22 Left Wing Nuts who no longer can be taken seriously

[djv]

The Germans got everything they wanted with Hitler. And keeping there mouths shut didn't help.

 

[dr. freeze]

Ok, Dr. Freeze, let's play a game here. You walk up to your voting booth this November and have two choices on your ballot for a judge position. One is listed as Republican, one as a Democrat. You know nothing about their rulings, or thought processes. Who do you vote for? Right, the Republican. And yet you sit here and criticize anyone else who would not do that very thing as being "partisan, divisive, socialist, anti-capitalists." You with your attitude of name-calling dismissiveness is not exactly what you criticize those senators for? They are standing up for what they believe in, and they are partisan and divisive? Sure, much of the motivation for what they are doing is political, but not all of it. They generally think that an unbalanced Supreme Court would be a bad thing, and I would hope anyone with any REAL objectivity would agree with that.

Of course, you would prefer that there would be ALL conservative judges. And the rest of us be damned. How would you feel if it was tilted the other way, either slightly or completely? I think we all know the answer to that question.

There has to be a balance in politics and ESPECIALLY in the interpretations of the law and the Constitution. To suggest otherwise is socialistic and dictatorial, and certainly follows the ideaology of this administration. You fit right in.

Why do you leftists always play these hypothetical "games" and not deal with reality?

We are talking about the process to put forth a nominee....besides even in your little mystical land, nowhere did i hear anyone say they were not voting for him because he was a "Republican"...rather it was some other hypocritical excuse

Yes, i prefer all judges be conservative, interpreting the Constitution as it was written, and not throw it out and use foreign laws to be our law and give away property and our rights to the government....and I love the line from leftists that "it should not be on one side or another, as that would be bad for the country" :mj07: :mj07:

No, when FDR railroaded the court (read your history books if you dont know how he did it) that led EXACTLY to what it had been until Reagan and Bush finally put some conservatives on the bench to help Rhenquist and his 8-1 minority. You leftists certainly aren't and didn't cry about that!!! And it had been that way for 50 YEARS with one horrible ruling after another with absoluetly ZERO basis in many rulings in the Constitution.


Balance my moon1

Just even less credible coming from guys like Vladimir Kennedy and co. who loved it when they had the court bought and paid for

 

[gecko]

Enlighten us what these 22 have done for this country????

Man, you've got some nerve to make a blanket statement like that. Let me enlighten you ---



World War II Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient
2nd Lt. Daniel K. Inouye, US Army 442nd Regimental Combat Team



DANIEL K. INOUYE


Daniel K. Inouye, the third most senior member of the U.S. Senate, is known for his distinguished record as a legislative leader, and as a World War II combat veteran who earned the nation's highest award for military valor, the Medal of Honor.

On December 7, 1941, the fateful day of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, 17-year-old Dan Inouye was one of the first Americans to handle civilian casualties in the Pacific war. He had taken medical aid training and was pressed into service as head of a first-aid litter team. He saw a "lot of blood" and did not go home for a week.

In March 1943, 18-year-old Dan Inouye, then a freshman in pre-medical studies at the University of Hawaii, enlisted in the U.S. Army's 442nd Regimental Combat Team, the famed "Go For Broke" regiment.

Second Lieutenant Daniel K. Inouye distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism in action on 21 April 1945, in the vicinity of San Terenzo, Italy. While attacking a defended ridge guarding an important road junction, Second Lieutenant Inouye skillfully directed his platoon through a hail of automatic weapon and small arms fire, in a swift enveloping movement that resulted in the capture of an artillery and mortar post and brought his men to within 40 yards of the hostile force. Emplaced in bunkers and rock formations, the enemy halted the advance with crossfire from three machine guns. With complete disregard for his personal safety, Second Lieutenant Inouye crawled up the treacherous slope to within five yards of the nearest machine gun and hurled two grenades, destroying the emplacement. Before the enemy could retaliate, he stood up and neutralized a second machine gun nest. Although wounded by a snipers bullet, he continued to engage other hostile positions at close range until an exploding grenade shattered his right arm. Despite the intense pain, he refused evacuation and continued to direct his platoon until enemy resistance was broken and his men were again deployed in defensive positions. In the attack, 25 enemy soldiers were killed and eight others captured. By his gallant, aggressive tactics and by his indomitable leadership, Second Lieutenant Inouye enabled his platoon to advance through formidable resistance, and was instrumental in the capture of the ridge.

Inouye spent 20 months in Army hospitals after losing his right arm. His extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit on him, his unit, and the United States Army.



http://www.medalofhonor.com/DanielInouye.htm

 

[Chadman]

Why do you leftists always play these hypothetical "games" and not deal with reality?

We are talking about the process to put forth a nominee....besides even in your little mystical land, nowhere did i hear anyone say they were not voting for him because he was a "Republican"...rather it was some other hypocritical excuse

Yes, i prefer all judges be conservative, interpreting the Constitution as it was written, and not throw it out and use foreign laws to be our law and give away property and our rights to the government....and I love the line from leftists that "it should not be on one side or another, as that would be bad for the country" :mj07: :mj07:

No, when FDR railroaded the court (read your history books if you dont know how he did it) that led EXACTLY to what it had been until Reagan and Bush finally put some conservatives on the bench to help Rhenquist and his 8-1 minority. You leftists certainly aren't and didn't cry about that!!! And it had been that way for 50 YEARS with one horrible ruling after another with absoluetly ZERO basis in many rulings in the Constitution.


Balance my moon1

Just even less credible coming from guys like Vladimir Kennedy and co. who loved it when they had the court bought and paid for

To give you some perspective on me, I usually only comment on things that I educate myself about. So, I defer to your past history on judge appointments until I study it, if I do. In my opinion, if FDR tried to stack the Supreme Court with only liberal leaning candidates, then I think that is wrong. Just so you know. I do maintain that balance in political conscience is good for the top juducial entity in the U.S.

You preach dealing with reality. Nobody, on either side, would come out and say they weren't voting for a candidate because of their political party. It would be political suicide for whomever said it. Are you suggesting that a Republican would do that? OR are you only casting stones at the democrats who are against this nomination - for whatever reason. Of course, you don't mention all of the democrats who voted FOR the appointment...interesting. I guess they are of more value, as they agree with you and Bush.

Apparently, you are also suggesting that no judge who values liberal themes will interpret the constitution as it is written. Do you honestly believe that? Or are you just throwing out some histrionic crap for effect? Again, it's the "with me, or against me" theme, so prevalent in this administration and its supporters. To say that a judge who happens to be a democrat cannot interpret the constitution as it was written and will simply throw it out is ridiculous, simply because of their political leanings.

Are you also suggesting that every amendment to the Constitution was wrong and should not have been made? Is our society today exactly as it was when the Constitution was written? Maybe you should pull your conservative head out of your...um..the sand...and look around. Heck, you can take your rifle out on the front porch and have a look-see, if you want. Things change. And change is not always a bad thing. The world evolves, the Constitution is a guideline that should be interpreted - followed for the most part and admired - but it will occasionally need to change with us.

I would guess that you will also criticize Republican politicians for bringing up amedments to the Constitution. Or Republican judges on the Supreme Court who have EVER found a case that might cause them to rethink the strict interpretations laid out by people back in the 1800s.

What a joke.