Foxfyre wrote:
George Bush is on record as intending to appoint judges who will interpret the existing law rather than insert their own ideology into creating law. When he does that, I hope we will all put pressure on our own senators to confirm those nominees.
I love it when I agree with you, and I agree on this 100%.
If he appoints judges that won't "insert their own ideology into creating law", I think we will all agree with you.
I just think that is a very big if...
We have agreed on a point or two in the past eBrown
The trick, I think, will be in our ability to set aside our own ideology and prejudices and accept a judge who holds personal opinions we don't agree with, but who has a track record of not inappropriately forcing those opinions on everybody else.
Foxfyre wrote:We have agreed on a point or two in the past eBrown
The trick, I think, will be in our ability to set aside our own ideology and prejudices and accept a judge who holds personal opinions we don't agree with, but who has a track record of not inappropriately forcing those opinions on everybody else.
Our ability to set aside our own ideology and prejeudices doesn't matter a bit.
The real question is whether Mr. Bush has this ability.
ebrown_p wrote:Tico,
You missed the point of George Will's article
Actually I didn't, ebrown. It doesn't really address the point I was isolating, so I didn't see the point of quoting it. :wink:
Foxfyre wrote:We have agreed on a point or two in the past eBrown
The trick, I think, will be in our ability to set aside our own ideology and prejudices and accept a judge who holds personal opinions we don't agree with, but who has a track record of
not inappropriately forcing those opinions on everybody else.
yep. that is applicable on several topics, don't ya think, foxy ?
eBrown writes
Quote:Our ability to set aside our own ideology and prejeudices doesn't matter a bit.
The real question is whether Mr. Bush has this ability.
Here we mildly disagree. If we can't set aside our own ideology and prejudices, we won't be inclined to sit on our elected self-serving charac.....er senators and insist they do their job when the president does nominate a worthy candidate.
Ticomaya wrote:I'm not saying "liberal justices" are to blame for the ruling ... I'm not even saying liberals will applaud the decision ....
I'm suggesting the effect of the ruling favors a liberal view of property rights by expanding the term "public use."
To include commercial development? I don't know. If they were taking the property to build housing projects, I might agree. But wealth redistribution upward is not a tenet of liberalism. I think there is a new party of big government and wealth redistribution, and we all know who it is.
I don't know anyone who agrees with this decision.
Foxfyre wrote:George Bush is on record as intending to appoint judges who will interpret the existing law rather than insert their own ideology into creating law. When he does that, I hope we will all put pressure on our own senators to confirm those nominees.
This is what George Bush is on record as intending to do relating the appointment of Judges. It all depends upon which crowd he happens to be pandering to when speaking.
Quote:Pres. GEORGE W. BUSH: We need commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God. And those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench.
Transcript
You've made it perfectly clear Mesquite that you completely object to anything the President says that is remotely religious. I'm sure you can find many more quotes taken out of context and posted in an inflammatory manner, and each will misrepresent what he says and how he means it as much as it has done so on the other threads where you have posted them.
The topic here, however, is a disastrous decision of the High Court, and for me, the kind of judge that won't make such disastrous decisions in the future. If he or she happens to own a Bible, most people won't worry about it.
Remotely religious? Not hardly. What I object to is is a religious litmus test for judges, and that is exactly what he implied with that quote.
You say that "he is on record as intending to appoint judges who will interpret the existing law rather than insert their own ideology into creating law." The best refutation of that statement is the nominee roster that he has brought forward.
The topic here was the recent supreme court decision re property seizures which I also disagree with.
I don't interpret his remarks as you do. I interpret his remarks as the Founders of the Constitution intended when they made statements like Bush makes. I am 99.9% certain that is what the President intended. and I think most people who put his remarks in context also think that is what he intended. I don't think we need to fear the kind of person he will nominate to be judges.
The founders were very careful to keep any reference to God out of the constitution. Their religiophobic paranoia has served us well for the past 200+ years.
mesquite wrote:The founders were very careful to keep any reference to God out of the constitution. Their religiophobic paranoia has served us well for the past 200+ years.
That's not a parallel analogy. They invoked the deity in speeches such as the ones excerpted below:
"It is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians as our rulers." - John Jay (First Supreme Court Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States)
"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God to obey His Word, to be grateful for His benefits, to humbly employ His protection..." - George Washington
yeah those are good Brandon , them "founding fathers" really had it down good, I especially like "all men are created equal." (well, some men anyway) You like that one too Brandon?
dyslexia wrote:yeah those are good Brandon , them "founding fathers" really had it down good, I especially like "all men are created equal." (well, some men anyway) You like that one too Brandon?
What in God's name are you babbling about? Bush was criticized for referring to religion in speeches, which the Founders also did.
Authored by Thomas Jefferson and unanimously accepted by the Thirteen colonies, the Declaration of Independence succinctly and poignantly expressed their belief in the origin of inalienable rights:
Excerpted (emphasis mine)
Quote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
It is to this that I believe George Bush referred.
Foxfyre
Foxfyre quoted: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Well, unless my brain has gone dingy, that means such rights were endowed by the biological father and mother creators of the "men" in question since it was their sperm and egg that created them---unless you believe that each of us is the result of a holy virgin birth. Since women weren't mentioned, it must be true that each of us women were not born, but were created from our men's ribs. WOW!
Now, if you want to disagree, then you must believe that god likes Ménage a tois (threesomes for the virgins among us) to be considered the creator of us folks. I kind of like that idea. It might even make me consider that god is our creator. Imagine a horny god. Imagine how many women he has had to inpregnate. Good grief, he must be exhausted. Sigh.
BTW, how come DNA testing has not detected god's DNA? He must wear condoms when frolicking with women.
BBB
