decides in her own confused mind to take on my words to another poster, on a non-political subject....and repeat a falsehood.....yep that's cheryl alright.--
Every one who disagrees with you LindaK is delusional? Do you see a pattern here
As for not reading or comprehending you are quite good at avoiding pertinent questions by pretending not to comprehend, or have a total lack of reading ability.
Very good imitation of someone who can't comprehend English.
posted on July 10, 2005 07:01:33 AM new
No, I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is delusional....are you now going to start making things up too?
cheryl's delusional because she takes something I said to rusty....ONLY rusty....and implies I said it to her or to others. Since I didn't....she's choosing to lie and imply something totally FALSE.
When one can't remain in the realm of reality....they are delusional. Imo, cheryl is very delusional as she continually does this same thing. She either can't comprehend what she reads....or she choose to distort it.
"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 10, 2005 07:07:57 AM new
--No, I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is delusional....are you now going to start making things up too? --
Put my name on your "delusional" list and I'll start keeping track of all those you have called delusional because they don't agree with you, will be a loooong list
\
But they might not all be delusional, they might "twist" your words, might " mis-represent" what you said, there's awhole boatload of excuses.
posted on July 10, 2005 07:57:08 AM new "No, I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is delusional....are you now going to start making things up too?"
Linda, you have repeatedly called, the following people delusional....As defined by Webster, delusional indicates a psychotic condition. "Delusional" is not a word that should be used to describe those who hold opinions that differ from yours.
Cheryl
Crowfarm
Kiara
Logansdad
Mingotree
Senator Barack Obama
Rustygumbo
Logansdad
posted on July 10, 2005 08:03:30 AM new
LOL....ROFL....
and here comes helen.....our very own FBI agent with her extensive FILES on every post. She needs to feel important so she keeps these files of what others say.
Well....helen....as you always demand....let's see your proof. I don't remember saying it to many on the list you've provided. But are you going to back up what you say with links?
"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 10, 2005 08:07:15 AM new
And again to our very own wanna-be FBI agent, helen
I know the meaning of delusional....and it has nothing to do with disagreeing with opinions....it has to do with the actions of those I have called delusional. And YOU won't be telling me when and to whom I can use it either.
"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 10, 2005 08:41:42 AM new
I see the neocon pig is at it again. Spreading her lies, denying her past history, twisting words, blah blah blah. No credibility whatsoever. Not even the conservatives participants will defend her.
posted on July 10, 2005 08:49:23 AM newneocon pig And you say your not a democrat or republican? You have said some truly hateful things this past week. Things that I wouldn't say to my worst enemy, that is if I had one.
_________________
posted on July 10, 2005 09:04:26 AM new
Another conservative speaks out about why he doesn't want to see Gonzales picked.
Paul M. Weyrich has added his voice to conservatives' calls urging President Bush not to nominate Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales for the Supreme Court.
On his Internet radio program, Weyrich -- CEO and Chairman of the Free Congress Foundation - gave airtime to Manuel A. Miranda, former Counsel to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who said a Gonzales nomination is "a very real concern."
And the Free Congress Foundation sent out a press release stating: "Gonzales' comments on the death of Terri Schiavo, and on other issues, show that he is not a movement conservative. He has not written prolifically on many issues. And so, there is no paper trail.
"We don't know what he really thinks on many, many issues. That is something that conservatives on this nomination cannot tolerate."
The release went on to say: "Justice David H. Souter did not have a paper trail. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy had a paper trail, but not on the particular issues that conservatives wished to see. So, it's really no more Souters and no more Kennedys. And that does not add up to an appointment for Gonzales, explained Miranda."
Miranda was quoted in the release as saying: "It's not that we have anything personal against Alberto Gonzales, but he has said some things that are very discomforting.
"Two years ago before a group of lawyers at a conference, in public, and this was not said off the cuff, he said that the Constitution is what any nine justices say it is.
"This is quoting former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, who is the father of the βliving Constitution' view, which Democrats and liberals hold. He could not have said a worse thing."
Miranda said he doubted Gonzales had enough support among Republican Senators to be confirmed.
Also, on the radio show Weyrich was highly critical of the "compromise agreement" made by seven Republican and seven Democratic Senators in May.
According to the release, the compromise "implicitly permits the filibuster to be used on judicial nominations, thereby requiring 60 votes for a confirmation" instead of a simple majority of 51 Senators.
"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 10, 2005 09:30:56 AM new Linda says,"Well....helen....as you always demand....let's see your proof. I don't remember saying it to many on the list you've provided. But are you going to back up what you say with links?
Here, you call Cheryl delusional. "You keep saying you don't post here...and yet you continue doing so. Is there some message you're trying to make yourself understand? Looks a little delusional to me." http://www.vendio.com/mesg/read.html?num=28&thread=261302&id=261454
Again, you called Kiara delusional "kiara - I believe you're becoming more and more delusional."
http://www.vendio.com/mesg/read.html?num=28&thread=-249817&id=250131
Plus when I did watch him and Alan...I always wanted to tell Alan to speak up....defend your side - he's such a mouse, imo. LOL. Just different personalities, I know.
