Well, now... be fair, though. Holding Fat Teddy's favorite sockpuppet accountable for anything he happens to gibber, at any given point, is like holding Lambchop accountable for the actions of Shari Lewis. ;)
Posted on 05/19/2008 5:38:52 AM PDT by kellynla
Actions speak louder than words. McCain can talk all he wants about appointing strict constructionists and the dangers of judicial activism. The abomination that is McCain-Feingold shows his real feelings on the Constitution.
Do we want a President who appoints judges based on feelings like “empathy” and populist notions such as “the powerless versus the powerful,” or do we want a President who appoints judges based on qualification and a strict interpretation of the Constitution?
You are not goingto get the judges that McCain is talking about. Not with the Democrats in control of the Senate and Mr. “aisle crosser” in the oval office.
Reagan and Bush got hundreds of such judges confirmed with the Democrats in control of Congress. The President is the mover, and while Bush is effectively blocked now because he is unpopular and his term is ending soon, a new President will have much more of a mandate.
“Reagan and Bush got hundreds of such judges confirmed with the Democrats in control of Congress.”
What you have is a possible POTUS that is BEST known for crossing the aisle to do things in a bi-partisan (back stab the base) way. You will also have a strong democrat Senate. On the off chance that by a total FLUKE McGore sends up a constructionist judge, the dems will simply tell him no. He will then go to them on bended knee and BEG Pat Leahy and the boys to pick his judges FOR him. You know it, I know it, anyone that has watched this pr*ck for the last ten years knows it.
Delude yourself all you want, that is what will happen.
You’re very cynical. Sorry, I can’t help you.
“You’re very cynical.”
I am also correct.
7 of the current 9 justices on the court have been appointed by Reps.
Never know unless McCain’s elected.
That’s true but organizations like the Federalist Society and a stronger vetting process have improved the quality of judges in recent years. In SCOTUS picks, we are three for our last three. G.W. Bush’s judges have actually been rated as slightly to the right of Reagan’s and his father’s.
?? LOL. You have no flippin’ idea of what the 5th Amendment says, do you? Maybe you are trying to babble about the “equal protection” clause in the 14th Amendment (which obviously was NEVER intended to suggest a “right” to gay marriage) because the 5th Amendment is about criminal law and protection against unjust trial:
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
“Never know unless McCain’s elected.”
No matter which liberal is elected this year, may God help us all.
The Democrats play on widespread ignorance of what judicial power is, buying votes on the pretense that its perfectly acceptable for Democratic-sympathizing justices to make the Constitution mean anything that they want it to mean, the Article V will of the conservative majority as reflected by the Constitution be damned.
With that in mind, why don't we seize the opportunity provided by the MSM's deification of Obama to permanently de-claw the IRS and get God back into the public school classrooms?
This post (<-click), while addressing taxes, helps to explain why government "leaders" like Obama are actually in contempt of the Constitution that they have sworn to defend, foolishly following in the footsteps of FDR's dirty federal spending politics.
In fact, the article referenced below shows that Obama is the #1 federal spending proposer in the Senate for '08; Clinton is #2.
Obama, a big-shot federal spenderAnd this post (<-click) exposes how corrupt justices then began using FDR's politically correct license to ignore the 10th A. to unlawfully stifle traditional family values, including the USSC's scandalous legalization of abortion in Roe v. Wade. Note that the post first references two non-abortion cases in order to show Roe v. Wade in a different, troubling perspective.
In fact, consider that the states have the constitutional power (10th A.) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory (14th A.) classroom discussions on the pros and cons of evolution, creationism and ID, as examples, regardless that atheists, separatists, pagan-minded judges and the MSM are misleading the people to think that doing such things in public schools is unconstitutional.
The people need to reconnect with the Founder's division of federal and state government powers. The people then need to wise up to the major problems that, since the days of FDR's dirty politics, Congress has not only not been operating with the restraints of the federal Constitution, particularly where constitutionally unauthorized federal spending is concerned, but the USSC has wrongly been ignoring the 10th A. protected power of the states to address religious issues.
The bottom line is that the people need to get in the faces of judges, demanding that judges uphold their oaths to defend the 10th A. protected powers of the states to address religious issues - or get off the bench. The people also need to send big-shot, Constitution-ignoring federal spenders like Obama home as opposed to trying to send people like him to the Oval Office. The people need to get in the faces of members of Congress, demanding a stop to constitutionally unauthorized federal spending while appropriately lowering federal taxes - or get out of DC.
Lincoln put it this way.
"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln, Political debates between Lincoln and Douglas, 1858.
We had to shame him out of Harriet Miers.
McCain--good on judges. No axe-murderers need apply!
Human Events, Oct 10, 2005
Human Events: Do you see any hard evidence that Harriet Myers is the Scalia-Thomas type constitutionalist Bush promised to name to the court?SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R.-ARIZ.): She hasn't served on any courts, so obviously we don't have any court decisions, but clearly she has a very conservative position on most issues. She displayed those when she was head of the Texas Bar Association.
Human Events: What issues were those?
MCCAIN: I don't know. They just tell me that she did. I haven't reviewed her record.
Human Events: If it doesn't pan out that she did, would you consider a "no" vote?
MCCAIN: If it turns out she's a Communist, I would consider a "no" vote. Or, perhaps an arsonist, or an axemurderer, but we have to review it. I am favorably disposed toward her and want to see the hearings. That's why we have the hearings.
MCCAIN STATEMENT ON THE NOMINATION OF HARRIET E. MIERS, October 3, 2005
I commend the President for his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court of the United States. Over the course of thirty years, Ms. Miers has accumulated vast experience as a legal practitioner, led her peers as the head of state and local bar associations, and worked tirelessly as a dedicated public servant. Her record is one of deep commitment to the law and service to our nation. If the Senate confirms Ms. Miers, she will be only the third woman to have served on the highest court of our nation. Her accomplishments demonstrate that the distinction would be well deserved. I trust that Ms. Miers will have a smooth confirmation process and receive a swift up-or-down vote in the Senate.
What rights, exactly, do you contend that fags and ‘other minorities’ don’t have? Or do you want them to have special rights?
Human Events: What issues were those?
MCCAIN: I don't know. They just tell me that she did. I haven't reviewed her record.
***********************
Okay. This is the sort of answer a very small, not-too-terribly-bright child might give.
A very small, not-too-terribly-bright child suffering from massive cranial trauma.
Who'd been drinking.
Well, now... be fair, though. Holding Fat Teddy's favorite sockpuppet accountable for anything he happens to gibber, at any given point, is like holding Lambchop accountable for the actions of Shari Lewis. ;)
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.