In 1995, these three senators voted to end all filibusters in the Senate....

[SmarterThanYou]

No, I don't rule out that right wing extremists can also exist. But I would not call them the same as conservatives who stick close to the Constitution as it is written and not to how they "see" it. In any case, please point out one of these "right wing extremists" you see in the current lineup and tell us what they intend to do that is so "radical".

I've listed numerous cases from Owens and the others several times where their conservative peers have overturned or reversed their decisions based on the original decision not being within the law.

I can easily point out liberal judicial radical activists starting with my least favorite, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a former ACLU radical who should never have been appointed to the Court, who says such things as this:

"boldly dynamic interpretation departing radically from the original understanding" of the Constitution is sometimes necessary. From "Seek and Ye Shall Find - Ginsburg's Philosophy", New Jersey Law Journal, July 12, 1993.

This is a Supreme Court judge who wants to look to other countries for basis of American law instead of what exists in our Constitution. I think this is treasonous and she should be expelled from the Supreme Court.

and I would agree with you.

 

[musicman]

your refusal to acknowledge that there are right wing judicial activists is like this..

Restoring the judiciary to its apprpriate constitutional role is not judicial activism; it is, in fact, the ANTIDOTE to judicial activism.

again, whatever. I know what will happen later when one of these extremists starts making wild ass legislation from the bench,

As the man said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..." . And, when the judiciary is once again returned to its proper role under the Constitution, the days of legislating from the bench will be - at long last - over. The desire for this happy outcome is one of the chief reasons the electorate have slammed the door on the left.

we'll hear all these justifications that redefine the constitution from the conservative dictionary.

"Redefine" or "re-establish"? In all honesty, Smarter, whose "definition" do trust more - liberals' or conservatives' ? Which side do you think wishes to restore the Constitution, and which seeks to re-invent it? Please feel free to consider judicial behavior in the last thirty years before making your decision.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I've listed numerous cases from Owens and the others several times where their conservative peers have overturned or reversed their decisions based on the original decision not being within the law.

and I would agree with you.

Glad you agree about Ginsberg. :usa:

I read what you said on the other thread about Owen. You say you are "wary of her over the top pro-business decisions" but you do not point out anything specific on which she strays from the Constitution.

We both know that there are many left wing radical organizations who wish to push their agenda through the court system. There are plenty of memorandums out there that point to the fact that these radical groups are attempting to set the agenda for confirming our judges. They even classify judges into "the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly". Priscilla Owen, Michael McConnell, Miguel Estrada, and Caroline Kuhl have been rated as "Ugly".

For example, Judge Priscilla Owen has served on the Texas Supreme Court with distinction since 1994 and has even received a "well qualified" rating from the American Bar Association. But she has been targeted by the radicals as indicated in a June 4, 2002 memorandum regarding her nomination by Bush which states in part:

Our Next Big Fight
The current thinking from Senator Leahy is that Judge Owen will be our next big fight, after the July 4th recess. We agree that she is the right choice - she has a bad record on labor, personal injury, and choice issues, and a broad range of national and local Texas groups are ready to oppose her. The groups seem to be in agreement with the decision to move Owen in July.
Recommendation: Move Owen in July.
Memorandum to Senator Ted Kennedy, dated June 4th, 2002, Men in Black, Mark R. Levin, 2005

As you can see, the Left is out in full force attempting to squash the appointments of conservative judges. Any judge who rules more to the right is considered to be "activist" but when the left does the same thing in the opposite direction, it's just fine and dandy. I am all for Owen being appointed as she would help reestablish some balance in the courts although I don't think she could come anywhere near balancing out someone like Ruthie baby.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

"Redefine" or "re-establish"? In all honesty, Smarter, whose "definition" do trust more - liberals' or conservatives' ? Which side do you think wishes to restore the Constitution, and which seeks to re-invent it? Please feel free to consider judicial behavior in the last thirty years before making your decision.

I'm glad you brought this up because I don't trust either side. Those who would blindingly just trust without researching every iota of what your supposed representatives are putting out there deserve the shit that they get. I don't trust anyone of them, do you? Or does your hatred of liberalism run deep enough to think that anyone that calls themselves conservative has to be better?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

For example, Judge Priscilla Owen has served on the Texas Supreme Court with distinction since 1994 and has even received a "well qualified" rating from the American Bar Association.

I find it quite amusing that throughout the last 5 years I've heard more crap about the so called liberal bias in just about everything that denounces or intimates negativity towards republicans, yet the very liberal American Bar Association is above all that and trustworthy to those very republicans.

 

[musicman]

I'm glad you brought this up because I don't trust either side. Those who would blindingly just trust without researching every iota of what your supposed representatives are putting out there deserve the shit that they get. I don't trust anyone of them, do you? Or does your hatred of liberalism run deep enough to think that anyone that calls themselves conservative has to be better?

http://usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19995&page=4

Post #57. Follow the link.

Tell me that you believe, in your heart of hearts, that one side treasures the Constitution as much as the other. I don't think you can do it; you're too honest a man.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

http://usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19995&page=4

Post #57. Follow the link.

Tell me that you believe, in your heart of hearts, that one side treasures the Constitution as much as the other. I don't think you can do it; you're too honest a man.

I think that both sides have an agenda and its NOT about faithfully upholding the constitution. Is one side somewhat more aligned than the other? Yes, but that does not mean we should give them a free pass on everything just because they SAY they are constitutionalists nor should we just accept there decisions based on the lesser of two evils. The last I remember, this was still OUR government, not theirs.

 

[musicman]

I think that both sides have an agenda and its NOT about faithfully upholding the constitution. Is one side somewhat more aligned than the other?

Did you check that link? :shocked: "Somewhat" doesn't even BEGIN to get it! If anyone has been asleep for the last thirty years, and doesn't grasp the liberal agenda, the Constitution 2020 Conference should make it abundantly, terrifyingly clear. These people do not love America; they want to turn it into a Euro-style, cradle-to-grave welfare state - and if the American electorate don't like it, tough shit! They've got to be stopped!


Right?

Yes, but that does not mean we should give them a free pass on everything just because they SAY they are constitutionalists nor should we just accept there decisions based on the lesser of two evils.

An up or down vote on judicial nominees is scarcely a "free pass". Liberals are fighting it for all they're worth because they're beginning to hear the faint strains of representative government. That is, of course, the death knell for their ideology.

No human enterprise can hope to approach perfection; the best we can do is try to err safely - based on what we see and hear. I'd a hell of a lot rather err on the side of someone who SAYS he's a constitutionalist, than of someone who - when he can be prevailed upon to tell the truth AT ALL - declares that he will set the thing on fire and piss on the ashes!

Especially when his actions in the last three decades bear him out!!!

 

[SmarterThanYou]

These last nominees do not represent the american people, they represent business interests only. are we to become a corporate owned country? Thats what is going to happen when these people start making their rulings.

 

[dilloduck]

These last nominees do not represent the american people, they represent business interests only. are we to become a corporate owned country? Thats what is going to happen when these people start making their rulings.

Any idea how much of America is corporate owned already ? Just curious

 

[musicman]

These last nominees do not represent the american people, they represent business interests only. are we to become a corporate owned country? Thats what is going to happen when these people start making their rulings.

What is your opinion of the goals set forth at the Constitution 2020 Conference?

 

[freeandfun1]

These last nominees do not represent the american people, they represent business interests only. are we to become a corporate owned country? Thats what is going to happen when these people start making their rulings.

OMG! I cannot believe that you believe the libs are 'exempt' from offering up judicial nominees that are not corporate panzies or the panzies of some other just as vile entity. Face it, politics are PARTISAN. I guess it is okay as long as it is partisan libs being appointed. I am getting sick of your two-faced attitude in regards to these nominations.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

What is your opinion of the goals set forth at the Constitution 2020 Conference?

they don't stand a chance in hell of ever coming true.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

OMG! I cannot believe that you believe the libs are 'exempt' from offering up judicial nominees that are not corporate panzies or the panzies of some other just as vile entity. Face it, politics are PARTISAN. I guess it is okay as long as it is partisan libs being appointed. I am getting sick of your two-faced attitude in regards to these nominations.

Is there a liberal appointed nominee right now that I can blaze? Because I don't see one. If there WERE a liberal business interest nominee waiting for a vote, I'd be just as irate about it as I am the others, so take your two-faced attitude opinion of me and shove it. You do a piss poor job of making judgements of people when you only look at how they deal with ONE set of issues.

 

[dilloduck]

Is there a liberal appointed nominee right now that I can blaze? Because I don't see one. If there WERE a liberal business interest nominee waiting for a vote, I'd be just as irate about it as I am the others, so take your two-faced attitude opinion of me and shove it. You do a piss poor job of making judgements of people when you only look at how they deal with ONE set of issues.

Wait--you want Bush to appoint a liberal ?

 

[musicman]

they don't stand a chance in hell of ever coming true.

Never is a long, long time.

What do you think of them, though?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Wait--you want Bush to appoint a liberal ?

Is that what you got out of that?

No, I don't want Bush nominating libera OR conservative judges. I want him to nominate mainstream judges with no political bent OTHER than ruling according to the law. Not in favor of special interests in any way, shape, or form.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Never is a long, long time.

What do you think of them, though?

If I were at all worried about them, It would frighten me. But I'm not worried about them.

 

[freeandfun1]

You do a piss poor job of making judgements of people when you only look at how they deal with ONE set of issues.

Actually, you have clearly exhibited that you hold a two-faced view on judicial appointments. You would have no problem if a liberal were in office appointing liberal judges but you have a problem with a conservative appointing conservative judges. You forget the Dems had control for decades and Republicans didn't filibuster their nominations. Now you act like there is this "new" reason to filibuster judicial appointments. To the victor go the spoils. The conservatives are in office now and if they want to appoint conservative judges, then SO BE IT. When the Conservatives lose and the liberals get the White House back (hence the reason you are scared, your liberal friends blew their chances and now are paying the piper - all apart of American politics! I love it!) the libs will appoint liberal judges. That is how our system works. Too bad you and your ilk want to change 214 years of the system working because you are so upset at losing power and losing power because of your own failed policies. If the conservatives are as bad as you claim they are, the liberals should be sure to win and keep ALL the houses for several decades. Is this unreasonable fear emitting from the left because they know they are SCREWED?

HA HA! You're get'n what was come'n. Freak out and whine all you want. When YOUR party is back in power, the tables will be turned. However, you won’t see us whine ‘n like you bratty liberals.

 

[freeandfun1]

Is that what you got out of that?

No, I don't want Bush nominating libera OR conservative judges. I want him to nominate mainstream judges with no political bent OTHER than ruling according to the law. Not in favor of special interests in any way, shape, or form.

Why don't you admit that no matter whom he put up there, the dems would bitch (unless it was a flaming liberal). You are taking a stance that is unrealistic because you are trying to look like you are taking the "high road". Every judge ever appointed was for a reason. They either supported something the president believed in or they were appointed to gain favor from the other party. Both sides are going to interpret things differently. That has been proven. Perhaps the problem is that because of politics, there really is no such thing as an impartial judge. Every judge is going to have an opinion.

Maybe you would prefer we feed the constitution into a computer and use it to determine the constitutionality of an arguement!