RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


ienigma777 -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/28/2009 9:30:15 AM)

Yup, you are so VERY right....and this Billion dollar bailout of Bush, GM wants some billions more to stay afloat, nice...since they just completed building their EIGHT auto plant in....CHINA. They also pumped a few billion into an auto plant in Brazil.

So....we pay GM to give the Chinese work, and GM ships their juck here, and we run out to buy them...at usually no discounted price.





thishereboi -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/28/2009 10:45:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ienigma777

Yup, you are so VERY right....and this Billion dollar bailout of Bush, GM wants some billions more to stay afloat, nice...since they just completed building their EIGHT auto plant in....CHINA. They also pumped a few billion into an auto plant in Brazil.

So....we pay GM to give the Chinese work, and GM ships their juck here, and we run out to buy them...at usually no discounted price.




Well Bush is gone now, so you can focus on how the new admin is screwing things up for a change. But I agree that GM building in other countries has pretty much killed things here. And we can thank NAFTA for a big part of that. Now who came up with that brilliant idea....I will give you a hint. It wasn't Bush.




popeye1250 -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/28/2009 11:32:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MmeGigs

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
"Judicial Activism"

What is that code for,Pop?

Owner,  that's code for, "Legislating from the bench!"


From what I've seen of the "judicial activism" charge in use, it means "the judge didn't rule the way I think s/he should have". 


Gigs, no I don't think so. Judges should concentrate on the law and not espouse "causes" that they then rule in favor of.
In other words I think it's "vital" that they remain ***impartial***. They simply can't be making rulings based on their personal feelings.
That's not "good judgin'" I guess that's why they have layers of courts, to keep the other judges in check.
Noone should be able to go "judge-shopping!" Ever see that statue of Lady Justice? She wears a *blindfold* for a reason!
Ideally all judges should rule the same way on any givin case. "Ideally."
Bita could probably explain that better than me since she reads other people's "opinions" all the time. Perhaps she could explain the absolute importance of impartiality in the judiciary.




Loki45 -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/28/2009 11:35:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ienigma777
...and this Billion dollar bailout of Bush...


You are aware that the bailouts did not happen without a majority vote in CONGRESS, right?




philosophy -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/28/2009 11:55:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

And we can thank NAFTA for a big part of that. Now who came up with that brilliant idea....I will give you a hint. It wasn't Bush.


Well, not Bush the younger.......

"Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1991 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement




thishereboi -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/28/2009 12:59:08 PM)

Yea, I should have put jr in there somewhere.




popeye1250 -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/28/2009 1:20:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

And we can thank NAFTA for a big part of that. Now who came up with that brilliant idea....I will give you a hint. It wasn't Bush.


Well, not Bush the younger.......

"Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1991 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement


Phil, it was Bill Clinton who pushed it through a "lame duck" congress in Dec of  '93 or 94 though and against the wishes of most Americans.




MmeGigs -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/28/2009 4:50:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
quote:

ORIGINAL: MmeGigs
From what I've seen of the "judicial activism" charge in use, it means "the judge didn't rule the way I think s/he should have". 

Gigs, no I don't think so. Judges should concentrate on the law and not espouse "causes" that they then rule in favor of.
In other words I think it's "vital" that they remain ***impartial***. They simply can't be making rulings based on their personal feelings.
That's not "good judgin'" I guess that's why they have layers of courts, to keep the other judges in check.


I agree with you about what judges should do, but I wasn't referring to what judges do.  What I said is that when I have heard charges of judicial activism leveled against judges, it has nearly always been sour grapes - anger/irritation that the judge didn't rule the way the person complaining of judicial activism felt they should.  It's rare that the person backs their charge up with actual evidence. 

Folks are getting ready to beat up on Sotomayor because of some comments she's made about her background having an influence on her decisions.  Apparently, Alito made very similar comments in his confirmation hearings -

"Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.

And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."

When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."

Judges are human.  They can't help but to be influenced by their own experiences.  That's why there's more than one judge on the Supreme Court, state supreme courts and appelate courts - to keep the other judges in check. 

quote:

Ever see that statue of Lady Justice? She wears a *blindfold* for a reason!
Ideally all judges should rule the same way on any givin case. "Ideally."


We don't live in an ideal world.  Ideally, all laws would be written in a way that makes clear what the lawmakers intended and that passes constitutional muster, but many laws have language that is open to interpretation, and some laws that are passed are unconstitutional.  Ideally, all prosecutors would use the same standards when deciding what charges to bring, but in practice it's left to the prosecutor's discretion, and some of them are softies and some are hardasses.  Ideally, the amount of money a defendant has shouldn't affect the sentence they receive, but in practice a public defender is most often about as useless as tits on a boar.  The outcome of a trial often depends more on whether one can afford to pay an attorney than it does on the details of the crime one committed. 

We absolutely rely on judges using their discretion.  The details of every case are different.  When you/me/whoever go up before a judge, we don't want complete objectivity.  What we really want is for that judge to look at us as an individual, to look at the specific circumstances of our case, and to decide how the law should apply to us in our particular situation. 

quote:

Bita could probably explain that better than me since she reads other people's "opinions" all the time. Perhaps she could explain the absolute importance of impartiality in the judiciary. 


I understand the importance, I just think that it's an unrealizable goal.  Again, judges are human, and are subject to all of the faults and foibles of other humans, which is why higher courts have more than one judge.  More diversity on a particular bench can only be a good thing, bringing varied experiences into the decisions that are made, helping to assure that the decisions represent the best interests of a majority of us. 




BamaD -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/28/2009 8:45:19 PM)

I am well aware that Hispanic isn't really a race but politically it is treated like one.  Watch a white politicion state that white men make better descisions and he will be branded as as racist and sexest.   It also doesn't damage the point would you be more confertable if I said her statement was culturelisn and sexist?




popeye1250 -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/28/2009 9:22:47 PM)

Bama, I don't think it makes much differance now have you seen the News?
They said she belongs to that racist Hispanic hate group "La Raza!" Cousin to the Koo Klux Klan!
Now how the hell did the Obama people miss that one? I had no problem with her before I saw that on the News last night.
Boy, this is going to be awful embarrassing for Obama.  "Mr. President, were you aware that Justice Sotomayor was a Klan member?"
And I feel like a real dope, I figured she was alright. So much for "impartial."




MmeGigs -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/29/2009 4:55:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
They said she belongs to that racist Hispanic hate group "La Raza!" Cousin to the Koo Klux Klan!


Since when is La Raza a hate group? 




DomKen -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/29/2009 6:33:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MmeGigs

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
They said she belongs to that racist Hispanic hate group "La Raza!" Cousin to the Koo Klux Klan!


Since when is La Raza a hate group? 

Funny how membership in, leadership of actually, La Raza wasn't an issue when it was GWB's nominee for Attorney General.
http://www.nclr.org/content/news/detail/28109




Louve00 -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/29/2009 6:58:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Bama, I don't think it makes much differance now have you seen the News?
They said she belongs to that racist Hispanic hate group "La Raza!" Cousin to the Koo Klux Klan!
Now how the hell did the Obama people miss that one? I had no problem with her before I saw that on the News last night.
Boy, this is going to be awful embarrassing for Obama.  "Mr. President, were you aware that Justice Sotomayor was a Klan member?"
And I feel like a real dope, I figured she was alright. So much for "impartial."


LOL...so now she's a Klan member too, eh?  Klan member?????  *wonders what a real KKK member would think about that*




Sanity -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/29/2009 7:02:38 AM)


Since when has someone from the far left heaped such glowing praises on anything that George Bush had a hand in... I'm thinking that George Bush has just found a new supporter in you, Ken! Who would have ever imagined.

And Bush was one of the worst when it came to promoting illegal immigration. So why would he blink an eye at anyone's membership in La Raza?

Your argument doesn't address anything that Popeye said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Funny how membership in, leadership of actually, La Raza wasn't an issue when it was GWB's nominee for Attorney General.
http://www.nclr.org/content/news/detail/28109




Sanity -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/29/2009 7:07:20 AM)


That kind of chatter would be NOTHING if that had been a white male conservative appointment  saying something like that - "I'm wiser than a Latina woman because of the richness of my experience."

KKK would have been the LEAST of the charges thrown at him!

Everyone on the left would be DEMANDING his nomination be withdrawn IMMEDIATELY. They would filibuster him, all the far left news networks like CBS, CNN and MSNBC  would talk about such a statement nonstop for a year...




quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00
LOL...so now she's a Klan member too, eh?  Klan member?????  *wonders what a real KKK member would think about that*




rulemylife -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/29/2009 7:22:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45

quote:

ORIGINAL: ienigma777
...and this Billion dollar bailout of Bush...


You are aware that the bailouts did not happen without a majority vote in CONGRESS, right?



He was referring to the GM bailout, which did not happen with a majority vote in Congress.

You are aware it was defeated in the Senate and Bush used TARP funds for the automakers, right?




Louve00 -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/29/2009 7:25:59 AM)

I doubt a white male conservative would have to even go there.  The majority of our nation would be willing to accept that because white male conservative is what they know and know well.  Its what they DON'T know that breeds all the fear and accusations this is causing.  And yes, its fear....NOT proclamation of an injustice.  She's done nothing wrong yet, but earn her newly appointed position.  I've read all the negative links, all the positive links and all the clips on the tv.  She's an accomplished Latina. 

Who knows...by the time Obama's administration is through with us, we all might have just a tad bit more diversity.
(just a thought)




DomKen -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/29/2009 7:34:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Since when has someone from the far left heaped such glowing praises on anything that George Bush had a hand in... I'm thinking that George Bush has just found a new supporter in you, Ken! Who would have ever imagined.

And Bush was one of the worst when it came to promoting illegal immigration. So why would he blink an eye at anyone's membership in La Raza?

Your argument doesn't address anything that Popeye said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Funny how membership in, leadership of actually, La Raza wasn't an issue when it was GWB's nominee for Attorney General.
http://www.nclr.org/content/news/detail/28109


Pointing out the rampant hypocrisy of the right is heaping praise on Bush? WTF! Just to make my point clear for the english language defecient, La Raza wasn't viewed as a racist hate group by the right wingers back when it supported Alberto Gonzales, who had been on the board of one of the local branches, but is called that now when a slightly left of center woman is nominated for the Supreme Court.




Owner59 -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/29/2009 7:45:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: ienigma777

Yup, you are so VERY right....and this Billion dollar bailout of Bush, GM wants some billions more to stay afloat, nice...since they just completed building their EIGHT auto plant in....CHINA. They also pumped a few billion into an auto plant in Brazil.

So....we pay GM to give the Chinese work, and GM ships their juck here, and we run out to buy them...at usually no discounted price.




Well Bush is gone now, so you can focus on how the new admin is screwing things up for a change. But I agree that GM building in other countries has pretty much killed things here. And we can thank NAFTA for a big part of that. Now who came up with that brilliant idea....I will give you a hint. It wasn't Bush.

As long as people try to blame the current mess on Obama,we`ll just have to remind them who got us here.

Won`t we?

Funny, how you yearn to move on and then mention someone going even farther back, to blame.Very funny.




CruelNUnsual -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/29/2009 8:35:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Since when has someone from the far left heaped such glowing praises on anything that George Bush had a hand in... I'm thinking that George Bush has just found a new supporter in you, Ken! Who would have ever imagined.

And Bush was one of the worst when it came to promoting illegal immigration. So why would he blink an eye at anyone's membership in La Raza?

Your argument doesn't address anything that Popeye said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Funny how membership in, leadership of actually, La Raza wasn't an issue when it was GWB's nominee for Attorney General.
http://www.nclr.org/content/news/detail/28109


Pointing out the rampant hypocrisy of the right is heaping praise on Bush? WTF! Just to make my point clear for the english language defecient, La Raza wasn't viewed as a racist hate group by the right wingers back when it supported Alberto Gonzales, who had been on the board of one of the local branches, but is called that now when a slightly left of center woman is nominated for the Supreme Court.



Gonzalez wasnt a member of La Raza, his appointment was praised by them. I have never seen anyone in the GOP even acknowledge their support. you know full well from the campaign that you cant stop anyone from supporting an issue or candidate.

In the immigration fight several in the GOP slammed La Raza. Heres one. Im sure if you look for the "leader of the GOPs" (as apponted by the left wing media) he would have ranted against them as would anyone against open borders.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=13863




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875