Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-14-2016, 02:26 AM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
4,761 posts, read 7,839,004 times
Reputation: 5328

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RMESMH View Post
.
Supreme Court justices aren't elected officials.

No, they're not. They're the ones who hold our freedoms and rights in their hands.

 
Old 02-14-2016, 02:55 AM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,899,377 times
Reputation: 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by UB50 View Post
I don't see five liberals on that list...???
I see four, two nominated by Republicans.
 
Old 02-14-2016, 02:56 AM
 
Location: NC
5,129 posts, read 2,599,470 times
Reputation: 2398
2nd admendment in serious trouble now.
 
Old 02-14-2016, 02:59 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,060 posts, read 44,866,510 times
Reputation: 13718
Quote:
Originally Posted by UB50 View Post
I don't see five liberals on that list...???
That's what happens when RINOs are elected. Dems and RINOs have been eroding our Constitutional Rights for decades. More and more people are waking up, though, as it has been getting worse.
 
Old 02-14-2016, 03:28 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,060 posts, read 44,866,510 times
Reputation: 13718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy ol' Man View Post
If obama were to chose the best person to serve our country, the nomination would be approved, however obama would only chose the best person to further his own agenda, not the best person to serve the country..

You're talking about obama here, the man who hates America and the constitution, he would never do anything for the betterment of the country.. He never has so far, why would he change now??
Obama thought the Warren Court didn't go far enough...

Obama in a Chicago Public Radio (WBEZ) interview in 2001:
Quote:
"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the Court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf"
Obama wants a Supreme Court that "breaks free from the constraints of the Constitution"* in order to force federal and state governments to redistribute wealth and impose political and economic justice in society (as he sees it).

* That, in itself, is a violation of his Presidential Oath of Office.

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
 
Old 02-14-2016, 03:48 AM
 
33,316 posts, read 12,546,342 times
Reputation: 14946
Quote:
Originally Posted by justNancy View Post


Governor John Rowland was a Republican!
There are amoral, corrupt people on both sides of the aisle. Rowland is probably one of the most corrupt Governors who has ever served in any state. He probably would need a lot of time on the couch to determine the true root of his behavior.....likely need to go back into childhood...which obviously was before he was a registered Republican.


Your comment also doesn't make the quote any less true. His point was about the court itself...not one of the initial 'Goliaths' in the case, and that the majority opinion included the 5 justices who were arguably the 5 most to the left within that group of 9. Those 5 sided with the City (the Goliath/the government/the statists). Those in the minority in the decision (those on the 'David' side) were Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, and O'Connor.
 
Old 02-14-2016, 04:09 AM
 
33,316 posts, read 12,546,342 times
Reputation: 14946
Quote:
Originally Posted by justNancy View Post
This was a U.S. Supreme Court Decision in 2005.


Chief Justice: William Rehnquist: Nominated by Ronald Reagan

John P. Stevens: Nominated by Gerald Ford

Anthony Kennedy: Nominated by Ronald Reagan

Antonin Scalia: Nominated by Ronald Reagan

Clarence Thomas: Nominated by George H.W. Bush

David Souter: Nominated by George H.W. Bush

Sandra Day O'Connor: Nominated by Ronald Reagan

Steven Breyer: Nominated by Bill Clinton

Ruth Bader Ginsberg: Nominated by Bill Clinton
Doesn't take away that it can be argued that the 5 in the majority on the Kelo
decision are the 5 the most to the left of those 9.


Also, Bush 41 is a Country Club/Chamber of Commerce Republican, not a conservative. Same with Ford.
 
Old 02-14-2016, 04:26 AM
 
33,316 posts, read 12,546,342 times
Reputation: 14946
Quote:
Originally Posted by justNancy View Post
I hope you realize that's why I posted the 9 justices in 2005 and which POTUS nominated each. The post to which I was responding said the liberals on the court were responsible for the decision. At that time only 2 Supreme Court justices had been appointed by a Democrat.
Conservatives view Country Club/Chamber of Commerce Republicans (Bush 41, Ford) differently than you do.
 
Old 02-14-2016, 04:57 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,229 posts, read 17,863,405 times
Reputation: 4585
Looks like we will be without a SCOTUS for a while. The Country will likely have to wait until Hillary makes the appointment early in her 1st Term.
 
Old 02-14-2016, 05:06 AM
 
33,316 posts, read 12,546,342 times
Reputation: 14946
Quote:
Originally Posted by justNancy View Post
even if Pres Obama chooses the best person to serve our country
This is the problem. He should choose the best person to serve THE CONSTITUTION. Fidelity to the constitution is what should be paramount, not the opinions and emotions, whims, etc. of the current populace.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:42 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top