Pres. Bush Nominates John Roberts to be the

[UBFJ #454]

Supreme Court's next Chief Justice .....
What do you think about that?

[Steve 1]

It's a start!

[SmokinLowriderSS]

I think he'd do a fine job of interpreting what the constitution DOES say, instead of adding lines to it that it does NOT say.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

I'm just waiting for the explosion among the oposition, ya know, the ones who've tried to find fault with his prior employment, fault with his adopted child, fault with his wife, fault with ANYTHING other than his legal and judicial credentials (which are the only things that should be open to consideration).

[Poster X]

8 out of 9 will be conservative Republicans. That means balance will be lost, and and along with it the 2 party sytem that has kept this country free. The first step in basic fascism. Lifetime appointments are dangerous and redundant in modern times.

[Steve 1]

8 out of 9 will be conservative Republicans. That means balance will be lost, and and along with it the 2 party sytem that has kept this country free. The first step in basic fascism. Lifetime appointments are dangerous and redundant in modern times.
But Rats have nothing to offer!

[Poster X]

Spoken like a true scholar. I defer to your obvious grasp on history and it's influence on modern politics. Toodles. :p

[Steve 1]

And I defer your obvious blind eye to the USSC’s continuing abuse and rulings regarding Affirmative Action/Great Society the Universe size fiasco that is shown by “blighted areas” in every SINGLE city across this country resulting from almost 6 trillion dollars transferred from the earners to the whatever!!!!And more recently the eminent domain communist ruling. Also behind every evil on Earth is a RAT...BTW what we are seeing in New Orleans is a direct result of that monstrous mistake...

[Poster X]

You (the right) control all three arms of the government. The house, the legislative and the senate. You have had a President in control 30 of the last 42 years. You control most State governments in the USA. When the Supreme Court was unbalance in the seventies and was more liberal -- rulings were upheld like roe vs wade that were good for the country, but ridiculous rulings like school prayer set us back. There was no balance. Too much of anything is bad. Even liberals. Back to my point. You have had control of the government for 3 out of the last 4 decades and you have done nothing but refer to the past and blame the left. You are empowered to change laws you disagree with and amend rulings you think unfair. But yet, you do nothing but complain and displace blame? Do something. You certainly have the power. What do you need... a century?
Please be smarter than to pop off and say "it will take a century to undo Clinton's mistakes." I actually deal in facts.

[Jeanyus]

How do you explain the Democraticly controlled, State of California ( our economy is only surpassed by 4 other countries in the world, one of them being the USA) yet the state is bankrupt, and coruption is the rule.
If a natural disaster happens in this state. I look for the leadership to run around, like chickens with thier heads cut off, pointing thier fingers at George Bush.
In my most sarcastic voice " but at least our leaders are spending a lot of time on shoving gay marrige down our throats". No wonder they want to take away the right to bear arms.
My only comment on Roe vs Wade is "too bad your parents didn't believe in abortion."

[Jeanyus]

Oh buy the way I like John Roberts.
Supreme court justices are supposed to be experts on the law and the constitution. IMO a law is either constitutional or unconstitutional.
My only question on the supreme court is, why is it that they seem to have so many 5-4 decisions? I would think the decision would be unanimous. They are experts right?

[Steve 1]

X or - Where did I mention Clinton or a century ??? Seem’s to me a course in remedial reading comprehension is in order for you my feathered friend! BTW what does the makeup of the house have to do with USSC rulings?? Also with an ACLU clown in there like this one ..Name the USSC Justice.
[justice] had attacked the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts as organizations that perpetuate stereotyped sex roles and had proposed abolishing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day and replacing them with a single androgynous Parent’s Day. [That nominee had also] called for an end to single-sex prisons on the theory that if male prisoners are going to return to a community in which men and women function as equal partners, prison is just the place for them to get prepared to deal with women. [The nominee] had opined that a manifest imbalance in the racial composition of an employer’s work force justified court-ordered quotas even in the absence of any intentional discrimination on the part of the employer. But then it was discovered that while operating [her] own office for over a decade in a city that was majority-black, this nominee had never had a single black person among [her] more than 50 hires.
Now run along and play.

[UBFJ #454]

Poster X -
Not to be argumentative ... Just pointing out than when debating it pays to use correct facts ... In the past 42 years (this would be starting with Johnson after Kennedy was assasinated) the times in office of a Republican President vs. a Democrat is something like 25 to 17 years (a difference of two (2) terms) and during the 42 years there have been lengthy times when in either case the opposition party has held control of the House and/or Senate and were in opposition to the President. Further, I believe that if you check it out you'll find that the Democrats have had the Presidency and controlled both the House & Senate for a longer period of time than have the Republicans.
P.S.: I always have been and remain a Die Hard Independant.

[Poster X]

Did Nixon not resign in his second term? If not my numbers are off 4 years which still gives the right more office than the left? I'm not pushing the left. I'm pushing balance. I fear a one party system and that seems to be where this country is headed? If the left were dominating all levels of government I would be pushing for more power from the right. Checks and balances. Independant agencies such as the ACLU, the NRA create balance and are well funded. Each represent both extremes. USSC rulings have EVERYTHING to do with balance in the government since they represent the judiciary branch of the government.

[UBFJ #454]

Nixon did resign in his Second Term no matter ... Add up the time for Democrats (17 years) and subtract that from 42.
I too worry about things going too far ... Either Way. Right now being an Independant and being detached from either Party's Philosophy (?) my concern is the Attitudes Exhibited By Both Parties and the Down Right Mean Tactics Used By Both to Achieve Their (To Me Selfish) Goals ... In My Not So Humble Opinion, It's Divisive & Destructive And in so being, Not Good For The Country ... Especially In The Times We Now Find Ourselves.

[Poster X]

Nixon did resign in his Second Term no matter ... Add up the time for Democrats (17 years) and subtract that from 42.
I too worry about things going too far ... Either Way. Right now being an Independant and being detached from either Party's Philosophy (?) my concern is the Attitudes Exhibited By Both Parties and the Down Right Mean Tactics Used By Both to Achieve Their (To Me Selfish) Goals ... In My Not So Humble Opinion, It's Divisive & Destructive And in so being, Not Good For The Country ... Especially In The Times We Now Find Ourselves.
I concur.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Steve 1 ....... Who is "Ruth Bader Ginsburg"? :wink:
Ok PosterX............
3 branches of the government Are NOT the Senate & the House ........ I'll make them simple for you.
#1-The Executive (presidency)
#2-The Legislative (Congress --- BOTH HOUSES together)
#3-The Judicial (the Supreme court)
Now, the presidency goes back & forth on a fairly regular basis.
The Democrats held the House of Representatives for 40 years untill recently. Here's why you lost controll of the House ....
In the first 100 days, we're pledging in writing to bring
to a vote:
1. A balanced budget amendment and line item
veto;
2. A crime bill that funds police and prisons over
social programs;
3. Real welfare reform;
4. Family reinforcement measures that strengthen parental rights in
education and child support enforcement;
5. Family tax cuts;
6. Stronger national defense;
7. A rise in the Social Security earnings limit to stop penalizing
working seniors;
8. Job creation and regulatory reform policies;
9. Common sense legal reforms to stop frivolous lawsuits; and
10. A first-ever vote on term limits for members of Congress.
The Senate has been a much more back & forth affair over history.
More of the Justices on the USSC have been apointed by republicans, BUT several of those have been surprise liberals. 2 of the current 9 may be Republicans, BUT CONSERVATIVE THEY ARE not.
The US Supreme Court has NOTHING to do with "balance". It is SUPPOSED to insure that all laws passed by the law-making branch (congress) and approved by (or over the objections of) the Executive (President) are LEGALLY CONSTITUTIONAL. It is NOT to be a "power-balancer".
The Democrats controll 16 State Legislatures, the Republicans 21, not nearly as much a majority as you seem to think.
Sure seems to be a shrinking MINORITY tho, as if the majority of the country actually WANTS to be protected BY the millitary, wants criminals safely put away in prisons, wants to never see Pres. Kenedy's 77% tax rate again, believes that the seccond ammendment actually allows ME to personally own a firearm without having to be in a US MIl. Uniform, and is not too keen on "gay Marriage" although I doubt many would care if they simply had as simple access to the various "marriage related bennefits" such as family med insurance, visitor's rights in hospitals, inheritance rights, etc.
Here's a tax history that'll scare ya, at least it OUGHT TO.
Income Tax Rate History
YEAR MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL RATE
1913 7%
1916 15%
1917 67%
1918 77%
1920 65%
1921 50%
1924 40%
1926 25%
1934 63%
1936 79%
1941 81%
1942 88%
1944 94%
1945 91%
1951 92%
1954 91%
1964 77%
1970 70%
1981 50%
1987 38.5%
1988 28%
1989-90 33%
1991-92 31%
1993-2000 39.6%

[Poster X]

Steve 1 ....... Who is "Ruth Bader Ginsburg"? :wink:
Ok PosterX............
3 branches of the government Are NOT the Senate & the House ........ I'll make them simple for you.
#1-The Executive (presidency)
#2-The Legislative (Congress --- BOTH HOUSES together)
#3-The Judicial (the Supreme court)
Now, the presidency goes back & forth on a fairly regular basis.
The Democrats held the House of Representatives for 40 years untill recently. Here's why you lost controll of the House ....
In the first 100 days, we're pledging in writing to bring
to a vote:
1. A balanced budget amendment and line item
veto;
2. A crime bill that funds police and prisons over
social programs;
3. Real welfare reform;
4. Family reinforcement measures that strengthen parental rights in
education and child support enforcement;
5. Family tax cuts;
6. Stronger national defense;
7. A rise in the Social Security earnings limit to stop penalizing
working seniors;
8. Job creation and regulatory reform policies;
9. Common sense legal reforms to stop frivolous lawsuits; and
10. A first-ever vote on term limits for members of Congress.
The Senate has been a much more back & forth affair over history.
More of the Justices on the USSC have been apointed by republicans, BUT several of those have been surprise liberals. 2 of the current 9 may be Republicans, BUT CONSERVATIVE THEY ARE not.
The US Supreme Court has NOTHING to do with "balance". It is SUPPOSED to insure that all laws passed by the law-making branch (congress) and approved by (or over the objections of) the Executive (President) are LEGALLY CONSTITUTIONAL. It is NOT to be a "power-balancer".
The Democrats controll 16 State Legislatures, the Republicans 21, not nearly as much a majority as you seem to think.
Sure seems to be a shrinking MINORITY tho, as if the majority of the country actually WANTS to be protected BY the millitary, wants criminals safely put away in prisons, wants to never see Pres. Kenedy's 77% tax rate again, believes that the seccond ammendment actually allows ME to personally own a firearm without having to be in a US MIl. Uniform, and is not too keen on "gay Marriage" although I doubt many would care if they simply had as simple access to the various "marriage related bennefits" such as family med insurance, visitor's rights in hospitals, inheritance rights, etc.
Here's a tax history that'll scare ya, at least it OUGHT TO.
Income Tax Rate History
YEAR MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL RATE
1913 7%
1916 15%
1917 67%
1918 77%
1920 65%
1921 50%
1924 40%
1926 25%
1934 63%
1936 79%
1941 81%
1942 88%
1944 94%
1945 91%
1951 92%
1954 91%
1964 77%
1970 70%
1981 50%
1987 38.5%
1988 28%
1989-90 33%
1991-92 31%
1993-2000 39.6%
Who taught you all Democrats were liberals? Rush or Combs?

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Who taught you all Democrats were liberals? Rush or Combs?
Hmmmm I scrolled backwards to check, I never said such.
Find me a "Conservative" Democrat on the USSC PostrerX. There's your homework for tomorow.

[Seadog]

LR, posterX will never try to understand conservatives because he only knows hate. He is like Michael Moore, he cannot understand why the world is so full of unenlightened idiots. We should have made Hillary the Queen of the Americas and Bill her consort (or at least court jester). No one knows how a justice will vote in office, but I think it is safe to say that Roberts will not be a radical. Rheinquist was very conservative and in many ways, so was O'Conner. Roberts will not make much of a difference in the court make up. Neither will O'Conner's replacement. What will be missed is Rheinquist administrative skills. Hopefully, Roberts will be a good administrator too.

[Poster X]

It seems to me you guys are the ones filled with hate? I am just discussing my opinions and since they happen to differ from yours most of you have become completely acidic and resentful. Read your own posts. I stay on topic as a rule.

[Steve 1]

SS
Steve 1 ....... Who is "Ruth Bader Ginsburg"
Bingo the evil old ACLU bat I thought the loser X would have caught that for sure!
What amazes me to no end is how these Imbeciles can even hold their filthy heads up... Everything you touch Gas prices (they say Bush) but it is the Rat no drilling policy and the no new refineries for the last 30 years blame Rat EPA road blocks. Same for Nuclear power plants none in 35 years...

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Well, we MUST BLAME the person who is in charge as opposed to the actual reasons for the problem.
To revisit an earlier analogy (for PosterX) The cop ticketing him did it because he was a jerk (the oficer), not because Poster's foot was too heavy on the gas pedal. Reality has NOTHING to do with anything to some folks.

[Seadog]

X, you stay on your agenda, not the thread. You are like a little dog. A lot of bark and aggression. But if someone makes a move, you snap and run. There are people that I can disagree with and respect them. You are not one.

[Poster X]

SS
Steve 1 ....... Who is "Ruth Bader Ginsburg"
Bingo the evil old ACLU bat I thought the loser X would have caught that for sure!
What amazes me to no end is how these Imbeciles can even hold their filthy heads up... Everything you touch Gas prices (they say Bush) but it is the Rat no drilling policy and the no new refineries for the last 30 years blame Rat EPA road blocks. Same for Nuclear power plants none in 35 years...
My, my, my, such hateful words? Frm the mouths of babes and straight to the fuhrer. The ACLU and EPA do not block building of all new refineries. That's total bullshit. They block the building in environmentally sensitive areas. They understand the ecosystem needs to coexist with man for man to exist. You guys have that "John Wayne, damn the torpedo's, I want it and I want it at any cost," mentality. Someone has to keep you in check because you don't give a shit if there's a tomorrrow. As long as you can make a buck today. Steve1 ~ do you have any education at all? I'm sure you went to school but, are you one of those kids that just got passed along to make the school look good?

[Poster X]

X, you stay on your agenda, not the thread. You are like a little dog. A lot of bark and aggression. But if someone makes a move, you snap and run. There are people that I can disagree with and respect them. You are not one.
And I am supposed to care about this?

[Steve 1]

Nothing here let's move on.

[Seadog]

X, you have just proved my point. Anyone you do not like is a Nazi. There is a large difference between requiring guidelines to construction over throwing roadblocks. Starving people to protect an insect that will go extinct due to natural selection is not being responsible. The ACLU does not get involved with refineries or environmental issues. Some of the issues they do get involved with are areas that I do not agree with. I understand the role the ACLU plays in our society, but I do not always have to like it. The same with environmentalists. Protecting nature is one thing. Destroying people's livelyhood or business's in the name of environmental issues is not productive.
Nature is always in a state of flux. We have to respect the earth. We do not have to be its hand maidens.

[Poster X]

My reference to Naziism highlights the fact that the modern "neo-republican" has little use for facts and has literally pledged blind allegiance to the GOP and gives it a free hand to do whatever it wants without checks and balances and without public scrutiny. That is how the Nazi's gained power. Blind allegiance. You guys worry me. Seig heil.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

My reference to Naziism highlights the fact that the modern "neo-republican" has little use for facts and has literally pledged blind allegiance to the GOP and gives it a free hand to do whatever it wants without checks and balances and without public scrutiny. That is how the Nazi's gained power. Blind allegiance. You guys worry me. Seig heil.
Welcome to being a neo-republican then PostrerX .............
YOU have shown NO use for facts, a complete case of denail for facts served up to you on a platter, and have PROVED your blind obedience to your opinion, which is based on ignorance of facts. Public scrutiny keeps destroying every acuzation you make, so you ignore public scrutiny.
Yes, blind alegiance concerns me too (little actually SCARES me)
Heil Dur Fuhrer PosterX
PS, I seriously doubt ANYONE here will accept your comparisons of good honest people to Nazis nearly as graciously as I have. I'm pretty thick skinned.
You are STILL a useless little waste of a good turd bich. You wouldn't make up a good substitute for ball-sweat on Sea-dog's scrutum. I used to entertain your morose idiotic lunacy, you have now generated an enemy.
Since I still actually LIKE blown on a human-being level, he's about 20' above you on the ladder looser-boy.

[Poster X]

JeanyUs was the only one that contributed to the debate. Go back and read the rest of the posts. They are all venom and smoke. You guys come closer to being bathroom bullies in the second grade than actually having any political interest. All you really care about is bashing someone who disagrees with you. I can do that too. Get over your fine self and bash away. I'll check back for your obvious (and shallow) response tomorrow.

[Vada]

JeanyUs was the only one that contributed to the debate. Go back and read the rest of the posts. They are all venom and smoke. You guys come closer to being bathroom bullies in the second grade than actually having any political interest. All you really care about is bashing someone who disagrees with you. I can do that too. Get over your fine self and bash away. I'll check back for your obvious (and shallow) response tomorrow.
ah shut up!

[Seadog]

If you were interested in honest debate, we would. You are only interested in pushing the lies and rhetoric of a group that has proven time and again that they have no interest in humanity.

[Poster X]

If you were interested in honest debate, we would. You are only interested in pushing the lies and rhetoric of a group that has proven time and again that they have no interest in humanity.
So if we all have a giant circle jerk and pat each other on the back while we fantasize about dinner at Georgie's table...that's debate? :idea:

[Steve 1]

So if we all have a giant circle jerk and pat each other on the back while we fantasize about dinner at Georgie's table...that's debate? :idea:
This clown X needs to find a gay forum..

[Poster X]

This clown X needs to find a gay forum..
I think I did snookums? ;)

[Steve 1]

I think I did snookums? ;)
That would be you and your brother!

[Poster X]

Whatever you say...bro. :D

[Steve 1]

Whatever you say...bro. :D
Huh "Bro" you must be talking to your father.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

You dared tell me to re-read the posts, so I did.
Looks like PosterX has posted distorted facts (or outright lies), posted defamatory and hatefull speech that, in person, would have likely gotten him beaten & "vanished" (lots of places in the desert), and finished off making homosexual passes at a known male human being.
Dreat job of being "on topic" Looser, now "vanish".
The synopsis is below, I believe it to be accurate:
OK, thread ran this way Poster...
Request for opinions on Bush's nomination of Justice.
2 posts short & to the point in favor.
I noted the fricass stirred up over irrelevant BS when the nominee was just for a Justice & not Chief Justice would return.
PosterX stated that the court must be "balanced", and if it is not, the country is lost, first inference to "Faccism", made by PosterX. Also an opinion that laws should be changed (a discussable, but IMO incorrect assertion)
A note that the Democrats offer nothing of substance.
Insult made by PosterX's sarcasm.
Note made of PosterX's ignoring recent rediculous rulings by the USSC relating to Immenent Domain, and a note of what was done by a LONG TERM DEMOCRAT CONTROLL of a single state (Louisiana) making it into a very large Welfare State when a crisis occured.
PosterX made eronious postings as to make-up of government, support for the "more liberal times" on the court. More eroneous postings "facts" posted related to party dominance, a claim that the Republicans have done nothing but blame "the left", folowed the statement of "I actually deal in facts."
A poster spoke up to ask for an explanation of and to decry the condition of California, another long-term-democrat-run welfare state which is bankrupt due to give-aways, and stated a dislike for PosterX sharing the air & sunshine.
The previous poster then entered an opinion on the topic and the duties of a USSC justice. Also noted the large number of "split decisions" since it would seem reasonable all decisions regarding "rule of law" should be unanimous.
Poster noted the irrelevancy of PosterX's reference to the previous administration then provided a quiz as to a particular justices extreemely liberal and potentially dangerous preferences for certain things. Also that skeletons were found in her closet.
Poster posts corrections to some of PosterX's "facts" regarding historical leadership make-up of the US Govt.
PosterX disputes figures on presidential party time and claims the purpose of the USSC is to BALANCE the governments actions, again forgetting what the constitution itself says the USSC's purpose is.
Poster shows disputed figures are correct per normal math. Also expresses a preference away from extreemes in govt.
PosterX agrees with entire post.
I won "Judicial Jeopardy", posted corrections as to the make-up and relative positions of the US Govt "3 branches". Touched on power-sharing issues noting Dem controll of House of Reps for very long time untill recently, and posted "Contract with America" which helped Reps gain controll of the House. I noted that just because a Justice was appointed by a Republican President does not translate to a "conservative" upon rulings. I then spelled out the legal duty of the USSC. I noted relative controll of state legislatures is similar, but dems are slipping away due to people's "values" showing up at the polls. I also posted for consumption a history of the US Income Tax.
PosterX inquired whether all I listen to is Rush Limbaugh (conservative) or Allen Combs (liberal)
I asked PosterX to find me a USSC Justice from a Democrat that could be considered "conservative".
A poster noted PosterX's continuing crass and snide comments and refusal to comprehend facts. Then made opinion on Robert's qualification & possible behavior on USSC.
PosterX notes the hatefullness of everyone elses posts while he remains on-topic.
Poster notes my correct USSC justice answer, posts an opinion on her history, and notes how everything these days that is "wrong" is blamed on Pres Bush in spite of reasons to the contrary, several items cited for proof.
I make a facetious reference to current blame policy and explain an earlier analogy PosterX failed to comprehend regarding The Rule Of Law.
Poster notes only 1 post by PosterX was on thread, the rest on agenda, also posts a lowering personal opinion of PosterX.
PosterX make FIRST reference to 1930's & 40's German National Socialists (Nazi) Leadership, explains the EPA stopping property development, tels the posters they care not a bit about consequences of actions, impunes a poster's educational level and posible validity of his paperwork.
PosterX notes his lack of concern over a poster's personal opinion of him.
A poster advises to move on.
A poster makes note of PosterX's continued attacks and name calling in reference to NAZI's, the EPA's recent history of blocking progress to protect various insignificant species, especially where they are a comon animal and of cripling existing businesses for the same purpose.
PosterX refernces Nazi's again, connecting it to Neo-republicans desire to run roughshod over everyone with abandon, expresses his lack of knowledge over history's accent of the NAZI party, and salutes all his disagreeers in German.
I note how well PosterX fits into his very own category he just posted. I note my preference for a functioning thought process. I then note my personal opinion as to PosterX's continuing comparison of me with Nazi's.
PosterX congratulates a single poster for silence in not ripping on him and disproving his facts repeatedly, accuses all other posters of spewing nothing but hatefullness, impunes all poster's educational levels & behavior.
Poster is told in no uncertain terms to go away by a new poster to the thread.
A poster notes the history of PosterX posts and PosterX's lack of substantive points to discuss.
PosterX makes a homosexual reference amid a fantasy.
A poster notes PosterX may be unsuited to post here.
PosterX makes a homosexual accuzation against the posters and directs cuddly baby-talk toward a specific poster.
A poster notes that PosterX should keep a gay lifestyle in the family.
PosterX makes a family reference to the poster he made baby-talk to.
A reminder of non-relations is posted by the recipient of the unwanted passes.

[Poster X]

And you don't have carpal tunnel?
Somebody messing with my posts? Is this the Jim Carrey guy?

[SmokinLowriderSS]

I thought I heard some pointless whining. Did anyone else hear it? No, suppose not, oh well, better that way.

[Seadog]

PosserX is just a little brat that loves to taunt people. I suppose his parents were afraid to spank him for fear he would get a concussion. His inability to accept facts, or to check his own facts is about as immature as it gets. He should have a great career in politics as a Democrat. Lord knows he has no moral high ground to worry about.