effendi
Originally Posted by maebach
samei voted no cause it almost did show that everyone says 'yes' that made this poll a bit... eh...
well you'll get it, plus most american I've seen are idiots (TV, Radio, I visited New Jersey plenty of times)
You think most Americans are idiots yet you voted 'no' in a poll purely because more people had voted yes.
Tell me, do you even the slightest clue what this poll is asking.
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
Ex-Moderatererer
To question the validity of a decision must surely be the right of every citizen in a pluralistic and democratic society.
If no-one questions the actions of decision makers, then it means that they have carte blanche to do as they wish. This clearly gives far too much power to far too few.
It is one of the few ways that citizens can help to ensure that poor decisions are reversed, that fairness is maintained or at least aimed for and that those in power are held accountable.
there is no god
When did this one get bumped?
loosely connected:
Recent events have highlighted the need for a balanced court. It should not be weighed to favour the views of the far right or far left.
When a vacancy need filling the president of the time should remember that he is the president of all Americans and not just the ones that voted for him/her.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
there is no god
Do you think that he has?Which is precisely why the President should select a strict constructionist/interpreter of the Constitution; such candidates do not lean in any direction but are, rather, true to the document which empowers them.
If the President is successful in this endeavor, no ideology is served or favored over another.
The making of law is constitutionally and properly left to the Senate.
I think there are many issues today that the founders could not have anticipated which is what makes the supreme court task of interpretation so hard and open to criticism.
Do you think if Roberts actually states he is pro choice (he won't but just imagine) he will still be supported by the republicans?
I do wonder sometimes when I hear people like the FRC reps. saying that all that matters is if he is qualified when talking about Roberts...but they seem to think that anyone that is pro choice isn't qualified. Look how the right attacked Alberto Gonzales even though he is "well qualified" because he isn't conservative enough for them.
I don't believe he has been in his position long enough to be exempted becuase he was involved in processes he may have to rule on. Given his age and the possible amount of time he could sit.
I also wonder if the groups quoting "states rights" with roe v wade would be argueing for states rights if the supreme court outlawed abortion completely except to save the life of the mother. After all the schrivo affair showed us that it isn't about states rights at all.
By all accounts nearly 70% of the US population don't want Roe v wade overturned.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
there is no god
Are you suggesting this is the case with the justices that made the ruling?By all accounts 90% of your 70% don't have the first idea of what it would mean to overturn Roe v Wade, most of them have no notion whatsoever of state's rights, and the rest don't even know where their polling place is.
You know this is true, vid.
Sad, sad...
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
there is no god
it was a question because you seem to be suggesting that those that don't want roe v wade overturned have no idea what states rights are...so logically the people that made the roe ruling.......................Not quite sure what you mean.
As to the rest of your post.
I hate to say it but Arm hit a point. Not perhaps for you but as to what an activist judge is....a judge whose ruling one disagrees with.
As I said the founders could not have anticipated todays world, so ruling on todays issues with yesterdays rules is bound to upset someone. Add "political speak" and the issue gets lost.
I disagree with the eminent domain ruling but I don't think the judges were creating law. I believe that they ruled on the case in front of them. The limitations of the law were not clear and needed to be amended, which is what is happening across the country, not by the courts but by the people that should have ensured the law was clear to start with.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
there is no god
I said I disagreed with it. I always thought it should be purely for things like roads or dams where there was no real alternative. But apparently the wording of the law was not specific and a case was made.
Have you heard someone is trying to build a hotel on a judges land using eminent domain?
I don't find it odd at all that many votes are divided. Different people read different meanings. That said even if the ruling was unanimous I still think they would be accused of being activists whenever one dislikes the outcome.
Even the beloved Bible is interpreted to suit
BTW. what was the "score card" for roe v wade
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
effendi
I thought all of j2's posts were put back now.
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
woowoo
Nope he told me not to bother spending too much time on it.
Fat Secret Agent
Nah, I couldn't be arsed. I thought you would fall for it.
Posting Permissions
, plus most american I've seen are idiots (TV, Radio, I visited New Jersey plenty of times)
Reply With Quote
" with roe v wade would be argueing for states rights if the supreme court outlawed abortion completely except to save the life of the mother. After all the schrivo affair showed us that it isn't about states rights at all.
. I always thought it should be purely for things like roads or dams where there was no real alternative. But apparently the wording of the law was not specific and a case was made.
Bookmarks