Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 130

Thread: Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens retiring

  1. #71
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,953

    Re: Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens retiring

    Honestly, I think both the Republicans and Democrats need to appoint justices based on their duty to uphold the Law and the Constitution, not to force an ideologue to judge based off of his opinions and not judicial and lawful facts. We need open minded, objective judges without bias or affiliation who will see that justice will be served and not ideology supported. Both Republicans and Democrats have failed at this.

  2. #72
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

    Re: Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens retiring

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Honestly, I think both the Republicans and Democrats need to appoint justices based on their duty to uphold the Law and the Constitution, not to force an ideologue to judge based off of his opinions and not judicial and lawful facts. We need open minded, objective judges without bias or affiliation who will see that justice will be served and not ideology supported. Both Republicans and Democrats have failed at this.
    true but as of late-both at the appellate level and the supreme court-the GOP has been less influenced by quotas.



  3. #73
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:37 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,290
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens retiring

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    I guess you also ignored the comments I posted demonstrating many other people also believe that the dem position was BS and racism was the reason

    I realize when one is a hack you don't want to admit that your side can be racist-especially when you are a dem and you pretend that racism is only a rightwing disease
    Many people believe that 9/11 was an inside job, and Obama is not a natural born citizen, and aliens visit the earth, and the moon landing was fake....

    I could care less what people speculate, I prefer those pesky facts, which you don't seem to have.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  4. #74
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

    Re: Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens retiring

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Many people believe that 9/11 was an inside job, and Obama is not a natural born citizen, and aliens visit the earth, and the moon landing was fake....

    I could care less what people speculate, I prefer those pesky facts, which you don't seem to have.
    Nah you are a hack

    I posted strong facts that suggest that there can be no rational reason for the first fillibuster of a circuit judge

    one that was backed by four leading liberal legal icons as well as the ABA

    so see if you can rebut my arguments

    but I know you cannot-you don't have the training or the intellect I suspect

    I pose a question you cannot answer

    Roberts and Alito were well known conservatives

    Estrada was backed by four solicitor generals who served dem adminstrations
    Estrada worked for the Clinton Solicitor General and clerked for swing justice Anthony Kennedy, The ABA gave him its highest rating

    so tell me again-why was he fillibustered and Roberts-going to a higher court-was not

    you seem rather unwilling to even address the issue



  5. #75
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:37 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,290
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens retiring

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    Nah you are a hack

    I posted strong facts that suggest that there can be no rational reason for the first fillibuster of a circuit judge

    one that was backed by four leading liberal legal icons as well as the ABA

    so see if you can rebut my arguments

    but I know you cannot-you don't have the training or the intellect I suspect

    I pose a question you cannot answer

    Roberts and Alito were well known conservatives

    Estrada was backed by four solicitor generals who served dem adminstrations
    Estrada worked for the Clinton Solicitor General and clerked for swing justice Anthony Kennedy, The ABA gave him its highest rating

    so tell me again-why was he fillibustered and Roberts-going to a higher court-was not

    you seem rather unwilling to even address the issue
    No you did not. I was actually able to quote out of one of your sources a strong reason why they blocked one of the appointments that had nothing to do with race. You have proven nothing. You have not even really backed up your claim. You have called names alot.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  6. #76
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

    Re: Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens retiring

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    No you did not. I was actually able to quote out of one of your sources a strong reason why they blocked one of the appointments that had nothing to do with race. You have proven nothing. You have not even really backed up your claim. You have called names alot.
    wrong again

    who has more credibility? The top attorney for four different dem administrations and the ABA or a bunch of political hacks who pander to the left?



  7. #77
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    Re: Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens retiring

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Honestly, I think both the Republicans and Democrats need to appoint justices based on their duty to uphold the Law and the Constitution, not to force an ideologue to judge based off of his opinions and not judicial and lawful facts. We need open minded, objective judges without bias or affiliation who will see that justice will be served and not ideology supported. Both Republicans and Democrats have failed at this.

    Digsbe, it's a nice thought, but in the real world Supreme Court candidates and Justices are human beings. They don't exist in a vaccuum, and they are not some pure priesthood never tainted by personal bias, politics or so forth. They're people like anyone else, however much some may put them on a pedestal.

    A Justice who is pro-Y is likely to look for a legal justification to vote in support of Y. A Justice who is anti-Y is likely to look for a legal justification to vote anti-Y. Only a justice who doesn't really care much about Y is likely to vote purely based on what he thinks the law actually means without bias. They're people, not Justice Machines.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  8. #78
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens retiring

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    Oh so it is a hyper partisan smear tactic intent on clouding the discussion with idiotic sound bytes rather than open an honest discussion.

    As long as we're clear about that.
    Is it NOT true that a high ranking Republican leader has said "Expect no cooperation from Republicans for the rest of the year" and the party already had been displaying almost zero cooperation before and after the statement? People calling the Republicans "The party of No" is simply those people rightly bringing such irresponsibility home to roost.

    I really don't know what people think ought to happen... the Democrats just roll over and let the Republicans get away with every irresponsible tactic they impose? It is not "partisan" when the Republicans admit they are doing exactly what the accuser says they are doing and are actually doing it.

    The Republicans wanted something else than the health reform that was passed. We get that. But, they ARE the minority party right now, and they act like they think they ought to be the majority party, despite the elections. If they had wanted to be influential, however, they should have participated and compromised, as the minority party usually does. Now, they are being rightly called "The party of No".

  9. #79
    Student
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    04-13-10 @ 12:27 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    159

    Re: Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens retiring

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    Is it NOT true that a high ranking Republican leader has said "Expect no cooperation from Republicans for the rest of the year" and the party already had been displaying almost zero cooperation before and after the statement?
    First, you're lying. The GOP presented alternatives to Obamacare. Obama and the Democrats were lying when they argued otherwise. You need only watch the tv stunt Obama pulled and listen to Paul Ryan to understand what the GOP had been proposing. The most hilarious part of that Dem charade was while they were alleging that the GOP was not bringing anything to the table, the White House website had the GOPs proposals listed there.

    Second, what's wrong with McCain's statement that the Dems should expect no further cooperation?

    Am I to presume that you believe that Obama's use of a budget reconciliation tool was the approprioate way to pass such a massive legislative effort? That bribing insurers, unions, and other legislators was appropriate use of political power? I get that they control both chambers and the White House, but what we saw was an exercise in raw political power and not in a positive way.

    McCain's has staked out a reasonable position.

    People calling the Republicans "The party of No" is simply those people rightly bringing such irresponsibility home to roost.
    No, they are liars. Plain and simple.

    I really don't know what people think ought to happen... the Democrats just roll over and let the Republicans get away with every irresponsible tactic they impose
    Wow!

    What irresponsible tactics? Using budget reconciliation rules to impose a massive legislative change? Filibustering judicial nominees? Justifying the use of pass and deem to pass major legislation without voting?

    Oooops, the Democrats have used those.

    What were you saying, again about irresponsible tactics?

    Oh, maybe you were talking about bribing legislators? Bribing unions? Bribing insurers like Tufts Health and Kaiser Permanente?

    My bad, those are on the Democrats, too.

    It is not "partisan" when the Republicans admit they are doing exactly what the accuser says they are doing and are actually doing it.
    You're lying. The GOP is not the party of No.

    The Republicans wanted something else than the health reform that was passed. We get that. But, they ARE the minority party right now, and they act like they think they ought to be the majority party, despite the elections. If they had wanted to be influential, however, they should have participated and compromised, as the minority party usually does. Now, they are being rightly called "The party of No".
    First, the GOP was not responsible for holding up Obamacare. Democrats were. Why do you think Nelson, Landrieu, North Dakota, and Tennessee were getting bribes? Those were Democrats opposed to Obamacare. The GOP could not, alone, hold up Obamacare. So, you cannot reasonably argue that the GOP acted as the party of No and was responsible for holding up this legislation.

    Second, how do you compromise when both parties were going in 180 degree directions? The Democrats insisted on major change. Republicans demanded incremental change. Democrats wanted to use government subsidies to expand coverage, while Republicans wanted to remove government involvement.

    Where is the room for compromise?

    In this case, status quo was the best option. What we have instead is a major transformation in the relationship between the State and the people, i.e., we created far greater dependency and piled yet another major spending entitlement on top of two currently bankrupt spending entitlements.

    You people with the party of no nonsense are simply lying.

  10. #80
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens retiring

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    If only we all could keep our wits sharp and remain working till age 90!

    As for the next candidate, I'm not sure there's going to be much difference in judicial philosophy. I'll be largely disinterested unless Obama is able to find a real standout among standouts and even then, we probably won't know that to be the case until they've served on the court for some time.

    I suppose it will be interesting to see what demographic they target.
    Actually, no matter who Obama nominates, they will likely be more conservative than Stevens. So the Court will not significantly change, no, but if it does it will actually move just slightly to the right.

Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •