• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

Discussion: The Supreme Court

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Qualified"... as in a Conservative, Anti-Choice Republican?


Seems to be the only type of person the Right will approve.



:thing: :doom: :thing:
 
Thank you for that unbiased, bi-partisan opinion to this discussion. It brings so much to it......
 
I'm sorry. Didn't most of the Conservatives vote against the approval of Sotomayor? One of the most qualified judges to be nominated?


But Harriet Meir... now there is a great litigator.

EDIT - Miers.. sorry bout teh spelling :Dj

Oh and btw.. why are you picking on me? What exactly did Marx bring to the table?



:thing: :doom: :thing:
 
Last edited:
Pretty much what Kel is saying is a left judge is leaving and Obama will probably have no problem getting another left judge in. No shifts in Balance-Of-Power.

Now if it was a right or moderate judge that is leaving then there would be giant stink over this matter.

The Republicans will moronically and predictably set another reactionary precedence again, so when Obama actually deals with the replacement of a non-left judge, people will accuse them about being the usual partisan reactionaries. Something Paradoxium warned them about but are too blindsighted about.

Anyways, in this case, I hope Obama gets someone mediocre and qualified, and/or on the basis of race (like Sotomayor), instead of a progressive legal genius. And Republicans completely agrees so they won't look like reactionary idiots.
 
I'm sorry. Didn't most of the Conservatives vote against the approval of Sotomayor? One of the most qualified judges to be nominated?


But Harriet Meir... now there is a great litigator.

EDIT - Miers.. sorry bout teh spelling :Dj

Oh and btw.. why are you picking on me? What exactly did Marx bring to the table?



:thing: :doom: :thing:

Here I was getting ready to defend you and then you make that comment!?!?! :cmad:

:oldrazz:

In all seriousness, I do find it intresting that the same people who can support a Miers appointment condemned a Sotomayor appointment.
 
I'm sorry. Didn't most of the Conservatives vote against the approval of Sotomayor? One of the most qualified judges to be nominated?


But Harriet Meir... now there is a great litigator.

EDIT - Miers.. sorry bout teh spelling :Dj

Oh and btw.. why are you picking on me? What exactly did Marx bring to the table?



:thing: :doom: :thing:

Yes they did, and I had no problem with their reasoning, even though I also had no problem with her being confirmed.

I didn't want to once again bring up the "activist" problem with her, simply because it has been discussed to death. I happen to think this appointment will calm that in her....but I don't blame anyone for questioning that....

Marx brings a very solid unbiased look at things here, so I don't tend to automatically read into his posts....sorry if I did that to yours......it happens.
 
I'm gonna surprise some people with this but...


this case about the WWI cross out in the Mojave desert. I say leave it alone. It's so old that it's more historical than religious. I say leave it alone. Maybe this case would set a presidents for historical religious artifacts. Now ya can't put up just any religious statue but if that statue was a part of our cultures history then I say leave it alone.


:thing: :doom: :thing:
 
I'm gonna surprise some people with this but...


this case about the WWI cross out in the Mojave desert. I say leave it alone. It's so old that it's more historical than religious. I say leave it alone. Maybe this case would set a presidents for historical religious artifacts. Now ya can't put up just any religious statue but if that statue was a part of our cultures history then I say leave it alone.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

I say they take it down and replace it with a billboard of the guy who brought the lawsuit with the words "I'm a dick" under his picture.
 
Today, the court is hearing a case about juvenile offenders and life sentences. So what do you think?

Should juvenile offenders (who have not committed murder) be sentenced to life in prison?
 
It depends on the crime. I don't see it as cruel and unusual punishment if they brutally raped someone to an inch of their life and then get Life in prison. Seeing has how they did not murder someone leaves the door wide open.
 
Today, the court is hearing a case about juvenile offenders and life sentences. So what do you think?

Should juvenile offenders (who have not committed murder) be sentenced to life in prison?
No if your Juvenile and you dont kill someone you dont deserve to go to prison for life. Unless its a brutal rape(which in any case most rapers dont get life anyway).
 
Today, the court is hearing a case about juvenile offenders and life sentences. So what do you think?

Should juvenile offenders (who have not committed murder) be sentenced to life in prison?

I do not believe they should get life in prison, BUT I do believe that their history should follow them into adulthood, especially in the areas of sex crimes, considering sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison.
 
I would like to know the votes on this...
 
NO MORE LIMITS ON CORPORATE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/us/politics/09donate.html?hp

Even though I support stricter campaign finance laws, I find it to be an abuse of power for Congress to try and undo a Supreme Court ruling.

I find it absurd over all the abuses of power the Congressional Democrats have complained about during the Bush Administration but are showing complete willingness to do it as well themselves.
 
Even though I support stricter campaign finance laws, I find it to be an abuse of power for Congress to try and undo a Supreme Court ruling.

I find it absurd over all the abuses of power the Congressional Democrats have complained about during the Bush Administration but are showing complete willingness to do it as well themselves.


And they do it in such a "**** you" way...WE WON IN 2008, and we can do whatever the hell we want...it's just amazing.
 
Supreme Court rolls back campaign spending limits
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority apparently agreed.

"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.

However, Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting from the main holding, said, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year's midterm congressional elections.

The decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns.

The case also does not affect political action committees, which mushroomed after post-Watergate laws set the first limits on contributions by individuals to candidates. Corporations, unions and others may create PACs to contribute directly to candidates, but they must be funded with voluntary contributions from employees, members and other individuals, not by corporate or union treasuries.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_campaign_finance

I'm not liking the look of this at all...
 
Obama and Democrats stands to benefit this the most, since he has the support of the rich elite moreso than Republicans. What needs to be done is strike down the redtape that prevents 3rd party candidates from emerging.
 
Supreme Court rolls back campaign spending limits

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_campaign_finance

I'm not liking the look of this at all...

As someone interested in political campaigns for a living, this sounds just fine to me :cwink:

In reality, though, with the internet the money means less now than it use to. It also has opened up an entire world of "small donors" that can help popular (but not well connected) candidates via money bombs and what not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,262
Messages
22,074,422
Members
45,876
Latest member
kedenlewis
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"