Yea but the people VOTED for those candidates. Reagan Bush and Bush again were elected in part to select judges. The democrats just hate The Constitution when it doesn't go their way. Why do the democrats hate america?
I thought people voted for Reagan because he lied to them. Similarly I thought people voted for Bush I because he made Dukakis look like a giant pussy. Show me one tv ad that mentioned the Federal judiciary.
Again, the Republicans should look at this with a twinkle in their eye. The Democratic party is finally maturing and using logical and perfectly legitamate methods to block people judicial picks they disagree with. Who cares?
It is the beauty of politics. The door swings both ways...
Their tactic is nothing but an obstruction based on a technicality. I would even venture to say they're obstructing justice...literally.
THEY WON'T ALLOW A VOTE ON THE JUDGES. How is that Democratic? For all the liberal talk of the Bushies wiping themselves with the Constitution, can someone explain the double standard to me?
How has the GOP been using these tactics? And really...you're arguing that the Federal benches are CONSERVATIVE?
But wait, your post gets even better: Do you honestly believe that conservatives wish to "deprive Americans of their rights"?
I'm arguing that since the American people consistently disagree with the GOP on social issues Nixon and his team created a strategy of putting extreme conservative members on lower branches of the court to undo the great American legacy of freedom and liberty.
Yes, I do think that conservatives want to deprive Americans of their freedom. Let's see drugs are bad, women are bad, free speech is bad, peaceful assembly is bad, petitioning the government is bad, cops killing unarmed black men is good, government endorsing religion is good, government creating second class citizens is good. Need I go on?
Their tactic is nothing but an obstruction based on a technicality. I would even venture to say they're obstructing justice...literally.
THEY WON'T ALLOW A VOTE ON THE JUDGES. How is that Democratic? For all the liberal talk of the Bushies wiping themselves with the Constitution, can someone explain the double standard to me?
Remind you a certain strategy implemented in 1996?
I'm arguing that since the American people consistently disagree with the GOP on social issues Nixon and his team created a strategy of putting extreme conservative members on lower branches of the court to undo the great American legacy of freedom and liberty.
Yes, I do think that conservatives want to deprive Americans of their freedom. Let's see drugs are bad, women are bad, free speech is bad, peaceful assembly is bad, petitioning the government is bad, cops killing unarmed black men is good, government endorsing religion is good, government creating second class citizens is good. Need I go on?
I'm arguing that since the American people consistently disagree with the GOP on social issues Nixon and his team created a strategy of putting extreme conservative members on lower branches of the court to undo the great American legacy of freedom and liberty.
Yes, I do think that conservatives want to deprive Americans of their freedom. Let's see drugs are bad, women are bad, free speech is bad, peaceful assembly is bad, petitioning the government is bad, cops killing unarmed black men is good, government endorsing religion is good, government creating second class citizens is good. Need I go on?
The American people consistantly disagree with the GOP on social issues?
I think you've been reading the wrong polls. Please support this. Even the most recent social issue, homosexual marriage has clear majorities of Republicans AND Democrats against it. How is that somehow against the will of the American people?
Drugs are bad? MMmmmmm...okay... show me the majority of EITHER party that supports legalization beyond the marijuana debate.
Women are bad? Abortion on demand is supported by a minority of men and women. Likewise laws that demand equality are supported by all. Laws that grant privilege to women exclusively, are not.
Free speech is bad? Perhaps you should look up who put all those nice parental advisory stickers on your CD's. It is none other than Tipper Gore. Who signed the legislation for the V-chip in televisions? Bill Clinton.
Peaceful assembly is bad. I've not heard anyone complain of peaceful assembly be they Republican or Democrat. However I won't call rioting "social protest" or "peaceful assembly."
I addressed at least part of your outright ranting. You should address your claims if you expect them to be credible.
What happened to Clarence Thomas was disgusting. That sort of thing shouldn't have been allowed into the Senate.
Now maybe when we start talking about the SC and not lower courts your post will be relevant.
I suppose it wasn't disgusting when they wouldn't confirm Bork? I believe their big Democratic beef was him was that he had tried pot. (you know those Democrats, party of tolerance... NOT!)
But of course these are the same folks who borked him, and now complain that future judges are less forthcoming with their views.
I suppose it wasn't disgusting when they wouldn't confirm Bork? I believe their big Democratic beef was him was that he had tried pot. (you know those Democrats, party of tolerance... NOT!)
But of course these are the same folks who borked him, and now complain that future judges are less forthcoming with their views.
Nick
Do you even read your own links?
Where does it mention pot?
Bork got borked because he was a staunch conservative that would have rolled back years of social progress not because he was a pot head.
It is part of the democratic process in this country that the minority in congress can do this. It stems from the principles laid out in Plato's Republic and carried on through to the philosophies of the writers of our constitution and the authors of the rules of the Senate and House...
The American people consistantly disagree with the GOP on social issues?
I think you've been reading the wrong polls. Please support this. Even the most recent social issue, homosexual marriage has clear majorities of Republicans AND Democrats against it. How is that somehow against the will of the American people?
This will change just like interracial marriage and segregation were extremely popular 70 years ago. But you know, those activist judges.
Quote:
Drugs are bad? MMmmmmm...okay... show me the majority of EITHER party that supports legalization beyond the marijuana debate.
Didn't you know that pot heads caused 9/11. No politician can come out for drug reform because the GOP have done such a good job of scaring white America into thinking that a black man will come into their town sell drugs and then rape their daughters.
Quote:
Women are bad? Abortion on demand is supported by a minority of men and women. Likewise laws that demand equality are supported by all. Laws that grant privilege to women exclusively, are not.
It really depends on how you ask the question. None the less the majority of people support abortion. What was that about it only having a minority of support?
Quote:
Free speech is bad? Perhaps you should look up who put all those nice parental advisory stickers on your CD's. It is none other than Tipper Gore. Who signed the legislation for the V-chip in televisions? Bill Clinton.
Yeah and Tipper can go to hell, but I don't remember Bill telling Americans that they need to watch what they say. Also, showing a nipple (We don't hate women, really) or making blue comments get the FCC on your ass in a second. Seems to me that labels on CDs are one thing, but censoring is a vastly different thing.
Quote:
Peaceful assembly is bad. I've not heard anyone complain of peaceful assembly be they Republican or Democrat. However I won't call rioting "social protest" or "peaceful assembly."
We know that the FBI would never threaten an anti-war group.
Quote:
I addressed at least part of your outright ranting. You should address your claims if you expect them to be credible.
Nick
Seriously, this coming from the guy that thinks that the House has anything to do with confirming a judicial nominee. Try links sometimes.
Bork got borked because he was a staunch conservative that would have rolled back years of social progress not because he was a pot head.
I didn't claim the link mentioned pot. I said it was the type of innuendo they were tossing around. They never even charged Thomas with harassment, they just blew a lot of smoke and hoped someone would shout fire.
[B]This will change just like interracial marriage and segregation were extremely popular 70 years ago. But you know, those activist judges.
Yes well hopefully you and I will both be around in 70 years to see who was right on that. It would be a little pointless until then to argue who's crystal ball is better.
Quote:
Didn't you know that pot heads caused 9/11. No politician can come out for drug reform because the GOP have done such a good job of scaring white America into thinking that a black man will come into their town sell drugs and then rape their daughters.
So the Republicans are at fault for pushing the anti-drug agenda and they Republicans are at fault for what the Democrats will or won't do as well. Basically Republicans evil in your book. Got it. No rational really needed, you just go on faith. Of course I don't remember the ATF burning down buildings and killing people in WACO and at other locations during the Bush presidency.
Quote:
It really depends on how you ask the question. None the less the majority of people support abortion. What was that about it only having a minority of support?
I made myself clear that it was abortion on demand, which is what most supporters consider the only true option for legalized abortion. Partial birth bans, waiting periods, notifications, etc. Even exceptions for rape and incest are all considered possible restrictions depending upon your view. Abortion at will is supported by a very small minority.
Quote:
Yeah and Tipper can go to hell, but I don't remember Bill telling Americans that they need to watch what they say. Also, showing a nipple (We don't hate women, really) or making blue comments get the FCC on your ass in a second. Seems to me that labels on CDs are one thing, but censoring is a vastly different thing.
Your tunnel vision is astounding. Who signed the 1996 telecommunications act that made say... Clear Channel possible in the first place. Hint... starts with a Bill.. ends with a Clinton. You should also know that Clinton supported numerous bills for Internet censorship.
Quote:
We know that the FBI would never threaten an anti-war group.
Of course not, Bill was too busy using the ATF for that.
Quote:
Seriously, this coming from the guy that thinks that the House has anything to do with confirming a judicial nominee. Try links sometimes.
If you are going to debate, at least do it with some intellectual honesty. I never claimed the house confirms judges. I stated that both the House and Senate were under Democratic control during the Nixon years. You made the claim that Nixon was carrying out some plan to stuff the judiciary. The only problem with your claim is that the Republicans had no means of carrying it out. They were so far out of power that the only thing they had was the presidency. Your claim looks even more absurd when the Democratic senate rejected two of Nixon's Supreme Court appointments.
If you are going to claim something, you need to check your facts. Nixon had no means to carry out what you claim. If anything it showed that the Democratic majority slapped anyone they didn't like right back into his face. The exact opposite of what you claim.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
Why do the democrats hate america?
Isn't this against the new posting guidelines?
Originally posted by bunge
Isn't this against the new posting guidelines?
Yes.
Originally posted by Scott
Yea but the people VOTED for those candidates. Reagan Bush and Bush again were elected in part to select judges. The democrats just hate The Constitution when it doesn't go their way. Why do the democrats hate america?
I thought people voted for Reagan because he lied to them. Similarly I thought people voted for Bush I because he made Dukakis look like a giant pussy. Show me one tv ad that mentioned the Federal judiciary.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Again, the Republicans should look at this with a twinkle in their eye. The Democratic party is finally maturing and using logical and perfectly legitamate methods to block people judicial picks they disagree with. Who cares?
It is the beauty of politics. The door swings both ways...
Their tactic is nothing but an obstruction based on a technicality. I would even venture to say they're obstructing justice...literally.
THEY WON'T ALLOW A VOTE ON THE JUDGES. How is that Democratic? For all the liberal talk of the Bushies wiping themselves with the Constitution, can someone explain the double standard to me?
Originally posted by SDW2001
How has the GOP been using these tactics? And really...you're arguing that the Federal benches are CONSERVATIVE?
But wait, your post gets even better: Do you honestly believe that conservatives wish to "deprive Americans of their rights"?
I'm arguing that since the American people consistently disagree with the GOP on social issues Nixon and his team created a strategy of putting extreme conservative members on lower branches of the court to undo the great American legacy of freedom and liberty.
Yes, I do think that conservatives want to deprive Americans of their freedom. Let's see drugs are bad, women are bad, free speech is bad, peaceful assembly is bad, petitioning the government is bad, cops killing unarmed black men is good, government endorsing religion is good, government creating second class citizens is good. Need I go on?
Originally posted by SDW2001
Was it civilized for Clarence Thomas? And really...can you honestly be arguing that it's the GOP that legislates through the bench?
What happened to Clarence Thomas was disgusting. That sort of thing shouldn't have been allowed into the Senate.
Now maybe when we start talking about the SC and not lower courts your post will be relevant.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Their tactic is nothing but an obstruction based on a technicality. I would even venture to say they're obstructing justice...literally.
THEY WON'T ALLOW A VOTE ON THE JUDGES. How is that Democratic? For all the liberal talk of the Bushies wiping themselves with the Constitution, can someone explain the double standard to me?
Remind you a certain strategy implemented in 1996?
Originally posted by HOM
I'm arguing that since the American people consistently disagree with the GOP on social issues Nixon and his team created a strategy of putting extreme conservative members on lower branches of the court to undo the great American legacy of freedom and liberty.
Yes, I do think that conservatives want to deprive Americans of their freedom. Let's see drugs are bad, women are bad, free speech is bad, peaceful assembly is bad, petitioning the government is bad, cops killing unarmed black men is good, government endorsing religion is good, government creating second class citizens is good. Need I go on?
Indeed.
Originally posted by HOM
I'm arguing that since the American people consistently disagree with the GOP on social issues Nixon and his team created a strategy of putting extreme conservative members on lower branches of the court to undo the great American legacy of freedom and liberty.
Yes, I do think that conservatives want to deprive Americans of their freedom. Let's see drugs are bad, women are bad, free speech is bad, peaceful assembly is bad, petitioning the government is bad, cops killing unarmed black men is good, government endorsing religion is good, government creating second class citizens is good. Need I go on?
The American people consistantly disagree with the GOP on social issues?
I think you've been reading the wrong polls. Please support this. Even the most recent social issue, homosexual marriage has clear majorities of Republicans AND Democrats against it. How is that somehow against the will of the American people?
Drugs are bad? MMmmmmm...okay... show me the majority of EITHER party that supports legalization beyond the marijuana debate.
Women are bad? Abortion on demand is supported by a minority of men and women. Likewise laws that demand equality are supported by all. Laws that grant privilege to women exclusively, are not.
Free speech is bad? Perhaps you should look up who put all those nice parental advisory stickers on your CD's. It is none other than Tipper Gore. Who signed the legislation for the V-chip in televisions? Bill Clinton.
Peaceful assembly is bad. I've not heard anyone complain of peaceful assembly be they Republican or Democrat. However I won't call rioting "social protest" or "peaceful assembly."
I addressed at least part of your outright ranting. You should address your claims if you expect them to be credible.
Nick
Originally posted by HOM
What happened to Clarence Thomas was disgusting. That sort of thing shouldn't have been allowed into the Senate.
Now maybe when we start talking about the SC and not lower courts your post will be relevant.
I suppose it wasn't disgusting when they wouldn't confirm Bork? I believe their big Democratic beef was him was that he had tried pot. (you know those Democrats, party of tolerance... NOT!)
But of course these are the same folks who borked him, and now complain that future judges are less forthcoming with their views.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I suppose it wasn't disgusting when they wouldn't confirm Bork? I believe their big Democratic beef was him was that he had tried pot. (you know those Democrats, party of tolerance... NOT!)
But of course these are the same folks who borked him, and now complain that future judges are less forthcoming with their views.
Nick
Do you even read your own links?
Where does it mention pot?
Bork got borked because he was a staunch conservative that would have rolled back years of social progress not because he was a pot head.
Who cares?
Originally posted by trumptman
The American people consistantly disagree with the GOP on social issues?
I think you've been reading the wrong polls. Please support this. Even the most recent social issue, homosexual marriage has clear majorities of Republicans AND Democrats against it. How is that somehow against the will of the American people?
This will change just like interracial marriage and segregation were extremely popular 70 years ago. But you know, those activist judges.
Drugs are bad? MMmmmmm...okay... show me the majority of EITHER party that supports legalization beyond the marijuana debate.
Didn't you know that pot heads caused 9/11. No politician can come out for drug reform because the GOP have done such a good job of scaring white America into thinking that a black man will come into their town sell drugs and then rape their daughters.
Women are bad? Abortion on demand is supported by a minority of men and women. Likewise laws that demand equality are supported by all. Laws that grant privilege to women exclusively, are not.
It really depends on how you ask the question. None the less the majority of people support abortion. What was that about it only having a minority of support?
Free speech is bad? Perhaps you should look up who put all those nice parental advisory stickers on your CD's. It is none other than Tipper Gore. Who signed the legislation for the V-chip in televisions? Bill Clinton.
Yeah and Tipper can go to hell, but I don't remember Bill telling Americans that they need to watch what they say. Also, showing a nipple (We don't hate women, really) or making blue comments get the FCC on your ass in a second. Seems to me that labels on CDs are one thing, but censoring is a vastly different thing.
Peaceful assembly is bad. I've not heard anyone complain of peaceful assembly be they Republican or Democrat. However I won't call rioting "social protest" or "peaceful assembly."
We know that the FBI would never threaten an anti-war group.
I addressed at least part of your outright ranting. You should address your claims if you expect them to be credible.
Nick
Seriously, this coming from the guy that thinks that the House has anything to do with confirming a judicial nominee. Try links sometimes.
Originally posted by HOM
Do you even read your own links?
Where does it mention pot?
Bork got borked because he was a staunch conservative that would have rolled back years of social progress not because he was a pot head.
I didn't claim the link mentioned pot. I said it was the type of innuendo they were tossing around. They never even charged Thomas with harassment, they just blew a lot of smoke and hoped someone would shout fire.
Nick
Originally posted by HOM
[B]This will change just like interracial marriage and segregation were extremely popular 70 years ago. But you know, those activist judges.
Yes well hopefully you and I will both be around in 70 years to see who was right on that. It would be a little pointless until then to argue who's crystal ball is better.
Didn't you know that pot heads caused 9/11. No politician can come out for drug reform because the GOP have done such a good job of scaring white America into thinking that a black man will come into their town sell drugs and then rape their daughters.
So the Republicans are at fault for pushing the anti-drug agenda and they Republicans are at fault for what the Democrats will or won't do as well. Basically Republicans evil in your book. Got it. No rational really needed, you just go on faith. Of course I don't remember the ATF burning down buildings and killing people in WACO and at other locations during the Bush presidency.
It really depends on how you ask the question. None the less the majority of people support abortion. What was that about it only having a minority of support?
I made myself clear that it was abortion on demand, which is what most supporters consider the only true option for legalized abortion. Partial birth bans, waiting periods, notifications, etc. Even exceptions for rape and incest are all considered possible restrictions depending upon your view. Abortion at will is supported by a very small minority.
Yeah and Tipper can go to hell, but I don't remember Bill telling Americans that they need to watch what they say. Also, showing a nipple (We don't hate women, really) or making blue comments get the FCC on your ass in a second. Seems to me that labels on CDs are one thing, but censoring is a vastly different thing.
Your tunnel vision is astounding. Who signed the 1996 telecommunications act that made say... Clear Channel possible in the first place. Hint... starts with a Bill.. ends with a Clinton. You should also know that Clinton supported numerous bills for Internet censorship.
We know that the FBI would never threaten an anti-war group.
Of course not, Bill was too busy using the ATF for that.
Seriously, this coming from the guy that thinks that the House has anything to do with confirming a judicial nominee. Try links sometimes.
If you are going to debate, at least do it with some intellectual honesty. I never claimed the house confirms judges. I stated that both the House and Senate were under Democratic control during the Nixon years. You made the claim that Nixon was carrying out some plan to stuff the judiciary. The only problem with your claim is that the Republicans had no means of carrying it out. They were so far out of power that the only thing they had was the presidency. Your claim looks even more absurd when the Democratic senate rejected two of Nixon's Supreme Court appointments.
If you are going to claim something, you need to check your facts. Nixon had no means to carry out what you claim. If anything it showed that the Democratic majority slapped anyone they didn't like right back into his face. The exact opposite of what you claim.
Nick