Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
By making laws that are in accordance with their political beliefs, prejudices and blindness.
I prefer Conservative Supreme Court justices who don't go for emotional law. Which means "any old thing I say is law because I want to make a point" laws liberal judges like to dish out. I try to avoid those at all costs.
If that means I have to put up with Guiliani's hideous mug, I'll still take that over Hillary's mug and vacated judicial seats filled by liberal psychotics, who are with us until they die.
When you ask an explanation for a simple comment, you invite a lot of words. Remember...words mean something. It's a bit old missish to ask someone to go into detail, then complain about them going into detail.
Did I say liberals were psychotic? I believe I said I didn't want psychotic liberal judges.
Did I say dems and liberals were the same? I don't believe I did.
And why else would I like conservatives, except that I like the way they think...i.e., I share their world view. Hello?
You don't laugh at us any harder than we laugh at YOU. The last elections in Spain come to mind where humor is concerned. Only I 'd say in their case it's
"some people are just too scared to vote their minds."
Or how about those "elections" in Iran? Real knee-slapper.
Sandra Day O'Connor, for one.
Roe v. Wade.
Here's some more:
Racial Preferences in Admissions: Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
O'Connor wrote the majority opinion, joined by Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens, which held that the University of Michigan Law School could use racial preferences to include blacks, Latinos, and Indians in its incoming class because of educational benefits associated with having a "critical mass" of minorities in the student body. O’Connor predicted that in 25 years racial preferences would no longer be necessary.
Abortion: Stenberg v Carhart (2000)
O’Connor joined the liberal wing (Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens), providing the key vote allowing the Court to overturne a Nebraska law banning a procedure known as "partial birth abortion." Subsequently, Congress banned the procedure in the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003; that law is on track to be argued before the Supreme Court.
By making laws that are in accordance with their political beliefs, prejudices and blindness.
I prefer Conservative Supreme Court justices who don't go for emotional law. Which means "any old thing I say is law because I want to make a point" laws liberal judges like to dish out. I try to avoid those at all costs.
You only seem to have a problem with this when its not in accordance with your political beliefs, prejudices, and blindness.
I find it amusing when people who have no idea what the law is or how to interpret it criticize other peoples interpretations of it. Its really quite fun.
Actually, it's more that they don't have a clue how decisions are made; They also don't understand that there are no pat answers to complex issues. Jurists, attorneys, students of the law, they argue these issues all the time. To say there is some divine fundamentalist reading of the Constitution simply isn't accurate and doesn't reflect the rich and complex history of our laws or the caseload by which we're bound.
It is kinda funny, though. I particularly loved the part where she had criticism for one of the most highly regarded justices ever to tke the bench. ;o)
Not highly regarded by me. Sorry to pop that little bubble you've got going. O'Connor's no saint, and her rulings prove it.
What you call "pat answers to complex issues" I call recognizing the difference between right and wrong, and not being bamboozled by liberal nambie-pambies.
All hail Sandra!!!! She must be a saint...Jillian says so!
You only seem to have a problem with this when its not in accordance with your political beliefs, prejudices, and blindness.
I find it amusing when people who have no idea what the law is or how to interpret it criticize other peoples interpretations of it. Its really quite fun.
Not highly regarded by me. Sorry to pop that little bubble you've got going. O'Connor's no saint, and her rulings prove it.
What you call "pat answers to complex issues" I call recognizing the difference between right and wrong, and not being bamboozled by liberal nambie-pambies.
All hail Sandra!!!! She must be a saint...Jillian says so!
Really?? No kidding? Why would I have a problem with people who have the same beliefs? You guys are great for reiterating the obvious and making it sound so baaaadddd. When somebody else does it, that is.
How did you come to the conclusion I have no idea what the law is or how to interpret it
....and isn't that statement in and of itself criticizing another person's interpretation? Which is exactly what you're whining about...???
No, I don't think you know if I'm an expert on jurisprudence or not. Does one have to be an expert anything to voice a negative opinion about St. O'Connor?
And the law is very much about recognizing the difference between right and wrong. And this is why I don't want any more liberal elitists on the Supreme Court.
What has Spain got to do with NZ?? How come you guys seem to lump the rest of the world into one? I am talking specifically about the one-party state your country is...
I could have sworn we were discussing my opinion about O'Connor. I probably thought that because that's what we were discussing.
Psst...I know judges (personally) who aren't crazy about O'Connor, either. She's not the guru of law, for Pete's sakes.
So..where were we actually discussing law? Because I sure haven't seen any legal arguments here.
And the law is very much about recognizing the difference between right and wrong. And this is why I don't want any more liberal elitists on the Supreme Court.
And we all know what an expert on jurisprudence you are, right?
Not highly regarded by me. Sorry to pop that little bubble you've got going. O'Connor's no saint, and her rulings prove it.
Actually we were discussing Hillary Clinton until you decided to bring up O'Connor.
Of course she isn't, but there is a middle ground between "guru" and having "a screw loose".
Umm maybe here:
Shall I go on? Besides the fact that we are talking about the USSC who make and interpret law. If you don't think O'Connor and the law are intimately related, then you've just gone down from "not having a clue about matters of jurisprudence" to "not having a clue about basic tenets of the Americal legal system".
