|
|
#2
07-02-2005, 12:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Liberals
The short answer is power and abortion.
The judicial branch is the last branch completely controlled by the liberals. As long as liberals maintain their control on the judicial branch they can stop all conservative agendas. The liberals gained control of the judical branch when Republican presidents (Eisenhauer/Nixon/Bush41) made poor judicial choices who turned out to be liberal judges. When the present US govt was created, there was suppose to be three equal branches: 1. Executive(President) 2. Legislative(congress/senate) 3. Judicial The system was called checks-and-balances. The idea was that dividing power among three branches would ensure that neither branch became too powerful and could not abuse its power. The problem started about a 100 years ago when the supreme court started making rulings which increased their power in violation of the US constitution. The power grab by the supreme court started out small but over the last 100 years has become much more abusive. In theory, congress/senate has the power to impeach judges who violate their oaths to uphold the constitution but they rarely exercise this power. I heard one conservative talk show host (Michael Savage) refer to these renegade judges as "the stench from the bench is making me rench". Mark Levine has recently written a best selling book called 'Men In Black' which is a history of the abuse of power by the supreme court. During the 1960s was the liberals heyday. After LBJ defeated Barry Goldwater, The Dems controlled the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches. The 'War on Poverty" programs were passed into law and massive govt spending was suppose to end poverty in the US. These programs had the best of intentions. But as the old saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". What happen was poor people flocked to get on welfare. Once on welfare, these people found the govt cut their benefits if they started working, cut their benefits if they got married, and INCREASED their benefits if they had more children. You get what you reward. Ghettos became populated with professional welfare collectors, fatherless children, and 'welfare queens' who had more illegitimate children so they could get more govt money. Clinton/Republican Congress are the ones who finally passed welfare reform. All these programs had the blessings of the liberal courts. The liberals fear that if the supreme court becomes conservative, they will lose their biggest source of power(true) and that Roe v. Wade (abortion) will be overturned (maybe). If Roe v Wade gets overturned then each of the 50 states gets to decide their laws on abortion. Some states will say no and some will say yes. Those who want to have an abortion can just drive to another state and have that procedure done. The problem that conservatives have is just because they appoint a 'conservative' judge does not mean they will remain conservative. Power can be a very intoxicating potion for some people and many so-called conservative judges when appointed to the supreme court became liberal( e.g. Warren Burger who was appointed by Eisenhauer, Eisenhauer said this was his biggest mistake). David Souter was appointed by Bush41. When Bush41 negotiated with the democrats, they pressured him to appoint a 'moderate' judge who would not overturn Roe v Wade. Bush41 agreed and nominated Souter. At the time Souter was an unknown judge and no one knew how he would turn out. Souter turn out to be a HUGE liberal and conservatives like myself do not want to see this mistake made a again. If you have been listening to the news, several Democrat leaders have been calling for Bush to appoint a 'moderate' judge. I say, "NO THANKS!". One Justice Souter is enough. Give me a conservative/originalist judge who supports property rights. One last thought. Liberal judges have used the 'interstate commerce clause' in the US Constitution to justify almost all of their abusive rulings. Originally the 'interstate commerce claus' was created to stop states implying levies on other states products (e.g. If Maine shipped lobsters to Texas, the Texas could not impose an 'import tax' on these lobsters). Now the interstate commerce clause is used to justify the number of things including how many gallons of water a toilet may flush. In the recent California Medical Marijuana ruling, the majority ruled that: 1. Medical Marijuana grown in California 2. Medical Marijuana perscribed by doctors in California 3. Medical Marijuna used in California is subject to the 'interstate commerce clause'. This is a VERY scary ruling. If you accept this to be true then what is NOT interstate commerce? 
|
|
#4
07-02-2005, 05:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Liberals
what a bunch of crap
|
|
#5
07-02-2005, 05:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Liberals
[ QUOTE ]
another great post, but i was hoping to hear it from a liberal [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] I don't particularly think Felix knows what he's talking about. A perfect example was his rant on SCOTUS and the marijuana ruling as it pertains to the commerce clause. What he neglected to mention was that the biggest originalist on the bench (Scalia) voted in favor of the federal government's right to prosecute the grower's co-op. Kennedy, a usual state's rights advocate joined him as well. Moreover, SCOTUS could hardly be considered liberal. 5 of the justices were appointed by republicans (although as Felix did, they will always accuse some of these justices of somehow being liberal plants (wtf?)). But in truth, one could call SCOTUS a pretty evenly divided body, with Scalia, Thomas, Rhenquist, and Kennedy usually coming down on the conservative side of the bench. Personally, I'm extremely sick of conservatives shouting judicial activism at the first sign of a ruling they don't believe is correct. As one of my lawyer buddies put it: "When they rule the way you want, it's a great piece of jurisprudence. When they don't...its judicial activism." Personally, I'm afraid of some of Bush's nominees because I don't think he's looking for judges that wouldn't be judicial activists. I think he's looking for precisely the type of judge that would legislate from the bench...just so long as they do it for conservatives.
|
|
#6
07-02-2005, 08:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Liberals
What he neglected to mention was that the biggest originalist on the bench (Scalia) voted in favor of the federal government's right to prosecute the grower's co-op. Kennedy,
************************************************** ********* Actually in other posts I have expressed my disgust with Scalia for siding with the liberals in the case. If you have read my other posts you would know this. Anyway, Dissenting in California Medical Marijuana Case: Clarence Thomas: Conservative Renquist: Conservative O'Conner: Swing Vote (moderate) There were ZERO liberal judges in the dissent. In the majority were the liberal judge voting block and one originalist judge(Scalia). Their justification was the interstate commerce clause. As I said before just because you appoint an originalist judge they will not be 100% consistent in their rulings as Scalia demonstrated.
|
|
#7
07-02-2005, 08:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Liberals
[ QUOTE ]
I don't particularly think Felix knows what he's talking about. [/ QUOTE ] Has he ever really known what he talks about? I've never seen it. In fact, I think he goes out of his way to be as wrong as possible.
|
|
#9
07-02-2005, 09:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Liberals
[ QUOTE ]
Again, i am not political. What is the big deal about a convservative judge being appointed? From a liberals standpoint. [/ QUOTE ] Abortion, it is really as simple as that.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
