A six-pronged strategy for defeating Roberts
The Democrats outline their plan for destroying Judge Roberts in the Senate.
For Full story Click here
Comments: Listen,
"The ideological make-up of the court is fixed and Bush is wrong to change it. Judge Roberts is no Sandra Day O'Connor, said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., in an e-mail to his supporters Wednesday. "Last night we learned that President Bush wants to replace a woman who voted to uphold Roe v. Wade with a man who argued against Roe v. Wade, and that sends a clear signal that this White House remains bent on opening old wounds and dividing America."
That is the biggest bunch of hogwash I have ever heard in my life!! "The ideological make-up of the court is fixed" My foot! The liberals have been changing our laws to fit their standards for 50 years, and now when the Republicans try to move our country back in a direction that values life, the Democrats say they have a mandate from tradition!
Pfft. "...White House remains bent on opening old wounds and dividing America."
BALONY! Those "wounds" as the Senator calls them have NEVER been closed. The liberals couldn't pass a LAW allowing abortion, so they had to use the Supreme Court to meet their diabolical ends. Abortion is murder and it always has been and no matter what the liberals say, it will remain so. This must stop now!
Now on to gay "rights". "Prior to the courts ruling in Lawrence v. Texas two years ago, the court had never held that the Equal Protection Clause encompassed gay rights."
My point on the supposed "fixed ideological make-up of the court" is continued and straightened.
Before 2002 the Supreme Court never said the the Equal Protection Clause encompassed gay rights!!!!
Who is rewriting the court ideological make-up now? What is up with this? The liberals have for 50 or 60 years been rewriting our history and our constitution to match their own ends in a way our forefathers would have thought abominable. This must stop!
We the people of the United States are waking to the facts. We have let the liberals run our government for 60 years and in that time our nation has gone to pot.
This must stop!
We the people have elected a majority of conservative men and woman to the Senate, the House and the Presidency. Now it is time for those men and woman to act!
UP WITH JUDGE ROBERTS! We voted in a conservative Senate and we want them to affirm a conservative justice!
Note: I am so, so, so, glad Bush won. Can you imagine what type of justice Kerry would have appointed? *shudder*
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
You sound as bad at bush the day after he was reelected – taking about the “political capital” that he had earned. Evidently, you think that getting 51% of the vote means that everyone in America is behind you.
“The liberals have been changing our laws to fit their standards for 50 years”
Can you please give me an example of a court case in the early to mid 50s that has to do with the ‘liberals’ changing our lifestyle? The only liberal decision in that timeframe that I can think of is Brown vs. Board, and I think we can agree that we are better off with that one.
“The liberals couldn't pass a LAW allowing abortion, so they had to use the Supreme Court to meet their diabolical ends.”
Why can’t the conservatives pass a law banning abortion? Even if such a law was passed and then subsequently found to be unconstitutional, nothing stops congress from simply amending the constitution and actually placing a ban on abortion there – the fact of the matter is, really, that the nation is much more divided on this issue than you like to admit. While, perhaps, 51% of the nation voted for bush, that still leaves a very large percentage of the nation thinking that bush does not represent them. Do you think, then, that their opinions are irrelevant?
“The liberals have for 50 or 60 years been rewriting our history and our constitution to match their own ends in a way our forefathers would have thought abominable.”
You know, you are, in fact, right. The nation has been going out of control for the past 50 or 60 years – what we need is a complete return to 1950. Let’s bring back racism, intolerance, sexism and daily fear of attack and destruction from our enemies – that will make things right.
While I realize that, perhaps, we might have made some mistakes, can you at least admit that a ‘liberal’ court moved the nation forward through several difficult decisions in the 20th century?
Also – again, sorry to bring up this same issue, but you never answered me the last time – if you care so much about life, may I ask your opinion on the death penalty?
Thanks for the comments, Tim
“You know Travis isn't talking about that...he does not want to bring stuff like that back”
Exactly – I do know that, and I guess my sarcasm more or less masked my point: I think the country, as a whole, has moved forward in the past 50 years. Again, I’m not saying that we haven’t made mistakes, but Travis seems to actually want some sort of return to 1955 – and I don’t really see how that is a good idea.
“Liberals refuse to admit this, claiming that conservatives are rewriting the constitution and history. It's somewhat of that back-andforth arguement.”
I don’t understand what is “to admit.” I included this link in a previous comment, and wonder what your response would be to that – really, as I see it, conservatives are the ones ignoring the truth here. Is there any good evidence that you can provide against this?
“Liberal courts have been ruling from the bench.”
Now, for the sake of this argument, I’ll ignore the fact that I think this is impossible (if a court ruing is something that congress does not endorse, what stops them from simply creating a law – all the way up to an amendment to the constitution?) and move on to what I asked Travis: other than RvW, and perhaps Lawrence v. Texas, can you provide evidence for what all this “ruling from the bench” is?
“They are ruling that gay marriage is fine when the people do not think so.”
Can you provide anything to back this up? Furthermore, are you even saying what you mean to say here? Maybe I’m reading “The nation is not divided on that issue (at least not in the areas it's being legalized in)” incorrectly, but that actually sounds rather pro-gay marriage. This bit confuses me, I guess. You seem to be saying that
As to your view on the death penalty: so, you think that it is ok to kill a human (as long as a few conditions are met). Honestly, I can think of quite a few different verses to combat that attitude with, from the Ten Commandments to a verse from the gospels calling for forgiveness, but that’s not the point: please don’t get on to people for killing people under certain circumstances when you support murder under your own set of circumstances.
I am working on a comment for you, sir. I hope to post it soon. With so many topics(gay marriage,racism, intolerance, sexism, ect.) for me to address, it may take just a bit. I hope to have it up by tomorrow.
The Blogging Boy Scout,
Travis
Quick reply to MVB:
I’ll answer your last question first, simply because it is easy to get it out of the way early: yes, I am a Christian, no, I am not a Democrat. Also, for the record, I am against both abortion and the death penalty.
Now, moving on:
“Nobody on here said that.”
I think (and still maintain) that Travis inferred it in his original post. He seems to write it with the attitude that politicians that disagree with him are not representing the will of the people – the truth is, right or wrong, that these people do represent a good portion of people in the US today.
“If they are wrong then, yeah their opinions are irrelevant.”
I hope that you see the absurdity of this statement already. The only thing I could to argue it, I think, would be to include a definition of the word “opinion” (and, as such, prove that it’s impossible to have a “wrong” opinion – ungodly opinion, uninformed opinion, etc, might be possible, but your evaluation of an opinion is an opinion in and of itself).
I mean, really, come on, we are all more mature that this.
“under God" out of schools”
I’ve mentioned this on a previous comment (I think, perhaps, on another one of Travis’ posts) but, actually, this line has only been in the pledge since 1954 – and hasn’t been taken out. So, as of 2005, it is correct to say that “in the past 50 or so years, ‘under God’ has been added to the pledge.”
“The author of this site wasn't there when America was founded”
This is a totally bogus attack at history as a study – the whole point of history, really, is to draw perspectives on events that you are not old enough to have witnessed (or at least, with many years’ wisdom between you and the event in question). Furthermore, you weren’t alive either – so, instead of declaring my reference to be irrelevant, can you let me in on these “hundreds of more quotes?”
“The polls are at about 60% against gay marriage.”
So 40% do? That’s not a number we can simply negate. This is my opinion here, but that does not back up the statement Travis made – we need to look beyond a 51% majority if we are going to have any reunification in the US at all.
Final remark on the death penalty:
Again, and I touched on this at the start: I see killing as killing, and as always wrong. Furthermore, who gave you the right to punish people for their action? Something more along the lines of John 8:7 would seem to be in order here.
Excellent points David; however, I think our end result is going to have to be, simply, to agree to disagree.
You are correct about the mistranslation in the KJV, and I apologize for that. However, the small bit of bad diction does not really change my point any – my main problem with your argument is that it is based, overwhelmingly, on evidence from the Old Testament. For example:
“Look at how God commanded that the Canaanites - men, women, and children - be annihilated...that is not consonant with your beliefs...”
On the contrary, it is consistent with my beliefs – I just don’t think that God is commanding me to kill anyone (I did, perhaps, do an awful job of making this clear, and I apologize – in this way, at least, I agree with you). It is very clear that God commanded Israel to do what was done in those situations, I think. This situation is, as I see it, decidedly more vague.
So, then, the question isn’t whether or not God has commanded His people, in the past, to kill, but whether or not he is commanding us to kill now.
Now, as I see it, you provide two main arguments:
“government is given the sword to punish evildoers.”
The problem with this argument, as I see it, is whatever the government does automatically becomes right. For example, if we lived in England, and we submitted to the authorities (Rom 13), then would it be incorrect for you to question the lack of a death penalty?
“we learn from Genesis 7..”
First of all - it’s worth noting to anyone following this discussion - the actual verse in question is Gen 9:6 – and that you did a wonderful job of quoting it. Here is, I think, the part where we agree to disagree – I think, on the whole, the commands of the Old Testament have been superseded by the New Testament where the NT is in conflict with the OT. And, as I read it, passages such as John 8:7 do apply here (Jesus didn’t take the adulterous woman to the authorities so she could be punished correctly - as he would have if this passage was about vigilante justice - he let her go), another good passage for this is Matt 5, talking about an eye for an eye and love your neighbor/pray for those who persecute you, and such – I see that as a “new law” replacement for the “old law” verse you quoted.
At any rate, I still stand by my first statement: I think that, simply, we are going to have to agree to disagree.
The OT deals with government and law (national issues) and the NT deals with the heart of man. (personal issues)
Eccl 3:3 A time to kill and a time to heal; A time to tear down and a time to build up.
(In a very broad way of speaking) The OT also deals with the heart.
Also, according to your theory, should we abolish all law/punishment standards in our country?
“The OT deals with government and law (national issues) and the NT deals with the heart of man. (personal issues)”
Please, please – and, if I leave you with one thing, let it be this – quit tossing your opinions around as if they are fact. That is not an invalid view of the OT and NT, but it is no more valid than mine.
“Also, according to your theory, should we abolish all law/punishment standards in our country?”
I think you get so close to this one, never quite hitting on it: the government does have a duty to punish/control people – I have never said that they did not (and, furthermore, I'm not saying that I don't have to recognize the government's authority because I disagree with them). However, I am questioning whether or not they have the right to kill them- and, I think that, as a citizen in a democracy, I have the right to question that.
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"
-Thomas Jefferson
Have a good weekend, all.
Ok, back to the 1950's. I don't want a return to racism, intolerance, sexism and daily fear of attack and destruction from our enemies. I want to see some court cases reversed from the 60's. Namely, 1962. A year when the court took the Bible out of school as a textbook, took prayer(for teachers and students) out of school, and removed the Ten Commandments from school walls. Yes, there has been progress the last 50 years in come area's but in others there has been back sliding. What is sad about this is public schools don't even teach about this stuff! Do public schoolers know about these cases? Not unless they are told. There was a young lady up at the state capitol who asked our page leader, why the senators could pray before the session. She thought that because of seperation of church and state a senator could not pray on the senate floor. However(to go back to our Christian Heritage) Ben Franklin gave a call to prayer on the floor of Congress that saved the constitutional convention! Our public schools don't tell about our Christian heritage and that is sad. Because lots of smart public schoolers who have learned all their teacher has taught them don't know why the senators can pray on the senate floor. And it is not because they are not smart, it is because they were never taught! :-(
Please view:
The First Prayer in Congress.
http://www.restoringamerica.org/documents/first_prayer_in_congress.html
And
Ben Franklins call to prayer.
http://www.restoringamerica.org/documents/call_to_prayer.html
I know what sort of Justice Kerry would have nominated:
Someone who isn't in the back pocket of Big Business, Big Oil, Big Religion... In other words, a true American. Not like scum such as yourself. If you don't like this country the way it was made, I strongly suggest you leave. You might find Iran to your liking.
"My personal opinion on the death penalty is that if you kill someone, you do not deserve to live. You've earned death. Prison for life is not punishment enough for killing a fellow human being."
I agree. Let's start by executing the Christian terrorist, Eric Robert Rudolph.
Post a Comment