McCain hits a freakin' home run...

[eric_t12]

...we'll have a good chance compared to obama or hillary.

which isn't saying much...

[Judge]

can't argue with this... but compared to the competition..

Originally Posted by DanTheEldest

Overall I agree with him, but something in the first paragraph pulled me up short. It reads:


It really irks me that he said this, because he was one of the chief instigators of the Gang of 14 that had a chance to deal decisively with an unconstitutional super-majority of nominees (definitely qualifies as "unfair treatment"), but torpedoed it instead.

I'd take him over the two Dems, but man I wish we had a different nominee this time around. McCain has just plain p****d me off too many times in the past for me to really get behind him.

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by one-eyed-fatman

Hey come on guys I'm trying to get the multi million dollar contract to supply the free taco's.

If you did that then you would in fact become one of the big Corporate parasites you often post about in the negative. We couldn't have that, could we? How about staying with the regional Salsa condiment market to stay one of the regular people?

[Delija]

Originally Posted by XDConvert9mm

If you did that then you would in fact become one of the big Corporate parasites you often post about in the negative. We couldn't have that, could we? How about staying with the regional Salsa condiment market to stay one of the regular people?

LOL....sounds like OEFM wants to have his tortilla and eat it too!



Peace,
D.

[Frenchy]

I see McCain is throwing around the "Comprehensive immigration" line again. He needs the Hispanic vote, and he will do what he needs to get it.

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by gsx1138

My only issue with a polititian that loves to talk about "activist Judges" is that they in the end only want judges who'll also pass laws that coincide with their views. They all do it but try to pass themselves off as bastions of the law.

This is very true. Roberts and Alito have been ideological judges who seem to have no respect for precedent.

[Delija]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

This is very true. Roberts and Alito have been ideological judges who seem to have no respect for precedent.

Yup Etta....once again, it's too bad that you are correct!

The politicalization of the Supreme Court seems to have defeated it's very purpose to exist as devised by the framers of the constitution.

Sad.

Peace,
D.

[robin48]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

This is very true. Roberts and Alito have been ideological judges who seem to have no respect for precedent.

But Ginsburg does? All presidents choose those they perceive to share their values and whom are most likely to rule a certain way. Careful your liberalism is showing.

[jmichna]

Originally Posted by gsx1138

My only issue with a polititian that loves to talk about "activist Judges" is that they in the end only want judges who'll also pass laws that coincide with their views. They all do it but try to pass themselves off as bastions of the law.

The job of judges is not to "pass laws" but rather interpret existing laws. It is the job of the Legislature to pass laws. Activist judges attempt to "create law" by interpreting current laws to mean something other than, or beyond the scope of, the existing laws. An example of this was the Roe v Wade decision which resulted in legalizing abortion at the Federal level. Clearly, the Constitution does not protect abortion rights. The decision whether abortion was legal or not should have remained at the state level. At the time of the Rove V Wade decision, abortion was legal in sixteen states.

In the Roe V Wade decision, activist judges somehow cobbled together a ruling that existing abortion laws violated a constitutional "Right to Privacy" - which does NOT exist in the US Constitution - based on their interpretation of the Due Process Clause contained in the 14th Amendment. In the intervening years, both pro- and anti- sides seem to have come to consensus that this SCOTUS ruling was bad law.

Originally Posted by Etta Place

This is very true. Roberts and Alito have been ideological judges who seem to have no respect for precedent.

I have two comments regarding this statement:

First: please provide specific examples of decisions by Roberts or Alito that demonstrate an "ideological" behavior. That is, a decision that demonstrates interpreting a law in an ideological manner that goes beyond the original intent of the law as written, i.e., "creating a new law" (or a new right) where none existed. In prior threads, you seemed to have an issue with too many Catholics serving on the Supreme Court. Is the fact that Roberts and Alito are both Catholic still bothersome? Is "ideological judge" code for "Catholic judge"?

Second: With regard to judicial "respect for precedent" if we are inexorably bound by "established legal precedent," then slavery would not have been abolished by the passage of the 13th Amendment, as it was contrary to "established legal precedent" from the birth of the United States Constitution in 1787 until 1865 -- 78 years. Neither would women have the right to vote, as "established legal precedent" prohibited this for 131 years until passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920.

Legal precedent should not supercede, or carry more weight, than the plain law itself.

[AZXD]

Yep, McAmnesty is a fighter ..... He fought for McCain Feingold, McCain Kennedy, The Keating Five ..... and now he is fighting for the votes so he can continue his agenda.
Hard or soft shell taco's ??