Posted on 02/14/2011 1:33:52 AM PST by pissant
No one has really been able to catch Palin in any of these things, but people have been able to work hard and catch her in complicated areas where both sides can make arguments.
What you’re saying then is what? in 08 McCain had a bad immigration policy and Palin had to follow it? That’s what i would say if I was in Palin’s spot. Was McCain’s position, not mine.
But his quote was in 10. His argument was “Palin agreed with McCain’s bad policies even when she didn’t have to” And your argument was basically “on that day, McCain had flipped or flopped himself into a good immigration policy. On that day McCain was trying to sell himself to his voters as a tough on border security conservative. Palin was agreeing with McCain on that specific day, and on that specific day McCain was Conservative.”
I don’t want to dig. For the most part, I can see both arguments.
No. It’s not just an argument. It’s a fact. Romney instituted gay marriage. To believe otherwise you have to think that courts can make laws. Do you believe courts can make laws? Can you show me the constitutional provisions that give them this authority?
Ah. In reexamining your post, I see that you do believe that courts can make laws.
If I had to name one thing that more than any other thing is destroying our country, it is that notion.
It's also apparent that you believe in judicial supremacy, in other words that the other branches of government, in this case the executive, are inferior to the judges, and have no constitutional duty to interpret the constitution they swore an oath to uphold and check the other branches accordingly.
This, in a nutshell, is the death of republican representative self-government. Courtesy of a bunch of "Republican" lawyers.
McCain had a come to God moment when he saw he was likely to lose his seat. He has been quite aggressive about a number of conservative issues of late and not anywhere near as eager to be the MSM's butt boy. He had his chance and now he just wants to be relevant, and that means conservative. McCain is many things, and pretty steady at some, others not so much. Palin has been steady on immigration but didn't make a big deal of it during the Presidential election, for the same reasons as you might think. McCain was busy pandering at the time.
However, Pissant's quote was drawn from a 2010 interview about their stances at that time specifically and Van Sustrand was expecting to find daylight between Palin and McCain but McCain came out with "Borders First" which is a big move from his previous attempts at "Comprehensive Reform." When McCain took this position, Palin could support him. Pissant however, just clipped the quote so that that little clarification would be missed.. So, that made his point a load of "&#E%$&"
You are lost in your own reality. In a world where 20 million humans will be rounded up and carried to the border and dumped or shot I suppose. You have no answers just the same. You just like to complain.
The reality is that those seats have been opened by the grizzly work of the Planned Parenthood Abortion mills and we need these people so ultimately we will educate them and make em citizens if the can pay the price and dance the dance. Live with it.
If you want to end the sucking sound in the south you must first end the sucking sound in every inner city neighborhood draining away our country's life blood and future. And, by the way, lets end our own tolerance for Blacks being subjugated by the Clovin-Piven Poverty pimps who have decimated this community for nearly 50 years now.
Worse, and this truly stinks, but we will ultimately have to legalize drugs and heavily tax and regulate them in order to finally win the drug war because just like when the alcohol prohibition gave us Al Capone and various other smuggling gangs, the drug war and the money changing hands in this trade fuels the horror and narco-fascism south of the border, driving folks to be desperate to escape to America. This has been avoided for so long for fear that this move would corrupt our government, but leave it to the bureaucrats to figure out how to take the fun out of anything.
There is lots of crap that no one wants to face, but we are getting to the place and time where we have no choice but to face all sorts of facts.
The Chinese will not loan us 26 Trillion dollars over the next 10 years. This means that the government has to start learning to say no. No to lots of things that are just vanity or people not wanting to face facts. No to colleges who want to charge $40,000 a year for tuition, no to seniors who's family wants that last week of intensive hospital intervention because they have no way to say no themselves and no idea what is being spent or why. No to all of those Government Union members who have been promised insanely generous retirement packages on the same basis that every American was duped into paying for an elaborate ponzie scam that has to belly up at some point, just like the Madoff's scheme seemed like it could run forever until it went belly up in the space of a week or two.
We are in for a heart wrenching, gut rending few years and the person who is going to inherit this mess will be our next President.
girlie-ping
I once spent some time on a shoot with Cameron Diaz, and she knew I was conservative yet she was as just as nice as she could be, every day.
I’m glad you had a pleasant encounter with her. For years she has been jumping around from man to man and it shows on her and so does substance abuse. She must be a pleasant flake
She must be a pleasant flake
And a very nice one.
I’m a Palin supporter, but you have a point with this.
Palin RT the Tammy Bruce thing a few weeks back. Then she “boycotts” CPAC because of GOProud. Then it turns out that Tammy Bruce is in GOProud.
First she Retweets Tammy Bruce then she boycotts CPAC because of Tammy Bruces organization.
Not consistent.
I like Tammy Bruce and Camille Paglia. Curiously, both give me an impression of clarity. I don’t care about their sexuality and I’m pretty sure they don’t care that I don’t care. I don’t see either as a homosexual activist, and as long as they mind their own business in that regard like everybody else, they’re both fine by me.
/shrug
Maybe I’ll change my opinion of her
you see luscious breasts...save the poetry for Keats
It’s not a belief, it’s a fact. Maybe you are asking the wrong question. I don’t believe courts SHOULD make laws. Unfortunately, neither does the Mass. Supreme Court, and in fact I don’t find courts arguing that point.
Courts have assumed the power to interpret laws, and to judge laws based on the constitution, against other laws, and unfortunately it seems based on their own whims.
I’ve addressed this court case extensively in the past, with full citations to the court’s own opinion, and contemporaneous news articles and discussions by real conservative lawyers. I won’t try to find those old links or reproduce here.
The Mass. Court asserts that it did not write or re-write a law, but merely interpreted it. They looked at the law which had the words “one man and one woman”. They then applied a common-law test, and decided that for the purpose of the marriage statute, the word “man” was inclusive. They used some weird interpretation of “common law” and international precidents to argue then that “man and woman” were both gender-neutral usages of the terms.
NOTE: This is not an entirely bizarre notion. There are many laws that used the word “man” that had to be interpreted to apply to both men and women at some point, sometimes because of constitutional changes (for example, when women were given the right to vote, laws which had the word “man” in them for voting were interpreted to apply to both “man” and “woman”). I’m not agreeing with the court’s use in this case, but it is something that has precident.
Anyway, the court, having decided to INTERPRET the marriage statute’s words “man” and “woman” to be gender neutral, then ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, saying that since the marriage statute as interpreted allowed two men or two women to be married, they could marry.
THEN, the court, as courts often do when they find a new interpretation for the words of a statute, STAYED their order for 6 months. I hope you understand what the word “stay” means — that they had made a ruling of force, but had temporarily stopped the application of that rule. Those who argue the court did “nothing” ignore the meaning.
The 6 month stay was to allow the legislature to FIX the statute, to make it more clear if they wanted to that the terms “man” and “woman” meant opposite sex.
Note that this was a different issue from the constitutional question of whether the state legislature COULD restrict marriage — that would be a constitutional question, and as you imply, on a constitutional matter the court can VOID a law, but not re-write it. I think this is where most people get confused.
If the court had decided that constitutionally, marriage was open to same-sex couples, theoretically the most they could do would be to throw out the marriage law altogether, since they couldn’t “re-write” it. They got around that with their re-interpretation of the clear words of the statute.
This is not a judicial crisis though. The point of staying such rulings is so the legislature has time to correct a “mis-interpretation” the court may have mdea. The legislature in this case CHOSE not to argue the interpretation of the court. The duly-elected legislature of massachussetts decided that the court had properly interpreted their marriage statute.
If the people disliked that, they could have voted those legislators OUT OF OFFICE, and voted in people who would have fixed the marriage law. And if the court then found that unconstitutional, they would vote in legislators who would allow them to change the constitution.
But unfortunately, the people of Mass. appear to have no problem with gay marriage. They didn’t remove legislators.
So you can blame Romney for telling the executive branch officials to follow the marriage law as interpreted by the Supreme Court. I think he could have
BTW, I don’t believe in judicial supremacy, but i do believe in judicial review.
I would note that at this time, conservatives are arguing very hard for judicial review, in the fight against Obamacare. We seem to expect the Obama Administration to obey the ruling of a judge in Florida throwing out a law.
BTW, I don’t believe in judicial supremacy, but i do believe in judicial review.
A distinction without a difference.
Fair enough, I’ve had many people say that Palin gave no specific antiCPAC reasons why she didn’t attend. And most were saying there was no Palin boycott.
Supporting “judicial review” means, at a minimum, supporting a judicial veto power over all legislation.
Can you point me to where courts or judges are granted such powers in the Constitution? I seem to have missed that. Looks to me like it is only the executive branch that has been given that authority.
No direct mention — isn’t that interesting? We created a full-blown judicial system, and didn’t spell out what their job was.
On the other hand, at some level judicial review is not a power the government takes over the people, but rather a power one branch of government takes over another branch in limiting the power of government over the people (as the act of voiding a law as unconstitutional has at it’s root the limitation of the power of government to pass laws).
I believe the judiciary has the power to find laws unconstitutional.
On the other hand, it is much more clear that the job of the judiciary is to interpret the laws and their application. The act of determining a person’s guilt or innocence in regards to a law hinges on determining the meaning and application of the law.
So, if I want to get married, and the executive tells me I can’t, and I think the law actually says I can, I can turn to the judicial system, sue the executive, and claim that they are misinterpreting the law.
And the judicial system, the arbiter over whether someone or some entity is following the law, can rightly judge whether I am right, or the executive is right.
And they can do that “rightly”, but do it WRONG. It’s nice when they do it right, but the power to do unfortunately includes the power to do it wrong. The idea of “staying” a ruling is a mitigating factor for “doing it wrong” — giving the legislature a chance to correct the misinterpretation of a law.
So I don’t think this ruling hinges on a belief of whether judges have a right to void laws they deem unconstitutional — because the court ruled on an interpretation of a law, and found an interpretation that was subject to legislative correction, a correction the legislature refused to make.
I also believe their improper constitutional interpretation would have sunk such an attempt, but it should have been tried. The executive pushed for the legislature to do so, but the legislature refused.
SO many different ideas and concept tied up in this little conversation. Judicial veto power over all legislation? As I said, we are counting on that with Obamacare, with the courts determining the law to be an unconstitutional intrusion, and VOIDING the law. Do you disagree?
DO you believe that if the executive and legislative branches decide together, they have the power to force upon the people unconstitutional laws, with no chance for redress through the judicial system? This isn’t as “gotcha” as it sounds, since the people have the power of elections, and could therefore vote out those who act unconstitutionally.
EXCEPT that one function of the constitution is to protect a minority, especially a small, hated minority, from the tyranny of a voting majority. Without the judicial system having the power to void a law, there is nothing to stop the majority of voters from electing people in both other branches who would then trample the rights of the minority, making a mockery of the constitutional protections and liberties.
This is different from the judges who would force laws to be written, or re-written, to suit their fancy. I’m not nearly as scared of a court which voids laws, which as I said is an act of limitation on government. It is a rare time when the people truly require a law from the government to be free, and prosperous; rarer still for the court to VOID a law that was critical to our existance.
Would that courts did nothing more than void laws they find unconstitutional. The courts do much more damage when they find clearly unconstitutional laws to be valid, and allow the government to trample our rights.
Yeah, I got your position. I’m of the opinion that Palin quotes when she’s sitting next to McCain, when the media is going to trying to cause problems, aren’t the best ways to figure out what Palin’s actual position is or might be.
The result of this back and forth, to me, is huh? I’m not getting the impression on this one that anyone won this. It’s a tie more or less, no clear victory. No doubt that you are strenghtening your position. But it doesn’t really matter too much to me. My position is unlikely to change really soon, Palin is a great vote getter, but she’s not my first choice on policy. I believe that “first female president” would be huge for the Republicans. I also believe that we’ve elected Republican Presidents who said they were Conservative, and grew government.
I like Palin, and I like Ron Paul. Basically, I prefer Ron Paul on the issues, and I think Palin is more electable, probably the most electable of all Republican candidates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.