I was hoping this wouldn't happen [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

[censored]

07-01-2005, 04:08 PM

Do you realize that when Reagan nominated a moderate he had to go through a democrate controlled senate and that Bush does not? I ask because it is quite clear that Harry Reid and Teddy Kennedy don't.

Man I hope Bush nominates the hardest conservative out there and shoves it down the Democrate's throats.

vulturesrow

07-01-2005, 04:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Oh boy here we go with the "reaching talk" AHAHAHAHAHA

GWB needs to reach out with a fist. This isn't the time to unite the country but rather to bolster the conservative (and I mean hard) ideology for years to come.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I love you. /images/graemlins/heart.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

OtisTheMarsupial

07-01-2005, 04:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.busateripens.com/images/2sandragoodbye.jpg

Goodbye, Sandra. Sometimes you did well. Other times you did not.

Let's hope your replacement does better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but probably disagree on the things she did well and those she didn't.

Either way, it's sad to see the first female Supreme Court Justice retire. Her appointment marked a milestone in Women's History.

ptmusic

07-01-2005, 05:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Do you realize that when Reagan nominated a moderate he had to go through a democrate controlled senate and that Bush does not? I ask because it is quite clear that Harry Reid and Teddy Kennedy don't.

Man I hope Bush nominates the hardest conservative out there and shoves it down the Democrate's throats.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a sensible and reasonable person you seem to be. Perhaps GWB should give you the nod.

-ptmusic

JoshuaMayes

07-01-2005, 06:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Man I hope Bush nominates the hardest conservative out there and shoves it down the Democrate's throats.

[/ QUOTE ]

I vote for Michael Luttig, Karen Johnson Williams or Janice Rogers Brown (if only my vote mattered /images/graemlins/tongue.gif).

The once and future king

07-01-2005, 06:25 PM

Conservatives please explain how you occupy the following positions at the same time.

I want a small government that dosnt intrude into peoples lives and returns resposibility to the individual. I also hope Bush appoints a conservative judge that uses the power of the state to curtail individuals choices about any number of life style choices.

I dont mean this as an attack but as genuine question as I am allways baffled by what seems an apparent contradiction in conservative thinking. If one of you could ellucidate I would appreciate it.

[censored]

07-01-2005, 06:31 PM

If you could give a specific issue, I would be better able to provide an answer.

[censored]

07-01-2005, 06:48 PM

In general I would say that you are falling into the trap of trying to paint conservatives into a corner of black, white and absolutes when such a world does not exist.

The once and future king

07-01-2005, 06:53 PM

gambling/drugs/prostitution

Im english, but am under the immpression that conservative judges would be more likely to rule against relaxation of laws dealing with the above.

renodoc

07-01-2005, 06:55 PM

up or down vote webpage (http://upordownvote.com/)

Nevada about to be further embarrassed by our fine senator from searchlight.

Wait for it, wait for it....

[censored]

07-01-2005, 07:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
gambling/drugs/prostitution

Im english, but am under the immpression that conservative judges would be more likely to rule against relaxation of laws dealing with the above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, first I should say that as a conservative I have different opinions on all three of those issues and I am sure many conservatives have different opinions than I do on all three.

I will say that many conservatives believe that a societies moral fiber is as essential to its survival as a strong national defense. George Will has written alot about this and I will try and find something as he will be able to articulate this much better than I.

As far as the court is concerned I think a conservative justice would give defference to the people of a state to decide what forms these vices take in a society. For example a conservative justice would IMO allow Vegas to have legalized prostitution and gambling but would also allow the people of say Kansas to vote to make both illegal. This IMO is where the real dissagreements with roe v. wade occur.

Please ask some follow up questions so I can better explain the conservative position.

I should also add that being a conservative does not mean that one is not allowed to want society to reflect his or her core values.

The once and future king

07-01-2005, 07:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I should also add that being a conservative does not mean that one is not allowed to want society to reflect his or her core values.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didnt say it was, it just seems conservatives seem to harp on about returning responsibity to the individual but also seem happy to let the state enforce the morality mentioned via state apparatus rather than letting individuals make there own choices. Just becasuse something is legal dosnt mean you have to go and do it.

[censored]

07-01-2005, 07:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I should also add that being a conservative does not mean that one is not allowed to want society to reflect his or her core values.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didnt say it was, it just seems conservatives seem to harp on about returning responsibity to the individual but also seem happy to let the state enforce the morality mentioned via state apparatus rather than letting individuals make there own choices. Just becasuse something is legal dosnt mean you have to go and do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes but the moral code and fiber by which a society is governed does affect the members of a society even those who do not participate in whatever is in question.

If prostitution was legal does that mean that I have to allow them to solicite on my street corner, how about out in front of my house on the side walk? If you say no, then aren't you saying that society has a right to restrict certain activities it deems undesireable and only quibbling with the extent of such restriction.

Arnfinn Madsen

07-01-2005, 07:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]

If prostitution was legal does that mean that I have to allow them to solicite on my street corner, how about out in front of my house on the side walk? If you say no, then aren't you saying that society has a right to restrict certain activities it deems undesireable and only quibbling with the extent of such restriction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?
I live in a city where prostitution is legal. It means that they ask me if I want to buy their services on the main street. Does it destroy my possibility to live the life I want? I just decline as I do if someone wants to sell me something else.

In fact the police here says that since the prostitution activity happens in a crowded area it makes it much more secure for the girls.

touchfaith

07-01-2005, 07:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Man I hope Bush nominates the hardest conservative out there and shoves it down the Democrate's throats.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In general I would say that you are falling into the trap of trying to paint conservatives into a corner of black, white and absolutes when such a world does not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you make it so hard to believe. How could anyone possible paint the conservatives as the 'my way or the highway' group?

Mind boggling.

[censored]

07-01-2005, 07:41 PM

I live in a residential neighborhood. Right now my 7 year old daughter is outside in the front yard playing with her 5-8 year old friends. Are you telling me I should not be concerned with whether or not a prostitute operates outside on the sidewalk?

The once and future king

07-01-2005, 07:43 PM

Wouldnt governing people like adults who can make there own choices rather than like children who cant and must be punished when they do create a society with much stronger and geniune moral fibre.

You must have a deeply pessismistic view of human nature if you think only the government can make them act moraly.

Arnfinn Madsen

07-01-2005, 07:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I live in a residential neighborhood. Right now my 7 year old daughter is outside in the front yard playing with her 5-8 year old friends. Are you telling me I should not be concerned with whether or not a prostitute operates outside on the sidewalk?

[/ QUOTE ]

You rather want them to coindentially discover drugs, prostitution etc. when you are not with them?

[censored]

07-01-2005, 07:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldnt governing people like adults who can make there own choices rather than like children who cant and must be punished when they do create a society with much stronger and geniune moral fibre.

You must have a deeply pessismistic view of human nature if you think only the government can make them act moraly.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if sex by adults with minors, or being able to see ones child into slavery was not illegal it is your opinion that these things would not occur with any more frequency than they do now? (for the purposes of this discussion please ignore the "victom" aspects of the children. I know that you or any other liberals do not believe these things should be legal, I am using extremes to illustrate a point)

shots

07-01-2005, 07:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
gambling/drugs/prostitution
Im english, but am under the immpression that conservative judges would be more likely to rule against relaxation of laws dealing with the above.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe a conservative lead the dissent against the medical marijuana ruling on the basis that it violated state rights and the federal government had no authority to intervene.

The once and future king

07-01-2005, 07:55 PM

Using children dosnt count because I am talking about freedom of transactions between consenting and responsible adults.

[censored]

07-01-2005, 07:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I live in a residential neighborhood. Right now my 7 year old daughter is outside in the front yard playing with her 5-8 year old friends. Are you telling me I should not be concerned with whether or not a prostitute operates outside on the sidewalk?

[/ QUOTE ]

You rather want them to coindentially discover drugs, prostitution etc. when you are not with them?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying that no, I should have no concern or right to be against prostitution taking place outside my residential home. If so than I would say you have illustrated in the strongest possible sense why conservatives feel the way they do and why we so strongly fear liberal judges.

That being said, you are certainly entitled to your opinions and you may be a good guy, I just happen to vehemently disagree with you.

[censored]

07-01-2005, 07:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Using children dosnt count because I am talking about freedom of transactions between consenting and responsible adults.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that, I am only trying to understand to what point you believe this

[ QUOTE ]

You must have a deeply pessismistic view of human nature if you think only the government can make them act moraly.

[/ QUOTE ]

to be accurate. It seems like you are saying that legislating moral activities has little or not affect on the extent to which they occur.

Arnfinn Madsen

07-01-2005, 08:07 PM

I have followed the development here in the city. 10 years ago prostitutes and drug addicts were hidden away in dark parts of the city. Slowly they have reclaimed their right to be a part of the city and are now a frequent encounter in the center.

It has led to a public awareness of the problem, made the politicians to get more focus on how to combat these problems and not combat the victims (prostitutes, drug addicts). Leading health politicians are speaking about the failure of the health system not providing care for drug addicts since they have a serious illness (earlier they were criminals). Justice politicians have increased their focus on combatting trafficking and pimping (which is illegal).

Does the children here see prostitutes and drug addicts? Obviously. Does it make them aware that even if they live in a very good society some battles are yet to be fought? Yes. Does it make them aware that there are dangers out there? Yes. Will it make them more prepared for youth life and more likely to avoid some traps? Yes.

shots

07-01-2005, 08:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I vote for Michael Luttig, Karen Johnson Williams or Janice Rogers Brown (if only my vote mattered /images/graemlins/tongue.gif).

[/ QUOTE ]

I like janice rogers brown here's her stance on property rights:

Theft is theft even when the government approves of the thievery. Turning a democracy into a kleptocracy does not enhance the stature of the thieves; it only diminishes the legitimacy of the government.
The right to express one’s individuality and essential human dignity through the free use of property is just as important as the right to do so through speech, the press, or the free exercise of religion.

Yes she nails it.
In my mind the real question over this nomanation would be do the dems fillabuster. I think they would then the question becomes do the republicans use the so called "nuclear" option. I think they would.

[censored]

07-01-2005, 08:16 PM

No way IMO do the democrates fillibuster a black woman, in something this high profile.

shots

07-01-2005, 08:23 PM

They already held her up for years. The dems don't care about the charge of rascism because the mainstream media's on their side to dismiss the charges as bassless. Now if the republicans fillabustered a black women they'd all be labeled as nazis.

Dead

07-01-2005, 10:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Oh boy here we go with the "reaching talk" AHAHAHAHAHA

GWB needs to reach out with a fist. This isn't the time to unite the country but rather to bolster the conservative (and I mean hard) ideology for years to come.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you're a real hard line conservative yourself. That's why you are so obsessed with porn, which is a conservative staple. Give me a break.

QuadsOverQuads

07-01-2005, 10:47 PM

Lovely. Now the Bush Worshippers can bring to our own Supreme Court all the great wisdom and judgment they have already shown in Iraq.

q/q

Felix_Nietsche

07-02-2005, 12:08 AM

O'Conner made a number of liberal/activist decisions including limiting political speech 60 days before an election (mCCain-Feingold).

If I were Bush, I'd nominate Janice Brown. She is pro-property rights (like O'Conner) and after that the recent decision were they said govt has the right to take private propterty and give it to private individuals we need judges like Janice Brown.

Cyrus

07-02-2005, 12:57 AM

war.

Anyway, what is exactly a conservative these days? Well, judging from what the currect conservative administration is up to, I guess it's someone who

- supports restriction of individual liberties, in the name of a common benefit such as the war against terror

- accepts that his cash can be confiscated almost at will by law enforcement agencies, without a warrant or a court order, in order to facilitate the war against drugs

- is solidly behind a spending binge and the resulting black hole of a deficit, the likes of which have rarely been seen before, because they are necessary in the war against tyranny

- supports laws against conservation of the environment, because this helps business investment in its war against poverty

- finds nothing wrong with the heavy comminglement of religion and state in all walks of political life, as part of the war against immorality

- supports totally free and unrestricted trade and capital flows because this facilitates the war against unemployment (even when this means the loss of his job to an unknown Chinese or Indian person, for one tenth of an American wage).

...Should be quite easy to find candidates for the O'Connor seat.

Felix_Nietsche

07-02-2005, 01:08 AM

"I want a small government that dosnt intrude into peoples lives and returns resposibility to the individual. I also hope Bush appoints a conservative judge that uses the power of the state to curtail individuals choices about any number of life style choices."
************************************************** *
Because like most people very few people are consistent in their thinking.
However, I would argue it is liberal judges who interfere more with people's lives.

*It was conservative judges who fought restrictions on political speech 60 days before an election (McCain-Feingold).
*It was was primarily conservative judges who voted that California had the right to regulated medical marijuana.
*It was conservative judges who voted to protect private property from being taken by govt and given to another private owner.

MMMMMM

07-02-2005, 01:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
- accepts that his cash can be confiscated almost at will by law enforcement agencies, without a warrant or a court order, in order to facilitate the war against drugs

[/ QUOTE ]

FYI, Cyrus: many (or perhaps most?) of the unconstitutional asset seizure/forfeiture laws were originated by Democrats. John Kerry in particular was a major sponsor or author of at least one such bill which became law, as part of the "war on drugs". Dems including Kerry have also pushed hard for banking anti-secrecy laws and suchlike.

Cyrus

07-02-2005, 02:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
FYI: Many of the asset seizure/forfeiture laws were originated by Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you think I'd have a second's hesitation in seriously booing the Democrats who did that ?

Cyrus

07-02-2005, 02:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It was was primarily conservative judges who voted that California had the right to regulated medical marijuana.

[/ QUOTE ]

What ??

You mean to say that conservative judges were in favor of medical pot and liberal judges against it?

Where and when did that happen?

shots

07-02-2005, 02:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]

What ??
You mean to say that conservative judges were in favor of medical pot and liberal judges against it?
Where and when did that happen?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you pay attention to the news at all?

kurto

07-02-2005, 03:35 AM

Democrats don't filibuster someone because of the color of their skin.

Nor do I suspect Republicans would either.

slamdunkpro

07-02-2005, 09:59 AM

Janice Rogers Brown or Miguel Estrada!

slamdunkpro

07-02-2005, 10:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
gambling/drugs/prostitution

Im english, but am under the immpression that conservative judges would be more likely to rule against relaxation of laws dealing with the above.

[/ QUOTE ]

O.K. – As a conservative I want Supreme Court Judges that understand that the Constitution is a “Dead” document, it’s purpose is to provide a basic framework for how government operates and also places limits on government power.

What I don’t want are Judges that are going to reinvent the Constitution to fit a trendy political philosophy, or to impose their particular moral views, or to marginalize the document to transfer rights and powers away from the citizenry to the Government.

As far as your issues go and I’ll throw in another one – abortion: In my opinion these are all State’s rights issues and should not be dealt with at the Federal level. As long as the States don’t make laws that violate the Constitution, The Fed should stay out.

tylerdurden

07-02-2005, 10:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Democrats don't filibuster someone because of the color of their skin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at bush's nominees that have been filibustered. They're mostly minorities or women. The Democrats think they have the right to be the sole benefactors of minorities, and see Bush's nominations as unfair, since they detract from their big selling point to these groups.

JoshuaMayes

07-02-2005, 11:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Conservatives please explain how you occupy the following positions at the same time.

I want a small government that dosnt intrude into peoples lives and returns resposibility to the individual. I also hope Bush appoints a conservative judge that uses the power of the state to curtail individuals choices about any number of life style choices.

[/ QUOTE ]

Conservative judges do not (on the whole) use the power of the state to curtail individual choices. Conservative judges tend to vote in favor of limiting federal power by enforcing the textual limitations on the power of Congress. They also tend to be against judicial intervention in difficult social issues, such as abortion, capital punishment, drug use, and gay rights, unless the Constitution explicitly speaks to the issue (as with freedom of assembly and speech).

As the Constitution says nothing about most difficult social issues, the Court has no business interfering in state political processes and curtailing state decisionmaking on these divisive issues. In short, Conservatives believe in enforcing the Constitution as written. Doing so does not use the power of big government to limit individual rights. It involves a return to the state of the law before the New Deal Court's "switch in time" and the Warren Court's unbridled exercise of judicial, which forced liberal policy preferences upon the nation under the guise of contitutional interpretation.

JoshuaMayes

07-02-2005, 11:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was was primarily conservative judges who voted that California had the right to regulated medical marijuana.

[/ QUOTE ]

What ??

You mean to say that conservative judges were in favor of medical pot and liberal judges against it?

Where and when did that happen?

[/ QUOTE ]

Raich (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=Raich&url=/supct/html/03-1454.ZO.html)

Dissent (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=raich&url=/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html)

touchfaith

07-02-2005, 11:40 AM

This is fairly funny watching the 'conservatives' here talk out of both sides of their mouths.

Stop trying to hide your hatred for Human Rights under the viel of "it's a social issue".

kurto

07-02-2005, 11:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Look at bush's nominees that have been filibustered. They're mostly minorities or women. The Democrats think they have the right to be the sole benefactors of minorities, and see Bush's nominations as unfair, since they detract from their big selling point to these groups.

[/ QUOTE ]

More importantly, look at the person being filibustered politics. The Republicans are crying racism to try to make the filibustering look bad. In every case where a person has been filibustered, you don't have to look very hard to see why they're being filibustered; you simply have to look at their record. The Democrats even make it easy because they'll point out for you what, exactly, about their record/stand on issues that they find objectionable.

Its simply a cheap political tactic to assume race is the issue when the people being held up have strong issue reasons that Democrats would find objectionable.

Its quite easy to see how this works:
Lets say the GOP picks a judge that wants to repeal a Woman's Right To Choose... and they pick a Judge who is black. The Democrats fiercely oppose the candidate for the quite obvious reason... but the Republicans will pretend that the reason he/she is being opposed is becauses the person is black. Its just cheap.

I wouldn't put it past this admin. to go through all the candidates they have with the most politically objectionable policies (to the Left) and select the one who is a minority simply because they can do this tactic.

I'd like to think that most wouldn't fall for it, but there are a lot of gullible people out there.

Felix_Nietsche

07-02-2005, 02:06 PM

The supreme court is a federal branch.

Gambling:
A conservative/originalist FEDERAL judge would rule that gambling is a state's right issue. There are 50 US States. Some US states have gambling and some do not.

Drugs:
A true conservative/originalist FEDERAL judge would rule that drugs trade within a state is a state's right issue. In the recent medical marijuana ruling in California, all the conservative judges (except one) voted pro-pot (to uphold Californias's right to control medical marijuana). It was liberal judges who voted to make it a federal crime (anti-pot).

Prostitution:
A conservative/originalist FEDERAL judge would rule that prostitution is a state's right issue. Prositution is legal in parts of Nevada yet not in other states.

Now...STATE judges are sworn to uphold their state's constitutions. Since there are 50 US states, there are 50 different state constitutions. If the state representatives vote to keep drugs, gambling, or prostitution illegal....then as long as it does not violate their state's constitution...then STATE JUDGES must support those laws. Honorable judges will rule whether a law is constitutional or not...DESPITE their personal views. Dishonorable judges will ignore whether a law is constitutional (or not) and make rulings based on their views which bypasses the voters and the legislative branch. These renegade judges have been running amok the last 100 years of the USA history. In the last 50 years they have become even bolder in their abuses. Control of the US Federal Supreme Court has HUGE consequences.

natedogg

07-02-2005, 03:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]

- supports totally free and unrestricted trade and capital flows because this facilitates the war against unemployment (even when this means the loss of his job to an unknown Chinese or Indian person, for one tenth of an American wage).

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely you don't advocate trade protectionism do you? Not even the really shrill partisan liberal economists think that way. Trade protectionism hurts the economy that does it.

natedogg

MMMMMM

07-02-2005, 03:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
FYI: Many of the asset seizure/forfeiture laws were originated by Democrats.

Why would you think I'd have a second's hesitation in seriously booing the Democrats who did that ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you would hesitate to do so. I posted the information merely to illustrate that it is not accurate to characterize such assaults on our rights and liberties as coming primarily from conservatives.

JoshuaMayes

07-02-2005, 03:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This is fairly funny watching the 'conservatives' here talk out of both sides of their mouths.

Stop trying to hide your hatred for Human Rights under the viel of "it's a social issue".

[/ QUOTE ]

When it comes to judicial philosophy, I am a conservative. On matters of policy, I am a libertarian. There is nothing inconsistent in the two views. One can believe, as a policy matter, that drugs, prostitution and gambling should be legal and that homosexuals should have the right to do as they please, and still hold the view that the Supreme Court has no business mandating those policy preferences (or any others) for the nation.

shots

07-02-2005, 06:56 PM

I never said the Dems would filibuster because of the color of anyone’s skin. What I said was if the Dems filibustered because of issue related differences with Janice Rogers Brown they wouldn't really have to worry about the stigma of racism being attached to their filibuster. But if the Republicans filibustered a black candidate because of issue related differences the charge of racism would probably be leveled against them at some point.

slamdunkpro

07-02-2005, 11:33 PM

??????

Why are you responding to me?

I said almost the exact same thing in my last post.

masse75

07-03-2005, 02:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I live in a residential neighborhood. Right now my 7 year old daughter is outside in the front yard playing with her 5-8 year old friends. Are you telling me I should not be concerned with whether or not a prostitute operates outside on the sidewalk?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't worry...obviously the prostitute has no business sense, since she's marketing in a residential area with little foot traffic. She'll either move on or be out of business in 2 weeks, tops.