• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens retiring

I am not sure how I feel about Stevens retiring...One thing I feel is you can't find a bigger liberal them him to replace him so that is good.......There is also a lot of pressure on Obama to pick a moderate...Don't forget mid terms elections are coming up and dems are in big trouble as it is.......

LOL. Why do you think there is pressure on Obama to pick a moderate?

If anything...there is pressure on him to pick someone who is actually liberal to replace Stevens, another liberal. Sotomayor was a moderate pick, Obama played that one safe. I expect him to play this one probably safe as well too and wait for Ginsburg to leave to pick his Liberal justice. However, being that Obama is moderate himself, its not likely that he will pick someone that is too far left-wing...but we can hope.
 
Just curious.... did you consider the Democrats the "party of no" when they blocked and filibustered Bush's judicial nominations ???

Ultimately Bush got almost everything done that he was suppose to get done. The Dems may have protested and fillibustered on occasion, but the process fundamentally worked and Bush got his nominations through. If the Repubs would only play the same way as the Dems did, then Washington would fundamentally work.
 
Last edited:
LOL. Why do you think there is pressure on Obama to pick a moderate?

If anything...there is pressure on him to pick someone who is actually liberal to replace Stevens, another liberal. Sotomayor was a moderate pick, Obama played that one safe. I expect him to play this one probably safe as well too and wait for Ginsburg to leave to pick his Liberal justice. However, being that Obama is moderate himself, its not likely that he will pick someone that is too far left-wing...but we can hope.

Obama is moderate if one is a far left trotskyite. To normal americans Obama is far left, as well as not really being up for the job
 
Ultimately Bush got almost everything done that he was suppose to get done. The Dems may have protested and fillibustered on occasion, but the process fundamentally worked and Bush got his nominations through. If the Repubs would only play the same way as the Dems did, then Washington would fundamentally work.

so the GOP has fillibustered an appellate Obama Pick?
 
Obama is moderate if one is a far left trotskyite. To normal americans Obama is far left, as well as not really being up for the job

Sorry....but you guys keep trying to say that....unfortunately for you, Obama's voting record says otherwise.
Those of us on the left are happy with what we have, because we know that a left-leaning moderate is about as close as we are going to get.
Obama has never been a liberal, despite all your efforts to try to paint him as such.
 
Sorry....but you guys keep trying to say that....unfortunately for you, Obama's voting record says otherwise.
Those of us on the left are happy with what we have, because we know that a left-leaning moderate is about as close as we are going to get.
Obama has never been a liberal, despite all your efforts to try to paint him as such.

Obama is a radical leftist. The only people who don't think so are Code Pink, socialists, and extremist west coast liberals like yourself.
 
Sorry....but you guys keep trying to say that....unfortunately for you, Obama's voting record says otherwise.
Those of us on the left are happy with what we have, because we know that a left-leaning moderate is about as close as we are going to get.
Obama has never been a liberal, despite all your efforts to try to paint him as such.

It all depends on your perspective. I considered someone like Evan Bayh and Bill Clinton or All Gore pre 1994 or so to be moderates, Arlen Spector, Olympia Snowe are also moderates

Obama is as radical as we have seen among those who actually get elected to high offices in America

He supports the creeping crud of socialism, income redistribution and the war on success and the pandering to the reactionary parasitic statism that dominates your side of the aisle
 
Obama is a radical leftist. The only people who don't think so are Code Pink, socialists, and extremist west coast liberals like yourself.

as I noted if you think Trotsky is in the mainstream you probably see the magic Masai marxist as a moderate. I see him as a stealth communist who is doing his best to ruin America
 
true=so tell me why did the libs when they were the minority and Bush was the president block Miguel Estrada with a fillibuster-the first time the minority party fillibustered an APPELLATE judge

I remember there being problems, but I was not reading up on the facts.

and Roberts and ALito were far more mainstream that Ruth Bader ginsburg BTW

Are you aware of how Ginsburg was selected? Clinton consulted Orrin Hatch, which is why she sailed through.

From an article Orrin Hatch wrote in 2005 entitled "Presidential Privilege
You win the White House, you make the judical nominations."

In 1993, President Clinton sought my input when considering a replacement for the retiring Justice Byron White. Some senators are today fond of waving my book Square Peg, in which I described cautioning President Clinton that confirming some candidates he was considering, such as then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, would be difficult. President Clinton instead nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and she was easily confirmed.

President Clinton sought my input without my demanding it because he believed it would help him fulfill his constitutional responsibility for making judicial nominations. He did so not because Senate Republicans threatened filibusters or demanded some kind of veto power over his nominations. We did not try to impose a "consensus" standard or insist that a nominee meet some super-majority "widespread support" threshold.

Instead, President Clinton sought my input because I had established a cooperative relationship with him, because he knew his nominees would be treated fairly. Senators demanding consultation and threatening filibusters today might instead consider taking the same approach. Perhaps earning consultation will work better than demanding it.

While I appreciate publicity for my book, I have yet to hear a Democratic senator who holds it up also quote from page 126, where I write: "One of the consequences of a presidential election...is that the winner has the right to appoint nominees to the court." In fact, at the same time I was giving President Clinton the input he sought, I also said on the Senate floor: "The President won the election. He ought to have the right to appoint the judges he wants to." Some who today demand consultation appear to have rejected that notion altogether.

Senator Orrin G. Hatch on Supreme Court on National Review Online
 
Obama is a radical leftist. The only people who don't think so are Code Pink, socialists, and extremist west coast liberals like yourself.

Really? I don't think he's a liberal and I grew up in Massachusetts and live in the DC area. Can you explain where I fit into your ridiculous labeling?
 
Yes it will.
He'll pick the most left leaning judge he thinks he can get confirmed. No big surprise and won't change the court much.
 
Really? I don't think he's a liberal and I grew up in Massachusetts and live in the DC area. Can you explain where I fit into your ridiculous labeling?

What member of the US Senate had a more leftwing voting record than Obama?
 
He'll pick the most left leaning judge he thinks he can get confirmed. No big surprise and won't change the court much.

That's why I thank God every day that Obama won the election. His election secured the Supreme Court from beng overtaken by the radical right-wing for at least the next generation. Had McCain won....or someone even worse, the Court would have become a right-wing activist court.
 
That's why I thank God every day that Obama won the election. His election secured the Supreme Court from beng overtaken by the radical right-wing for at least the next generation. Had McCain won....or someone even worse, the Court would have become a right-wing activist court.

radical rightwing

LOL--like believing that the 2nd Amendment is actually about rights

or that eminent domain for profit is a bad idea


libs love leftwing judges because LW judges create idiotic rulings that RW judges respect out of stare decisis. Libs realize most of t heir agenda won't make it through congress so they need to impose it by judges

I am curious, what makes people radical leftwingers

its easy to explain my position-I tire of paying more taxes so that libs can use my money to buy the votes of parasites who support more taxation

I tire of being told America should subordinate herself to europe or that our gun rights should be removed

so disneydude what exactly causes you to want more income redistribution, less freedom and more government
 
You seriously need to follow politics more closely if you need to ask that question.

I do and that is why I said it

can you answer the question rather than posting a throwaway line that is steeped in arrogance and based on an assumption without any merit?
 
libs love leftwing judges because LW judges create idiotic rulings that RW judges respect out of stare decisis.

LOL....when you say things like this...it really shows that you don't follow politics...at least not closely.

Do you even know how many times the Robert's Court has overturned starei decisis within the last couple of years?
This Court is becoming known for completely disregarding piror court precedent in favor of advancing their agenda.

At least get your facts straight before you start spouting off right-wing talking points that are completely contrary to the facts.
 
I do and that is why I said it

can you answer the question rather than posting a throwaway line that is steeped in arrogance and based on an assumption without any merit?

The fact that you asked the question shows that you have no clue what you are writing about. I'm not going to sit and try to educate you when anyone with half a brain knows that you have no clue what you are talking about when you post that type of thing.
 
LOL....when you say things like this...it really shows that you don't follow politics...at least not closely.

Do you even know how many times the Robert's Court has overturned starei decisis within the last couple of years?
This Court is becoming known for completely disregarding piror court precedent in favor of advancing their agenda.

At least get your facts straight before you start spouting off right-wing talking points that are completely contrary to the facts.

Its really funny watching a lib tell me what I do and what I don't know. How many federal appellate arguments have say you participated in?

Libs believe in the leftward ratchet of jurisprudence. They create a new "right" or attack old ones and when the court becomes more conservative, libs expect the conservative judges to respect poorly reasoned activist decisions by the left

overturning or ignoring bad precedent not only is proper it is required.

Stevens crapped himself whining that the USSC in Heller ignored bad APPELLATE decisions based on INCORRECT readings of Cruishank and Miller.

That proved to me it was time for him to retire.
 
The fact that you asked the question shows that you have no clue what you are writing about. I'm not going to sit and try to educate you when anyone with half a brain knows that you have no clue what you are talking about when you post that type of thing.

you really don't have the ability to educate me on this issue. I know more about this issue than you can possibly imagine.

this is an old subject BTW

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/5102-bush-nominate-judge-samuel-alito-supreme-court-11.html
 
Last edited:
Its really funny watching a lib tell me what I do and what I don't know. How many federal appellate arguments have say you participated in?

Libs believe in the leftward ratchet of jurisprudence. They create a new "right" or attack old ones and when the court becomes more conservative, libs expect the conservative judges to respect poorly reasoned activist decisions by the left

overturning or ignoring bad precedent not only is proper it is required.

Stevens crapped himself whining that the USSC in Heller ignored bad APPELLATE decisions based on INCORRECT readings of Cruishank and Miller.

That proved to me it was time for him to retire.

I was thinking about looking up to find out who is the most left-wing senator. Honestly, TurtleDude, your bragging is getting old. When someone has to keep telling us how knowledgable he is, I start thinking of how unknowledgable this person is. I'm done here with you. You're omniscient, and we're all a bunch of idiots. Have a nice life. *Puts TurtleDude on ignore because I have better things to do with my time than read a person who has to brag about his intelligence*
 
I was thinking about looking up to find out who is the most left-wing senator. Honestly, TurtleDude, your bragging is getting old. When someone has to keep telling us how knowledgable he is, I start thinking of how unknowledgable this person is. I'm done here with you. You're omniscient, and we're all a bunch of idiots. Have a nice life. *Puts TurtleDude on ignore because I have better things to do with my time than read a person who has to brag about his intelligence*

I was wondering whom your confederate thought was the most left wing senator. many sites listed Obama as it. I love thin skinned liberals who get upset when confronted with facts
 
LOL....when you say things like this...it really shows that you don't follow politics...at least not closely.

Do you even know how many times the Robert's Court has overturned starei decisis within the last couple of years?
This Court is becoming known for completely disregarding piror court precedent in favor of advancing their agenda.

At least get your facts straight before you start spouting off right-wing talking points that are completely contrary to the facts.

so you labour under the delusion that overturning precedent is "activist " or contradicts strict constructionism?

ROFLMAO
 
The fact that you asked the question shows that you have no clue what you are writing about. I'm not going to sit and try to educate you when anyone with half a brain knows that you have no clue what you are talking about when you post that type of thing.

well as Rush said, he still beats the libs with "half his brain tied behindhis back"

still waiting for an explanation of why you have the position you do
 
I was wondering whom your confederate thought was the most left wing senator. many sites listed Obama as it. I love thin skinned liberals who get upset when confronted with facts

You love a lot of libs don't you ???
 
Back
Top Bottom