Roberts?

[piece-it pete]

Brilliant choice. After the compromise a selection like this left members with very little to hang on to.

33 hours! of cross examination by the committee. No "major" flubs.

My concern as a conservative is - it's too good to be true. Thoughts?

Pete

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Brilliant choice. After the compromise a selection like this left members with very little to hang on to.

33 hours! of cross examination by the committee. No "major" flubs.

My concern as a conservative is - it's too good to be true. Thoughts?

Pete

Bad for women's rights, bad for people of color, and not responsive during questioning which would give anyone little to hang on to. Plus he is a parties choice(republican) and that is not good for ALL Americans regardless of party affilitation. I get nervous when any member of the highest court in the land is closely aligned we ANY party. Whether its a brillant choice highly depends on what party you belong to, not on how well he will serve ALL Americans.

[piece-it pete]

Well he's in.

ALL court nominees are party-oriented. This is the way the system works, and how it was designed. In this way the peoples' view over time is reflected in the judicial system.

The reason the bill of rights was NOT a part of the Constitution is that many believed (rightly, imo) that any rights specificly attached to the document would in time become the ONLY rights reserved to the people, hence articles 9 and 10, that are sadly neglected, while other invented "rights" are used to upsurp our (the peoples') soveriegnity.

"Judicial activism" is Orwellian double-speak for "Judicial tyranny". Their job is to interpet the Constitution, NOT rewrite it. The only folks pushing this "activism" are those who can not win over the people, so are happy to force them to their will.

Pete

[dean_martin]

I think one role of our system of government is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Often, the last place left for this protection is the judicial branch. The will of the majority is promoted by the legislative branch. The executive branch seems to be able to promote its own will through executive orders and in particular through the promulgation of regulations by agencies that fall under its wing. So, I'm glad someone's complaining about the judiciary going against the grain of the majority.

(Edit: Just wanted to make sure my sentiment was clear that if the majority is pissed at the judicial branch, then it's more likely than not the court is doing its job. I'll go a little further and reiterate what most Supreme Court historians believe, i.e., that the last "activist" court was the Warren court. We're far from that now and have been for a while. This "judicial acitvism" bull is propaganda designed to get the courts in line with the majority.)

As far as Roberts goes, from all accounts he's a brilliant, highly educated man. I prefer common sense, but maybe I'm jealous. What I don't like (again, maybe I'm jealous) is that he's part of the inner Washington clique. I sure would like to see an Atticus Finch type get nominated.

[dean_martin]

The reason the bill of rights was NOT a part of the Constitution is that many believed (rightly, imo) that any rights specificly attached to the document would in time become the ONLY rights reserved to the people, hence articles 9 and 10, that are sadly neglected, while other invented "rights" are used to upsurp our (the peoples') soveriegnity.



Pete

C'mon, Petey, you can't mean that. The fact is that our Constitution would not have been adopted without those 10 amendments.

What rights do you contend were invented - the right to privacy in one's person, home and effects, the right to use contraception, the right to an abortion? Did you know that in Alabama it's not only illegal to sell sex toys, but it is also illegal to own sex toys? What the hell is the state doing in my bedroom? With no right to privacy, the government can come into your bedroom too, Pete. Hopefully, someone will have the guts to take this one on. But to bring a constitutional challenge to this law you have to be charged with a violation first and probably convicted. That's a lot of crap for an individual to go through to get an unconstitutional law off the books.

BTW, if you contend that enumerating our rights actually limits our rights on the one hand and contend that rights were invented on the other aren't you pressing a circular argument? If you believe that our rights should not have been enumerated because enumerating them would limit us to just those enumerated, then how can you complain about "invented" rights that aren't enumerated? It seems that that was what you were advocating in the first place. Let's not have a list so we don't limit ourselves to the list. Then you get pissed when someone makes one up that's not on the list?

You know, I'm very uncomfortable with abortion but it occurred to me recently that if I were a woman and was caught in unfortunate circumstances and had to make a difficult decision I wouldn't want the government telling me I had to be an incubator.

The reason I'm uncomfortable with abortion is because I respect life and I'm tired of the current batch of conservative leaders who hypocritically say they respect life when all they respect is money. They have no respect for life nor quality of life except for their own. They're lining their own damn pockets and running this country into such deep debt that generations from now will still be paying. It amazes me that the same damn conservatives who used to ***** about welfare and food stamps and other social programs can't see that our government leaders are still shifting wealth with tax dollars. The only difference now is that instead of spreading it, it is becoming more concentrated. (My tax dollars are going into some fatcat's pockets while he's layin' pipe [in more ways than one probably] in the Middleast and putting his millions in some tax exempt investment while at the same time getting huge tax breaks for hiring certain people and using certain tools and equipment.) I'm hoping that true moral conservatives will wake up to the realization that there are two wings of the Republican party - the social conservatives and the economic conservatives. The economic conservatives are in power and are raping this country for their own benefit (and looking to do the same thing in other countries). They are NOT CONSERVING anything!!!! The sad and equally ironic thing is that these selfish bastards gained power on the backs of the moral wing of the party.

I'm jus' tellin' you Pete that things ain't as rosey, nice and straight-laced as you like to believe. The last time I felt this uncomfortable about our national situation was when Jimmy Carter was President, our citizens were being held hostage in Iran and you couldn't find a gallon of gas. But there are some differences. Back then you could actually earn some money on your savings because interest rates were high. Now, we have no incentive to save. All incentives point to deeper debt now. (Also, I was pretty damn young back then and I was easily distracted by my bike, Star Wars action figures, baseball cards, etc. It's a little harder to take my mind off our current state of affairs.)

Speaking of conserving, I'll save the "are we safer?" rant for another day.

[piece-it pete]

Hello Sir!

I think one role of our system of government is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Often, the last place left for this protection is the judicial branch. The will of the majority is promoted by the legislative branch. The executive branch seems to be able to promote its own will through executive orders and in particular through the promulgation of regulations by agencies that fall under its wing. So, I'm glad someone's complaining about the judiciary going against the grain of the majority.

(Edit: Just wanted to make sure my sentiment was clear that if the majority is pissed at the judicial branch, then it's more likely than not the court is doing its job. I'll go a little further and reiterate what most Supreme Court historians believe, i.e., that the last "activist" court was the Warren court. We're far from that now and have been for a while. This "judicial acitvism" bull is propaganda designed to get the courts in line with the majority.)

I agree with you about the majority being pissed at the court - to a point.

I'm fine with them shooting down clearly unConstitutional rulings and/or legislation. One of the problems the Founders hoped to address with the court was that the majority were debtors and the minority were lenders - and the majority were abusing their power to not pay the lenders. Basically stealing.

But when they start writing law from the bench - Judicial activism - you get rulings like the one (can't remember the case) that established "seperate but equal" in the first place.

Their job is to enforce the Constitution, not enforce justice. As a lawyer you surely know the statement "This is not a court of justice - it is a court of law" (told to me by a judge). It is not for the judges to decide right and wrong, that is up to the supposedly soveriegn people.

When they start believing that it's up to them it is tyranny. They are TAKING the power from us. If we wish to GIVE them more power there is a way to amend the Constitution.

As far as Roberts goes, from all accounts he's a brilliant, highly educated man. I prefer common sense, but maybe I'm jealous. What I don't like (again, maybe I'm jealous) is that he's part of the inner Washington clique. I sure would like to see an Atticus Finch type get nominated.

We'll see about Roberts - who knows. Nobody. Maybe he even has common sense. Imo it's rediculous we can no longer nominate justices that have a paper trail.

I'd like to see Atticus Finch too - I'm sure he would do what he can while keeping within his oath.

C'mon, Petey, you can't mean that. The fact is that our Constitution would not have been adopted without those 10 amendments.

Agreed - but what I stated was the reason they weren't writen right into the Constitution.

What rights do you contend were invented - the right to privacy in one's person, home and effects, the right to use contraception, the right to an abortion? Did you know that in Alabama it's not only illegal to sell sex toys, but it is also illegal to own sex toys? What the hell is the state doing in my bedroom? With no right to privacy, the government can come into your bedroom too, Pete. Hopefully, someone will have the guts to take this one on. But to bring a constitutional challenge to this law you have to be charged with a violation first and probably convicted. That's a lot of crap for an individual to go through to get an unconstitutional law off the books.

Any "right" not stipulated in the Constitution and/or its' amendments is an invention of the court. I don't see it in the document. See again amendments 9 and 10.

I'm not saying, say, privacy is not important. What I am saying is that it is up to us to enforce it. Your arguments should be directed at state and perhaps federal Congresses, not the courts.

It brings to mind Franklins' comment - "A democracy, if you can keep it". If we decide we want something added to the Constitution it should be done legally - an amendment.

BTW, if you contend that enumerating our rights actually limits our rights on the one hand and contend that rights were invented on the other aren't you pressing a circular argument? If you believe that our rights should not have been enumerated because enumerating them would limit us to just those enumerated, then how can you complain about "invented" rights that aren't enumerated? It seems that that was what you were advocating in the first place. Let's not have a list so we don't limit ourselves to the list. Then you get pissed when someone makes one up that's not on the list?

No, I do not. It is only a circular argument if you look at the Judicial system exclusively, outside our entire syste.

The "rights" not enumerated are up to the LEGISLATURE (we, the people), not the judiciary run amok. I never said I agreed that the bill of rights was wrong, again, just mentioned the arguments against it in the first place.

You know, I'm very uncomfortable with abortion but it occurred to me recently that if I were a woman and was caught in unfortunate circumstances and had to make a difficult decision I wouldn't want the government telling me I had to be an incubator.

The reason I'm uncomfortable with abortion is because I respect life and I'm tired of the current batch of conservative leaders who hypocritically say they respect life when all they respect is money. They have no respect for life nor quality of life except for their own. They're lining their own damn pockets and running this country into such deep debt that generations from now will still be paying. It amazes me that the same damn conservatives who used to ***** about welfare and food stamps and other social programs can't see that our government leaders are still shifting wealth with tax dollars. The only difference now is that instead of spreading it, it is becoming more concentrated. (My tax dollars are going into some fatcat's pockets while he's layin' pipe [in more ways than one probably] in the Middleast and putting his millions in some tax exempt investment while at the same time getting huge tax breaks for hiring certain people and using certain tools and equipment.) I'm hoping that true moral conservatives will wake up to the realization that there are two wings of the Republican party - the social conservatives and the economic conservatives. The economic conservatives are in power and are raping this country for their own benefit (and looking to do the same thing in other countries). They are NOT CONSERVING anything!!!! The sad and equally ironic thing is that these selfish bastards gained power on the backs of the moral wing of the party.

I'm jus' tellin' you Pete that things ain't as rosey, nice and straight-laced as you like to believe. The last time I felt this uncomfortable about our national situation was when Jimmy Carter was President, our citizens were being held hostage in Iran and you couldn't find a gallon of gas. But there are some differences. Back then you could actually earn some money on your savings because interest rates were high. Now, we have no incentive to save. All incentives point to deeper debt now. (Also, I was pretty damn young back then and I was easily distracted by my bike, Star Wars action figures, baseball cards, etc. It's a little harder to take my mind off our current state of affairs.)

Speaking of conserving, I'll save the "are we safer?" rant for another day.

Boy this is a WHOLE 'nuther can of worms. Maybe four or five of them.

I agree with you about the current state of "my" party far more than most here would believe. I would also add that there are many turncoat Dems in collusion. I hold the last Dem pres as one of these.

Not to get into it here, I'll leave it with this: Unless there is a huge shakeup in the GOP I foresee a third party within 10-12 years.

Low inflation is a dbl-edged sword. I don't think we'll have to worry about it much longer.

Star Wars: When I saw some neighborhood boys fighting with make believe light sabers after the 1st "new" Star Wars release it was a total flashback. Amazing - the "Power of the Force" lol.

Pete

[dean_martin]

Boy this is a WHOLE 'nuther can of worms. Maybe four or five of them.

I agree with you about the current state of "my" party far more than most here would believe. I would also add that there are many turncoat Dems in collusion. I hold the last Dem pres as one of these.

Not to get into it here, I'll leave it with this: Unless there is a huge shakeup in the GOP I foresee a third party within 10-12 years.

Low inflation is a dbl-edged sword. I don't think we'll have to worry about it much longer.

Star Wars: When I saw some neighborhood boys fighting with make believe light sabers after the 1st "new" Star Wars release it was a total flashback. Amazing - the "Power of the Force" lol.

Pete

Yeah, it was a rant. My apologies to you, sir. I've started to come out of my funk and bewilderment over what has happened to parts of our gulf coast area and all of that extraneous stuff came out uncontrollably. It was rather cathartic though.

May the Force be with you.

[piece-it pete]

No problem Dean.

Everything seems so worrisome nowdays. I blame the media .

Pete

PS You got me - I had to look up "cathartic" lol. Vocabulary word for the day .

[piece-it pete]

BTW, don't forget we the chosen have hope. Everything works to the plan.

Pete

[dean_martin]

BTW, don't forget we the chosen have hope. Everything works to the plan.

Pete

...and for our good!