[quote]MaximusB wrote:
My worry is if Amnesty ever comes up as an issue, we all know how she will vote.[/quote]
Fuck! That’s the last thing this country needs! More potential taxpayers to help pay into this shit hole. I don’t know how she will vote merely because she is Latina. For all I know she could be an indoor.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
My worry is if Amnesty ever comes up as an issue, we all know how she will vote.
Nice.
We know this because of the color of her skin I imagine? Or because she is Latina? Why don’t you explain to us how “we all know” this? I guess we need another white male so that “we all know how ‘he’ will vote” right?
I really want to hear this explanation. [/quote]
[quote]JD430 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
My worry is if Amnesty ever comes up as an issue, we all know how she will vote.
Nice.
We know this because of the color of her skin I imagine? Or because she is Latina? Why don’t you explain to us how “we all know” this? I guess we need another white male so that “we all know how ‘he’ will vote” right?
I really want to hear this explanation.
[/quote]
LOL.
My favorite part of that website was this demagoguery :
Could Mexico retake the southwestern United States? Get the DVD that says the invasion is already happening!
But regardless of silliness, care to explain how you think this link proves that “we all know”? I’d love to hear it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
GL, I take it you support this SC nomination. If so, tell us why.[/quote]
Honestly I don’t know much about her. I was just surprised that some seem to be able to tell what she would think. I was wondering what that was based on. I guess the way it was written it looked like they were saying something about her race (or perhaps her gender)? I’m still waiting for that person to chime in.
'Course others on this thread have already posted a lot about her, particularly, jsbrook.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
JD430 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
My worry is if Amnesty ever comes up as an issue, we all know how she will vote.
Nice.
We know this because of the color of her skin I imagine? Or because she is Latina? Why don’t you explain to us how “we all know” this? I guess we need another white male so that “we all know how ‘he’ will vote” right?
I really want to hear this explanation.
LOL.
My favorite part of that website was this demagoguery :
Could Mexico retake the southwestern United States? Get the DVD that says the invasion is already happening!
But regardless of silliness, care to explain how you think this link proves that “we all know”? I’d love to hear it. [/quote]
I’m not talking about “white males” or “Latina women” or how any of them would vote. I am not interested in identity politics.
I was just making the point that there is some evidence out there that she would support amnesty and it has nothing to do with her ethnicity or gender…it has to do with her being listed as a member of an organization that supports amnesty. You did ask the question how we would know she might vote for amnesty, didn’t you?
[quote]JD430 wrote:
I’m not talking about “white males” or “Latina women” or how any of them would vote. I am not interested in identity politics.
I was just making the point that there is some evidence out there that she would support amnesty and it has nothing to do with her ethnicity or gender…it has to do with her being listed as a member of an organization that supports amnesty. You did ask the question how we would know she might vote for amnesty, didn’t you?
[/quote]
No, I was asking Maximus. Who is this “we” you’re speaking of? Are you two friends? Sorry, I don’t recognize either of your names.
But I am having some trouble understanding your comment. First you say you’re not interested in identity politics, but you’re concerned that she’s a member of “the race.” This seems somewhat at ends to me, it sounds like you are very concerned about it. I don’t know much about “La Raza” though, how do you know that they support amnesty? Could you provide me with a source? A quick search on their website only turned this up: http://www.nclr.org/content/news/detail/2257
Doesn’t much look like amnesty to me…but maybe you’re speaking of something else? Please, fill me in.
Also, you may wish to stop looking at such extreme websites. Anything that posts the type of demagoguery that the site you listed above does is not out to do good or to inform. I’m all for looking at a wide range of political beliefs, but that one seemed–from my one quick viewing–to be pretty extreme. They actually cited Ann Colture (sp?) and that link I aluded to above was pretty far out there. …but maybe this was just one link?
Please, I would like to hear what you dislike about La Raza. As I said, I don’t know much, so please provide sources.
I’d weigh in on this, but apparently I haven’t had enough rich experiences to make a judgement about the issue.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
JD430 wrote:
I’m not talking about “white males” or “Latina women” or how any of them would vote. I am not interested in identity politics.
I was just making the point that there is some evidence out there that she would support amnesty and it has nothing to do with her ethnicity or gender…it has to do with her being listed as a member of an organization that supports amnesty. You did ask the question how we would know she might vote for amnesty, didn’t you?
No, I was asking Maximus. Who is this “we” you’re speaking of? Are you two friends? Sorry, I don’t recognize either of your names.
But I am having some trouble understanding your comment. First you say you’re not interested in identity politics, but you’re concerned that she’s a member of “the race.” This seems somewhat at ends to me, it sounds like you are very concerned about it. I don’t know much about “La Raza” though, how do you know that they support amnesty? Could you provide me with a source? A quick search on their website only turned this up: http://www.nclr.org/content/news/detail/2257
Doesn’t much look like amnesty to me…but maybe you’re speaking of something else? Please, fill me in.
Also, you may wish to stop looking at such extreme websites. Anything that posts the type of demagoguery that the site you listed above does is not out to do good or to inform. I’m all for looking at a wide range of political beliefs, but that one seemed–from my one quick viewing–to be pretty extreme. They actually cited Ann Colture (sp?) and that link I aluded to above was pretty far out there. …but maybe this was just one link?
Please, I would like to hear what you dislike about La Raza. As I said, I don’t know much, so please provide sources.
[/quote]
I wasn’t speaking for Maximus as I don’t know what he had in mind when he posted that.
La Raza was the forefront lobbying group for the failed “comprehensive immigration reform” (ie. amnesty) bill. Don’t start with the “McCain supported it” line either. At this point, I think the only thing worse for the country than a Republican is a Democrat. I don’t identify with either party.
They won’t use the word “amnesty” of course, because it has quite a negative meaning nowadays. Don’t look for it on their website, but you will seeit if you do some reading between the lines. I won’t do that for you. They are on record opposing any type of barrier with the Mexican border, as well as programs like college tuition and driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants. I don’t support any of those ideas, largely because I believe in a country’s right to have borders and make laws which they expect to have respected so it doesn’t descend into chaos.
Asking you to stop the red herring arguments about ethnicity is probably a waste.
Also, don’t tell me what to look at on the internet. I have read enough drivel posted on these forums alone to last me a lifetime, so don’t worry about an occasional trip to WND. I realize it is quite slanted to a particular viewpoint, but if the potential justice’s name is on the La Raza membership list, it is probably safe to assume she concurs with their beliefs.
Judicial activism is real, and a problem. It effectively undermines our Republic in a manner more dangerous than any other.
Social change must come from the ground up. We simply cannot allow minority (ideologically, not racial or ethnic) social agendas to be pushed through by non-elected officials who are appointed for life and are accountable to no one. Just because we LIKE the decision handed down does not make it any less dangerous.
For example, I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. But I damn sure don’t want that law coming from the judiciary. I will work to convince my neighbors of the validity of my position and encourage them to elect legislators who hold the same views. It’s slow, difficult, and frustrating. But it’s the way our system was designed to work. It’s a LOT easier and faster to affect that kind of social change from the top down. But the more prevalent that practice becomes, the greater the risk. Why? We have no idea who will sit on that bench in 50 years. If it becomes fashionable to affect social change by simply stacking the bench with sympathetic Justices, then I may find myself living in a country where the Judicial branch wields more power than the other two. Now imagine a catastrophe that dwarfs 9/11 in scope and impact. Conceivably, a national paradigm shift to the extreme right could occur in its wake. Would people who today see no problem with, or even advocate judicial activism be cool with a SCOTUS that was stacked with reactionaries pushing THEIR social agendas?
“Interpret” does NOT mean “undermine.” Give me strict Constitutionalists on the SCOTUS and let ME work on affecting the social change that I want to see.
Demo Dick
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’d weigh in on this, but apparently I haven’t had enough rich experiences to make a judgement about the issue.[/quote]
HA! I loled hard…
During Obama’s speech announcing her, he mentioned that she had more wisdom being a Latina woman than white man who didn’t live her life. WTF? She is wise because she Latina? And I am not wise because I didn’t live a life like her? WTF is he even claiming. She is a diabetic and I am not? So she is wiser from that too? Honestly, who the hell is he to say who is wiser and for whatever lame ass reason. Obama brought up the ethnic issue, which is a main reason why I said what I said. As you can see with Obama, there is an agenda going on, and he is playing chess. He is moving his pieces into position.
Also, do you really think these people (if they got amnesty) are going to start paying taxes? They haven’t paid 1 cent of taxes during their time here ILLEGALLY. Now you think that they are going to pay the little they make into our Federal and State tax system? They have gotten a free ride this whole time, why would they bother to change that. Wait, wait, wait, I know what you’re thinking. They will get arrested for tax evasion right? Wrong. They weren’t arrested for initially being here illegally, and you think NOW the law will come for them? Please. I live in Cali, where illegals run rampant. I see it everywhere.
If you think illegals aren’t taking over, come over here and let’s see how you think. GL, you live in DC, how can you even tell what the illegal situation is in the Southwest? Dude I am here in Cali, and I see the influx everywhere. I saw the Brown Berets marching here and shove a journalist into the street. Tell you what, go to a border state and still talk some shit. I dont think you will. Dont worry, every business here se habla espanol.
[quote]Demo Dick wrote:
Judicial activism is real, and a problem. It effectively undermines our Republic in a manner more dangerous than any other.
Social change must come from the ground up. We simply cannot allow minority (ideologically, not racial or ethnic) social agendas to be pushed through by non-elected officials who are appointed for life and are accountable to no one. Just because we LIKE the decision handed down does not make it any less dangerous.
For example, I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. But I damn sure don’t want that law coming from the judiciary. I will work to convince my neighbors of the validity of my position and encourage them to elect legislators who hold the same views. It’s slow, difficult, and frustrating. But it’s the way our system was designed to work. It’s a LOT easier and faster to affect that kind of social change from the top down. But the more prevalent that practice becomes, the greater the risk. Why? We have no idea who will sit on that bench in 50 years. If it becomes fashionable to affect social change by simply stacking the bench with sympathetic Justices, then I may find myself living in a country where the Judicial branch wields more power than the other two. Now imagine a catastrophe that dwarfs 9/11 in scope and impact. Conceivably, a national paradigm shift to the extreme right could occur in its wake. Would people who today see no problem with, or even advocate judicial activism be cool with a SCOTUS that was stacked with reactionaries pushing THEIR social agendas?
“Interpret” does NOT mean “undermine.” Give me strict Constitutionalists on the SCOTUS and let ME work on affecting the social change that I want to see.
Demo Dick[/quote]
Thank you for this post. This is precisely true and the reason I can’t stand a lot of what I see going on today in regards to jurisprudence.
Here’s the real problem with all SCOTUS (supreme court of the United States) judges. They don’t give a damn about protecting individual rights.
Good article: Supreme Disappointments: Conservatives and Liberals are Both Wrong About Rights
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5527
[quote]Where do individual rights come from? You’d think that if anyone knows the answer, it would be America’s top judges.
But you would be wrong.
On this basic question conservative and liberal judges alike are locked into a crucial error about America’s bedrock constitutional principle: individual rights.
The error consists in regarding rights as gifts from society that can be revoked at will, through the political process.
In truth, rights are not social gifts but political principles based on facts of reality. These facts don’t bend to the so-called will of society. Thats why the most fundamental question a Supreme Court justice must answer is what in fact do the individuals rights to life, liberty, property, and happiness include? Only then can he determine if a certain law or government action is securing or violating those rights.
But judges don’t ask this question anymore, because they don’t think it’s objectively answerable.[/quote]
When I was in grad school, I had a friend who was attending law school. He kept talking about SCOTUS this, SCOTUS that. I asked him: “Ok, so the supreme court is supposed to ultimately act as a final check on legislation that violates individual rights. What’s the final check on the supreme court?”
After some more back and forth (where he talked about the nomination process and how judges tend to be “above politics” once on the bench, etc), I finally pinned him down. He said: “I suppose the final check is the Second Amendment, and an armed populace.”
[quote]ds1973 wrote:
Here’s the real problem with all SCOTUS (supreme court of the United States) judges. They don’t give a damn about protecting individual rights.
Good article: Supreme Disappointments: Conservatives and Liberals are Both Wrong About Rights
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5527
Where do individual rights come from? You’d think that if anyone knows the answer, it would be America’s top judges.
But you would be wrong.
On this basic question conservative and liberal judges alike are locked into a crucial error about America’s bedrock constitutional principle: individual rights.
The error consists in regarding rights as gifts from society that can be revoked at will, through the political process.
In truth, rights are not social gifts but political principles based on facts of reality. These facts don’t bend to the so-called will of society. Thats why the most fundamental question a Supreme Court justice must answer is what in fact do the individuals rights to life, liberty, property, and happiness include? Only then can he determine if a certain law or government action is securing or violating those rights.
But judges don’t ask this question anymore, because they don’t think it’s objectively answerable.
When I was in grad school, I had a friend who was attending law school. He kept talking about SCOTUS this, SCOTUS that. I asked him: “Ok, so the supreme court is supposed to ultimately act as a final check on legislation that violates individual rights. What’s the final check on the supreme court?”
After some more back and forth (where he talked about the nomination process and how judges tend to be “above politics” once on the bench, etc), I finally pinned him down. He said: “I suppose the final check is the Second Amendment, and an armed populace.”
[/quote]
I pretty sure the constitution allow scongress to limit cases even heard by the supreme court. A simple majority could take elections, gay marriage, abortion, etc right of the supreme courts table. The question is why don’t they use this option?
[quote]dhickey wrote:
I pretty sure the constitution allow scongress to limit cases even heard by the supreme court. A simple majority could take elections, gay marriage, abortion, etc right of the supreme courts table. The question is why don’t they use this option?[/quote]
Because legislators are held accountable to their constituents. They lose votes when they take unpopular or controversial positions. Of course, that’s how it’s SUPPOSED to work, but it takes too long. Besides, who wants to do all that leg work convincing voters to elect legislators that reflect their values when they can elect a President who will appoint “progressive” Justices who see their gavels as legislative pens?
Demo Dick
[quote]
I pretty sure the constitution allow scongress to limit cases even heard by the supreme court. A simple majority could take elections, gay marriage, abortion, etc right of the supreme courts table. The question is why don’t they use this option?[/quote]
I pretty sure you’re full of shit on this. Congress can write any law they want to, but if it’s unconstitutional it will be ruled unconstitutional by the courts. The other great fallacy I see on here all the time is that a ballot measure that passes is “the will of the people” and must therefore become law. Bullshit, it’s the will of the majority of voters, and if it violates the constitution it’s just not valid, regardless the number of votes.
If Congress doesn’t want to leave laws open to interpretation by the courts then they have to right clear and well defined laws. If you want to make a law that’s unconstitutional you have to amend the constitution, which takes a lot more than a simple majority in Congress.
[quote]ds1973 wrote:
Here’s the real problem with all SCOTUS (supreme court of the United States) judges. They don’t give a damn about protecting individual rights.
Good article: Supreme Disappointments: Conservatives and Liberals are Both Wrong About Rights
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5527
Where do individual rights come from? You’d think that if anyone knows the answer, it would be America’s top judges.
But you would be wrong.
On this basic question conservative and liberal judges alike are locked into a crucial error about America’s bedrock constitutional principle: individual rights.
The error consists in regarding rights as gifts from society that can be revoked at will, through the political process.
In truth, rights are not social gifts but political principles based on facts of reality. These facts don’t bend to the so-called will of society. Thats why the most fundamental question a Supreme Court justice must answer is what in fact do the individuals rights to life, liberty, property, and happiness include? Only then can he determine if a certain law or government action is securing or violating those rights.
But judges don’t ask this question anymore, because they don’t think it’s objectively answerable.
When I was in grad school, I had a friend who was attending law school. He kept talking about SCOTUS this, SCOTUS that. I asked him: “Ok, so the supreme court is supposed to ultimately act as a final check on legislation that violates individual rights. What’s the final check on the supreme court?”
After some more back and forth (where he talked about the nomination process and how judges tend to be “above politics” once on the bench, etc), I finally pinned him down. He said: “I suppose the final check is the Second Amendment, and an armed populace.”
[/quote]
This post is a good one. I got much more volatile about my second amendment rights when I realized this. Before then I hadn’t really worried about it.
Also, this is a point that I feel is critical–the dangerous misconception that these “unalienable” rights are in fact a product of society’s whim and not the bedrock of society. That is what drives me nuts about this country: people are so damn apathetic towards this issue.