That being said, this entire "conservative" vs "liberal" justice debate is ridiculous. The entire premise behind "judging" something is that you that you haven't already made your decision. It comes down to the fact that we aren't hoping for a partisan leader, or even a politician, but instead an unbiased official who will interpret the laws.
Under that banner, people need to understand that you will disagree with some of the decisions. If they never did rule controversially, it would simply mean that the country was remaining stagnate. And even though that is what some conservatives want, we cannot have a country in which laws never change. Politicians make mistakes and it is the duty of the court to correct them.
Conservatives can't decry liberal activism and then press for a judge who will "help repeal Roe v Wade." Do I personally wish that would happen? Certainly, but am I pushing for a judge who will do that? No, because that's legislating in its own right. If the Court got together and by its own devices chose to do so, than so be it.
Now, to get back on topic. DEMOCRATS ARE COMPLETELY OPEN ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY DECIDING ON THE MOST POLITICALLY EFFECTIVE POSITION ON IRAQ. Which by default, means that all their anti-American, anti-troops and anti-democratic actions in the past two years weren't done for principle but for political gain. And, like all greedy people, are subject to change on a dime. This attitude of course, is reflected in today's pervasive fear of a conservative justice, due to the belief that everyone is as corrupt as they are.
I'm not saying Republicans are faultless, because surely they are not, but I doubt they'd even stoop this low. If they were though, I'm fairly certain they wouldn't publicize the fact that despite holding a strong position in the war on terror, they are getting together to concoct an entirely new one, just for kicks.
Well, as the saying goes: another day, another instance of liberalism proving itself to be synonymous with hypocritical, finger-in-the-wind politics.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, GO HERE
Article comments
1 - RJ
Democrats simply have no idea what they stand for anymore. They used to, back in the 1980s when they controlled the Congress and nominated unabashed liberals for President.
But now they are out of power, and they want it back. And Leftist positions are no longer popular with the voters. So they are trying to WIN AT ALL COSTS even if it means betraying their own personal core beliefs.
2 - Ryan
amen brother^
3 - Thad Anderson
Well, I'd counter that any thinking person ought to be weighing the options in terms of what our long-term plan for Iraq should be, regardless of whether they supported the war or not.
Plenty of Republicans have been debating this, too, including Walter Jones, the NC Congressional Rep who pushed for the "Freedom Fries" thing at the Capital's cafeteria, and has several major military bases in his district.
U.S. Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican who voted for the Iraq war, said Sunday that "we've done about as much as we can do" there and that the reason for invading Iraq has proven false.
Jones said he would be among the U.S. House lawmakers introducing legislation this week calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.
"When I look at the number of men and women who have been killed -- it's almost 1,700 now, in addition to close to 12,000 have been severely wounded -- and I just feel that the reason of going in for weapons of mass destruction, the ability of the Iraqis to make a nuclear weapon, that's all been proven that it was never there," Jones said on ABC's "This Week."
"When I look at the number of men and women who have been killed -- it's almost 1,700 now, in addition to close to 12,000 have been severely wounded -- and I just feel that the reason of going in for weapons of mass destruction, the ability of the Iraqis to make a nuclear weapon, that's all been proven that it was never there," Jones said on ABC's "This Week."
Jones represents North Carolina's most military congressional district, running from Camp Lejeune along the coast through Cherry Point and up to the Outer Banks.
He has written condolence letters to the families of more than 1,300 servicepeople killed in Iraq, and posters outside his congressional office show the faces of those killed.
"Jones backs timetable on Iraq," (Raleigh) News & Observer
4 - RJ
If we pull out now, we will have created another Taliban-era Afghanistan. A place where the terrorists are free to plan and train for plots against civilians here in the US.
5 - Nick Jones
"If we pull out now, we will have created another Taliban-era Afghanistan. A place where the terrorists are free to plan and train for plots against civilians here in the US."
That depends on two things: the strength of the terrorist forces in Iraq, and the strength of the anti-terrorist forces. Of course, if we hadn't gone there in the first place, this situation wouldn't now exist. Finding bin Laden and bringing him to justice should been our first and only priority. And nearly a hundred Spaniards would still be alive, too.
6 - tim Roeder
Oh pleeese, I just love when some smug Republican cheerleader writes about how bad the mean old democrates are and how they use dirty tricks. Here is a news flash for you....Politics are politics and they are ALL rotten. It does not matter which party. You talk about flavor of the day? Terry Shiavo was a prime example of grandstanding. And when the polls indicated that americans thought congress had no right to interfere......most ran away from the issue. How about redistricting in Texas???? talk about an out in the open power grab!!!!! The president talks about how he values life... then sends American boys to there death in Iraq for what? It was NOT weapons of mass destruction, it was NOT because they were a threat to our security, it was not because osama bin laden was hanging out there. IT WAS FOR POLITICAL MILAGE. Bush talked about going back to Iraq way before Sept. 11. Value life??? He was the governer of Texas!!! This is one of the biggest capital punishment states in the union!!! I guess life is only sacred
before birth. The other thing that I need to rant about is how the republican attitude of "if your don't completely agree with us and drop into the lockstep repulican war-march", than you are anti-american and don't love and support our troops...that is crap. I know men and women that were in Iraq that think we are there for the wrong reason. I support the men and women in our military, and think this is the greatest country on earth, but I think Iraq was a mistake. Unfortunately we cannot pull out now that we started. I will agree that the Democrates how no idea where there heads are. But like I said earlier...politics are politics. If the Republicans could completely eliminate the democratic party and rule, they would. They cannot see that you MUST have an opposeing force to keep things balanced.
7 - Thad Anderson
I don't think pulling out right now is necessarily the best idea either. But there's nothing devious about Congressional Democrats having a meeting about whether that is a good idea or not.
Now, blowing a CIA agent's cover just to punish someone for calling you out on your bluff . . . that's devious. Editor and Publisher quotes an MSNBC analyst as saying the TIME documents reveal Rove as the leak.
8 - Nancy
So - is Rove gonna be prosecuted & punished for it, OR is Smirk going to do like he has already, and give him some kind of medal for his dirty work?
9 - gonzo marx
if those documents implicating Rove can be corroborated i would sincerely hope he is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law
it's quite clear on the matter at hand, and anything less would show a serious lack of ethics, morals, respect for the Rule of Law as well as total hypocrisy
but i will wait for further "proof" before forming up a lynch mob...however, i am not suprised
i still want to know when Novak will be brought up on charges of violating the Federal Law?
and how do the grass roots of the GOP feel on this Issue?
if it had been demlicans who did this, i would bet that talk radio and Fox "News" would be 24/7 foaming at the mouth
nuff said?
Excelsior!
10 - Ryan
my point was that republicans wouldnt be clamoring for a centrist like the democrats are
11 - gonzo marx
to Ryan...sheer speculation
let's examine History a second, shall we?
last time the demlicans held the WH, Congress and the Senate was from 92-94...the big bit of Policy put forward was universal health care...that got shot down bigtime, and coudl possibly have been an important factor in the republocrats taking the majority in the House
can you shwo me anytime , during that complete control, that any way Left ideological agenda was accomplished? i don't recall such, if memory serves, the various factions within the demlicans, as well as individuals themselves, fought for their own position, usually moderate, against any such policy
compare that to the last few years of GOP rule in the same 3 Houses of our government
nuff said?
Excelsior!
12 - Randy Kirk
Grass roots R checking in. What have the R's done in the past three congresses that has been so far right. We're still waiting for an energy bill, can't get the D's to even debate SS.
Oh! Tax breaks for the rich (and everybody else). Low interest rates. Booming economy. low unemployment. No new attacks on American soil. No child left behind and Pharms for the old (two major R type bills)
13 - gonzo marx
record deficits and debts (not counting the wars, which are NOT budgeted, Enron style accounting there)
diluting environmental regulations
the bankruptcy bill, that protects business over citizens
removal of class action lawsuits from state courts
there's more, but i think you get the idea..
so much for "conservative" values like state's Rights , smaller government and fiscal responsibility
Excelsior!
14 - Randy Kirk
Gonzo. I answered each and every one of those and more the other day, and I don't even get the courtesy of an "I know you feel that..."
record deficits and debts (not counting the wars, which are NOT budgeted, Enron style accounting there) - Not reasonable to make the statement unless you mention the context of the "record" in relation to ?? GDP? GNP? Inflation adjusted dollars? War time economies? Years following assault resulting in huge drop off in travel and related? End of bubble from Clinton years. COME ON.
diluting environmental regulations - Real hard to make this case for either one of us. So much has been changed on so many issues. But overall, harder for you.
the bankruptcy bill, that protects business over citizens - I'm a lawyer, do collections as part of my living, and have studied this legislation carefully. It is designed to get rid of folks who game the system. Do you deny that?
removal of class action lawsuits from state courts - Same answer as above. There was horrible misuse of the state courts. Do you deny that?
so much for "conservative" values like state's Rights , smaller government and fiscal responsibility. On this I agree. I'm hoping they do a better job on these issues in the next 4 years.
15 - gonzo marx
on the Debt, you raise a valid point concerning the amount % of GDP...but when it comes to the defecit there is NO excuse...as i have stated in other places, it is all fine well and good to have a "mortgage" and budget it, what is unacceptable to any fiscally responsible person si to make your payments via "high interest credit cards"
even more so when a huge percentage of said high interest debt is held by the Banks of China and Japan
even more so when the free spending on prok barrel items not only continues, but grows year by year ( look at the budgets for the last 5 years..remember the entire budgetary process is controlled by the GOP)
environmental issues...here's an easy example...current standars of water before and after the Shrub's policy...which allows higher levels of arsenic? look closely, you will find many more examples
bankruptcy and class action...you now say you ARE a lawyer, yet previously you had stated you were not, but were a manufacturer fo water bottles, having left law as a profession becuase it was "too scummy"...which is it?
as for bankruptcy..this Administration's own studies show that the overall majority of said bankruptcies stam from approximately $10,000 worth of debt (slighlty higher in some studies) , and that the vast majority of these cases have to do with medical bills
so how is this "gaming the system" ?
it also appears to be more important to side with the usurious credit card companies' predatory lending practices than with the protection of the individual...otherwise why not deal with corporate "bankruptcies" that are for the purposes of shedding their Debts to retirement funds? (see many current news stories on this one, airnlines and more)
fascinating that self professed "moral christians" should take the side of Usurers over people
class action suits - while i will readioly agree there was much room for proper reform there, one woudl think it far wiser to regulate the practice, say punishing lawyers who bring "frivolous" suits rather than deny the public oen of their few means to hold corporations accountable for wrongdoings
do you believe these corporations, which want to enjoy various "rights" as legal "people" should NOT be held Responsible for knowingly causing harm, or death to individuals?
what do you propose to put in place to allow the average citizen the ability to seek Justice in these matters?
so, while i can readily agree that there are cases of abuses, it find that there are far less than there are abuses by those that are seved by these new "laws" and the removal of accountability when it comes to corporate wrongdoing
in each an every case it is clearly demonstable that this Administration has sided with corporate Interests over that of the People they are supposed to serve and Protect
do you deny this?
Excelsior!
16 - Randy Kirk
What do you call a graduate of law school who chooses not to practice? Been working on that for 30 years.
The new bankruptcy laws will not get in the way of poor folks and middle class folks who have a major hit from a health problem. Go read it or read a few articles on both sides.
Arsenic. PLEASE. There was plenty of room for everyone on all 5 sides of this debate. Contolled burns. Same thing. Pick something where there was a clear failure by the R's.
Class action. Stupid, stupid business. It needed the cancer removed. I'm sure we can move the pendulum again as we see how it works out. There is plenty of redress in the fed courts. Its just harder to forum shop and pay off federal judges.
Please remember that we need the corporations. I am one. (little to be sure) Companies provide jobs and are owned by you and me. I want all the bad guys to go to jail and/or lose their jobs. I don't want good guys and companies to go to jail or lose their and my jobs and my stock value because of lawyers and bad science.
I'm concerned about our balance of payments issues, but the "free market" tends to correct these things. The Chinese will have to start paying their people more, the cost of their products will go up, and the Indians, Pakistani's, Indonesians, and others will have a chance to be the new emerging economies.
The only way this country goes bankrupt is if we get lazy and stop feeling the need to be productive, creative, and adventuresome. Government can have an impact on that. It can hamstring inventiveness and enterprise or support it.
17 - gonzo marx
Randy sez...
* I'm a lawyer, do collections as part of my living*
if you passed the Bar exam, yer a lawyer...if not, you graduated from law school
i'm a bit confused, you state you "choose not to practice"...then you state what i have quoted here
as for the rest, we will just have to agree to disagree due to various reasons
i tend to side with the Individual and ethical business practices...this Administration has shown no such prediliction, in my personal Opinion
you wholeheartedly support this Administration and it's policies as well as appearing to be unwilling to absorb opposing viewpoints or examine factual assertations...
enjoy the Holiday week end
Excelsior!
18 - Bennett
Oh great, another foaming neocon post. Glad gonzo got here and took it on, Tim makes some good points too.
I find it funny that the author of this piece wants me to click a link taking me to his personal blog "FOR THE LOVE OF GOD"
Piss off, eh?
19 - RJ
"environmental issues...here's an easy example...current standars [sic] of water before and after the Shrub's policy...which allows higher levels of arsenic?"
A Leftist lie.
Clinton had been in office for about 7 years and 361 days before he decided to "unilaterally" change arsenic standards in drinking water via Executive Order. Bush, after taking office, merely temporarily suspended that order, until his administration had evaluated it.
If arsenic in drinking water was such a huge concern, why did BJ Clinton wait until literally the last hours of his 8 years in office to unilaterally change the standards?
20 - gonzo marx
cuz he was a dink too?
don't mistake me fer any kind of partisan, RJ..do i need to find other examples?
maybe some mercury drippings frmo the trees of mount washington?
all i am saying is that it has gotten worse, not better...
nuff said?
Excelsior!
21 - RJ
No, it has NOT gotten worse. It has, if anything, gotten BETTER.
Look up the real data, not the MSM's spin on the issue...
22 - Dave Nalle
Arsenic in drinking water? Are you kidding? That's a 19th century issue which was solved nationwide by the 1960s through the replacement of lead pipe with copper and subsequently PVC.
Dav e