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.
Personally I think Obama NEEDS to nominate a liberal to take Stevens' spot. Bush never shied away from nominating conservatives, so there's nothing wrong with Obama nominating a liberal. You've got 59 Senators on your side Obama, do the right thing and nominate a liberal. Duh.
Personally I think Obama NEEDS to nominate a liberal to take Stevens' spot. Bush never shied away from nominating conservatives, so there's nothing wrong with Obama nominating a liberal. You've got 59 Senators on your side Obama, do the right thing and nominate a liberal. Duh.
Why does a "liberal" have to replace a "liberal"? I thought justice was supposed to be "blind"?
Anyway, I had not heard what you are reporting. I'll believe it when I see it.
But what we need are justices that do not "make law", but uphold the Constitution. There roll is to "apply the law", not make law.
Personally I think Obama NEEDS to nominate a liberal to take Stevens' spot. Bush never shied away from nominating conservatives, so there's nothing wrong with Obama nominating a liberal. You've got 59 Senators on your side Obama, do the right thing and nominate a liberal. Duh.
Yeah, I agree...but Obama, despite what the RW echo machine claims, is a moderate.
He's been kissing Republican butt since inauguration day.
Personally I think Obama NEEDS to nominate a liberal to take Stevens' spot. Bush never shied away from nominating conservatives, so there's nothing wrong with Obama nominating a liberal. You've got 59 Senators on your side Obama, do the right thing and nominate a liberal. Duh.
Why does a "liberal" have to replace a "liberal"? I thought justice was supposed to be "blind"?
Anyway, I had not heard what you are reporting. I'll believe it when I see it.
But what we need are justices that do not "make law", but uphold the Constitution. Their roll is to "apply the law", not make law.
Why does a "liberal" have to replace a "liberal"? I thought justice was supposed to be "blind"?
Anyway, I had not heard what you are reporting. I'll believe it when I see it.
But what we need are justices that do not "make law", but uphold the Constitution. Their roll is to "apply the law", not make law.
I agree, but there are so many different ways to apply the constitution. It was written to be broad in scope. That is why not all decisions are unanimous. Obviously I would prefer that judges choose the more liberal interpretation.
If Obama nominates a moderate, he is playing with fire when he doesn't need to. Let Republicans nominate conservative judges
Personally I think Obama NEEDS to nominate a liberal to take Stevens' spot. Bush never shied away from nominating conservatives, so there's nothing wrong with Obama nominating a liberal. You've got 59 Senators on your side Obama, do the right thing and nominate a liberal. Duh.
Why not just pick a judge that does not see it as their duty to impose their own agenda thru the courts. Either a law is Constitutional or it is not. No matter the good intentions of the law, if it is bad law, strike it down, and make the legislature rewrite the law until it is constitutional.
Don't appoint a judge who thinks we need to look to foreign law for guidance.
Don't appoint a judge who thinks the US Constitution was fundamentally flawed, and is they can get to the SCOTUS they can fundamentally change the country.
Don't appoint a judge who thinks they are just a black robed legislator.
Americans, however, would prefer a new Supreme Court justice who makes the court more conservative (42%) over one who would make the Court more liberal (27%).
This falls in line pretty well with the make up of the country.
I hear some on the Left are not that happy about Kagan.
Personally, I think he will go for Wood, who will have a harder time of it.
This falls in line pretty well with the make up of the country.
I hear some on the Left are not that happy about Kagan.
Personally, I think he will go for Wood, who will have a harder time of it.
OK the fact that Americans are nervous about the word "liberal" is not surprising considering that Fox News has been scaring the bejeezus out of people telling them that the socialist takeover of all aspects of life is imminent for the past year.
If you asked Americans, "do you want a judge that will keep valuable progressive civil rights, or one that will re-define 'corporation' as 'person'?" they would choose the former.
I think Obama is a Republican in Democrat's clothing if you ask me.
He cozies up to banksters and big business and bills are all passed in their favor, not the citizens.
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.
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.
