• 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

disneydude said:
Standards of decency change. Most civilized countries recognize that state sponsored killings are inhumane. We are now in the same category as countries like Iran, Iraq and third world countries in our thinking.

As for your second argument...it doesn't even warrant a response. That reasoning has been rejected time and again and is now only used by the desperate right-wing who have no other argument.
Ever follow the Constitutional scholars who write on arguments against gay marriage? Let me give you a clue...they have better arguments than that one. :2wave:
Click to expand...

lame and I would argue that life in USP (SuperMax) Florence is far more cruel than the needle. BTW I am not in fan of the death penalty but it has nothing to do with "cruelty". 50 years in solitary is far worse punishment. The problem is that mistakes are made and the DP cannot be reversed.



that something is rejected doesn't mean that the reasons make sense. Gays are treated exactly the same as straights in terms of the objective application of the law. You are not nearly educated enough in the law to give me a clue.
 
disneydude said:
We don't support much of what you claim. I am against government handouts although I believe in a right to work state. I don't support corporations moving high paying manufacturing jobs overseas so that corporations can increase profits for their millionaire/billionaire CEO's.
I believe that workers should be paid a living wage and that corporations shouldn't be able to exploit the workers.
I support immigration reform, while recognizing the need for migrant workers.
I believe that the true way to go about immigration reform is to go after the companies that profit off low wages they pay to undocumented workers.

Oh...and by the way....you need a civics lesson. People who enter this country illegally can't vote. Did you not realize that? :doh
Click to expand...

Motor voter laws...and certain states attempting to pass laws to issue drivers licenses to illegals...hmmm.

You sound to me like a typical, envious lefty...screw the personal risk and money it takes to create a successfull business, then hire whiners like you....Godammit!, I demand a house on the hill, as well.

Jackass
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
that something is rejected doesn't mean that the reasons make sense. Gays are treated exactly the same as straights in terms of the objective application of the law. You are not nearly educated enough in the law to give me a clue.
Click to expand...

I'm not asking you to get a clue from me....but follow the arguments of the scholars who support your position. No credible legal scholar makes that lame argument.
When the case comes before the Supreme Court there are some good arguments, however I think that they will ultimately fail.
 
webrockk said:
Motor voter laws...and certain states attempting to pass laws to issue drivers licenses to illegals...hmmm.

You sound to me like a typical, envious lefty...screw the personal risk and money it takes to create a successfull business, then hire whiners like you....Godammit!, I demand a house on the hill, as well.

Jackass
Click to expand...

Wow...you need to go back to your Glenn Beck....

Envious? of what? I support successful businesses. I just don't believe that they are free to run their business in our country without any costs. If you want to run a successful business, there are costs that you must pay in this country....it doesn't come for free and you can't exploit the workers to pad your wallet.

I am not a big fan of corporate welfare. You obviously are.
 
webrockk said:
Motor voter laws...and certain states attempting to pass laws to issue drivers licenses to illegals...hmmm.

You sound to me like a typical, envious lefty...screw the personal risk and money it takes to create business, then hire whiners like you....Godammit!, I demand a house on the hill, as well.

Jackass
Click to expand...

There is no reason for you to be making personal attacks like that. How about sticking to the issue?

How about this? Show me a link which shows that illegal aliens get to vote because they are issued driver's licenses, and that is all they need.
 
disneydude said:
The right to be free of governmental intrusion, the right against cruel and unusual punishment and the right of equal protection under the law are ABSOLUTELY part of this countries original values.
Click to expand...

And yet no one would argue that the original understanding of those broad rights that you mentioned encompassed the specific issues that I mentioned. That's the point.

Historically, absolutely no one understood the eighth amendment to ban all capital punishment. Recently, several liberal scholars and Justices have argued just that. How exactly is that defending our original values?

Remember....there is something in the pledge that even says Freedom and Justice for ALL (not just some).
Click to expand...

(Generic platitude about as useful and relevant as "these colors don't run.")
 
disneydude said:
I'm not asking you to get a clue from me....but follow the arguments of the scholars who support your position. No credible legal scholar makes that lame argument.
When the case comes before the Supreme Court there are some good arguments, however I think that they will ultimately fail.
Click to expand...

why don't you list those scholars and summarize their arguments
 
Since someone has made a claim that motor voter laws enable illegal aliens to vote, I am going to debunk it, and right now.

Illegals, and even those here legally, can be deported for making a false statement claiming US citizenship, which is a serious crime. Motor voter laws are actually an unintended trap for those who are not US citizens, but a trap, nevertheless, which can lead to deportation, not lead to voting.

Read this article by a licensed attorney, which explains the motor voter trap for non US citizens.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
why don't you list those scholars and summarize their arguments
Click to expand...

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.
 
disneydude said:
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.
Click to expand...

surely his experience as a student at princeton's law school equipped him to understand this already ... or was it yale?
 
disneydude said:
Standards of decency change. Most civilized countries recognize that state sponsored killings are inhumane. We are now in the same category as countries like Iran, Iraq and third world countries in our thinking.
Click to expand...

As well as countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and others which are democratic and are generally seen as respecting human rights...
 
Redress said:
What in the **** does that have to do with anything? Why would it matter? Why is it any of your business?
Click to expand...

Why? You wouldn't find it ironic that in the hight of the gay agenda, the most left wing President in our time, nominated a person on the simple fact that /heshe is gay to try and continue to mainstream being gay?

What is the woman's qualifications to be a Supreme Court judge? I know they can pretty much throw anybody up there they want to, but come on, who does such a thing, unless they are completing a backroom promise or pushing an agenda?

He sure as hell didn't nominate here based on merit, b/c she has no experience in judgeship.
 
TurtleDude said:
gays have equal protection-they can marry someone of the opposite sex the same as everyone else
Click to expand...


So, if the tables were turned and only gay marriages were allowed, heterosexual people would have equal protection under the law because any man could marry any man they wanted to (and any woman any woman she wanted to)? You REALLY believe this is how equal protection works?
 
TheHat said:
Why? You wouldn't find it ironic that in the hight of the gay agenda, the most left wing President in our time, nominated a person on the simple fact that /heshe is gay to try and continue to mainstream being gay?

What is the woman's qualifications to be a Supreme Court judge? I know they can pretty much throw anybody up there they want to, but come on, who does such a thing, unless they are completing a backroom promise or pushing an agenda?

He sure as hell didn't nominate here based on merit, b/c she has no experience in judgeship.
Click to expand...

About 1/3 of all Supreme Court Justices have had not been judges. Apparently it is not a qualification. Her orientation is no ones business but her own, and no one is making any kind of deal about it, but you. So much for that line of argument...
 
Redress said:
About 1/3 of all Supreme Court Justices have had not been judges. Apparently it is not a qualification. Her orientation is no ones business but her own, and no one is making any kind of deal about it, but you. So much for that line of argument...
Click to expand...

So now the liberal staple is that sexual orientation isn't an issue anymore? Ok, we will see how long that lasts. :rofl
 
disneydude said:
No...what it means is that you can't expect a document that was written over 200+ years ago to have been able to take into account new technology and things that we have learned in the last 2 centuries.

I would argue that expecting a document that was written over 200 years ago to have been a crystal ball which could interpret the issues that present themselves today is foolish.
Click to expand...







Really? Why? Is Liberty and natural law changed by the whim of current society?


It has nothing to do with a "Crystal ball". Just admit, you don't agree with the USC. That's fine and all, but don't try to mold a document recognizing inalienable rights, as something that can be used to take from one to give to another, ala healthcare for example. It's simply not there.


Just like I think a marriage amendment is retarded, so do I think, re-interpreting what the founders intent was to re-define natural rights is just as retarded.

Freedom is a bitch. :shrug:
 
disneydude said:
Its all that the right-wing is left with these days.

You will see their anti-gay social agenda come out vigorously in this confirmation.

The one issue other than abortion that the right-wingers care about is preventing gays from enjoying civil rights.....just watch...they will show their colors loud and clear.
Click to expand...




I'm fairly right wing, no?



Does this describe me?


Please link or retract this nonsense.
 
TheHat said:
Why? You wouldn't find it ironic that in the hight of the gay agenda, the most left wing President in our time, nominated a person on the simple fact that /heshe is gay to try and continue to mainstream being gay?

What is the woman's qualifications to be a Supreme Court judge? I know they can pretty much throw anybody up there they want to, but come on, who does such a thing, unless they are completing a backroom promise or pushing an agenda?

He sure as hell didn't nominate here based on merit, b/c she has no experience in judgeship.
Click to expand...

She's only probably one of the most educated Constitutional scholars in the country...I guess you would call that "no expertise".

The reality is, many of the best Supreme Court judges have not been Judges prior to the appointment.

Funny that those crying the loudest about lack of experience were deathly silent during Rhenquist's reign as Chief Justice....hmmmmmm wonder why.

Hey....I'm not happy with the selection for my own reasons. She's waaaaaay too moderate for me. However, saying that she isn't qualified is simply laughable.
 
TheHat said:
So now the liberal staple is that sexual orientation isn't an issue anymore? Ok, we will see how long that lasts. :rofl
Click to expand...

Well why should it matter?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I'm fairly right wing, no?



Does this describe me?


Please link or retract this nonsense.
Click to expand...


Are you taking part in the confirmation proceedings?

THAT is what I was referencing. You will see the far-rights anti-gay agenda rise to a new level during this confirmation proceeding. The right-wings only concern other than abortion and infusing christianity into government is ensuring prevention of civil rights to gays. They are going to go all out in their anti-gay rhetoric in the next months.

As for you. What have you brought to the table so far except that she has no judicial experience?

I'm still waiting for you to tell us whether you agree that Rhenquist was a horrible judge and not qualified. :doh
 
disneydude said:
Are you taking part in the confirmation proceedings?

THAT is what I was referencing. You will see the far-rights anti-gay agenda rise to a new level during this confirmation proceeding. The right-wings only concern other than abortion and infusing christianity into government is ensuring prevention of civil rights to gays. They are going to go all out in their anti-gay rhetoric in the next months.
Click to expand...


The only person bringing up her sexuality thus far is you. :shrug:

As for you. What have you brought to the table so far except that she has no judicial experience?
Click to expand...


I just did dun bring that Obama could have picked worse. :shrug:



I'm still waiting for you to tell us whether you agree that Rhenquist was a horrible judge and not qualified. :doh
Click to expand...



those are two different questions. Aren't they..... :ssst:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
The only person bringing up her sexuality thus far is you. :shrug:




I just did dun bring that Obama could have picked worse. :shrug:







those are two different questions. Aren't they..... :ssst:
Click to expand...


Actually no. If you go back, I was responding to other people's posts, so you are wrong there.

As for Obama picking worse...you are probably right, although I had hoped for better.

On your last point. They can be different, but they can also be the same.
 
disneydude said:
On your last point. They can be different, but they can also be the same.
Click to expand...




How so?


Rhenquist probably shouldn't have qualified like kagan, but, he's been pretty good on strict constitutionalist, so the gamble paid off...


:shrugL
 
TheHat said:
So now the liberal staple is that sexual orientation isn't an issue anymore? Ok, we will see how long that lasts. :rofl
Click to expand...

Who is making a big deal about her orientation, you or liberals? Hint: it ain't us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom