• 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!

AP source: Obama chooses Kagan for Supreme Court

Most liberals believe that Constitution is a living document that has to adapt to changing technology and culture.

In other words, as liberals continue to work tirelessly to destroy any remnant of the founding traditional American culture, they can strip the Constitution of its principles.
 
In other words, as liberals continue to work tirelessly to destroy any remnant of the founding traditional American culture, they can strip the Constitution of its principles.

You do realize that this country was founded partly on the destruction of aristocratic European culture. So it kinda is in our history.
 
In other words, as liberals continue to work tirelessly to destroy any remnant of the founding traditional American culture, they can strip the Constitution of its principles.

Actually, no. Liberals are the ones that are trying to ensure that the Constitution is NOT stripped of its principles.
That's why I thank GOD every day that McCain didn't get elected. If he had, we would have a Supreme Court right now that was soooooooo far to the right that I don't think it would ever recover in my lifetime and we would have seen the complete destruction of our Constitution.
 
Actually, no. Liberals are the ones that are trying to ensure that the Constitution is NOT stripped of its principles.
That's why I thank GOD every day that McCain didn't get elected. If he had, we would have a Supreme Court right now that was soooooooo far to the right that I don't think it would ever recover in my lifetime and we would have seen the complete destruction of our Constitution.

Funny, I haven't seen amnesty for illegals, abortion, bailouts, and the kind of federal power you seek ANYWHERE in the Constitution. I must not have one of your proposed "living documents".
 
Funny, I haven't seen amnesty for illegals, abortion, bailouts, and the kind of federal power you seek ANYWHERE in the Constitution. I must not have one of your proposed "living documents".

The fact is, countries and insitutions that fail to adapt to changing times, ultimately falls. It's like if we still followed the bible to the word, we'd still be stoning eachother to death before or after the superbowl. Now I don't know exactly how the constitution of the United States can be changed or applied to our current times (Unlike most people I don't claim to be a constitutional scholar ;)) but I think throughout your history with the amendments to the constitution, who fought against those changes then? I wonder what would have really happened, had all these political websites existed when they were gonna abolish slavery. I wonder how many people in this forum would argue against emancipation (Not saying you support slavery Erod, so don't even say that, I'm just making a point about overall population opinion and the internet)
 
Funny, I haven't seen amnesty for illegals, abortion, bailouts, and the kind of federal power you seek ANYWHERE in the Constitution. I must not have one of your proposed "living documents".

Funny....its not really the "liberals" who supported the bailouts which originated with GWB. :doh

Amnesty for illegals? Again...not really a "liberal" concept. There are many big corporate supporters that want to continue to profit off the cheap labor that are preventing any real immigration reform in this country.

As far as abortion and other privacy interests, there is plenty of precedent in the Constitution to support an individuals right to be free of big government intervention into the most intimate aspects of their lives.

Perhaps you cannot see things because you are so blinded by trying to justify your own idealogies.
 
She is right, there isn't one for hetero-sexual marriage either though....



Obama could have picked far worse I am beginning to concede.

Yes, he could have picked worse, but he could have picked far better.
 
The fact is, countries and insitutions that fail to adapt to changing times, ultimately falls. It's like if we still followed the bible to the word, we'd still be stoning eachother to death before or after the superbowl. Now I don't know exactly how the constitution of the United States can be changed or applied to our current times (Unlike most people I don't claim to be a constitutional scholar ;)) but I think throughout your history with the amendments to the constitution, who fought against those changes then? I wonder what would have really happened, had all these political websites existed when they were gonna abolish slavery. I wonder how many people in this forum would argue against emancipation (Not saying you support slavery Erod, so don't even say that, I'm just making a point about overall population opinion and the internet)

My point is, you can adapt to the changes of society without compromising your principles, or in this discussion, the structure of the Consitution. It isn't written in a way that doesn't adapt.

I believe in correcting our laws and ways to reflect the tenets of the Constitution. It's written perfectly, but we need to FOLLOW it.

Minimizing states rights, banning guns, limiting free speech, attacking Christianity or other religions.....that isn't adapting. That's trying to create an entirely different country. If anything, that's resorting to what we fought to free ourselves from.
 
Funny....its not really the "liberals" who supported the bailouts which originated with GWB. :doh

Bush was on his own on that one.

Amnesty for illegals? Again...not really a "liberal" concept. There are many big corporate supporters that want to continue to profit off the cheap labor that are preventing any real immigration reform in this country.

It is a liberal concept designed to create a voting base in areas where liberals don't currently have one.

As far as abortion and other privacy interests, there is plenty of precedent in the Constitution to support an individuals right to be free of big government intervention into the most intimate aspects of their lives.

So long as you continue to ignore the rights of the baby.

Perhaps you cannot see things because you are so blinded by trying to justify your own idealogies.

My "ideologies" are based in simple common sense without stretching bastardized arguments into an unrecognizable form.

Ideology based in constitutionalism.
 
My point is, you can adapt to the changes of society without compromising your principles, or in this discussion, the structure of the Consitution. It isn't written in a way that doesn't adapt.

I believe in correcting our laws and ways to reflect the tenets of the Constitution. It's written perfectly, but we need to FOLLOW it.

Minimizing states rights, banning guns, limiting free speech, attacking Christianity or other religions.....that isn't adapting. That's trying to create an entirely different country. If anything, that's resorting to what we fought to free ourselves from.

I agree with you for sure, there are many provisions in the constitution that should be preserved, but only if its in the national interest, I mean, sure every state that requires it's own special needs in terms of laws and provisions, should be allowed to do so, considering you have such a large country, it only makes sense that different states require different laws for its different circumstances.

However, I can't say much, because of my lack of knowledge on certain things, I'm not aware of any limiting of free speech, but what I will say about the assault on christianity and other religions, is what do you class that as? I mean, if the ten commandments aren't allowed on public property, owned by government, do you see that as, an assault on christianity? I see it as the government staying true to the constitution keeping church and state seperate, as the founders said they would.
 
My point is, you can adapt to the changes of society without compromising your principles, or in this discussion, the structure of the Consitution. It isn't written in a way that doesn't adapt.

I believe in correcting our laws and ways to reflect the tenets of the Constitution. It's written perfectly, but we need to FOLLOW it.

Minimizing states rights, banning guns, limiting free speech, attacking Christianity or other religions.....that isn't adapting. That's trying to create an entirely different country. If anything, that's resorting to what we fought to free ourselves from.

Banning of guns? Are you referring to limitations on assault weapons and grenade launchers?
C'mon Erod...lets be intellectually honest here. There is no large scale attempt to ban hunting rifles and handguns.

Limits on free speech? Like what?

Attacking Christianity? If by attacking Christianity you are referring to preventitive measures taken to stop the radical right-wing/evangelicals from pursuing their agenda to bring their perverted version of Christianity into the government at the expense of all other religions and religious views...then I guess that's an attack that I would support.
There is no "attack" on Christianity as far as it pertains to so called "Christians" being able to freely practice their religion in their churches.
However, these radical groups are not content with that. They want their views forced onto all others via the government.

No Erod...it is people like you that are trying to recreate our Country into the very thing that the founding fathers and generations behind them fought to prevent.
America is a free country where you have the freedom to practice your religion and your views, but you are not free to impose your will on everyone else.
 
Thats right. And I'm sure whomever Bush picked you were overjoyed. :roll:

Selective memory is a wonderful thing isn't it?

For the record, I did not have a problem with Roberts at the time. I recognized Bush's right to get a judge from the right, but at least he picked a very qualified justice. Though I am not wild about his ruling making corporations effectively voters (talk about judicial activism), he remains a strong justice. He is heads an shoulders about Thomas and Sotomayor, who, IHMO are judicial light-weights, as well as, IMHO, Alito and Scalia who are just too right wing for my taste
 
Yes, he could have picked worse, but he could have picked far better.

I think this was a wimp choice, from a President that is increasingly showing his colors as a wimp. This Obama supporter is becoming increasingly dissappointed in his lack of leadership. I am increasingly affirming my view that our two party system is the party of wimps and party of fools. Pick your poison.
 
Last edited:
She's only probably one of the most educated Constitutional scholars in the country...I guess you would call that "no expertise".

:rofl

Look, there's nothing wrong with supporting Kagan and I think she'll be fine on the court, but this is just ridiculous. I don't know who told you that she was some world-famous constitutional scholar, but they didn't know what they were talking about. She's smart and very talented in her field (which is not constitutional law), but that doesn't mean you should just make up superlatives about her simply because they sound good.
 
Did any of you happen to catch Charlie Rose last night? They had a discussion on her.
 
So I'd love to understand how she's qualfied for the position. She's never been a judge, so there's no paper trail... she's only argued cases for the government for 1 year, so there's no demonsterable past there. How is it that she's qualified to hold the highest judge ship position in the country? She's a total wild card with no past history ... and there's probably a reason non-judges weren't approved for the past 40 years. Rehnquist had a fairly long history as a lawyer and associate judge - more than 1 year in an administration before going to the SCOTUS.

I'm just not understanding her qualifications for the job - and a very important job. Unless of course the qualifications are to be an activist on the court... which she may or may not be.

What's not to understand? Obama needs friends in high places to forward, and sustain his wickedly dishonest progressive agenda.

Have you noticed...out of the box...the left is "complaining" that she's too "centrists". A new strategy I'm detetecting here...but, just the same old blatant lies, and intellectual dishonesty to insure "social justice" for all on the backs of the few.

Never, ever trust a leftist...they're morally bankrupt, and will look you in the eye as they lie about and obfuscate their "progressive" (communist) plans for America.
 
What's not to understand? Obama needs friends in high places to forward, and sustain his wickedly dishonest progressive agenda.
Fair enough, I just wish the media and liberals would be so honest and just admit it.

Have you noticed...out of the box...the left is "complaining" that she's too "centrists". A new strategy I'm detetecting here...but, just the same old blatant lies, and intellectual dishonesty to insure "social justice" for all on the backs of the few.
Well sure, Che could be appointed posthumously and the left would cringe and whine about how the guy is just too lively and conservative. I've noticed full blow moonbat progressives calling themselves centrists or "moderates" for years.

Never, ever trust a leftist...they're morally bankrupt, and will look you in the eye as they lie about and obfuscate their "progressive" (communist) plans for America.
Well, they're just like anyone else. Some you can have honest debate and discussion and others are dizzy ****ers who probably walk down the street in sandwich boards mumbling to themselves when they're not posting here. There are some very nice and good Democrats and liberals. It's the Progressives I just can't understand.
 
What's not to understand? Obama needs friends in high places to forward, and sustain his wickedly dishonest progressive agenda.

I guess he's taking a page from the Rove/Cheney playbook. With those two, it's hard to say who's more evil and corrupt.

Have you noticed...out of the box...the left is "complaining" that she's too "centrists". A new strategy I'm detetecting here...but, just the same old blatant lies, and intellectual dishonesty to insure "social justice" for all on the backs of the few.

Ironic how you're so bothered by lies and damn lies when your boy W. lead us into a war over a lie.

$900 billion pissed away 4700 Americans dead and that doesn't bother you in the least, but the left building up a supreme court nomination by a Democratic president and you've got your panties in a bundle...

Never, ever trust a leftist...they're morally bankrupt, and will look you in the eye as they lie about and obfuscate their "progressive" (communist) plans for America.

Lookiing back over the last decade, I'd say you've got it all backwards. The righties and neo-con men have been screwing you left and right. Scumbaggery of the highest order and the GOP-Fox News sheep just get down on their knees and lap it up like a bunch of dogs...

Sickening, really.
 
Fair enough, I just wish the media and liberals would be so honest and just admit it.

Well sure, Che could be appointed posthumously and the left would cringe and whine about how the guy is just too lively and conservative. I've noticed full blow moonbat progressives calling themselves centrists or "moderates" for years.

Well, they're just like anyone else. Some you can have honest debate and discussion and others are dizzy ****ers who probably walk down the street in sandwich boards mumbling to themselves when they're not posting here. There are some very nice and good Democrats and liberals. It's the Progressives I just can't understand.

I agree somewhat about the a few Dems and Libs...unfortunately, most of those I think you are referring...the life long bluedogs and JFK variety, are completely unaware that "thier party" has been hijacked by a cabal of communist progressives.
 
Sorry....do your own homework if you want to learn the arguments.
That's what education is about.

However, since you asked....I'll give you a clue. It has to do with putting forth an important governmental interest that justifies the differential treatment.

Its not that hard to educate yourself if you want to take a litle time to look into it.

funny when I said the same thing to some barking loon about an issue everyone knows is true, I was told that I had to provide proof (that blacks commit more crimes than whites I believe)

so using the lib standards I suggest you post up or be considered a liar as I was told.

and tell me how my analysis is faulty. The law says a man may marry a woman. IF we get into whether there is an attraction what is an objective standard soon morphs into a subjective one.
 
I guess he's taking a page from the Rove/Cheney playbook. With those two, it's hard to say who's more evil and corrupt.



Ironic how you're so bothered by lies and damn lies when your boy W. lead us into a war over a lie.

$900 billion pissed away 4700 Americans dead and that doesn't bother you in the least, but the left building up a supreme court nomination by a Democratic president and you've got your panties in a bundle...



Lookiing back over the last decade, I'd say you've got it all backwards. The righties and neo-con men have been screwing you left and right. Scumbaggery of the highest order and the GOP-Fox News sheep just get down on their knees and lap it up like a bunch of dogs...

Sickening, really.

"moderate"...perhaps your vision for America would be useful as I am new here....moderates that I know are fence sitters and breeze riders....

Do you have any convictions at all?
 
Banning of guns? Are you referring to limitations on assault weapons and grenade launchers?
C'mon Erod...lets be intellectually honest here. There is no large scale attempt to ban hunting rifles and handguns..

compete crap. There have been massive efforts to ban handguns by the left and Obama supported a complete handgun ban at one point. Lefty gun banners have been calling for restrictions on "sniper rifles" as well and many of the definitions are inclusive of almost all centerfire hunting rifles with scopes.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_to_Stop_Gun_Violence]Coalition to Stop Gun Violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

1974, the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society formed the National Coalition to Ban Handguns,[1] a group of thirty religious, labor, and nonprofit organizations with the goal of addressing "the high rates of gun-related crime and death in American society" by licensing gun owners, registering firearms, and banning private ownership of handguns with "reasonable limited exceptions" for “police, military, licensed security guards, antique dealers who have guns in unfireable condition, and licensed pistol clubs where firearms are kept on the premises.”[2][3] In the 1980s and 1990s, the coalition grew to 44 member groups.[4] In 1989, the National Coalition to Ban Handguns changed its name to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, in part because the group felt that "assault rifles" as well as handguns, should be outlawed.[


VPC - Handgun Ban Fact Sheet

homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootingsï are carried out with easily concealable pistols and revolvers. The public health model as well as the traditional approaches employed in protecting consumer health and safety lead to one inevitable conclusion: handguns should be banned

two major dem supporting groups. try again
 
Back
Top Bottom