Palehose Im almost glad to here it Liberals for progress. I keep hearing how they are against growth. When it was the other way around for years. I hope you got a good price. In these cases most get more then there fair amount. However it is funny how politicians can get together to move you out of the way when they feel like it. Then go back to being conservatives and liberals once the deed is done.
Bush does something right finally!!!
- Thread starter dr. freeze
- Start date
Sounds about right ! Developers building shoping malls over our homes because they like the property location is considered progress by the Liberals ....gee what a shock ! Go figure !
Palehose said:
That ruling is indefensible. But it looks like both sides of the aisle are coming together to draft a bill that would cut off any and all federal funding to any city that employs this.
Yes that ruling by the Liberals in the SCJ was indefensible and a dam good example of what happens when your give Liberals power !
"That ruling is indefensible. But it looks like both sides of the aisle are coming together to draft a bill that would cut off any and all federal funding to any city that employs this."
Pretty sad when we have to relie on the Republican controlled Congress to protect the little guy from being bulled over by a Developer that just had the librals hand him an open book for making huge profits and tons of city coruption in the process thanks Liberals !
Pretty sad when we have to relie on the Republican controlled Congress to protect the little guy from being bulled over by a Developer that just had the librals hand him an open book for making huge profits and tons of city coruption in the process thanks Liberals !
Palehose said:
You can't pigeonhole SC justices so easily. It wouldn't take much effort to find plenty of decisions by Ginsburg or Scalia that run counter to how one would predict that they would rule, based on stereotypes.
Nobody disputes that certain justices lean one way or another in how they interpret the constitution, but I don't think any of them are politically motivated. That's the beauty of lifetime terms.
O'Conner, who righties love to call 'liberal' wrote a strong dissent. Kennedy, who is considered conservative, supported it.
You can't do as Freeze does and say, 'there's no way Kennedy is a conservative if he ruled like that.' That's circular and makes no sense.
Take medicinal marijuana. If that court was sooooo liberal, how did that get shot down? Wouldn't that be something that liberals would probably tend to support? At least if one is caught up in stereotypes, someone like yourself.
Palehose said:
It was a ridiculous ruling, and started us down the slippery slope, but all it really did was leave it up to the states. Isn't that what neo-cons typically like? Less federal government? Like abortion and about 1000 different issues. Leave it up to the states?
When the SCJ sets precident as they have with that stupid ass Liberal ruling it does a bit more than leave it up to the states now dosent it Kosar? ! Good greif man dont you understand That Roe vrs Wade leaves it up to states in the exact same fasion as this does ? Hello Mcfly ?????
kosar said:
Kennedy may have been put in by Reagan but he turned to the left shortly after being named. O' Conner has always been considered a centrist that leans to the right ......The fact remains Every SCJ that is truley considered a Conservative voted against this and the only so called centrist's that voted with the true consevatives was O conner everyone else voted with the hardcore Liberals. And yes they can easily be pigeonholed due to there long voting history. Kennedy for instance will often vote with the conservatives only if it has to do with Crime other than that his voting record clearly shows he's a bleeding heart liberal .
The living Constitution . . .
http://pai.brookings.edu/sg/a1.htm
"Presidential appointees occupy a special place in our often fractious political history. Almost from the start, they have served as the rope in a tug of war between the executive and legislative branches. Disputes over appointments spurred the pivotal case of Marbury v. Madison, which helped define the powers of the Supreme Court, as well as the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson after the Civil War.
To understand why to this day there is so much controversy over presidential appointments, look first in the owner?s manual for our system of government: the U.S. Constitution . . ."
http://pai.brookings.edu/sg/a1.htm
"Presidential appointees occupy a special place in our often fractious political history. Almost from the start, they have served as the rope in a tug of war between the executive and legislative branches. Disputes over appointments spurred the pivotal case of Marbury v. Madison, which helped define the powers of the Supreme Court, as well as the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson after the Civil War.
To understand why to this day there is so much controversy over presidential appointments, look first in the owner?s manual for our system of government: the U.S. Constitution . . ."
