Obama's "Mainstream" Nominee

"Mainstream Justice": a man-hating, pro-abortion
lesbian socialist with a
Santa Claus syndrome.

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!!

The Great Compromise held that black SLAVES were 3/5 of a person for purposes of the Census only. The South had a HUGE number of slaves. If allowed to count them as citizens (but never allowing them to vote) they would have had the votes in Congress to block ANY moves to alleviate the suffering of slaves.

It was IN THEIR BEST INTEREST and anyone who has READ the debates and followed the HISTORY of the Constitution knows it. This is the same smelly red herring always thrown out when anyone stands up for the Framers.

Property did not mean vast tracts of plantation land. Not even a good sized farm. Property meant a business, a small farm, a home with a lot, a fishing boat or anything ELSE that gave you a STAKE in the outcome...

It is interesting that the conservatives are more associated with the "original intent" of the constitution while Liberals are more associated with a variable, ever changing meaning, living constituion that changes with whomever is currently sitting on the court. Heck if we wanted changed bases upon who is currently sitting in the "big chair", we could go back to a King and save a lot of money.

There is no such thing as a conservative supreme court justice. There are some who favor a strict or narrow interpretation to the Constitution as opposed to those who consider the Constitution a living document. However, if the constitution is a living document that means whatever 5 out of 9 people say it means, why even have a Constitution? The problem seems to be that most people try to analyze the courts and even the rest of the government from the wrong perspective. Instead of philosophical analysis, check thing out from the perspective of power. The Federal Courts have been expanding their own powers for decades to the point of enacting their own legislation and declaring the legislatures of 49 states to be unconstitutional. ...

By the founding fathers own words, the "original intent" of the federal courts was to protect the states from the Federal Government.

Look how, over time, the Liberals have corrupted that concept.

The founding fathers also tried to create a nation of laws and not of men. It should not matter if a Justice is Liberal or Conservative but what does the law or constitution say. Again we have Liberal Justices going overseas and looking at laws in the Neitherlands when deciding U.S. cases concerning prostitution.

So how do we decrease the politics while increasing accountability? Retention works sometimes but also many a good judge has been removed from office because of "no name" recognition.

I don't have an...

Considering that Justices are appointed for life to the Federal Court and often make interpretations of the constitution based on their feelings of what is right and wrong rather than on an objective analysis of the issues with respect to what the constitution or the laws actually say,
and that they have practically no accountability in their rulings,
and that bare majority of 5 out of 9 determines what the constitution means,
and that it would take a vote of 2/3s of each house of Congress along with the concurrance of 3/4 of the states to overturn such rulings;
it seems to me appropriate to propose some constitutional amendments that would introduce some accountability:
Term limits. Although this is not, strictly...

"Actually Justice Stevens, Ginsberg, Suitor, and Sandra Day O'Connor all admitted in speeches before law students that they do in fact use International in helping them decide U.S. Law cases."

That isn't the same thing as basing the decision on International Law--noting that only 7 countries in the world since Stanford v. Kentucky executed those under 17 (Stanford barring the execution of those under 17)is not the same thing as basing the decision on International Law.

No, I actually read the decisions. Read Roper. Kennedy makes it CLEAR that the decision wasn't based on International Law.

I see you get your information from Jon Stewart.

Actually Justice Stevens, Ginsberg, Suitor, and Sandra Day O'Connor all admitted in speeches before law students that they do in fact use International in helping them decide U.S. Law cases.

At the same conference before the same students, Justice Scalia argued this practice is wrong headed because our laws reflect our values of our people and not the values of other nations.

So once again you have challenged my words and once again you are wrong.

Keep trying. Sooner or later I might be wrong. Once I thought I was wrong,,, but I was mistaken.

There were big arguements among the creators of the Declaration of Independence. Many of them wanted to include verbatum the words of Samuel Adams, who had written a piece called “Rights of the Colonists as Men” four years before the Declaration of Independence.

It starts:
"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these:
First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property;
together with the right to support and defend them
in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of,
rather than deductions from, the duty of self–preservation,
commonly called the first law of nature."

The only reason that this was not used in the Declaration of Independence is that at that time slavery...

"Liberal Judges use Intenational law when deciding U.S. Constitutional Law."

They do not. Read the decision in Roper v. Simmons. Kennedy's decision simply cited how rare execution of those under 17 were inside and outside the US.

"Liberal Judges ignore "original intent" of the founding fathers."

And since none I would argue can commune with the dead, that is a pretty fuzzy concept.

I won't go through your tripe line by line, but many "conservative" judges have ruled in similar fashion--e.g. in regards to corporations and workplace privacy issues.

In Minor vs Happersett (1875) which post dates the 15th (but was based on a clause in the 14th) rejected the claim that that amendment gave women the right to vote. Also, if the 15th had simply stated "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State" Susan B. Anthony et al would have sued under the 15th, but they didn't because the amendment makes a large degree of qualifications and sex was not one of them. The original intent of the 15th was to bar women the right to vote.

The amendment process was in the text of the Constitution, not part of some guess as to "original intent."

Here's a question for you--the 15th amendment says "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Since women were citizens, would you interpret this literally to mean all citizens can vote? Or would you rely on "original intent" to deny women the right to vote for another 70 years? Would you have wanted a judge to rule on a) the original intent of the founders, or b) the literal text of the document/amendment?

See the problem?

As for your other shucking and jiving,...

The "original intent" of the Constitution includes what is commonly known as "the amendment process", which is described in Article IV of that same Constitution.

You perverted quacking about "blacks 3/5ths of a person" (you may want to actually read the damn document, it does no such thing), and all that other BS is merely your strawman due to your lack of being unable to defend the indefensible anti-constitutional push from the America-hating fascists Oba Mao intends to nominate.

Outside of some "ism" (e.g. racism, sexism, etc...), what does "diverse" races/sexes/whatever on the court, and the "life experiences" they bring, offer?

Once upon a time, the judiciary was supposed to be "impartial". By claiming one's race, color, creed, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or whatever will add anything to the outcomes of any decisions is to say that there is no impartiality.

To go further and CELEBRATE that lack of impartiality is, in itself, bigoted.

So tell us, Akagi, why are you such a bigot?

I, personally, could care less about the skin color or gender of the appointee. All I care about is that they are impartial and uphold, to the letter, the US Constitution faithfully. What is wrong...

...upChuck Schumer thinks that Nancy Pelosi is "mainstream".

However, the fact of the matter is that when Pelosi points the Hubble Space Telescope to her political right, she see's, in the barely visible distance, Josef Stalin.

"Mainstream" to a progressive is someone who merely thinks that taxes should be raised to 100%, but does not think that the punnishment for objecting to such slavery ought to be summary execution.

You claim (without evidence of course) that "Liberal Judges ignore "original intent" of the founding fathers."

Would you have them follow the "original intent" that blacks are 3/5ths of a person? That women, black men, and anyone who doesn't own property cannot vote? That owning slaves should be legally protected?

While what the founding fathers thought about Constitutional questions is of interest, we shouldn't make decisions based on that original intent. We need to keep remembering that it's not THEIR Constitution (the founding fathers), it's OUR Constitution (all US citizens). It's more important to know what we think than to know what they thought.

Liberal Judges use Intenational law when deciding U.S. Constitutional Law.

Liberal Judges ignore "original intent" of the founding fathers.

Liberal Judges look for ways to let criminal out of jail to prey upon your children, your family, and your property.

Liberal Judges consistantly rule in favor of big corporations over the little guy. (Microsoft Anti-Trust suit.)

Liberal Judges rule that local governments can take your property and give it to Big Land Developers to build Strip Malls.

Liberal Judges rule convicted murderers can write books from prison making millions of dollars while collecting S.S.I.

Liberal Judges rule you don't have privacy rights when at the workplace.

Liberal...

"Keep in mine what the conservative justices just presented us. A ruling that corporations are to be treated as individuals so they can contribute freely to presidential campaigns. That decision is going to bring more big company influence into government than we already have. And there are sure a lot of corporations that are multinational as well."

And what is wrong with that? Or do you hold, corporations lose the right of political speech once they set foot on American soil?

Gerald Ford a Republican appointed Stevens. Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day Oconnor, and both turned out to be quite liberal. So you can't really predict how appointments will turn out. Especially with Oconnor voting to protect abortion rights consistently.
George W Bush appointed Allito and John Roberts. Both have been true conservatives.
Like his predecessors Obama can choose who he jolly well pleases. Like bush he will choose to please those who voted him into office. Nothing new there.
Keep in mine what the conservative justices just presented us. A ruling that corporations are to be treated as individuals so they can contribute freely to presidential campaigns. That decision is going to bring more big company...

"I would like to see judges who are willing to put their reason above partisan considerations, which definitely has not been the case for Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito."

Really? How about the case of Free Speech Coalition v. Ashcroft which struck down parts of the Child Pornography Prevention Act, where protected works like American Beauty could have been deemed child porn? Thomas joined the majority in striking down that law. Both Scalia and Thomas joined the majority to strike down the Communications Decency Act striking down the unconstitutional prohibitions on "indecent" content on the Internet.

I have to disagree when you write:

"A couple of things
First, a Latina or an Asian or black is going to have different experiences than a white and a woman different than a man and having blacks, Latina/Latinos, Asians (none I might add) on the court will indeed give it broader experiences and indeed enable it to make wiser decisions."


Comment: Irrelevant to law and the constitution. The court makes decisions on the interpretation of law, life experiences or lack of them should not be a factor in any decision on the interpretation of law. The only factor should be the intellectual ability to interpret law and the understanding that personal experiences are irrelevant when it comes to deciding law that affects...

"We don't need ideologues"

And Thomas, et al are not more so than Ginsberg et al are on the left.


"Under the previous president we had two hardline right wing ideologues appointed to the Supreme Court. The "liberals" on the court have included several judges appointed by Republican presidents, such as Kennedy, Souter, Stevens and even Sandra Day O'Connor."

Again, the Bush appointments are no more hard-line right ideologues than Ginsberg is a hard line left one.

"The "liberals" on the court have included several judges appointed by Republican presidents, such as Kennedy, Souter, Stevens and even Sandra Day O'Connor."

Two of the most liberal Earl Warren (and major proponent of depriving the...

First, a Latina or an Asian or black is going to have different experiences than a white and a woman different than a man and having blacks, Latina/Latinos, Asians (none I might add) on the court will indeed give it broader experiences and indeed enable it to make wiser decisions.

Secondly, both those on the right and the left basically make law and both engage in judicial activism only difference is whose ox is being gored. When the right does it, those on the right call it "judicial restraint" when the left does it, they call it "judicial activism," The Rehnquist was just as activist as the Burger court before it only activist in the opposite direction.

And svpallava only fair and square if you think the Treaty of...

I am old enough to remember the "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards that the John Birch Society had put all over the nation's highways. What was the main cause of the wrath? Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954, which made racial segregation in the schools illegal and ushered in the Civil Rights era. Under the previous president we had two hardline right wing ideologues appointed to the Supreme Court. The "liberals" on the court have included several judges appointed by Republican presidents, such as Kennedy, Souter, Stevens and even Sandra Day O'Connor. I would like to see judges who are willing to put their reason above partisan considerations, which definitely has not been the case for Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito.