An open question for President Bush...

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by NaasPreacher (C4K), Nov 18, 2003.

  1. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    ...and his supporters.

    In the light of today's Massachusetts Supreme Court rule on homosexual marriages NOW is it time for a constitutional ammendment defining marriage?
     
  2. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    In today's America, the Constitution doesn't even matter anymore because we do not follow the Constitution, only the Judges' political interpretation of it.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  3. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    You are quite correct. We are at the mercy of how the courts interpret our laws.

    But 3 out of the 4 judges who ruled on this were Bush appointees. If I am wrong, please correct me.
     
  4. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    As far as I know, W's appointees for any court have all been blocked from even being voted on by the Dems to this point.

    Are you talking about Bush Sr.?

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  5. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    Perhaps. I don't know where I heard it, but I've been in front of this all day.
     
  6. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would think the Massachusetts Supreme Court judges would be either appointed by the governor of Massachusetts or elected by the voters.
     
  7. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,071
    Likes Received:
    101
    Seven of the nine members are appointees of Republicans: Nixon (1), Ford (1), Reagan (3) and Bush Sr. (2).
     
  8. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    So the Governor doesn't appoint the Justices of the Massechussetts Supreme Court?

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  9. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you are confusing the Massachusetts Supreme Court that made this ruling with the U.S. Supreme Court.
     
  10. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    The liberal Republican Party has three options now:

    1) Really try to get a marriage amendment passed in 2004 in both houses of Congress that they control and send it to the States and really work to get the 38 States needed to ratify it.

    2) Use a lot of rhetoric about how awful the ruling is but not really try to push a marriage amendment through Congress in 2004 in order to keep it as an issue in the 2004 campaign so the conservative Christians will be deceived into voting for the Republicans based on the idea that the Republicans will really do something about this in 2005 even if they fail to do something about it in 2004 when they control both houses of Congress(I know, I know, they need bigger Republican majorities, or more conservative Republican majorities, or more conservative bigger Republican majorities - blah, blah, blah).

    3) Do nothing to not offend the rising tide of homosexual support that the liberal Republican Party has been courting.
     
  11. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe the tally is four blocked, one hundred sixty-eight passed out of one hundred seventy-two total.

    Pretty far from "all been blocked".
     
  12. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    168, huh? Quite impressive considering the war and all, all in 3 years. HMMMMMMMM. Perhaps you could cite your source there. Would you possibly name just 10 of those 168 you say have passed. It sure hasn't made the news.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  13. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, it is impressive, better than Reagan even. Waay better than Clinton did (60 nominees blocked, but I'm not sure over how many years).

    Sources:
    </font>
    Some of the later (11-15-03) stories put the tally at 6 blocked, 168 passed out of 174.

    Names:
    Ok, there's seven from a single news source. You can look up the rest yourself.

    Or, since you're convinced that "all been blocked", perhaps you can name 10 of them. Or even 7.

    Can you name one more? HMMMMMMMM?
     
  14. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bill Pryor, the Alabama Attorney General who threw Roy Moore out for refusing to promise not to mention God, is one of Bush's appointees who is held up.

    If Bush gets his way, Pryor will be on a federal bench. Then he can rule against God on the Federal level.

    It's interesting to me that Bush supporters always want to talk about judgeship appointments. It's because it's about the only thing left on which Bush cannot be easily proven a liberal. Sadly, some of them must realize that with time, his appointments will also turn out to be destructive, but for now they are willing to use it as an argument to defend "their man".
     
  15. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Back to the question, please
     
  16. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    ABSOLUTELY!
     
  17. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Feds should mind their own bees' wax.

    Leave the constitution be!
     
  18. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the U.S. Supreme Court would mind its own bees's wax, we could let the U.S. Constitution be. Otherwise, no dice. :cool:
     
  19. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    The Bill of Rights should not have been needed, but it was. I hate tapmering with the constitution, but something has to be done to stop the tyranny of the judiciary.
     
  20. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem is that I am not sure that changing the Constitution would solve the problem since the Courts do not follow the Constitution. They merely interpret the Constitution through their own political filter. I think it is quite clear to most of us that the Constitution can be twisted enough to make it say whatever the judge of the day wants it to say. If we want to stop the foolishness, we must change the judges.

    Joseph Botwinick
     

Share This Page

Loading...