It seems that over the years judges have to prove to democratic senators that they are not "too conservative."
Why is it a crime to have conservative values, mainly believing that the law should be interpreted. It has been the argument that judges are allowed to advance liberal belief systems and agenda from the bench.
Why is it when a Democrat nominates a very liberal Supreme Court justice Republicans vote them in, because the American people voted in a Democrat, meaning at the time the American people agree with that persons philosophy.
Well, GWB has won two elections, and the house and senate have won seats since 1994. It seems very clearly that the American people are thinking more on the right side for the last 11 plus years. So why does Judge Robert's face so much scrutiny?
He has been given the highest rating by the ABA.
Votes of Judges:
William H. Rehnquist (nominated by a republican) 1971 vote...68-26
John Paul Stevens (republican) 1975 vote...98-0
Sandra Day O'Connor (republican) 1981 vote...99-0
Antonin Scalia (republican) 1986 vote....98-0
Anthony Kennedy (republican) 1987... 97-0
David Souter (republican) 1990 vote...90-9
Clarence Thomas (republican) 1991 vote...52-48 (democrats still controlled senate)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (democrat) 1993 vote....96-3
Stephen G. Breyer (democrat) 1994 vote... 87-9
Okay...answer a few questions...
What happened between Scalia and now? How can the senate go from a 98-0 vote on a definite conservative, to probably a 70-30 vote on a moderate?
answer is....Liberals know this is all they have left...this is the only way they can get their agenda passed...
How does a far left liberal get confirmed 96-3?
Republicans know the American people elected Clinton, so he gets to choose who he wants...
Why do judges get attacked on being strict constructionists of the constitution? Since liberals hate that mind set, does that mean their way of thinking (activist judges) is the only way to think? Does that make liberals "tolerant?"
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Is being conservative a crime?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
21 comments:
wow, you are very intelligent. The depth and scope of your knowledge is overwhelming.
You must have been captain of your debate team.
I am stupid if having a masters degree and graduating from college magna cum laude is stupid...
but to a coward like yourself, stupid is anyone conservative, or someone who makes such flawless arguments that hey can not be debated.
Wow, Game..........Nice honors in college.
I still haven't graduated, but did get an honor: "Come Loud". :)
---------
As for "WHY"?
You are absolutely correct about the Dems....They are desperate for a win of any kind.
They lost the Hill in 96, and I don't really see them reclaiming it anytime soon.
And then think about this:
Since 1968, they've only had a Dem president for 12 of the years.
That's 12 of 37 years!!! 3 of 10 terms!!!
And had it not been for that damn Nixon, who knows if they would have had any.
If I were them, I'd be a filibustering fool.....Which they are, and really they can't even control this without the help of a few Rhino's.
So, all they can do is perpetually bust balls and make a lot of noise...Which is what they do best.
Practice makes perfect.
The Democrats on the judiciary committee know that Roberts will be approved by the Senate. They simply want to make the public aware of what they are getting, what the conservative agenda means to them in a real and personal way.
Is that unfair, unreasonable? I think it's their duty to do so.
Pick a year. Dems have held the White House 36 of the last 68 years, more than half.
hey jim, we were worried you got scared off...glad to see you back.
The innane ravings of Kennedy and Biden that I saw on TV yesterday are going to assure America of at least 6 more years of Republican control in my opinion. They think American's are so stupid, that they won't be called on this.
Mark...
I don't see the outrage in the paper or on the TV shows for yesterday or for todays walk out...
Ginsburg was voted in 96-3, she is a crazy liberal...one side has no class at all.
As near as I can tell, your argument hinges entirely on a dubious definition of what is and is not "far left".
Justice Ginsburg is not a radical; she's a judicial minimalist. And her name was first proposed to President Clinton by... Orrin Hatch, who was the ranking minority member on the Judiciary Committee.
liberals love to bring that up...
are these thoughts mainstream ben...
The legalization of prostitution
Coed prisons for men and women
Polygamy may be a constitutionally protected right
Federal funding for abortion
So we're evaluating "thoughts", as opposed to writings or theories of law? While I don't believe for one moment that Justice Ginsburg holds the positions you (without any source whatsoever) are attributing to her, I would point out that no, none of those ideas is "far left".
(1) is a libertarian position, (2) is a bureaucratic issue that is concerned entirely with things like practicality and efficiency, (3) is a meaningless hedge ("may be"), and (4) is supported by, depending on the exact wording of the poll, somewhere between a significant plurality and a majority of Americans.
you are completely insane if you think a majority of Americans would support federally funded baby killing.
I know what you are saying...sometimes when polls are worded to force an answer, you can get a slight majority to agree...
but if the question of partial birth abortion comes up...around 80% say no..
and I am trusting the word of Sen. Lindsey Graham for Ginsburg's rulings
I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but I would recommend http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm.
There's a consistent 2/3 pro-choice majority in this country.
I can't find specific polling data for Medicaid spending on abortion (which has been illegal since the 70s, I believe), but certainly a large majority of Americans are in favor of federally funded stem-cell research. I don't know if you consider that "baby killing" or not.
And of course, both of those things are totally separate from partial-birth abortion. Even there, your 80% number is misleading. 20% believe it should always be legal, an additional 41% believe it should be legal if medically necessary for the health or life of the mother, and 33% believe it should always be illegal.
None of this matters, because my point is simply that Justice Ginsburg is not from the "far left"; her judicial philosophy is quite restrained, and she gives a great deal of latitude to the legislature.
As far as Senator Graham's oratory, I suspect he is either a) distorting information or b) extrapolating weird ideas from past rulings, which aren't at all justified by the context. If you want to discuss Ginsburg's actual rulings further, I'd be happy to do so, but you would need to find the actual cases in question.
first, your own link proves what I am trying to say...
page down...don't just look at the first line...only 28% of Americans want aborion to be legal in all cases (partial birth)...so based on the link you provided, I was only 8% off...
I am in the health field...stem cells is tricky and touchy...I will not say at this point that it is baby killing as obviously partial birth abortion is...
I found a site that has all her decisions, don't care or have enough time right now to go over all of them...If you know a site that has key cases explained...and don't send liberal sites that slant the rulings...maybe I can look at them...
another thing, even though many want abortion only legal in cases of rape or for the safety of the mother, that is almost 0% of abortion cases...especially for the safety and health of the mother...so if you take that fact out...many Americans would say that aborion is not necessary...
answer this with a yes or no answer...take out the health of the mother issue (which really does not exist)...do you think partial birth abortion is wrong?
Yes, I think late term abortion is absolutely wrong, unless medically necessary for the life or health of the mother.
I think the right to an early term abortion is a fundamental matter of freedom and privacy.
I don't know where I would draw the line between the two, and fortunately, I'll never have to. In light of the fact that there is broad disagreement about where that line should be, I'm inclined to defer to a woman's individual decision in the matter. I don't particularly care if we draw the line at 20 weeks or 24 weeks, for example.
That deference is the only way a diverse and pluralistic society like ours can work.
Game,
I just blew off that one thread. As long as debate is civil, I'm here, but when it gets to personal attacks, I have no patience for that.
Ben b, see the later post re Ginsberg. I agree with you. She did, however, apparently contribute to a report where she suggested that the age of consent in statutory rape cases should be 12. Of course in many cultures, a 12 year old girl is approaching "old maid" status. :-)
Scorpion says--
Always interesting to find someone called "anonymous" who can't look up the background information to find out the real scoop on the blog entries. Still, that makes it real easy to see who anyone with intelligence should feel sorry for. Sorry, anonymous,lots of educated people may now feel sorry for you.Hey! GAME! Looks like you have another "U.W."(uninformed whiner)talking directly to that other"U.W." That's great! It gives us members of "Old School" another person to be amused by. This will allow these "U.W.'s" someone to discuss their drivel with without having to respond to accurate statements. This should give me a good laugh on a daily basis.Wonderful.Keep them whining away with all that imaginary expertise and"factual information."
Being conservative is a crime. You want God in school and in the public sphere CRIME! You want to prevent the killing of babies CRIME! You support your President and his decisions while in office CRIME! You want anti-terrorism measures to protect the country CRIME! You want to stop illegal immigration and enforce our borders CRIME! Ask the ACLU since they have pursued all of these issues through the courts. Normal American life is a crime but a progressive social agenda is A-OK.
you are completely insane if you think a majority of Americans would support federally funded baby killing.
Why? We support many varied other types of killing. Some for "societal good" some not.
Ave Joe said: You support your President and his decisions while in office.
Damn am I gonna hold you to that one!!!!
Frankly I have no problem with most of what you said here. I think you will find it's about the execution of said ideals where you will find the disagreement.
Post a Comment