0
   

Take Three: Unite the USA or Not?

 
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 08:20 pm
Joe Nation wrote:
None of which would withstand his perusal given a chance.


One could make a reasonable interpretation either way. So far, the right to privacy laws have not been overturned on constitutional grounds.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 09:11 pm
Just give'em time and the right case...... it's a new political world in America. Just like you wanted.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 11:54 pm
Was listening to Drudge (the radio program) running in the background earlier, and he says his early inside informers advise that Clarence Thomas is most likely the front runner for Chief Justice should that post need to be filled.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 12:05 am
So much for the "uniter not a divider" thing, then ... Thomas is the single most ideologically outspoken judge on the court, isn't he?
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 04:29 am
More likely, Scalia for Chief. Without Anthony(sic) as President Bush has called him, Clarence Thomas wouldn't know what to say or do.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 05:35 am
Joe Nation wrote:
Just give'em time and the right case...... it's a new political world in America. Just like you wanted.


Nope. I prefer the "old" political world. You know, the one prescribed in the Constitution. As near as I can tell, it is still alive and well.

But others, for their own partisan reasons, biases, and prejudices, may disagree.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 05:47 am
Then I would assume you are against amending the Constitution in order to promote a political agenda, right?
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 05:54 am
Joe Nation wrote:
Then I would assume you are against amending the Constitution in order to promote a political agenda, right?


Bad assumption.

On principle, I am not opposed to a political agenda that reflects the will of the people but requires a constitutional amendment to enact being advocated.

But I might well be opposed to a specific proposed amendment, such as the banning of homosexual marriage currently being advocated by Bush.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 08:16 am
Nimh writes
Quote:
So much for the "uniter not a divider" thing, then ... Thomas is the single most ideologically outspoken judge on the court, isn't he?


Thomas is one of the more conservative judges, the one black judge, and the least vocal of all. He is an accomplished public speaker, however, and when he does speak, he always has something significant to say and he can give you goose bumps. He has staunchly resisted efforts of the court to create new law and he is a strict constitutionalist. He would have to be reconfirmed by the Senate for the new position and that will be an interesting debate to watch, especially if it happens fairly close after an election that came down pretty well on the side of more conservative ideology.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 09:02 am
I can't quite make up my mind who the duo of Scalia and Thomas resemble. Batman and Robin or the Lone ranger and Tonto. One thing is sure Scalia pulls the stings on his Thomas puppet. Did someone say chief justice for the bobble head doll? Nah!
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 09:08 am
au1929 wrote:
I can't quite make up my mind who the duo of Scalia and Thomas resemble. Batman and Robin or the Lone ranger and Tonto. One thing is sure Scalia pulls the stings on his Thomas puppet. Did someone say chief justice for the bobble head doll? Nah!


I think you are correct in that opinion re: Scalia having a strong influence on Thomas, as well as the other conservatives on the Court. Everybody needs a role model.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 09:22 am
However, it cannot be assumed that two people who agree did not arrive at their opinions independently of each other.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 09:24 am
au1929
These are Judges of the highest court in the land they should hopefully be able to make decision without being lead by the nose. As Thomas has been. Nine [9] judges are appointed to the supreme court and end up with 8 decision makers and one lap dog.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 09:28 am
au1929 wrote:
au1929
These are Judges of the highest court in the land they should hopefully be able to make decision without being lead by the nose. As Thomas has been. Nine [9] judges are appointed to the supreme court and end up with 8 decision makers and one lap dog.


Having a role model whose opinion one respects, is hardly the same as being led around by the nose by them. Unless one thinks that some races are more susceptible to that than others.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 09:47 am
I wonder if Au knows Thomas personally? Has followed his voting record? Has seen the opinions he has written? Has listened or read his speeches? I would bet a year's pay that Thomas is nobody's lapdog.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 10:15 am
How much do you make Foxy?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 10:20 am
Depends on what I'm making ebrown
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/07/2025 at 02:44:45