This man, at least to me, seems to be an enigma. I am earnestly hoping that he is a moderate, but I cannot confirm these wishes as all of his answers seem to be political, yet don't belie a particular affiliation. Any idea on the man?
Sir Lucious Left Foot
Justice Roberts
This man, at least to me, seems to be an enigma. I am earnestly hoping that he is a moderate, but I cannot confirm these wishes as all of his answers seem to be political, yet don't belie a particular affiliation. Any idea on the man?
Under patronage of Emperor Dimitricus Patron of vikrant1986, ErikinWest, VOP2288
Anagennese, the Rise of the Black Hand
MacMillan doesn't compensate for variable humidity,wind speed and direction or the coriolis effect. Mother nature compensates for where Macmillan's crosshairs are.
Civitate
Hopefully, for my part, he is a conservative in the Rehnquist / Scalia / Thomas model. Another Souter is the last thing I want to see.
And I can't begin to explain how absurd it is for liberals to worry about abortion and gay rights. The history of this country has been one long march of progress in civil rights. Although there may have been a few cases of "two steps forward, one step back", the march has always been forward in the long run and social conservatives have always been on the losing side. Roe won't be overturned and gays will eventually have the right to be married, despite strong opposition to gay marriage in the states.
Vicarius Provinciae
The last thing liverals want is for some of the there agenda to be voted on, because they lose every time.
As a teenager, I was taken to various houses and flats above takeaways in the north of England, to be beaten, tortured and raped over 100 times. I was called a “white slag” and “white ****” as they beat me.
-Ella Hill
Cloudy
That's why they lost Roe Vs. Wade, huh?
In patronicum svb lt1956
He's not referring to a 'vote' on the Supreme Court. He's talking about a vote on the subject by the American people. The idea is that liberals cannot win by having the people vote on their issues. They can only win when the courts, their gods, decide for us.Originally Posted by nahirean
Because the voting public says they WANT rights and equality, but will never vote to give them on an individual basis. The long list of evils supported by the general public in the nation's history is staggering. The desire for rights and equality should, and does, trump the hypocrisy of the public in voting for rights in general, but against them every step of the way regarding individual rights.
Ignoranti, quem portum petat, nullus suus ventus est. - Seneca
Good Matey
I would assert that he's qualified to be a justice, but not chief justice because of his relatively young age.
As Churchill once said, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." Just because the general public supports something doesn't mean that it's right. For example, the voters in the Deep South overwhelmingly opposed desegregation. It got so bad in Arkansas that the US Army had to step in.
Senator
Well said. What was that big jumble of words supposed to mean?
Heresy grows from idleness.
No cause for such alarm. There are many ways for you to die - I'm just one of them.
Good Matey
I think he's meaning that the general public has often supported the most oppressive measures throughout American history. The Jim Crow laws wouldn't have been valid without solid support from the general Southern population. Likewise, it was also the general public that was behind the anti-German hysteria of 1917, the Red Scare, and McCarthyism (yes, McCarthy was the head stooge, but a clear-headed public could have easily stopped him).
Alexander Hamilton once said in the 1780's, during the Articles of Confederation, "I would almost prefer a limited monarchy at this time. Better the whims of one man than the ignorance and passions of the mob." Hamilton was an elite democrat, who would have much preferred government by the highly educated classes, and not by the hoopleheads.
And before anyone flies off the handle, I don't necessarily agree with him.
Sir Lucious Left Foot
So I suppose you are completely antagonistic to what is decided as Constitutional and the process of Judicial Review therein. Far be it for me to say, but it seems that one should let the learned experts decide certain matters for us, as that is the basis of our representative democracy; but I see that you would rather have us leave these issues up to the God of the Conservative behemoth-an uninformed populace spurred by the spin of the politicians...
Do you know much on her?Most likely he'll fall into a Scalia like conserative/justice which imo is a good thing. I think its safe to say he wont be a moderate he'll be right slanted for sure but on a court with someone like Ginsburg and Souter it evens out a bit. Agree with him or not on political idealogy he is superbly qualified for the court. Id be more concerned with Meirs getting confirmed then with how Roberts will perform. She truly IS an enigma and what little paper trail she has she appears to be all over the place on issues that I dont think liberals or conseratives know wth to think about her or what she is.
Under patronage of Emperor Dimitricus Patron of vikrant1986, ErikinWest, VOP2288
Anagennese, the Rise of the Black Hand
MacMillan doesn't compensate for variable humidity,wind speed and direction or the coriolis effect. Mother nature compensates for where Macmillan's crosshairs are.
Civitate
Let's be fair here. The American public at large is ignorant of domestic and world affairs. This spans racial, religious, and economic sections of society. Some people get their news from FOX, some get theirs from MTV and The Daily Show. The bottom line is that Americans are basically morons, but morons with strong opinions. I can't tell you how easy it is to run intellectual circles around people, even at the college level.
But when is true equality really acheived? Everyone has different feelings on this. For example, I'm inclined to say that since blacks have the same rights as I have, they are equal. However, there is a significant number of people who define equality by socio-economic status. Equality of opportunity or equality of result? Who is it that defines equality for America, thats the important question. And please, read my post above. Civil rights has had a long march of progress. You make it seem as if one or two Supreme Court nominees is going to return America to the dark ages. Its all a lie, and you know it.Because the voting public says they WANT rights and equality, but will never vote to give them on an individual basis. The long list of evils supported by the general public in the nation's history is staggering. The desire for rights and equality should, and does, trump the hypocrisy of the public in voting for rights in general, but against them every step of the way regarding individual rights.
Sir Lucious Left Foot
That this is true is unfortunate. A fundamental to democracy is an informed populace; the media should endeavor to satisfy this requirement.Let's be fair here. The American public at large is ignorant of domestic and world affairs. This spans racial, religious, and economic sections of society. Some people get their news from FOX, some get theirs from MTV and The Daily Show. The bottom line is that Americans are basically morons, but morons with strong opinions. I can't tell you how easy it is to run intellectual circles around people, even at the college level.
Under patronage of Emperor Dimitricus Patron of vikrant1986, ErikinWest, VOP2288
Anagennese, the Rise of the Black Hand
MacMillan doesn't compensate for variable humidity,wind speed and direction or the coriolis effect. Mother nature compensates for where Macmillan's crosshairs are.
Civitate
Most likely he'll fall into a Scalia like conserative/justice which imo is a good thing. I think its safe to say he wont be a moderate he'll be right slanted for sure but on a court with someone like Ginsburg and Souter it evens out a bit. Agree with him or not on political idealogy he is superbly qualified for the court. Id be more concerned with Meirs getting confirmed then with how Roberts will perform. She truly IS an enigma and what little paper trail she has she appears to be all over the place on issues that I dont think liberals or conseratives know wth to think about her or what she is.
Vicarius Provinciae
One of the big misconceptions about Roe V Wade is that if the Supreme Court overturned it, that abortion would become illegal. That's simply not the case. What would happen is that each state could make law on the matter as it sees fit. Opinion polls say the majority favor abortion in the abstact, but oppose it on the specifics like partial birth abortions and abortions for convenience, with only in the life of the mother being acceptable.
Here's a dirty little secret, almost no politicians genuinely want to see Roe v Wade overturned. Most are quite happy to have the proxy fight over judges and marginal issues rather than genuinely having to write, debate and vote on fundamental laws.
Last edited by Big War Bird; October 05, 2005 at 09:09 AM.
As a teenager, I was taken to various houses and flats above takeaways in the north of England, to be beaten, tortured and raped over 100 times. I was called a “white slag” and “white ****” as they beat me.
-Ella Hill
Although a majority of americans are pro-choice, think about the south, some mid-west places, montana, wyoming, etc. These places would almost surely make it illegal, and this could start a huge trend, just look at gay marriage bannings across the country. States like New york, massachusetts, california would not ban it, but think of the situation that would errupt. It could very well produce anti-abortion groups who do nasty things. It wouldn't be a fun situation either way.
Of course not, barely any politicians are genuine about anything.Here's a dirty little secret, almost no politicians genuinely want to see Roe v Wade overturned. Most are quite happy to have the proxy fight over judges and marginal issues rather than genuinely having to write, debate and vote on fundamental laws.
Dux Limitis
I find it HILARIOUS that the Republican party always complains about the "liberals" blocking their judge nominations and "persecuting" them when they can't really block since they have no power. Its also hilarious that the democrats contested a VERY SMALL fraction of people compaired to what republicans did against them in the 90s.
**** is hilarious and ironic. Thats why I hate American politics.
Swear filters are for sites run by immature children.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
