Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Crabtownboy, Aug 14, 2008.
Just another democratic hack blocking the rightful duty of the President of the United States. Our country will find its ultimate demise in a liberal judiciary. They want judges who will cater to the ACLU, support unlimited abortion rights to include banning parents having any say so in the matter, take away our right to bear arms, harm and erode the religious freedom that this country has so long enjoyed, up hold hate crime laws that will make it a crime to even say that a certain lifestyle is wrong.....This man is a great example of the kind of man we want yielding power in the United States. God help us.
Putting the labels aside for a moment, should an unqualified person, be he/she liberal or conservative, be confirmed to sit as a judge for the rest of his life or until he/she retires?
Or President for that matter.
I agree. We surely need qualified presidents.
How can we trust the word of a felon and his friends about the real truth concerning this judge? Personally, I can't take their attacks very seriously for the democrats have refused to confirm men and women who were very qualified to serve.
Well liberals want illegals and felons to vote as well as use them for credibility against judges. Pretty consistant I would say.
Do you trust any of the following Republican conservative felons?
J. Steven Griles
Randall "Duke" Cunningham
Oops... too late for that I'd say :tonofbricks:
The ABA says this guy is qualified. They are not liberal or conservative, to my knowledge. So this question doesn't really have relevance here, it seems.
What does this have to do with Republican felons? The fellow in the article is clearly a democratic operative doing their dirty work destroying the reputations of judges who are qualified to serve. Others judges may have more experience but that's not the point. This is a qualified man, whom the POTUS nominated, and should be confirmed by the Senate. In reality this has nothing to do with "qualifications." The democrats want judges who will legistate from the bench forcing their libeal agenda on the United States whether her people want it or not.
The title of this thread certainly falls in line with the same school of though sag.
I was showing that felons come from both parties ... and was wondering if conservative felons are more believable than liberal ones. Of course, he may be a conservative democrat, but maybe not.
The fellow nominated has only tried two federal cases. That is not much experience to become a federal judge. So the ABA says he is qualified ... whether he really is suitable for sitting on a court bench is up to the Senate.
The greatest legislation from the bench has come from the current Supreme Court; i.e.
1-ruling on the Florida vote in 2000
2-Overuling 700 years of Habeas corpus which, according to Blackstone, came about in 1305 in England and has always been a part of US law except for during the Civil War and WW II.
So, don't just assume that 'liberal judges' write law ... conservative judges also write law and the current conservative judges have taken away many of your hard won rights. What you are really telling me is that it is all right for judges to make laws as long as you agree with them.
No that is not what he is telling you. But you as usual are putting words in the mouhts of others based on your won arrogant and flawed view point. It is the libs that you support and them alone that are writing laws from the bench. They write laws concerning the holocaust of unborn children in this country, peverted homosexual lifestyles, and force the ungodly flawed theory of evolution down the throats of American children.
As ususal you post with a hidden agenda to be revealed at a later point. You consistantly post in vague tactics that lack open and up front clarity. These are bait tactics. And you should be ashamed.
And as usual you are playing ignorant. But that is what I expect. The current court has been very activist ... but I guess in your eyes if it is a conservative court it is not activist. Step back a pace and view this court objectively.
I saw Antonin Gregory Scalia interviewed recently and he made a lot of sense. I wish the other "conservatives" on the bench were as clear in their judicial philosophy as he. I agreed with almost everything he said ... and I bet you would not have even though you say you are conservative. Scalia is intellectually very honest.
Just as I thought.
By the way what does the 2000 election have to do with anything?
What? In 2000, SCOTUS ruled that Florida did not abide by its own law. In other words, they resisted legislating from the bench.
To call this court "activist" certainly redefines the historical use of "activist."
Chances are he wants to revise history rather than definition.
I hope this man is successful in keeping this Bush appointee from being confirmed. I don't think he should serve as a judge anywhere.