GOP delegates eye Nov. 4 high court effect

MSNBC ^ | September 3, 2008 | Tom Curry

[dr_who]

Damn straight.

[Clintonfatigued]

This is perhaps the most important aspect of this election. Will we have a Surpreme Court which follows the Constitution and otherwise stays out of the political arena, or will we have a court of liberals who use the Court to impose leftist policies that could never be passed in the political process?

[cripplecreek]

I can’t help but think Gang of 14.

[Clintonfatigued]

The Gang of 14 wasn’t all that bad. They got Janice Rogers Brown, Pricilla Owen, and others cleared through the Senate, and seriously undermined the DemocRATS ability fo filibuster judicial nominees. Granted, we lost a few good nominees in the process, but we gained a lot, too.

[freeangel]

The thought of McCain nominating judges scares me. The thought of godbama nominating judges scares me to death.

[Norman Bates]

I can’t help but think Gang of 14.

I can't help but think Sarah Palin, oh ye of little faith.

[Norman Bates]

Are we talking about the same man who nominated Sarah Palin for VP? Cut him some slack.

[freeangel]

Yep—We are talking about the gang of ten, reach across the aisle and I’ll nominate democrats McCain.

[Norman Bates]

Yeah, McCain will nominate maybe two token Democrats to his cabinet. And Lieberman will be Sec of State or Defense.

So what? It’s a crowd pleaser with little meaning.

[EternalVigilance]

Since the court is composed of seven Republican-nominated “justices,” and only two who were Dem-nominated, and they’re still all a bunch of legal positivists who don’t understand the simple meaning of a simple word like “person,” it’s hard for me to be scare-mongered in this regard.

[William Tell]

EternalVigilance said: "... it’s hard for me to be scare-mongered in this regard."

Five out of seven Republican appointed Justices voted to uphold our Second Amendment rights in Heller. Neither of the two Democrat appointees were in the majority.

It's not scare-mongering to suggest that Democrat appointments jeopardize our freedoms.

[Salvation]

I don’t think you need to worry here. McCain will nominate pro-life judges.

[EternalVigilance]

It’s also completely factual to point out to you that John McCain also threatens our freedoms. Comprende?

[EternalVigilance]

McCain will nominate pro-life judges.

Not if Uncle Teddy doesn't let him.

[William Tell]

EternalVigilance said: "John McCain also threatens our freedoms."

ALL government threatens our freedoms. But I'm not sure how accurate or helpful it is to suggest that there isn't a world of difference between McCain and Obama.

[EternalVigilance]

ALL government threatens our freedoms.

That's ridiculous. All government does not threaten our freedoms. In the American sense, all government exists to protect God-given, unalienable rights, by the consent of the governed.

John McCain disdains that sort of goverment, and it isn't hard to prove.

If anything "isn't helpful," it is your attempt to cover John McCain's perfidy with "everybody does it" argumentation.

[William Tell]

EternalVigilance said: If anything "isn't helpful," it is your attempt to cover John McCain's perfidy with "everybody does it" argumentation.

Fine. Vote for Obama. Encourage your family and friends to vote for Obama. Because there just isn't any difference between the candidates. In fact, perhaps you don't even need to vote at all. Why waste your time?

[EternalVigilance]

Fine. Vote for Obama. Encourage your family and friends to vote for Obama.

No thanks. Unlike you, I don't vote for liberals, and neither do any of my family members or friends.

Because there just isn't any difference between the candidates.

Oh, there's a difference. It's just that both cyanide and strychnine will kill you if you drink them.

In fact, perhaps you don't even need to vote at all. Why waste your time?

Oh, I'll vote all right.

[William Tell]

EternalVigilance said: "Oh, I'll vote all right. "

Care to say for whom you will vote and why?