GG Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Nice try. It wouldn't have anything to do with your below average intelligence, now would it? I, wouldn't know. They haven't, taught us to count to 3.5 yet. How, does one, get to be as smart as you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Is that so hard to understand? One, would, think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 What's that comma for? How long have you been speaking English? I think that their is a big difference between "flip flopping" on a postion like NASA funding and "flip flopping" on one's core values and beliefs. Please check your own work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JK2000 Posted August 18, 2008 Author Share Posted August 18, 2008 There's a huge difference there. If I was a senator, I'd confirm most of the justices sent to me by the president, unless I harbored serious doubts about their ability to do the job. I would not necessarily nominate those same people if I was president myself. Is that so hard to understand? McCain never made that distinction. McCain clearly stated that he would not have nominated these SCJ because they "legislate from the bench". He had an opportunity to oppose these "bench legislators" on the record during their confirmation but he chose not to out of political convenience. He was being a big phony pander bear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Please check your own work. Back Back Back Back Back, its outta here!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JK2000 Posted August 18, 2008 Author Share Posted August 18, 2008 I, wouldn't know. They haven't, taught us to count to 3.5 yet. How, does one, get to be as smart as you? Big news!!! Your awesome posting here has made headlines!!!!! http://www.theonion.com/content/news/local...post_comment_on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Big news!!! Your awesome posting here has made headlines!!!!! http://www.theonion.com/content/news/local...post_comment_on I see that you're back to your old tricks. I like last week's image better Mr Elliott. I, know, how to use a razor. (You really have to get fresh material, tired acts get very old here) PS - you may want to double back on your original point, whatever that was. Quick name the 5 justices that you refer to that voted for the Roe v Wade decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JK2000 Posted August 18, 2008 Author Share Posted August 18, 2008 I see that you're back to your old tricks. I like last week's image better Mr Elliott. I, know, how to use a razor. (You really have to get fresh material, tired acts get very old here) PS - you may want to double back on your original point, whatever that was. Quick name the 5 justices that you refer to that voted for the Roe v Wade decision. kennedy, breyer, souter, ginsberg, and stevens!!!!!! Quick enough?????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 McCain never made that distinction. McCain clearly stated that he would not have nominated these SCJ because they "legislate from the bench". He had an opportunity to oppose these "bench legislators" on the record during their confirmation but he chose not to out of political convenience. He was being a big phony pander bear! It's not easy talking to someone who's trying to be dense but I'll make another stab at it. McCain need not make that distinction. You can loathe a presidential choice and still approve that choice. In fact, I wish more Senators would do exactly that instead of holding up presidential appointments just because they are sympathetic to dems/reps. McCains Senatorial job is not to challenge every appointment. It's to challenge appointments that are incompetent or dangerous. Love him or hate him, Kennedy and the rest of the pro-Roes are at least competent. So he was right not to challenge their nomination, and would certainly not nominate them himself. I am thankful that you pointed out what a reasonable guy he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 kennedy, breyer, souter, ginsberg, and stevens!!!!!! Quick enough?????????? One punctuation mark is adequate and exclamation marks are generally disfavored in all communication. Capitalizing proper names is customary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 kennedy, breyer, souter, ginsberg, and stevens!!!!!! Quick enough?????????? They were all on SCOTUS in '73? Learn something new every day. Thanks for the lesson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JK2000 Posted August 18, 2008 Author Share Posted August 18, 2008 It's not easy talking to someone who's trying to be dense but I'll make another stab at it. McCain need not make that distinction. You can loathe a presidential choice and still approve that choice. In fact, I wish more Senators would do exactly that instead of holding up presidential appointments just because they are sympathetic to dems/reps. McCains Senatorial job is not to challenge every appointment. It's to challenge appointments that are incompetent or dangerous. Love him or hate him, Kennedy and the rest of the pro-Roes are at least competent. So he was right not to challenge their nomination, and would certainly not nominate them himself. I am thankful that you pointed out what a reasonable guy he is. McCain's own words (sorry about the caps/format) "WELL, I THINK THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS INCREDIBLE RESPONSIBILITY IN NOMINATING PEOPLE TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. THEY ARE LIFETIME POSITIONS AS WELL AS THE FEDERAL BENCH. THERE WILL BE TWOMAYBE THREE VACANCIES. THIS NOMINATION SHOULD BE BASED ON THE CRITERIA OF PROVEN RECORD OF STRICTLY ADHERING TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND NOT LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH. SOME OF THE WORST DAMAGE HAS BEEN DONE BY LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH. AND BY THE WAY, JUSTICES ALITO AND ROBERTS ARE TWO OF MY MOST RECENT FAVORITES, BY THE WAY. THEY REALLY ARE. THEY ARE VERY FINE AND I'M PROUD OF PRESIDENT BUSH FOR NOMINATING THEM" Doesn't that sound like McCain feels that these justices are "incompetent or dangerous"? McCain thinks that these 5 justices are not adhering to the Constitution, that sounds pretty dangerous to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JK2000 Posted August 18, 2008 Author Share Posted August 18, 2008 They were all on SCOTUS in '73? Learn something new every day. Thanks for the lesson. No but other abortion cases have come before the SC such as Planned Parenthood v Casey which would have effectively overturned Roe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 No but other abortion cases have come before the SC such as Planned Parenthood v Casey which would have effectively overturned Roe. But, it didn't. And I'm sorry that you feel that justices who argue for a strict interpretation of the Constitution are dangerous to this country. Please tell me what school you went to, so I can keep my son as far way from it as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JK2000 Posted August 18, 2008 Author Share Posted August 18, 2008 But, it didn't. And I'm sorry that you feel that justices who argue for a strict interpretation of the Constitution are dangerous to this country. Please tell me what school you went to, so I can keep my son as far way from it as possible. I didn't say that they were dummy. McCain was the one trying to score political points with his Jesusfreak base by claiming that 5 SC Justices, whom he voted to confirm, were damaging the country because they don't adhere to his interpretation of the Constitution and are therefore "legislating from the bench". He could have voted against their confirmation, it's not like no one else did. He could have joined fellow wackjob Jesse Helms! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 I didn't say that they were dummy. McCain was the one trying to score political points with his Jesusfreak base by claiming that 5 SC Justices, whom he voted to confirm, were damaging the country because they don't adhere to his interpretation of the Constitution and are therefore "legislating from the bench". As opposed to the candidate who is above political fray? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JK2000 Posted August 18, 2008 Author Share Posted August 18, 2008 As opposed to the candidate who is above political fray? No sh--, both candidates will say anything to get elected! Go figure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 No sh--, both candidates will say anything to get elected! Go figure! Which gets to the original point, Dumas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 I didn't say that they were dummy. McCain was the one trying to score political points with his Jesusfreak base by claiming that 5 SC Justices, whom he voted to confirm, were damaging the country because they don't adhere to his interpretation of the Constitution and are therefore "legislating from the bench". He could have voted against their confirmation[[,]] --;-- it's not like no one else did. He could have joined fellow wackjob Jesse Helms! He didn't vote against them, perhaps because he didn't think it's Constitutionally appropriate to oppose nominations unless they are dangerous. The quote you inserted provides no information on this. "Whom" is like a doddering old uncle in English, by the way. It's just about dead, but hanging by a thread. It's never appropriate in conversation unless you're the type who tips his pinkie when drinking (in which case, you're a tool). It's like that on this website too, but you're already a tool so carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JK2000 Posted August 18, 2008 Author Share Posted August 18, 2008 He didn't vote against them, perhaps because he didn't think it's Constitutionally appropriate to oppose nominations unless they are dangerous. The quote you inserted provides no information on this. "Whom" is like a doddering old uncle in English, by the way. It's just about dead, but hanging by a thread. It's never appropriate in conversation unless you're the type who tips his pinkie when drinking (in which case, you're a tool). It's like that on this website too, but you're already a tool so carry on. Isn't "adhering to the constitution" a pretty big part of a SC Justice's job? Why would McCain vote to confirm someone who he feels hasn't "adhered to the constitution"? Shouldn't "not adhering to the constitution" and "legislating from the bench" which results in "some of the worst damage" be classified as dangerous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts