Which just goes back to you wanting him to lose his position because you disagree with him and his motivations. How about christians telling agnostics or atheists to step down from their positions because they don't like where their views come from and stated something they disagreed with? That fair? NO!
Do you support Senator Lott's stepping down from his position? I think it's the same thing.
As bunge asked, "How would people feel if a politician* stepped up and said 'niggers shouldn't be able to marry white people?'"
Senator Santorum doesn't believe that homosexual acts should be legal; therefore, I believe that he should step down for being intolerant of homosexuals. I am intolerant of intolerance. That's what it comes down to. If he believes it as part of his religion- fine, but don't tell me that homosexual acts should be illegal. Don't enforce your beliefs on me.
He's talking about wanting to criminalize consensual gay sex in states where it's still legal. He's talking about upholding the laws against consensual gay sex in states where it is not legal.
Does he want to criminalize adultery?
Contraception too?
I don't think that's a very inclusive message for someone who has been pegged by the President through the words of Ari Fleischer as such.
Should tolerance be a criteria by which we should judge our leaders? Certainly. It is my opinion and that of many others that he should step down. Just deal with it. I'm certainly not requiring it. I'm not saying he must step down either.
In fact, I acknowledge that perhaps he shouldn't step down- that it would be better for his views to be representative of the party.
Fine then.
I think the best course of action, as a PA voter would be to just vote him out of office. Satisfied?
Do you support Senator Lott's stepping down from his position? I think it's the same thing.
As bunge asked, "How would people feel if a politician* stepped up and said 'niggers shouldn't be able to marry white people?'"
Senator Santorum doesn't believe that homosexual acts should be legal; therefore, I believe that he should step down for being intolerant of homosexuals. I am intolerant of intolerance. That's what it comes down to. If he believes it as part of his religion- fine, but don't tell me that homosexual acts should be illegal. Don't enforce your beliefs on me.
He's talking about wanting to criminalize consensual gay sex in states where it's still legal. He's talking about upholding the laws against consensual gay sex in states where it is not legal.
Does he want to criminalize adultery?
Contraception too?
I don't think that's a very inclusive message for someone who has been pegged by the President through the words of Ari Fleischer as such.
Should tolerance be a criteria by which we should judge our leaders? Certainly. It is my opinion and that of many others that he should step down. Just deal with it. I'm certainly not requiring it. I'm not saying he must step down either.
In fact, I acknowledge that perhaps he shouldn't step down- that it would be better for his views to be representative of the party.
Fine then.
I think the best course of action, as a PA voter would be to just vote him out of office. Satisfied?
I didn't even have to reply to get you to waffle and then admit you are wrong. Wow. That was my best work ever.
Do you support Senator Lott's stepping down from his position? I think it's the same thing.
As bunge asked, "How would people feel if a politician* stepped up and said 'niggers shouldn't be able to marry white people?'"
Senator Santorum doesn't believe that homosexual acts should be legal; therefore, I believe that he should step down for being intolerant of homosexuals. I am intolerant of intolerance. That's what it comes down to. If he believes it as part of his religion- fine, but don't tell me that homosexual acts should be illegal. Don't enforce your beliefs on me.
He's talking about wanting to criminalize consensual gay sex in states where it's still legal. He's talking about upholding the laws against consensual gay sex in states where it is not legal.
Does he want to criminalize adultery?
Contraception too?
I don't think that's a very inclusive message for someone who has been pegged by the President through the words of Ari Fleischer as such.
Should tolerance be a criteria by which we should judge our leaders? Certainly. It is my opinion and that of many others that he should step down. Just deal with it. I'm certainly not requiring it. I'm not saying he must step down either.
In fact, I acknowledge that perhaps he shouldn't step down- that it would be better for his views to be representative of the party.
Fine then.
I think the best course of action, as a PA voter would be to just vote him out of office. Satisfied?
Like you ever voted for him in the first place... yeah he sure could count on your vote Shawn.
BTW, as I recall you aren't exactly the most "tolerant" person with regard to drug use.
I suppose you would show "tolerance" toward a husband beating his wife?
Intolerant of intolerance... you draw your lines just like everyone else. If you circle of what you support is a little larger in some areas than in others then that makes you human just like the rest of us.
Some people draw their circles wider than you and I am sure they are properly "bad" in your book.
I for example believe men should be allowed to decide if they want their paternal rights much like women decide if they want their maternal rights.
If you don't agree with me are you intolerant?
Because... you know... I am intolerant of intolerance.
Like you ever voted for him in the first place... yeah he sure could count on your vote Shawn.
BTW, as I recall you aren't exactly the most "tolerant" person with regard to drug use.
I suppose you would show "tolerance" toward a husband beating his wife?
Intolerant of intolerance... you draw your lines just like everyone else. If you circle of what you support is a little larger in some areas than in others then that makes you human just like the rest of us.
Some people draw their circles wider than you and I am sure they are properly "bad" in your book.
I for example believe men should be allowed to decide if they want their paternal rights much like women decide if they want their maternal rights.
If you don't agree with me are you intolerant?
Because... you know... I am intolerant of intolerance.
Nick
You're really an a**hole.
"Like I ever voted for him in the first place."
I never said I voted for him in the first place. I said that the best course of action would be to vote him out of office. I can do that you know. I don't need to reach your grand age or amount of experience to vote someone out of office with whom I disagree.
I suppose you're right, that the dictionary definition of tolerance includes absolutely anything.
I'm not really sure how I would go about that then.
I guess you could throw all your support behind whoever opposes him next time around, like normal people do. Campaign for the other guy, wear a button, try to influence friends, family and fellow students that Santorum isn't the right choice.
And when you step into the booth, be sure not to have a "Florida moment" and vote for Santorum by mistake.
That pretty much wraps it up. You do what you can within the system, just like we all do.
I guess you could throw all your support behind whoever opposes him next time around, like normal people do. Campaign for the other guy, wear a button, try to influence friends, family and fellow students that Santorum isn't the right choice.
And when you step into the booth, be sure not to have a "Florida moment" and vote for Santorum by mistake.
That pretty much wraps it up. You do what you can within the system, just like we all do.
Word!
I have a question:
If any of you guys were Pennsylvanians, would you vote to re-elect Santorum?
He wants... imagine this now... I know it is hard... THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS...to decide these issues instead of a court opinion forcing it on everyone.
Have you ever read the Constitution?
It's a lovely document, let me give you a passage from Article III.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
I don't know what country you live in, trumpetman, but here in the United States it's the JOB of the judicial brance to check the power of the legislative and executive and "force their opinions" on us.
Why in blue hell do conservatives wave the Constitution in everyone's face about the 2nd amendment but love to ignore Article III when bitching about "judicial activism"?
"This here kunntry should be run bah good 'merican men like Trent Lott, Rick Santorum and Strom Thurmond. And I don't want no hippie faggot judge tellin' me shit about mah stars 'n' bars or mah guns! I knows my Constitutional rights!"
If any of you guys were Pennsylvanians, would you vote to re-elect Santorum?
I don't know. As I said earlier, I know very little about him, but I've seen him on various shows ("Hannity & Colmes", C-Span, etc.) over the years.
I'll say this: I'd weigh everything out and put it all into some proper context. If I'm happy with his performance and he reflects my beliefs in fiscal, educational, etc. matters, I doubt I'd throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I'm not being difficult or obtuse or trying to stir anything up, but this whole hubbub regarding him has, honestly, kinda gone over my head. I read the interview again and again and it just sounds like political/legal boring talk and speaking about some law or situation. I never attached much more to it because it never really jumped out at me.
Maybe I need to be on the other side of the ideological fence? Maybe I need to be gay? I don't know.
I don't think I'd be into hanging him on this issue. I really don't. But that's just me.
If he routinely stepped in it, made tacky, idiotic remarks, was caught on some sort of regular basis bashing certain groups and all, then yes...I'd probably look at him and go "what's this guy's deal? Does he not know he's on TV or that people are listening?"
I'd vote for someone else JUST based on his apparent stupidity and lack of "getting it".
"This here kunntry should be run bah good 'merican men like Trent Lott, Rick Santorum and Strom Thurmond. And I don't want no hippie faggot judge tellin' me shit about mah stars 'n' bars or mah guns! I knows my Constitutional rights!"
Hey, that's pretty good! I trust you were holding a can of Pabst Blue Ribbon and were polishing your Dale Earnhardt, Jr. Limited Edition belt buckle when you were saying that, right? I mean, hell! Get on it, sumbitch!
It's a lovely document, let me give you a passage from Article III.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
I don't know what country you live in, trumpetman, but here in the United States it's the JOB of the judicial brance to check the power of the legislative and executive and "force their opinions" on us.
Why in blue hell do conservatives wave the Constitution in everyone's face about the 2nd amendment but love to ignore Article III when bitching about "judicial activism"?
"This here kunntry should be run bah good 'merican men like Trent Lott, Rick Santorum and Strom Thurmond. And I don't want no hippie faggot judge tellin' me shit about mah stars 'n' bars or mah guns! I knows my Constitutional rights!"
Grove,
How did you know I talked that way? I mean sure I live in California, and I'm 32, but you're right. I talk just a like a no teeth, drunk, white klansman?!?!
Who woulda knew?
Stating that you want to court to leave to the states those rights reserved for the states does not mean you are against the courts, hate the courts, or anything else.
As I stated in other posts the court has already previously ruled on this matter and found that the state has a right to legislate sexual matters that overrides the right to privacy. They are likely to rule this way again.
However you do have to admit that there are those parties out there, both conservative and liberal, that simply seek to ignore the legislative process and find sympathetic judges to hear there cases and rule creating laws out of the air or over turning laws with no good basis.
If a new law is created out of the air, I do not consider that to be a resolution of a controversy between two parties.
My own view is that the courts are basically political just like all the other branches. They are just the slowest to change. The executive branch and legislative branch change relatively quickly, but as we have alll read and seen, it is possible to make the way a the Supreme Court will rule, change over time as well.
Again don't come after me because I wasn't bashing the court. In this particular instance it is currently up to the states. Stating that there is no compelling reason to make it a federal issue does not mean I hate the courts.
Hey, that's pretty good! I trust you were holding a can of Pabst Blue Ribbon and were polishing your Dale Earnhardt, Jr. Limited Edition belt buckle when you were saying that, right? I mean, hell! Get on it, sumbitch!
I tried to battle it out for three pages, but it's probably true that I lost this battle. What this thread needed was some good humor!
However you do have to admit that there are those parties out there, both conservative and liberal, that simply seek to ignore the legislative process and find sympathetic judges to hear there cases and rule creating laws out of the air or over turning laws with no good basis.
It happens, sure, but it's far from being a real problem.
Quote:
If a new law is created out of the air, I do not consider that to be a resolution of a controversy between two parties.
Name one law that the courts have made.
Quote:
My own view is that the courts are basically political just like all the other branches. They are just the slowest to change. The executive branch and legislative branch change relatively quickly, but as we have alll read and seen, it is possible to make the way a the Supreme Court will rule, change over time as well.
Yet the courts are usually the most progressive. Seems a bit of a disengenuous argument on your part.
It happens, sure, but it's far from being a real problem.
Name one law that the courts have made.
Yet the courts are usually the most progressive. Seems a bit of a disengenuous argument on your part.
During the election of 2000 for president. The Florida Supreme Court acted in this manner. There was a clearly mandated procedure regarding elections that had been followed. Regardless of how you feel about the outcome of that election, the process had been followed. The whole hand counting of ballots and things of that nature were ordered by the court without precident within the law. The state secretary had certified the results after being ordered to wait even longer than the law allowed and then because the results weren't what they liked, they simply again without a law there, ordered more and selective recounts.
The Secretary of State is the executive branch, however the legislative branch was upset as well by the clear fact that the court was not interpreting their laws, but ignoring them. They choose and were going to send their electoral college voters when the Florida Supreme Court was causing a near constitutional crisis by simply refusing to end the election until the ballots could be counted to get a result they liked. The U.S. Constitution demanded the results and the electoral college meet by a certain date, and the Florida Supreme Court just ignored it.
When the court began ordering the recount, the dissenting opinion written by one of the justices admitted that the court had no authority to order a recount. The court ordered hand recounts in selective counties when there was a clear procedure for determining when a hand count was needed and why.
The Supreme Court was declared to be handing Bush the election on a 5-4 vote. That vote was not the deciding vote though. By a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court had overridden the equal protection clauses of both their own state and also the Constitution by ordering selective recounts and also throwing out ballots selectively. The 5-4 vote was was about whether there was enough time for a statewide recount before the electoral college had to meet.
As for whether court has been progressive in it's decisions, it has been argued that the court has engaged in activism for the left and the right. The Florida example above is seen as activist on the left, but liberal critics will contend that the court was activist for the right.
Likewise many liberal critics have contended that the court is decidedly conservative and seeking out cases for decisions that reaffirm conservative laws and values. The best examples of this has been the overturning of quotas also that you must have a clear, compelling reason for use of affirmative action. Likewise the case we have been mentioning for several pages will likely be seen as conservative activism because the left believes in a strong right to privacy which it will be argued the court has eroded with this decision.
If you want to play games, that's fine. I clearly stated that my off the cuff comment about CCC was off-topic. I was referring to the rest of my point. I was asking if the non-CCC comment was enough to satisfy your curiosity. Enough about the CCC. We can start a thread about that if you like.
If you want to play games, that's fine. I clearly stated that my off the cuff comment about CCC was off-topic. I was referring to the rest of my point. I was asking if the non-CCC comment was enough to satisfy your curiosity. Enough about the CCC. We can start a thread about that if you like.
Hey, I was responding to Shawn this afternoon after he mentioned Clear Channel and posted an article about them. I read the article, couldn't see its connection to what I'd asked him a couple of posts prior to that and that's when I wrote what I wrote. Had NOTHING to do with you, bunge. Scroll up and read for verification that that is the case before you jump on me. I wasn't even talking to you, or responding to anything you wrote or said. It was a back-and-forth with Shawn from earlier today.
\
I just scrolled way up toward the top of this page (6). He'd linked an article about it. He said "wrong thread" and it confused me at first (I understand what he was saying now), but he still posted the article in this one.
I wasn't even talking to you, or responding to anything you wrote or said. It was a back-and-forth with Shawn from earlier today.
\
Whoops, my bad. We had a CCC tangent going earlier and I had been trying to end it. When you brought it back up (in relation to SPJ) I thought you were talking to me.
Likewise many liberal critics have contended that the court is decidedly conservative and seeking out cases for decisions that reaffirm conservative laws and values. The best examples of this has been the overturning of quotas also that you must have a clear, compelling reason for use of affirmative action. Likewise the case we have been mentioning for several pages will likely be seen as conservative activism because the left believes in a strong right to privacy which it will be argued the court has eroded with this decision.
Comments
Originally posted by BR
Which just goes back to you wanting him to lose his position because you disagree with him and his motivations. How about christians telling agnostics or atheists to step down from their positions because they don't like where their views come from and stated something they disagreed with? That fair? NO!
Do you support Senator Lott's stepping down from his position? I think it's the same thing.
As bunge asked, "How would people feel if a politician* stepped up and said 'niggers shouldn't be able to marry white people?'"
Senator Santorum doesn't believe that homosexual acts should be legal; therefore, I believe that he should step down for being intolerant of homosexuals. I am intolerant of intolerance. That's what it comes down to. If he believes it as part of his religion- fine, but don't tell me that homosexual acts should be illegal. Don't enforce your beliefs on me.
He's talking about wanting to criminalize consensual gay sex in states where it's still legal. He's talking about upholding the laws against consensual gay sex in states where it is not legal.
Does he want to criminalize adultery?
Contraception too?
I don't think that's a very inclusive message for someone who has been pegged by the President through the words of Ari Fleischer as such.
Should tolerance be a criteria by which we should judge our leaders? Certainly. It is my opinion and that of many others that he should step down. Just deal with it. I'm certainly not requiring it. I'm not saying he must step down either.
In fact, I acknowledge that perhaps he shouldn't step down- that it would be better for his views to be representative of the party.
Fine then.
I think the best course of action, as a PA voter would be to just vote him out of office. Satisfied?
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Do you support Senator Lott's stepping down from his position? I think it's the same thing.
As bunge asked, "How would people feel if a politician* stepped up and said 'niggers shouldn't be able to marry white people?'"
Senator Santorum doesn't believe that homosexual acts should be legal; therefore, I believe that he should step down for being intolerant of homosexuals. I am intolerant of intolerance. That's what it comes down to. If he believes it as part of his religion- fine, but don't tell me that homosexual acts should be illegal. Don't enforce your beliefs on me.
He's talking about wanting to criminalize consensual gay sex in states where it's still legal. He's talking about upholding the laws against consensual gay sex in states where it is not legal.
Does he want to criminalize adultery?
Contraception too?
I don't think that's a very inclusive message for someone who has been pegged by the President through the words of Ari Fleischer as such.
Should tolerance be a criteria by which we should judge our leaders? Certainly. It is my opinion and that of many others that he should step down. Just deal with it. I'm certainly not requiring it. I'm not saying he must step down either.
In fact, I acknowledge that perhaps he shouldn't step down- that it would be better for his views to be representative of the party.
Fine then.
I think the best course of action, as a PA voter would be to just vote him out of office. Satisfied?
I didn't even have to reply to get you to waffle and then admit you are wrong. Wow. That was my best work ever.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Do you support Senator Lott's stepping down from his position? I think it's the same thing.
As bunge asked, "How would people feel if a politician* stepped up and said 'niggers shouldn't be able to marry white people?'"
Senator Santorum doesn't believe that homosexual acts should be legal; therefore, I believe that he should step down for being intolerant of homosexuals. I am intolerant of intolerance. That's what it comes down to. If he believes it as part of his religion- fine, but don't tell me that homosexual acts should be illegal. Don't enforce your beliefs on me.
He's talking about wanting to criminalize consensual gay sex in states where it's still legal. He's talking about upholding the laws against consensual gay sex in states where it is not legal.
Does he want to criminalize adultery?
Contraception too?
I don't think that's a very inclusive message for someone who has been pegged by the President through the words of Ari Fleischer as such.
Should tolerance be a criteria by which we should judge our leaders? Certainly. It is my opinion and that of many others that he should step down. Just deal with it. I'm certainly not requiring it. I'm not saying he must step down either.
In fact, I acknowledge that perhaps he shouldn't step down- that it would be better for his views to be representative of the party.
Fine then.
I think the best course of action, as a PA voter would be to just vote him out of office. Satisfied?
Like you ever voted for him in the first place... yeah he sure could count on your vote Shawn.
BTW, as I recall you aren't exactly the most "tolerant" person with regard to drug use.
I suppose you would show "tolerance" toward a husband beating his wife?
Intolerant of intolerance... you draw your lines just like everyone else. If you circle of what you support is a little larger in some areas than in others then that makes you human just like the rest of us.
Some people draw their circles wider than you and I am sure they are properly "bad" in your book.
I for example believe men should be allowed to decide if they want their paternal rights much like women decide if they want their maternal rights.
If you don't agree with me are you intolerant?
Because... you know... I am intolerant of intolerance.
Nick
Originally posted by BR
I didn't even have to reply to get you to waffle and then admit you are wrong. Wow. That was my best work ever.
I admit that I agree with you on this issue. Now on to trumptman who seems to disagree with us...
Originally posted by trumptman
Like you ever voted for him in the first place... yeah he sure could count on your vote Shawn.
BTW, as I recall you aren't exactly the most "tolerant" person with regard to drug use.
I suppose you would show "tolerance" toward a husband beating his wife?
Intolerant of intolerance... you draw your lines just like everyone else. If you circle of what you support is a little larger in some areas than in others then that makes you human just like the rest of us.
Some people draw their circles wider than you and I am sure they are properly "bad" in your book.
I for example believe men should be allowed to decide if they want their paternal rights much like women decide if they want their maternal rights.
If you don't agree with me are you intolerant?
Because... you know... I am intolerant of intolerance.
Nick
You're really an a**hole.
"Like I ever voted for him in the first place."
I never said I voted for him in the first place. I said that the best course of action would be to vote him out of office. I can do that you know. I don't need to reach your grand age or amount of experience to vote someone out of office with whom I disagree.
I suppose you're right, that the dictionary definition of tolerance includes absolutely anything.
I'm not really sure how I would go about that then.
Any takers?
And when you step into the booth, be sure not to have a "Florida moment" and vote for Santorum by mistake.
That pretty much wraps it up. You do what you can within the system, just like we all do.
Originally posted by pscates
I guess you could throw all your support behind whoever opposes him next time around, like normal people do. Campaign for the other guy, wear a button, try to influence friends, family and fellow students that Santorum isn't the right choice.
And when you step into the booth, be sure not to have a "Florida moment" and vote for Santorum by mistake.
That pretty much wraps it up. You do what you can within the system, just like we all do.
Word!
I have a question:
If any of you guys were Pennsylvanians, would you vote to re-elect Santorum?
You're really an a**hole.
NO!
trumptman:
He wants... imagine this now... I know it is hard... THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS...to decide these issues instead of a court opinion forcing it on everyone.
Have you ever read the Constitution?
It's a lovely document, let me give you a passage from Article III.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
I don't know what country you live in, trumpetman, but here in the United States it's the JOB of the judicial brance to check the power of the legislative and executive and "force their opinions" on us.
Why in blue hell do conservatives wave the Constitution in everyone's face about the 2nd amendment but love to ignore Article III when bitching about "judicial activism"?
"This here kunntry should be run bah good 'merican men like Trent Lott, Rick Santorum and Strom Thurmond. And I don't want no hippie faggot judge tellin' me shit about mah stars 'n' bars or mah guns! I knows my Constitutional rights!"
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Word!
I have a question:
If any of you guys were Pennsylvanians, would you vote to re-elect Santorum?
I don't know. As I said earlier, I know very little about him, but I've seen him on various shows ("Hannity & Colmes", C-Span, etc.) over the years.
I'll say this: I'd weigh everything out and put it all into some proper context. If I'm happy with his performance and he reflects my beliefs in fiscal, educational, etc. matters, I doubt I'd throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I'm not being difficult or obtuse or trying to stir anything up, but this whole hubbub regarding him has, honestly, kinda gone over my head. I read the interview again and again and it just sounds like political/legal boring talk and speaking about some law or situation. I never attached much more to it because it never really jumped out at me.
Maybe I need to be on the other side of the ideological fence? Maybe I need to be gay? I don't know.
I don't think I'd be into hanging him on this issue. I really don't. But that's just me.
If he routinely stepped in it, made tacky, idiotic remarks, was caught on some sort of regular basis bashing certain groups and all, then yes...I'd probably look at him and go "what's this guy's deal? Does he not know he's on TV or that people are listening?"
I'd vote for someone else JUST based on his apparent stupidity and lack of "getting it".
Originally posted by groverat
"This here kunntry should be run bah good 'merican men like Trent Lott, Rick Santorum and Strom Thurmond. And I don't want no hippie faggot judge tellin' me shit about mah stars 'n' bars or mah guns! I knows my Constitutional rights!"
Hey, that's pretty good! I trust you were holding a can of Pabst Blue Ribbon and were polishing your Dale Earnhardt, Jr. Limited Edition belt buckle when you were saying that, right? I mean, hell! Get on it, sumbitch!
Originally posted by groverat
SPJ:
NO!
trumptman:
Have you ever read the Constitution?
It's a lovely document, let me give you a passage from Article III.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
I don't know what country you live in, trumpetman, but here in the United States it's the JOB of the judicial brance to check the power of the legislative and executive and "force their opinions" on us.
Why in blue hell do conservatives wave the Constitution in everyone's face about the 2nd amendment but love to ignore Article III when bitching about "judicial activism"?
"This here kunntry should be run bah good 'merican men like Trent Lott, Rick Santorum and Strom Thurmond. And I don't want no hippie faggot judge tellin' me shit about mah stars 'n' bars or mah guns! I knows my Constitutional rights!"
Grove,
How did you know I talked that way? I mean sure I live in California, and I'm 32, but you're right. I talk just a like a no teeth, drunk, white klansman?!?!
Who woulda knew?
Stating that you want to court to leave to the states those rights reserved for the states does not mean you are against the courts, hate the courts, or anything else.
As I stated in other posts the court has already previously ruled on this matter and found that the state has a right to legislate sexual matters that overrides the right to privacy. They are likely to rule this way again.
However you do have to admit that there are those parties out there, both conservative and liberal, that simply seek to ignore the legislative process and find sympathetic judges to hear there cases and rule creating laws out of the air or over turning laws with no good basis.
If a new law is created out of the air, I do not consider that to be a resolution of a controversy between two parties.
My own view is that the courts are basically political just like all the other branches. They are just the slowest to change. The executive branch and legislative branch change relatively quickly, but as we have alll read and seen, it is possible to make the way a the Supreme Court will rule, change over time as well.
Again don't come after me because I wasn't bashing the court. In this particular instance it is currently up to the states. Stating that there is no compelling reason to make it a federal issue does not mean I hate the courts.
Nick
Originally posted by pscates
Hey, that's pretty good! I trust you were holding a can of Pabst Blue Ribbon and were polishing your Dale Earnhardt, Jr. Limited Edition belt buckle when you were saying that, right? I mean, hell! Get on it, sumbitch!
I tried to battle it out for three pages, but it's probably true that I lost this battle. What this thread needed was some good humor!
Keep em coming, grove and pscates.
However you do have to admit that there are those parties out there, both conservative and liberal, that simply seek to ignore the legislative process and find sympathetic judges to hear there cases and rule creating laws out of the air or over turning laws with no good basis.
It happens, sure, but it's far from being a real problem.
If a new law is created out of the air, I do not consider that to be a resolution of a controversy between two parties.
Name one law that the courts have made.
My own view is that the courts are basically political just like all the other branches. They are just the slowest to change. The executive branch and legislative branch change relatively quickly, but as we have alll read and seen, it is possible to make the way a the Supreme Court will rule, change over time as well.
Yet the courts are usually the most progressive. Seems a bit of a disengenuous argument on your part.
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
It happens, sure, but it's far from being a real problem.
Name one law that the courts have made.
Yet the courts are usually the most progressive. Seems a bit of a disengenuous argument on your part.
During the election of 2000 for president. The Florida Supreme Court acted in this manner. There was a clearly mandated procedure regarding elections that had been followed. Regardless of how you feel about the outcome of that election, the process had been followed. The whole hand counting of ballots and things of that nature were ordered by the court without precident within the law. The state secretary had certified the results after being ordered to wait even longer than the law allowed and then because the results weren't what they liked, they simply again without a law there, ordered more and selective recounts.
The Secretary of State is the executive branch, however the legislative branch was upset as well by the clear fact that the court was not interpreting their laws, but ignoring them. They choose and were going to send their electoral college voters when the Florida Supreme Court was causing a near constitutional crisis by simply refusing to end the election until the ballots could be counted to get a result they liked. The U.S. Constitution demanded the results and the electoral college meet by a certain date, and the Florida Supreme Court just ignored it.
When the court began ordering the recount, the dissenting opinion written by one of the justices admitted that the court had no authority to order a recount. The court ordered hand recounts in selective counties when there was a clear procedure for determining when a hand count was needed and why.
The Supreme Court was declared to be handing Bush the election on a 5-4 vote. That vote was not the deciding vote though. By a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court had overridden the equal protection clauses of both their own state and also the Constitution by ordering selective recounts and also throwing out ballots selectively. The 5-4 vote was was about whether there was enough time for a statewide recount before the electoral college had to meet.
As for whether court has been progressive in it's decisions, it has been argued that the court has engaged in activism for the left and the right. The Florida example above is seen as activist on the left, but liberal critics will contend that the court was activist for the right.
Likewise many liberal critics have contended that the court is decidedly conservative and seeking out cases for decisions that reaffirm conservative laws and values. The best examples of this has been the overturning of quotas also that you must have a clear, compelling reason for use of affirmative action. Likewise the case we have been mentioning for several pages will likely be seen as conservative activism because the left believes in a strong right to privacy which it will be argued the court has eroded with this decision.
Nick
Originally posted by pscates
Okay, I get it. Clear Channel bad. Fine.
If you want to play games, that's fine. I clearly stated that my off the cuff comment about CCC was off-topic. I was referring to the rest of my point. I was asking if the non-CCC comment was enough to satisfy your curiosity. Enough about the CCC. We can start a thread about that if you like.
Originally posted by bunge
If you want to play games, that's fine. I clearly stated that my off the cuff comment about CCC was off-topic. I was referring to the rest of my point. I was asking if the non-CCC comment was enough to satisfy your curiosity. Enough about the CCC. We can start a thread about that if you like.
Hey, I was responding to Shawn this afternoon after he mentioned Clear Channel and posted an article about them. I read the article, couldn't see its connection to what I'd asked him a couple of posts prior to that and that's when I wrote what I wrote. Had NOTHING to do with you, bunge. Scroll up and read for verification that that is the case before you jump on me. I wasn't even talking to you, or responding to anything you wrote or said. It was a back-and-forth with Shawn from earlier today.
I just scrolled way up toward the top of this page (6). He'd linked an article about it. He said "wrong thread" and it confused me at first (I understand what he was saying now), but he still posted the article in this one.
Originally posted by pscates
I wasn't even talking to you, or responding to anything you wrote or said. It was a back-and-forth with Shawn from earlier today.
Whoops, my bad. We had a CCC tangent going earlier and I had been trying to end it. When you brought it back up (in relation to SPJ) I thought you were talking to me.
Sorry 'bout that. No harm no foul?
Damn this Santorum/Dixie Chicks cross-contamination!
Originally posted by pscates
Damn this Santorum/Dixie Chicks cross-contamination!
I'll still blame the red wine...
Originally posted by trumptman
Likewise many liberal critics have contended that the court is decidedly conservative and seeking out cases for decisions that reaffirm conservative laws and values. The best examples of this has been the overturning of quotas also that you must have a clear, compelling reason for use of affirmative action. Likewise the case we have been mentioning for several pages will likely be seen as conservative activism because the left believes in a strong right to privacy which it will be argued the court has eroded with this decision.
Nick
EDIT: Eh. Saved response for another thread.