Printable View
id rather that the ratio was simply usually in favor of conservatives - like 5-4 with a single middle of the roader leaning slightly to the right
6 conservatives would ruin the game and create a backlash in a similar way that the activism of the court today has for the left
The two threads on this topic have been merged ~:)
I object strongly to that remark... in fact, I am offended by it. I am the most level headed... uh... wait... oh yeah, you're right. Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
~:cheers:
I don't want someone socially conservative, per se. Just more Originalists like Scalia.
Yup all I want is people who go by what the constitution says not what they think it should say.
It's GO to the mattresses Prol. GO to the mattresses means total war. :charge: 'Hit the mattresses' means we're getting ready to take a nap. :sleeping: Somebody needs to rewatch the Godfather trilogy this weekend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
No place, no where, no how did I mean to imply that at this very moment I am not peeing my pants with 'irrational exuberance' at the moment. :rolleyes3: :rolleyes3: :rolleyes3: :rolleyes3: If you remember, I was ready to take up arms in open revolt over the property seizure ruling. But you two were starting to sound like chicken-little with "Can you believe Kennedy is already out there....?" I mean, OF COURSE HE IS!!! He's a dying duck and that's his last quack. :lipsrsealed2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Maybe she was really wanting to hit the mattresses - she might need her beauty sleep before going off on the 4th of July weekend. Now there is an adult version - but since its a family forum - I will leave it to your dirty minds what the real message was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Well, they filibustered Janice Rogers Brown.... although she would make an good SCOTUS nominee wouldnt she?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Hopefully this will be the end of abortion on demand. ~:cheers:
Not really thats exactly what we expect. In fact I love him making a jerk of himself again. This is like Iraqi insurgency. They see their a dying breed and this is their last gasp. They will try anything to keep some kind of power.Quote:
But you two were starting to sound like chicken-little with "Can you believe Kennedy is already out there....?" I mean, OF COURSE HE IS!!! He's a dying duck and that's his last quack.
I fear they will evauntaully outlaw abortion entirely. I know the whole Rode vs Wade thing wasn't exactly Constitutional, and I don't agree with how they did it, but abortion ought to be legal (up to three months for non dangerous cases, and only after that if the mom's life is threatened, IMO).Quote:
Hopefully this will be the end of abortion on demand. ~:cheers:
But if on demand, you mean say during the third trimester or something, I wouldn't disagree, though I fear it will get far worse than that if there are enough conservatives on the Court.
Abortion should never be legal unless it can directly save the life of the mother.
This 3 weeks/3 months/40 days game has been played for years. Nobody can accurately say when a fetus becomes a person.
Those 40 million lives that have been taken were American citizens who had the rights we all share.. or should have had those rights.
No one is calling for that. It should be up to the state as it was in the past. You know just like the marriage laws .Quote:
I fear they will evauntaully outlaw abortion entirely. I know the whole Rode vs Wade thing wasn't exactly Constitutional, and I don't agree with how they did it, but abortion ought to be legal (up to three months for non dangerous cases, and only after that if the mom's life is threatened, IMO).
Again conservative believe its a states rights issue. I dont know of any of us who would back a constitutional amendment to ban all abortions. Wll theres Nav I guess.Quote:
But if on demand, you mean say during the third trimester or something, I wouldn't disagree, though I fear it will get far worse than that if there are enough conservatives on the Court.
Tell that to PJ... ~;)
Look I despise abortion as much as anyone and that includes PJ but I dont think even he would back a constitutional ban on all abortions. But then Ill leave that up to him to answer.Quote:
Tell that to PJ...
Well I think the original topic of this thread is interesting enough without a diversion to an abortion debate.. I started it so I'll finish it.. ~:cheers:
all abortions should never be banned - but - like murder - should only be allowed in the msot serious of cased
when a mother's life is threatened
an outright BAN would be absurd and would leave no room for real life saving medecine. this isnt an abortion debate, but that is what i think and have thought (through extreme conscideration) since i was a child
Sorry, didn't mean to turn this into an abortion thing. Though I admit, my main fear about the evantualality of one of the... well not Republican, shall we say, judges resigning is the whole abortion thing.
But I digress. :bow:
yopu cant be blamed . Thats what the pro choice people would have you believe while the hard core pro life people would want a ban on all abortions. But believe me they are such a small minority that they have no power. Both sides here are being manipulted by the radicals. It was a lot harder for them when they had to deal with 50 differnt legislatures.
Notice how PJ does believe exactly what Gawain stated he wouldn't believe - so he sidetracked, brilliant. ~D
Anyway back to topic. I am amazed that people here would like to see their centrist balance in the SC - which although all you Conservatives state the opposite IS the case when you look at the voting - replaced by a partisan appointment. Surely there needs to be a balance in terms of left and right of the political spectrum so that generally speaking the centrist view is more often than not taken - which will not only save alienation on issues in such a newly split country politically but also mean a way forward which is not disastrous, as the central view rarely is.
Your latest post for instance Gawain, proves this point.
So, does this mean all you conservatives are back in favor of judicial review again?
OF COURSE NOT I do not want judges mandating what I favor into law any more than I want judges mandating what I do not favor into law. I want them to return to their constitutionally defensible role.
He said just what I thought he would and its the same thing I think. He backed up my claim.Quote:
Notice how PJ does believe exactly what Gawain stated he wouldn't believe
Unless my comprehension of english is failing me that means hes not in favor of making ALL abortions illegal. The diffence is Im willing to compromise my values a bit more than he in the interest of getting the ball rolling back in the right direction.Quote:
Abortion should never be legal unless it can directly save the life of the mother.
What makes you say that?Quote:
So, does this mean all you conservatives are back in favor of judicial review again?
To be honest, if there was a constitutional ban on abortion, i most likely would through all the support I could behind it. I am not a woman, a parent, or religious but for some reason that issue has always been important to me.Quote:
Notice how PJ does believe exactly what Gawain stated he wouldn't believe - so he sidetracked, brilliant.
The reason I chose not to debate Gawain, besides the fact that he is Rush Limbaugh, is that he is exactly right.
My opinion is based solely in emotion, whereas his is based on constitutional principal and facts.
It might be hard to understand that I would support a ban even though I believe it isnt what should be done, but thats what happens when you become emotionally involved in a political issue - call it fundamentalism, radicalism, or whatever.
(Oh, and Ive learned over the years its never, ever, a good idea to debate Gawain. Its about as useful as the Polish army circa 1939. ~D )
But you get to look nice and pretty on your horse with your lance while you lose, however. ~;)
Is this scrabbling to appoint a party friendly judge not why the SC has lost its credibility in recent years? It is supposed to be apolitical is it not?
Again Bush isnt picking judges along party lines but on how they read the constitution. He and we want judges who go by what the constitution says not what some judge would have it morph into. If you want to change it put the matter before the people and let them vote as the constitution says.Quote:
However according to the criteria given she will still suffer a down-grading at college for writing God rather than god.