Justice Souter Retiring

[Misty_Morning]

Just heard on the news that David Souter will be retiring.

I'd rather that a more conservative minded justice was retiring.

 

[sr71plt]

This is a good time for him to retire, actually. This would really be a good time for Ruth Ginsburg to retire as well.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Just heard on the news that David Souter will be retiring.

I'd rather that a more conservative minded justice was retiring.

This is what I said when Obama was elected. The liberal judges are all the older ones so that the best he can do is maintain the balance that's there. The conservative contingent will be around for a long time, given their ages.

And that was deliberate. Dubya may have been ill-advised and deluded by his advisors, but he wasn't, contrary to common belief, stupid. Those men were chosen deliberately for their potential longevity.

 

[amicus]

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/souter_retiring/

Beltway rumor at this point....

ami

 

[Misty_Morning]

This is a good time for him to retire, actually. This would really be a good time for Ruth Ginsburg to retire as well.

Yes...now...six months ago...no.

I'm glad she has held on as long as she has.

But with Obama in office, we can hope that a socially liberal justice will take her place.

Plus, she needs to focus on her health.

She has served the country well.



Some of you may scoff at my opinion on this (as I am a republican)....but as I have said numerous times....I am a fiscal conservative...but I am a social liberal.

We need to continue to shake off social mindest of the mid 20th century that still lingers.

Just MHO.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Supreme Court Judges have a way of surprising the OPresidents who pick them. Reagan picked O'Connor and she constantly voted with the liberals. Souter was picked by George Bush 41, Souter was supposed to be a reliable conservative.

Once these people get tenure they fly their true colors.

Wont you just shit if Obama puts closet conservatives on the court!

 

[Misty_Morning]

I will say this...

Souter was wrong on Eminent domain.

 

[amicus]

Of course, it is political, we know that, but don't suppose for one moment that your vision of the future of the Court is valid.

Amicus

 

[Misty_Morning]

Of course, it is political, we know that, but don't suppose for one moment that your vision of the future of the Court is valid.

Amicus

Oh Dear God.....I am actually gonna ask Ami to clarify.


btw...how ya doin?

 

[sr71plt]

[Wont you just shit if Obama puts closet conservatives on the court!

It could happen. An old friend of mine, J. Harvie Wilkenson, was on Bush's short list and has been told he's on Obama's short list too. He would, I think, be one of those "surprise" judges like Sandra Day O'Connor (although she was more a centrist than as you have described her--it's just that a centrist would certainly look like a liberal to you. She was the swing vote on the court and sometimes went this way and sometimes the other)

 

[Misty_Morning]

We've seen from history where the supreme court has just been wrong.

But with todays flash media and the ability for nearly instantaneous reply of voters, don't you think we are finally moving to a point of social equality?

Yeah, I'm a dreamer...but we ARE getting there.

I think we are moving to a point that whats right socially is right. Fiscal stuff will always be debated.

 

[amicus]

Oh Dear God.....I am actually gonna ask Ami to clarify.


btw...how ya doin?

~~~

Hi, Misty, doin' awright, considerin', I trust you are well.

I agree with you about eminent domain, but on social issues we are polar.

In the 30 States in which the public decided by actual votes, Gay Marriage was rejected in every case. I suggest the same fate would befall Roe v Wade, the abortion law, were it placed before the public.

The American public has always been center right on social issues, but the Courts and Legislatures and other law making bodies have a liberal agenda of their own.

Only the intellectual elite, those who never dirty their hands with labor are the socialists and social democrats; and it is that 'intellectual elite' that has betrayed the common man.

I am subject to being totally wrong, as is anyone else who takes a firm stand on any issue; but it appears to me that the 'high water mark' of the liberal left social agenda has come and gone and the backlash is building.

Be well.



Ami

 

[voluptuary_manque]

More than one supreme court justice has both surprised and appalled his/her nominator. Earl Warren was the most obvious example but far from unique. What is most important is that the nominee be serious about being a justice, unlike William O. Douglas who was furious at being 'shunted aside' to the Court when he fully expected to be elected President, instead.

I'm betting that when Ginsburg retires, Obama will do the same thing to Clinton and, of course, she won't dare refuse even though it will drive the final nail into the coffin of her presidential aspirations.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SR71PLT

I'm a fascist, so everyone seems suspect.

O'Connor was a conservative in the sense that it was the team she played for in Arizona. But on the Court she no longer felt obligated to endorse conservatism. There are plenty of politicians like her. Local politics requires them to be one thing or another or forfeit getting elected, so they talk the talk.

 

[Misty_Morning]

~~~

Hi, Misty, doin' awright, considerin', I trust you are well.

I agree with you about eminent domain, but on social issues we are polar.

In the 30 States in which the public decided by actual votes, Gay Marriage was rejected in every case. I suggest the same fate would befall Roe v Wade, the abortion law, were it placed before the public.

The American public has always been center right on social issues, but the Courts and Legislatures and other law making bodies have a liberal agenda of their own.

Only the intellectual elite, those who never dirty their hands with labor are the socialists and social democrats; and it is that 'intellectual elite' that has betrayed the common man.

I am subject to being totally wrong, as is anyone else who takes a firm stand on any issue; but it appears to me that the 'high water mark' of the liberal left social agenda has come and gone and the backlash is building.

Be well.



Ami

Yes...the "public" has had to be pulled kicking and screaming at times.

And they need to be at times.

I have to disagree with your statement about "a liberal agenda of their own".

Is it an agenda that provides equality to those that have no or limited equality.

It it wrong to say that all "people" are equal...no matter their social, sexual, ethical, or religious affiliation?

Do I want an aseptic social agenda that is governed by the supreme court?

Hell fucking Yeah!

 

[Misty_Morning]

JAMESBJOHNSON....


Great big smooches and sloppy kisses to you just cuz ya need it sometimes.


Keep on keepin on you old fart!

 

[amicus]

]Yes...the "public" has had to be pulled kicking and screaming at times.

And they need to be at times.

I have to disagree with your statement about "a liberal agenda of their own".

Is it an agenda that provides equality to those that have no or limited equality.

It it wrong to say that all "people" are equal...no matter their social, sexual, ethical, or religious affiliation?

Do I want an aseptic social agenda that is governed by the supreme court?

Hell fucking Yeah![/I]

~~~

"Draggin the public along..." that is an interesting and novel concept for America, since the 'public' does the dragging of reluctant politicians when they stray from constitutional dictates.

This, 'equality' that you want so much, is not possible when humans are factored in. The very best a government has ever done and ever will do, is to guarantee equality under the law.

Whether your chosen minority is women, Native Americans, African or Mexican Americans, you can spout and fume about equality, but when you attempt to impose equality, by law and the use of force, you embark upon a journey that can only end in a totalitarian dictatorship of one flavor or another.

It is, in the eyes of many, a, 'kinder, gentler' approach to government to attempt to effect change to suit your vision of an ideal society. What you and others never realize, is that in society, the next time an administration with opposing views takes power, all that you have gained will be lost if it is only social and political goals you have in mind.

The only government to guarantee and protect the basic rights of the individual, is a government of law, which is what the United States is intended to be.

When you use the Courts or the Legislature to circumvent both the letter and the law of the Constitution, you have embarked upon the road to revolution and upheaval.

I sit here thinking that as you read this, 'knowing' your views are righteous and proper, humane and egalitarian, you wonder how I, or anyone, could possible label your political intentions as dangerous and evil; but I do.

There have been thousands of schemes in political minds across the many years that this government has existed. Each and every 'reformer', wanted, as you do, to make things better, in your eyes. What you and they never seem to realize is that to accomplish your goals you must use force to impose them on the public.

How do you define and justify that in ethical and moral terms?

Amicus

 

[Misty_Morning]

~~~


The very best a government has ever done and ever will do, is to guarantee equality under the law.

That is all I am asking for.

 

[Dragonlipz]

~~~

"Draggin the public along..." that is an interesting and novel concept for America, since the 'public' does the dragging of reluctant politicians when they stray from constitutional dictates.

This, 'equality' that you want so much, is not possible when humans are factored in. The very best a government has ever done and ever will do, is to guarantee equality under the law.

Whether your chosen minority is women, Native Americans, African or Mexican Americans, you can spout and fume about equality, but when you attempt to impose equality, by law and the use of force, you embark upon a journey that can only end in a totalitarian dictatorship of one flavor or another.

It is, in the eyes of many, a, 'kinder, gentler' approach to government to attempt to effect change to suit your vision of an ideal society. What you and others never realize, is that in society, the next time an administration with opposing views takes power, all that you have gained will be lost if it is only social and political goals you have in mind.

The only government to guarantee and protect the basic rights of the individual, is a government of law, which is what the United States is intended to be.

When you use the Courts or the Legislature to circumvent both the letter and the law of the Constitution, you have embarked upon the road to revolution and upheaval.

I sit here thinking that as you read this, 'knowing' your views are righteous and proper, humane and egalitarian, you wonder how I, or anyone, could possible label your political intentions as dangerous and evil; but I do.

There have been thousands of schemes in political minds across the many years that this government has existed. Each and every 'reformer', wanted, as you do, to make things better, in your eyes. What you and they never seem to realize is that to accomplish your goals you must use force to impose them on the public.

How do you define and justify that in ethical and moral terms?

Amicus

Blah, Blah, Blah.......get a clue, dude....then an idea....work on that....you gotta long way to go....

 

[sr71plt]

Ami thinks the Supreme Court has leaned liberal these last eight years? W O W.

 

[Dragonlipz]

I will say this...

Souter was wrong on Eminent domain.

Every throwback on this forum will defend that decision, twisted and vile as it may be....they would rather see an individual tossed from a home they've owned for one hundred years than their Republicant Court be criticized.........
A sad and triumphant moment for the rich and privileged......Amicus, aren'tcha proud of your Supreme Court?????

Defend that you lowlife

 

[Misty_Morning]

Blah, Blah, Blah.......get a clue, dude....then an idea....work on that....you gotta long way to go....

Now what a minute!

This is a civil discussion.

People have differences and from those differences we learn about each other.

Your shit reply of blah blah blah...is uncalled for.

In this Union of states, counties, cities and neighborhoods we we must listen and learn from one another.

To close the door on someone that does not hold the same believes as you is an invitation to conflict.

If you choose to flame for the sake of flaming...go somewhere else!

I for one am tired of the bullshit of partisan politics and unrelenting hatred that never ends.

so...either contribute to the possitve discussion or stay out!

In other words...you need to decide whether you want to be a part of the problem or a part of the solution...

If you want to be a part of the solution...join us....other wise...FUCK OFF!

 

[amicus]

You tell 'em, kid! This particular troll has been stalking me from thread to thread, everytime I post, for a good month now, I just ignore it and never reply.

Amicus

 

[Dragonlipz]

Now what a minute!

This is a civil discussion.

People have differences and from those differences we learn about each other.

Your shit reply of blah blah blah...is uncalled for.

In this Union of states, counties, cities and neighborhoods we we must listen and learn from one another.

To close the door on someone that does not hold the same believes as you is an invitation to conflict.

If you choose to flame for the sake of flaming...go somewhere else!

I for one am tired of the bullshit of partisan politics and unrelenting hatred that never ends.

so...either contribute to the possitve discussion or stay out!

In other words...you need to decide whether you want to be a part of the problem or a part of the solution...

If you want to be a part of the solution...join us....other wise...FUCK OFF!

My reply to Amicus was valid and substantial....his nonsense is consistent in its unrelenting spin.....I'm not gonna apologize to you for jacking your thread....cos ya gotta fight fire with fire....in reference to the 'flaming'......listen GF, you haven't seen me flame....I'm just pulling his tired ass card.....because it is a tired ass card.....Ami is a troll whose ideas and verve can be culled by a visit to FIXED News.......there is no neural or intellectual activity here just some tired ass bullshit that calls itself patriotism to validate: prejudice, intolerance, elitism, and that tired ass tribal crap......Bye now....indulge yourself in the intellectual waterfall that I'm sure will flow in my absence......FUCK OFF - YO DAMN SELF, BITCH......
Ciao,,,,,Lips

 

[Dragonlipz]

You tell 'em, kid! This particular troll has been stalking me from thread to thread, everytime I post, for a good month now, I just ignore it and never reply.

Amicus

I'm just tired as many here are of your pretentious and unsubstantiated nonsense.....you don't have to reply.....you can't support any of your bullshit so you might as well post and post....hang onto that tired ass Klu Klux Klan Krap as long as you can.....I can send you some teabags if ya need some.........