Supreme Court

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 11:39 pm

Do you think Bush will get to nominate a person of his choosing to the Supreme Court, or will those stubborn Democrats block every person that he nominates?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1273, old post ID:16291

fragged one · Post by **fragged one** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 11:56 pm

i'm sure he'll eventually get one of his constitutional obstructionists through.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1273, old post ID:16292

sintekk · Post by **sintekk** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:25 am

I bet he gets someone in

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1273, old post ID:16294

MrSelf · Post by **MrSelf** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:41 am

I think it's still up in the air, and a lot depends on the elections in 2 years and what happens in the supreme court until then. I would certainly be fearfull if the person of his choosing was made justice, his record shows a much different view than his election claims.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1273, old post ID:16298

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:50 am

Doesn't Congress have to have some valid basis for rejecting a nomination, other than being scared of the way a non-activist justice might decide a case?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1273, old post ID:16303

fragged one · Post by **fragged one** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:52 am

Bookworm wrote: Doesn't Congress have to have some valid basis for rejecting a nomination, other than being scared of the way a non-activist justice might decide a case?

i know you said 'non-activist', but you meant 'constitutional-obstructionist', as you were talking about a bush appointee...

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1273, old post ID:16304

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:57 am

fragged one wrote:
Bookworm wrote: Doesn't Congress have to have some valid basis for rejecting a nomination, other than being scared of the way a non-activist justice might decide a case?

i know you said 'non-activist', but you meant 'constitutional-obstructionist', as you were talking about a bush appointee...

No, I do believe I meant non-activist. I'm just glad Kerry won't have a chance to nominate anyone.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1273, old post ID:16306

MrSelf · Post by **MrSelf** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:00 am

Bookworm wrote:
fragged one wrote:
Bookworm wrote: Doesn't Congress have to have some valid basis for rejecting a nomination, other than being scared of the way a non-activist justice might decide a case?

i know you said 'non-activist', but you meant 'constitutional-obstructionist', as you were talking about a bush appointee...

No, I do believe I meant non-activist. I'm just glad Kerry won't have a chance to nominate anyone.

You really think Bush is going to appoint someone respectable? What exactly do you think he looks for in a candidate? The people he talks about are obviously right of the mainstream, to steal a bushism.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1273, old post ID:16307

fragged one · Post by **fragged one** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:05 am

we're talking about the same man that appointed john ashcroft. 'constitutional-obstructionist' is a very light term for this fuckface.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1273, old post ID:16309

FloodG8-9595 · Post by **FloodG8-9595** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:24 am

fragged one wrote: we're talking about the same man that appointed john ashcroft. 'constitutional-obstructionist' is a very light term for this fuckface.

yeah I actually think the term 'fuckface' is more acurate for him.

Bush will appoint someone who will get HIS agenda passed.. anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool (my apologies to you fools for calling you fools)

Now if you agree that Bush's agenda is 100% correct and..uh Ha HAH HAH AHHA

uh... oh excuse me.. I uh ha.. had somthing funny in my throat..

.. then right on for you and the eventual downfall of this country through the eventual creation of a totalitarian throcracey.... ok so maybe thats a little overboard but, you get the point.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1273, old post ID:16310

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:48 pm

I'm sure Kerry would have been just as likely to nominate judges with HIS agenda as you claim Bush is. In fact, Kerry said he wouldn't even consider a pro-life judge. Ia that not an "agenda?" I don't even know what you mean by constitutional-obstructionist. If that is someone who opposes the constitutional-revisionists, then I say we need more of them.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1273, old post ID:16318

fragged one · Post by **fragged one** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:59 pm

john ashcroft = constitutional obstructionist

devise from that what you wish.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1273, old post ID:16319

FloodG8-9595 · Post by **FloodG8-9595** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 6:15 pm

Bookworm wrote: I'm sure Kerry would have been just as likely to nominate judges with HIS agenda as you claim Bush is. In fact, Kerry said he wouldn't even consider a pro-life judge. Ia that not an "agenda?" I don't even know what you mean by constitutional-obstructionist. If that is someone who opposes the constitutional-revisionists, then I say we need more of them.

Oh I agree with you... I just happen to think that Kerry's views are closer to mine than Bush's views. No politician will ever be my perfect candidate and the very nature of being a politician contradicts it anyhow.

I would call John Ashcroft a person with outdated ideas who feels that they are still relevent to society. He like so many others fell prey to being "comfortable" in the knowlage and opinions that they have. Or pride.

We are looking for a group of people to "give us" all the answers.. Lets start looking for ourselves and writing our representatives so that they can start representing us. APATHY is why people like John Ashcroft havent been given the old heave ho. People think that this adminisration knows whats best for them and are willing to hand over control. I think this is folly with any administration. We have to start making these people accountable for the decisions that they make on our behalf and not letting Fox News or CNN or MSNBC make the calls for us. Listen to the information, Take what you will from the opinion. and then educate yourself and make a decision based on those facts. This is such a simple task that so many in this moral-drunk country fail at so miserably...

but I guess that's the way the cookie crumbles the masses will allways be sheep and the politicians the sheppards.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1273, old post ID:16327

fragged one · Post by **fragged one** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:54 pm

absolutely, flood...however, the worst part, is people do this and STILL vote for the two major parties.

those are the people with the dirtiest hands of them all, because they actually know better, but they still refuse to try and make a real difference.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1273, old post ID:16332

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 9:05 pm

Even third-party candidates have their own "agendas," and I'm sure if one of them got voted in with an agenda you didn't like, you guys would still be frustrated with the uneducated masses of apathetic sheep with their dirty hands.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1273, old post ID:16338

FloodG8-9595 · Post by **FloodG8-9595** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 9:19 pm

Bookworm wrote: Even third-party candidates have their own "agendas," and I'm sure if one of them got voted in with an agenda you didn't like, you guys would still be frustrated with the uneducated masses of apathetic sheep with their dirty hands.

True to some degree everyone has an agenda.. but, if you give someone 9 choices instead of focusing exlusivly only on 2 you represent a greater majority of the makup of the most diverse country on the face of the planet (the US)
As I've said no one is perfect and everyone is out to get somthing but believe it or not there are people who are willing to lead us in the correct direction and not just in the direction that is immediatly convienent to the individual. It sickens me to think of how narrow minded we have become. Blinded by what? National Pride? I guess that's right. People say look at the big picture and so I say it to everyone now. Stop looking at us as a country vs. a counrty. Stop looking at things as if we are the shiznit of the universe and let's get our

together.

I feel that the truth is in self governing but we are far from that as a race though i feel we will eventually reach that point. Less government interference with my life is a positive thing. They should be there when I need them and at no other time.. that is the reason they are there and we should not be so quick to forget this fact. A government of and for the people remember? well that's not really what we have anymore is it? It's to protect the people from our own decisions now.. It's to keep us in a tight little bundle of warmth and let the feds worry about the big bad drugs and terrorists.. I'm tired of ranting now..

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1273, old post ID:16343

fragged one · Post by **fragged one** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 9:20 pm

Bookworm wrote: Even third-party candidates have their own "agendas," and I'm sure if one of them got voted in with an agenda you didn't like, you guys would still be frustrated with the uneducated masses of apathetic sheep with their dirty hands.

every politician has an agenda, it's pretty much a requirement before deciding to run for elected office...

what matters in the united states, however, is how that agenda fits in with the american constitution.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1273, old post ID:16345

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:34 pm

fragged one wrote:
Bookworm wrote: Even third-party candidates have their own "agendas," and I'm sure if one of them got voted in with an agenda you didn't like, you guys would still be frustrated with the uneducated masses of apathetic sheep with their dirty hands.

every politician has an agenda, it's pretty much a requirement before deciding to run for elected office...

what matters in the united states, however, is how that agenda fits in with the american constitution.

The question then becomes: How should the constitution be interpreted, with original intent in mind or as a document with meanings that change with the times?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1273, old post ID:16364

fragged one · Post by **fragged one** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:10 am

Bookworm wrote:
fragged one wrote:
Bookworm wrote: Even third-party candidates have their own "agendas," and I'm sure if one of them got voted in with an agenda you didn't like, you guys would still be frustrated with the uneducated masses of apathetic sheep with their dirty hands.

every politician has an agenda, it's pretty much a requirement before deciding to run for elected office...

what matters in the united states, however, is how that agenda fits in with the american constitution.

The question then becomes: How should the constitution be interpreted, with original intent in mind or as a document with meanings that change with the times?

obviously with the frame of mind that the framers had...the framers of the constitution had things to say about future interpretation, as well, and said that it should be looked upon as absolute and unchanging.

it is not a 'living document', by any means, and i'm offended that anyone would say as such.

the problem, is that there are very few in washington that even know what the constitution says. 85% of all laws are unconstitutional, as the constitution didn't even give the legislature permission to legislate said legislation.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1273, old post ID:16367

FloodG8-9595 · Post by **FloodG8-9595** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:35 am

fragged one wrote:
Bookworm wrote:
fragged one wrote:

every politician has an agenda, it's pretty much a requirement before deciding to run for elected office...

what matters in the united states, however, is how that agenda fits in with the american constitution.

The question then becomes: How should the constitution be interpreted, with original intent in mind or as a document with meanings that change with the times?

obviously with the frame of mind that the framers had...the framers of the constitution had things to say about future interpretation, as well, and said that it should be looked upon as absolute and unchanging.

it is not a 'living document', by any means, and i'm offended that anyone would say as such.

the problem, is that there are very few in washington that even know what the constitution says. 85% of all laws are unconstitutional, as the constitution didn't even give the legislature permission to legislate said legislation.

one hell of a conundrum eh?

I think that some things should take effect on the document. I don't think that removing any of the origional meaning of the document was ever intended to happen. Or anything ridiculous to be added ie. amendment to make marraige one thing (can you say "waste of time and money"?)

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1273, old post ID:16369

MrSelf · Post by **MrSelf** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:37 pm

fragged one wrote:
it is not a 'living document', by any means, and i'm offended that anyone would say as such.

+1

The framers' intent is very clear, unless you make no effort to look for the information. It is not a living document, they meant to make it very clear what the federal government could and couldn't do, and then gave us a way to change it if needed. I guess if you look at it the right way, it could be considered a living document in that it has the ability to change, but not the way conventionalist use the term 'living document'.

fragged one wrote: the worst part, is people do this and STILL vote for the two major parties.

This is something I've wanted to address for a while; it's not that they are voting for the party, but for the person. People exist outside the party all the time, though I think there can be little doubt that the worst part of politics seems to be the political party's power. I can name lots of people, who dispite being a part of a part I don't completely agree with, have views and do things I support. I would vote for that person regardless of their party, unless they started sacrificing doing what's right for doing what the party wanted.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1273, old post ID:16385

fragged one · Post by **fragged one** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:59 pm

you're right, mrself, i made a very broad generalization. ron paul, a republican from texas, is one man i would DEFENITELY vote for, even if he was running on the republican ticket.

i guess my problem is really those that are party loyalists, such as mr. kerry, mr. daschle, mr. hatch, or 90% of the other people in washington.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1273, old post ID:16400