Hey GOPers on the Board... This Kind Of Rot Will Ruin Your Party (video)

[Just Win]

This is the same guy that attempted to pass a bill in the senate 3 years ago that would have swung wide open the southern border to let anyone in this country. He is the most powerful political weapon the Democrats have in the senate and that includes Susan Collins, Harry Reid and Olympia Snowe. I know this sort of thing will get Linsey invited to all the chic and sophisticated Georgetown cocktail parties but this brand of GOPism is not going to work going forward if the GOP hopes to take back the senate some day. The ballot box is the place to rectify these sort of issues.

"liberal mainstream" ....SAY WHAT?


GOPer rot video link = http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/08/03/sen_graham_defends_kagan_vote_a_mainstream_liberal_qualified_jurist.html

[Jeremy Roenick]

Senator Graham is the greatest example in Congress of what is wrong with our political system, and what's wrong with what used to be my Republican party.  He's a D-bag, walking turd, a person with no convictions, no morals, a fork-tongued liar.

You can't trust a thing he says, and you can't trust a thing he does.

[Flummoxed Lummox]

Senator Graham is the greatest example in Congress of what is wrong with our political system, and what's wrong with what used to be my Republican party.  He's a D-bag, walking turd, a person with no convictions, no morals, a fork-tongued liar.

You can't trust a thing he says, and you can't trust a thing he does.

Yet, the people of South Carolina keep reelecting him. Why is that?

[Jeremy Roenick]

You got me AV.  The only thing I can even speculate is the vast majority of electorates are so ignorant of not only the candidates (and how they represent them) but also ignorant of the issues that they're simply sheep who parade into the polls on election day and push the button for the name they recognize.

That's like the debate for governor of TN.  I've seen so many comments on message boards about Zach Wamp being "too conservative" or "too right wing" and I nearly vomit at the lack of knowledge out there in the electorate.

Face it, 9/10ths of Americans are no where near as knowledgeable and in tune with what's going on than the handful of regular posters in this forum.  Granted, we may not see eye-to-eye or agree on anything, but I can resolutely say that we all know what's going on and who is who in politics.

[NCVol]

Senator Graham is the greatest example in Congress of what is wrong with our political system, and what's wrong with what used to be my Republican party.  He's a D-bag, walking turd, a person with no convictions, no morals, a fork-tongued liar.

You can't trust a thing he says, and you can't trust a thing he does.

I agree you can't trust him.  He's without any scruples as far as I can tell, but on this he has a valid point.  And that was Scalia got 96 votes, Ginsberg 97 votes, etc.  We didn't always believe that the Senate had effective veto over otherwise QUALIFIED candidates for the Supreme Court or any other position.  If any of you think she isn't qualified, make your case.  What you all don't like is a democrat appointed a democrat.  That's why we have elections and that's especially why Presidential elections matter.  Even the "hard right" Roberts and Alito got confirmed in recent memory and the GOP didn't have a 70 vote majority or whatever. 

[Jeremy Roenick]

You're absolutely right about elections having ramifications, but that's not to say that the opposition party should just stand down and not debate a nomination.

The "true" conservative looks at either Sotomayor or Kagan and sees (from their legal resume or writings) potential justices that would be "activists" on the court.  Instead of strictly reading the law and Constitution and interpreting the intent of those documents, you're getting justices that will introduce their own personal biases and agendas into their legal findings.

Now, I know everyone is not completely 100 percent without bias.  That's just human nature.  But in both Sotomayor and Kagan I see justices that will use their power in the Supreme court to wage a progressive campaign legally in this country.  That's not the intent of the position.  The justices are supposed to rule based on the law, not make the law based on their rulings.

[NCVol]

The most activist decision in recent memory was Citizens United.  So activism isn't your issue, it's liberal activism. 

Chief Justice Roberts in that case didn't like the case before him so did something that is almost unheard of.  He gathered the parties to the suit together and said, make a case for a DIFFERENT argument not addressed in the lower courts, that ANY limits AT ALL on "corporate" speech as it relates to campaigns were unconstitutional, making an incredibly activist decision to overthrow the law that has been in place for a century. 

I can't believe how badly the democrats have dropped the ball on their discussion of that case.  It was just a breathtaking decision, after a breathtaking manipulation of the process.  Seriously, NOBODY EVER ARGUED for the result the Supremes under Roberts came up with.  It went before them as a simple matter of interpreting the particulars of a single bill and came out that Exxon is a person with unlimited rights to influence elections with unlimited money. 

Besides, there is no evidence other than their general outlook that either justice is an activist.  You can't point to any decision or any ruling etc. that indicates they have contempt for the law and will do, like Roberts did, and overturn settled law they don't happen to like.  It's easier to be honest and just say you don't agree with their politics so you'd rather have someone else from the Federalist Society as the nominee. 

[Jeremy Roenick]

Well I'm not going to split hairs with you.  However, I do not agree with the tactics that Justice Roberts used in that case.  That's not how the Supreme Court is intended to function.  As for the case itself I still have split feelings over that ruling.  However, keeping corporate money out of political campaigns seems to be a tricky business in this country.  There's always a loophole of some sort to exploit.

I was thinking more of the following as an example of judicial activism...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783.html

Justices Affirm Property Seizures

5-4 Ruling Backs Forced Sales for Private Development[/b]

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed.

I can't think of a better recent example of where we are being "ruled" not governed by our government.  The Supreme Court has grown into nothing more than an instrument of manipulation in recent years.  When Congress can't pass a law they want, they simply get a precedent setting ruling from the S.C. to bridge the gap. 

In this case, the metropolitan government's right to economic development trumps the right of the people to their property if the city thinks they can make a buck.  This is what I'm talking about.  Not activism along political lines, just activism in general.  Especially when it mutes the Constitution based on some loose "modern era" interpretation of it.

[GRAY]

so a SCOTUS that by a razor thin majority affirms our 2nd amendment is somehow not a liberal activist court?

[NCVol]

so a SCOTUS that by a razor thin majority affirms our 2nd amendment is somehow not a liberal activist court?

If you're talking about the current Roberts' court, no, it's not a liberal activist court.  If you think that, you're truly living in a bizarro alternate reality.

And as you must know, the issues surrounding the second amendment aren't all that easy.  As you should recall if you pay any attention to these things, Bush's folks essentially argued FOR the right of gubments to restrict gun ownership in some cases.  What the dispute is all about is WHEN the gubments can restrict your rights, for example, to own a fully automatic assault rifle or a grenade launcher or even a pistol, and what you can do with that pistol once you own it.  There is no one anywhere arguing for unlimited or unrestricted "rights" to gun ownership. 

Here's just one link, in case you'd like to be informed instead of relying on ignorant talking points.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lott/lott58.html

The Department of Justice argument can be boiled down pretty easily. Its lawyers claim that since the government bans machine guns, it should also be able to ban handguns. After all, they reason, people can still own rifles and shotguns for protection, even if they have to be stored locked up. The Justice Department even seems to accept that trigger locks are not really that much of a burden, and that the locks “can properly be interpreted” as not interfering with using guns for self-protection. Yet, even if gun locks do interfere with self-defense, DOJ believes the regulations should be allowed, as long as the District of Columbia government thinks it has a good reason.

[LTC]

[/img]

[Just Win]

The current liberals on the SCOTUS hate the Bill of Rights. Not just the second amendment but especially the tenth Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.