Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

President appoints, Senate confirms

Discussion in 'Legal' started by BigFatKen, Oct 11, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BigFatKen

    BigFatKen Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    926
    Location:
    Auburn, AL
    I woke up an old thread yesterday which showed off much THR bickering. This was somewhat for the many, many new members THR has gotten since Jan 2006. Many members prefered a split Government because it can do less harm like increase social spending.

    This November, we will elect 1/3 of the Senate and all of Congress. The Senate advises the POTUS about SCOUS (Supreme Court) appointments. If we do not keep the Senate on the president's side, he will not be able to get a possible new appointment to SCOUS confirmed.


    READ THE FOLLOWING AT YOUR OWN RISK. it gives me the Willy's:

    If, God forbid, President Bush is killed as in a new movie, and the VP dies of a heart attack, the next President will be the Speaker of the House.(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford ). If the Democrats win the House in November, they will put up Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. She would be our president. Hillary likely would be her VP
    (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Rockefeller ) by appointment.
    END WARNING

    It hapened ~32 years ago when relations between the GOP and Democrats. were much more corgial. The last thing the RKBA needs is another liberal Judge on SCOUS. Imagine a President Hillary getting Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein on the SCOUS !:fire:

    Some us have been trying to whittle away at the GCA '68 for 38 years now. Roe vs. Wade, 1973, is "Settled law" now according to the Democrats. With liberal Judges, NFA, if it ever had a chance, would be forever along with GCA nd the '86 fully-auto freeze.

    The old thread about "remember ..Democrat ...Pres." talked much about taxes, the economy, and who served in a war 35 years ago. These things mean NOTHING compared to keeping the SCOUS free from people like Schumer and Feinstein.

    Vote to support the President for SCOUS appointments. Keep our GOP majorities.
     
  2. Lone_Gunman

    Lone_Gunman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,056
    Location:
    United Socialist States of Obama
    Bush has been so disappointing on so many other issues that I have no faith his Supreme Court picks will be any good either.

    I would like to see the House or Senate fall to the Democrats so that the Republican monopoly on power in Washington is broken. Political stalemate should be our goal. The runaway agenda of the Neo-Conservative globalists need to be stopped.
     
  3. buzz_knox

    buzz_knox Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    4,849
    I thought one of the mantras was that all the politicians were the same, regardless of the party. So it shouldn't matter who wins.
     
  4. BigFatKen

    BigFatKen Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    926
    Location:
    Auburn, AL
    So the words "Chief Justice Rodhan voted with Justices Schumer and Fienstein........"

    doesn't scare you?
     
  5. DKSuddeth

    DKSuddeth Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2006
    Messages:
    777
    Location:
    Bedford, TX
    things like that would just be another log on the fire of revolution or civil war.
     
  6. buzz_knox

    buzz_knox Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    4,849
    More than you could ever know. Along with "Attorney General (or Justice) Spitzer."

    My point was that the mantra varies depending on what the agenda is. If it's election time and it's about keeping the Dems from power, people argue that dividing gov't between the parties is a good idea. If it's not election time, people (often the same people) argue there's not a bit of difference between the Reps and Dems.
     
  7. Lone_Gunman

    Lone_Gunman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,056
    Location:
    United Socialist States of Obama
    Dividing power between the Democrats and Republicans has nothing to do with whether or not there are any differences between the two parties.

    In many ways, the two parties are very similar. For example, Republicans and Democrats both support increasing the welfare state (case in point, Medicare Reform). It simply is a matter of degree.

    If power had been split between Republicans and Democrats (say the House was Dem and the Senate was Rep), then I doubt medicare reform would have ever passed. The Dems in the House would have proposed to much benefits, and accused the Republicans in the Senate of not proposing enough, and I doubt a successful compromise would have been reached.

    The founding fathers realized the benefits of division of power, checks and balances, and not giving any group supreme control over the entire system. They realized that political gridlock would innately limit the power of the federal government, and I believe they purposely built this into our system. Why have so many people forgotten that?
     
  8. Waitone

    Waitone Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    5,406
    Location:
    The Land of Broccoli and Fingernails
    . . . . or Alberto Gonzales. Until we get to the point of wanting to throw our own bum out on general principals, the best we can do is gridlock. Lock it down. Get 'em so tied up in their own underwear they can't mess with me. The republicans had a chance to so something historic. They promptly fumbled the ball and lost sight of who they professed to be. For the foreseeable future congress is a threat to my life, liberty and property. Any sand thrown in the machinery is to my advantage. And no, I do buy the SCOTUS argument as a reason for maintaining republican control of the senate.
     
  9. Malone LaVeigh

    Malone LaVeigh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,136
    Location:
    Washed out of Four-dollar Bayou. Now I'm... somewh
    Thanks for the motivation. Checks to key Democrats to follow.
     
  10. River Wraith

    River Wraith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    300
    Location:
    South Carolina
    So you want to actively support supreme court appointments that would directly impact our gun rights in a negative manner? :confused:
     
  11. Malone LaVeigh

    Malone LaVeigh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,136
    Location:
    Washed out of Four-dollar Bayou. Now I'm... somewh
    No I want to actively fight supreme court appointments that would directly impact ALL OF MY rights in a negative manner.
     
  12. shooter503

    shooter503 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    440
    I've been continually amazed at the actions of the Republicans who have been so keen on extending Presidential power. Did they not see the danger they were creating if the Democratic party should gain power in DC? The Republicans, who were so keen to distort the intent of the Constitution, now have only themselves to blame if the laws they passed are used against them.

    And to all you supporters of privacy invasion and detention without charge - have a happy next few years.
     
  13. 22-rimfire

    22-rimfire Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    11,381
    Location:
    TN
    Malone, just how are you going to fight a president making a Supreme Court nomination who's politics don't agree with yours?

    You choose your representatives in the House and Senate and they vote for the most part their party line. Hence, you need to make your choices very carefully and vote that way. If you want to increase the likelihood of more gun control measures and a tax increase, vote Democrat; vote Republican unless you just have a serious problem with that candidate. Foley is one that I have a serious problem with. But in his District, I believe voting for Foley will be in essence a vote for the Republican candidate.

    In defense of politicians and voting, we all think of voting for our candidate for the House or Senate based on local or state issues. They don't necessarily vote that way once they are elected. Electing more Democrats will put anti-gun liberal Nancy Pelosi as Speaker and Democrats heading up committees. The Senate, my thoughts are toward the Supreme Court impact and maintaining a general anti-gun majority.
     
  14. SoCalShooter

    SoCalShooter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Messages:
    3,091
    Location:
    That's for me to know and not you!
    Honestly the performance of this congress and senate over the past 6 years has been extremely disappointing along with the current administrations action,(both sides dems and repubs) I will be voting based on who I think is the best canidate, at least at this point, I want to vote repub but they have severly damaged any trust that I could place in them at this point. They had a real chance to make a difference and take back everything from the dems. If they are able to come up with a plan to leave Iraq, kill bin laden and release our dependency on foreign oil, and break ties with the religious right wingers, these and other issues have been so disappointing, its waste of a vote to put these people back in power.
     
  15. RealGun

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,257
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    I see a lot of posts that reflect successful attempts, propaganda in my opinion, to cause Republicans to be in disarray, and that's aside from the GOP stumbling over its own feet. Nevertheless, the point made in the root post is right on, in that we do not need Supreme Court Justice nominees screened by a Democratic majority Judiciary committee that is comprised of the top leftist attack dogs like Kerry, Kennedy, Feinstein, Shumer, Durbin, Biden, and Feingold. Currently they do a good job of keeping the GOP honest, but I surely don't want them in the majority.
     
  16. shooter503

    shooter503 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    440
    Personally I am disgusted that the party affiliation of a Supreme Court nominee, or any other judge or Sheriff for that matter, should be introduced as part of their selection process.

    We do not need the high court of the land, responsible for interpreting the Constitution, to be populated by political hacks of either side.
     
  17. BigFatKen

    BigFatKen Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    926
    Location:
    Auburn, AL
    Wthout guns, the other rights can be taken away easily.
     
  18. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    Honestly, I dont see anyone on the supreme court taking huge swipes at the bill of rights, but I do see the living constitution fans expanding congressional authority left and right while the judicial conservatives try to stuff the genie back in the bottle.

    The big judicial problems right now are:
    -federalism and congressional authority interpretations left over from the New Deal
    -2nd amendment needs to be incorporated into the 14th
    -adminisrative law- making agencies obey the law rather than rewrite it under the guise of interpreting it.

    And I honestly see libertarian/conservative justices as best suited to fix these problems. We dont need more Stephens and Souters on the court, we need more Scalias, Thomases and Roberts.
     
  19. River Wraith

    River Wraith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    300
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Malone, your logic is fatally flawed. You support politicians that would take your guns. All your rights? Without the 2nd, you have none.
     
  20. c_yeager

    c_yeager Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,479
    Location:
    Seattle
    Your conclusion is based on the flawed premis that the Republicans do not also wish to take away your your guns. They just arent as loud about it because they like the votes, trust me, if they had a completel monopoly on political control they would seek to take away every check to their power, including the RKBA.

    I vote for an innefective, gridlocked government, in which every party has to fight for scraps and thus keep their constituents happy with at least lip service to civil liberties.
     
  21. River Wraith

    River Wraith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    300
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Well dammit that's depressing! Democrats say that they want to take them. I'd rather vote for the party that says they won't than the party that says they will.
     
  22. MechAg94

    MechAg94 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    4,734
    I wouldn't mind seeing the Republicans get a bloody nose in the elections, I just don't want to see the Democrats benefit from it. I doubt I will vote for another Dem until the dump their radical left wing. That won't happen any time soon since that is where their money is coming from.

    Ron Paul is my Congressional Rep here. I doubt I would vote for anyone else. Texas Gov. is a question I am still thinking about.
     
  23. liberalgunnut

    liberalgunnut Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    88
    Location:
    Lake Oswego, Oregon
    you're kidding right?

    oh please... while I am a liberal, I'm not a Pelosi fan. But you seem to ignore the obvious. If those things happened now we'd have President Dennis Hastert. Given the choice I think I'd go with Pelosi (at least at the moment she is displaying much better leadership skills). If the right's strongest argument against a democratic house is that we'd have Speaker Pelosi then you've apparently learned nothing. You'll probably find that most americans, including many on the right are tired of being accused of supporting terror when we disagree with the current administration. The right seems to forget that while they may hold the power it also hoists everything they do on a pedestal for all to see, including incompetence. Just as it did with the democrats before they lost power in 94.

    By the way, on a side note... the right seems to forget that at the same time Gerry Studds (d) was censured in congress for having sex with a page, the other person being censured for the same thing at the same time was Dan Crane (r). when attempting to rewrite history one must make sure they carefully conceal the facts...
     
  24. scurtis_34471

    scurtis_34471 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,014
    Location:
    Ocala, FL
    The last thing a woman's right to choose needs is another conservative judge. The court is already leaning Right with all the recent appointments. If we want a balanced court, we really don't want more Right-wing judges.

    I understand your feelings about the radical left, but don't you realize that the Republican Party has the same problem with the radical right? I cannot express how pissed I am that my party has been hijacked by the Religious Right. What we need are more moderates. I don't care which party they come from.
     
  25. liberalgunnut

    liberalgunnut Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    88
    Location:
    Lake Oswego, Oregon
    Are you so focused on the 2nd amendment that you've ignored that your 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 14th amendment rights have just been infringed by the recent passage of a bill that allows the president to label anyone whom he feels is a threat to this country as an enemy combatant? I find it stunning that there can be such singluar focus on the 2nd amendment without concern for the others. fortunately the scotus will likely overturn this bad legislation... of course that is assuming that it eventually gets signed by the president, who over a month ago was claiming that he "urgently" needed this legislation passed to protect America. Apparently he now feels that it's more urgent to protect America from Americans... democrats.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page