Sean Hannity Is Abandoning Bush

[Hagbard Celine]

He didn't say it was. He said conservative judges actively legislating from the bench is hypocritical. But you didn't say there would be activist conservative judges.

Well, if one type of viewpointed dominated the Supreme Court, wouldn't it be par for the course to see conservative-minded laws being favored instead of what is fair for everybody? I think objective moderates who don't support agendas are what should be on the Supreme Court. Wouldn't that be in everybody's interest?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Uh, because you're favoring one type of viewpoint over another while simultaneously shaming the other side for doing the same thing maybe?:huh:

You don't get it.

A conservative "viewpoint" is a "viewpoint" that does NOT CHANGE our U.S. Constitution.

There is no such thing as a conservative "activist" on the Court.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Liberals do that all the time.......

Does that make it okay for conservatives to do it?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Well, if one type of viewpointed dominated the Supreme Court, wouldn't it be par for the course to see conservative-minded laws being favored instead of what is fair for everybody? I think objective moderates who don't support agendas are what should be on the Supreme Court. Wouldn't that be in everybody's interest?

Is the court chock full of these objective moderates currently?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

You don't get it.

A conservative "viewpoint" is a "viewpoint" that does NOT CHANGE our U.S. Constitution.

There is no such thing as a conservative "activist".

Yes, but some people don't believe the constitution should be taken word for word for all of eternity.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

A conservative "viewpoint" is a "viewpoint" that does NOT CHANGE our U.S. Constitution.

There is no such thing as a conservative "activist".

Rulings promoting prayer in schools, banning abortion rights, banning gay marriage, banning assisted suicide, etc. would definately be looked at by many as being unfair, unconstitutional, agenda-driven rulings. Do you disagree?

 

[Mr. P]

Yes, but some people don't believe the constitution should be taken word for word for all of eternity.

But most do..

 

[Nuc]

I just have to answer this one even though it wasn't addressed to me.

Pundits like Hannity and Rush etc have loyal followings because the things they say touch a nerve with listeners in that they say what I and others have been thinking( for the most part) for a long while but had never heard publicly exclamated. I can relate to many things they say. You have to remember it was just within the past few years that conservatives had so many voices speaking for them and to to them, before that there was little if nothing.
Just as many liberals admired Bella Abzug, Molly Ivens, and now Michael Moore.

I was not referring to bush lover's hero worship of media figures like Hannity. I was referring to his hero worship of Bush. To the point that he expects pundits, whose job is to be critical and analytical, to refrain from criticizing the President. That's really immature in my view. The difference between a president and a dictator is that the president needs to withstand analysis and criticism.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Is the court *chock* full of these objective moderates currently?

Not necessarily. But should it be? I think yes.

Yes, but some people don't believe the constitution should be taken word for word for all of eternity.

Exactly. There's a reason the Constitution has been amended 27 times since it was ratified. I don't think the framers could have anticipated every issue we would face all the way into the country's future.

But most do..

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Yes, but some people don't believe the constitution should be taken word for word for all of eternity.

Yeah, anti-Constitutional, anti-Americans like Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Rulings promoting prayer in schools, banning abortion rights, banning gay marriage, banning assisted suicide, etc. would definately be looked at by many as being unfair, unconstitutional, agenda-driven rulings. Do you disagree?

I think all those things would be looked upon as unfair by liberals who are intent upon changing things, including our Constitution. When our Constitution was written there was nothing to provide for abortion "rights", gay marriages, or any form of suicide. The intent was to leave those kinds of decisions to the voters of the states. Since liberals can't win the vote they become Constitutional activists.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Yeah, anti-Constitutional, anti-Americans like Ruth Bader Ginsberg.




I think all those things would be looked upon as unfair by liberals who are intent upon changing things, including our Constitution. When our Constitution was written there was nothing to provide for abortion "rights", gay marriages, or any form of suicide. The intent was to leave those kinds of decisions to the voters of the states. Since liberals can't win the vote they become Constitutional activists.

I agree that most if not all of those issues should be voter issues.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

I think all those things would be looked upon as unfair by liberals who are intent upon changing things, including our Constitution. When our Constitution was written there was nothing to provide for abortion "rights", gay marriages, or any form of suicide. The intent was to leave those kinds of decisions to the voters of the states. Since liberals can't win the vote they become Constitutional activists.

Yeah, anything not specified in the Fed. Constitution would be determined by the states. But the fourteenth amendment, section one, does not allow states to make laws abridging any citizen's Constitutional rights. Abortion is a privacy rights issue. Gay rights are freedom of speech issues. Prayer in schools is a freedom of religion issue. Assisted Suicide is a privacy rights issue. Freedom of religion and speech are asserted in the First Amendment and privacy rights are implied in the Fourth Amendment. Is demanding that rights be honored activism in a country that is supposed to provide freedom and equality for all?

 

[archangel]

I agree that most if not all of those issues should be voter issues.

see decisions from California..Arnold hade to veto another attempt at legislating from the bench...we in Nevada voted against gay marriage too...so far no real challenge has been attempted!

 

[Freedom Lover]

I can't believe the hysteria that is taking place among many of you over the nomination of Harriet Meirs to the Supreme Court. I believe it is mostly the result of the elite conservatives, i.e. Wills and Krautkammer who were taken by suprise by the President by nominating someone who was not on their list of prospects. Frankly, I do not care one wit who they think should be nominated. Their vote does not count, nor does any of yours.

The President has a tremendous record on his appointments and equally so on keeping his word to the principles he campaigned on. He is not about to change who he is now to placate anyone, especially the socialist Democrats!
I think he has made a stroke of genius here by appointing Meirs because the Democrats were all geared to attack the prospect list and when her name came out they were left (no pun intended) speechless. It is going to be difficult for them to attack Meirs on much of anything which should make the confirmation less contentious. At least that is hoped for.

What do we get? We get an originalist, like the President says we will!

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I can't believe the hysteria that is taking place among many of you over the nomination of Harriet Meirs to the Supreme Court. I believe it is mostly the result of the elite conservatives, i.e. Wills and Krautkammer who were taken by suprise by the President by nominating someone who was not on their list of prospects. Frankly, I do not care one wit who they think should be nominated. Their vote does not count, nor does any of yours.

The President has a tremendous record on his appointments and equally so on keeping his word to the principles he campaigned on. He is not about to change who he is now to placate anyone, especially the socialist Democrats!
I think he has made a stroke of genius here by appointing Meirs because the Democrats were all geared to attack the prospect list and when her name came out they were left (no pun intended) speechless. It is going to be difficult for them to attack Meirs on much of anything which should make the confirmation less contentious. At least that is hoped for.

What do we get? We get an originalist, like the President says we will!

Elite conservatives. I love it.

And Bush has a tremendous record on his appointments? Really?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

The President has a tremendous record on his appointments and equally so on keeping his word to the principles he campaigned on.

We don't yet know anything about Roberts or Miers because they didn't answer any questions regarding their ideology and now many in the Republican party are bailing on Bush because of Miers.

Michael D. Brown was an Arabian horse show judge. He got fired, excuse me. He resigned after he did such a great job managing the disasters he was so qualified to handle.

Bush appointed veterinarian Norris Alderson to be the head of Women's Health at the FDA.

An unqualified attorney, Julie Myers, who had no experience working in customs or law enforcement was appointed to head the US Customs Enforcement Agency of the Department of Homeland Security.

And numerous top administration officials are being indicted almost weekly on criminal charges as well. We're currently awaiting the upcoming indictments of Plamegate, a possible case of treason.

Sure you don't want to rethink your statement, "The President has a tremendous record on his appointments?"

Also, there's an entire thread here that has to do with how Bush didn't stick to his campaign promises. It's called "Is Bush Really a Conservative?" It's one of many. Check them all out.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Yeah, anything not specified in the Fed. Constitution would be determined by the states. But the fourteenth amendment, section one, does not allow states to make laws abridging any citizen's Constitutional rights. Abortion is a privacy rights issue. Gay rights are freedom of speech issues. Prayer in schools is a freedom of religion issue. Assisted Suicide is a privacy rights issue. Freedom of religion and speech are asserted in the First Amendment and privacy rights are implied in the Fourth Amendment. Is demanding that rights be honored activism in a country that is supposed to provide freedom and equality for all?

Privacy rights have been stretched to irrational limits by liberals.
Freedom of religion has been shrunken to minimalist forms by liberals.
Freedom of speech has been both stretched and shrunken depending on the agenda of liberals.

In all of the above cases, the vote, and therefore the freedom of the people is being trampled upon by activist liberals in the courts.

 

[musicman]

And numerous top administration officials are being indicted almost weekly on criminal charges as well. We're currently awaiting the upcoming indictments of Plamegate, a possible case of treason.


Also babe, there's an entire thread here that has to do with how Bush didn't stick to his campaign promises. It's called "Is Bush Really a Conservative?" It's one of many. Check them out.

Also ALSO, snookums, there's an entire thread concerning the source of many of these indictments. It's called "Soros Fingerprints on DeLay Frame-up".

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Privacy rights have been stretched to irrational limits by liberals.
Freedom of religion has been shrunken to minimalist forms by liberals.
Freedom of speech has been both stretched and shrunken depending on the agenda of liberals.

Would you mind explaining what you mean here? What rights of yours have been "limited irrationally" or "shrunken" or "stretched" by evil liberals?

 

[archangel]

Also ALSO, snookums, there's an entire thread concerning the source of many of these indictments. It's called "Soros Fingerprints on DeLay Frame-up".

lighten up on the 'LittleDude' he is a actor wannabee...just check out his profile pic..."Lost Boys" movie ring a bell...if I were a 'casting director' well he would have been considered for the part!...he is just acting in here...but damn...no casting directors to be had...lol