Comments
15,841 - 15,860 of 30,470 Comments Last updated 17 min ago
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17292
Jan 13, 2013
 
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, they had no idea whatsoever what a "lifetime" appointment would mean.
Sure.
woof
Hi Duke. My history lessons told that the reason they were given life time appointments instead of being elected was put them above politics. BUT the congressional approval process is full of politics itself.
They had a good idea, it just doesn't work as the founders thought it would. It's a bit of a shame. woof
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17293
Jan 13, 2013
 
Karl Monday wrote:
<quoted text>
The judiciary at the federal level should not be subject to electoral politics. It's bad enough at the state level where people are elected because they have Irish names.
I would limit federal judges to no more than 15 years at one level, and possibly allow them to be nominated by state governors instead of the President, with the exception of the Supreme Court.
Interesting post. I was thinking of 12 & done yrs but what the heck.
But the idea of governors nominating fed judges bears thought. Especially with the 9 districts. I can see that working out with the right process.
The problem is that it would take a constitutional amendment & I'm somewhat pessimistic about that happening.
But still an idea worth thought.
titonton divaunte pants

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17295
Jan 14, 2013
 
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, we all know the left is loaded with hypocrites. Gore's organization refused to sell his worthless network to a fellow American (Glenn Beck) and instead, sold it to Al Jazeera. Not only are they supported with oil money, but his company made sure to sell it before the new DumBama tax increases. You know, Gore didn't want to pay his "fair share" and nobody on the left criticized it.
Speaking of DumBama, did you know he recently put his okie-dokie to extend the surveillance act? And then we have Gitmo plus the execution style murder of Bin Laden. Imagine the outrage on the left if Bush managed to get Bin Laden first, and then hid all evidence of his execution from the public saying he buried him at sea. While on that subject, DumBama exercised his bragging rights which led to the death of many members of Seal Team 6 when the terrorists shot down their helicopter in revenge. Barely made the MSM. And these losers reelected the guy.
I could go on and on, but the point is that it's not the action taken by a President that psses off the left, it's who takes the action. It doesn't matter if we have record deficits or the fact DumBama spent more money in three years than Bush did in eight, it's all fine as long as it's a Democrat doing it.
Hypocrites, every last one of them.
I'm pretty sure the CFR told mr. Gore what he can do with his satellite network. Gore is a member you know. So is rupert murdock, and every other media mogul.
titonton divaunte pants

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17296
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Interestingly, a majority of Justices on the SCOTUS were appointed by republican presidents.
what, did you just figure that out? You don't think republicans are bought and sold by big insurance companies, just like the dems who wrote obama care?
titonton divaunte pants

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17297
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a separate question, although all presidents claim that they don't have litmus tests for nominees.
Your assertion, however, is that the justices lied in order to get the appointment. What did they lie about, when did they do it and who did they lie to?
that's not something they were dishonest about? I think you like to play word gaames and you're only winning in your own mind.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17298
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Pops wrote:
<quoted text>Hi Duke. My history lessons told that the reason they were given life time appointments instead of being elected was put them above politics. BUT the congressional approval process is full of politics itself.
They had a good idea, it just doesn't work as the founders thought it would. It's a bit of a shame. woof
To suggest that they didn't realize that the appointment process itself would be enmeshed with and influenced by politics seems to me to not acknowledge their foresight, in general. Its foolish to think they didn't know that, specifically.

What they surely knew was that once someone was vetted and approved, they could not be removed other than through death, a legal finding of incompetency, or voluntary retirement.

woof
Old Guy

Brookville, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17299
Jan 14, 2013
 
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
What were they untruthful about?
All recent nominees have pledged that they uphold the idea of "Stare Decisis", respect for precedent. However, it is obvious that the conservative SCOTUS Judges would like nothing better than to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and would do it in a second if they had the numbers. Likewise, the Citizens United decision overturned long-standing precedent, even though John Roberts repeatedly supported "Stare Decisis" during his confirmation hearings.
Old Guy

Brookville, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17300
Jan 14, 2013
 
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>Souter shifted hard to the left. That's common knowledge.
If this isn't a textbook leftist quote, I don't know what is:
In 1992's Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Souter wrote that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned because it would be "a surrender to political pressure... So to overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason to re-examine a watershed decision would subvert the Court's legitimacy beyond any serious question."[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Souter#Pla...
Yes, this is a perfect example of respecting "Stare Decisis" ---not being willing to overturn precedent without the most compelling of reasons.
Old Guy

Brookville, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17301
Jan 14, 2013
 
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>
If this isn't a textbook leftist quote, I don't know what is...
Please explain why you think respecting precedent is a leftist position --- that seems to be a conservative approach.
Governor violate his oath

Logan, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17302
Jan 14, 2013
 
Nasty illegal judge brady did this to Clair.

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Campbell%20Hou...
or
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3zunngh6fot7rh9/Cam...

It is everybit bradys fault this man has been abused and exploited just like other people murdered and abused in the county by brady and his band of thugs.

Kasich has the evidence and power to remove this worthless creature but he chooses to protect thieves and pirates.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17303
Jan 14, 2013
 
Karl Monday wrote:
<quoted text>
The judiciary at the federal level should not be subject to electoral politics. It's bad enough at the state level where people are elected because they have Irish names.
I would limit federal judges to no more than 15 years at one level, and possibly allow them to be nominated by state governors instead of the President, with the exception of the Supreme Court.
It still doesn't solve the problem of outrageous rulings. Very few people consider the possible nominations when they elect a President. He alone has the say-so on who eventually gets in the SC.

I wonder how good of a job you or I would do at work if there was no way for us to ever lose our employment? Would you put in the same effort, strive for the same quality, have the same attendance record, be so concerned about the success of your company? I don't think so. After all, isn't that what the larger unions were about in the US? Where are they today?

I get the fact that they appoint judges so as not to be swayed by the voters, but many times, it sure seems like they're swayed anyway. In general, I don't think the people in this country have the dignity they did many years ago. Today, we put our own countrymen out of work so we can save a buck. Money is an obsession with many of us regardless of how much we have. People try and succeed in rigging the elections by cheating. Those who contribute nothing to this society of ours could care less if we go broke supporting them and their family. They have no shame paying for their food with a food stamp card and have the other cart behind them full of pet supplies, beer and then ask for a carton of cigarettes they pay cash for. No shame at all.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17304
Jan 14, 2013
 
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
It still doesn't solve the problem of outrageous rulings. Very few people consider the possible nominations when they elect a President. He alone has the say-so on who eventually gets in the SC.
I wonder how good of a job you or I would do at work if there was no way for us to ever lose our employment? Would you put in the same effort, strive for the same quality, have the same attendance record, be so concerned about the success of your company? I don't think so. After all, isn't that what the larger unions were about in the US? Where are they today?
I get the fact that they appoint judges so as not to be swayed by the voters, but many times, it sure seems like they're swayed anyway. In general, I don't think the people in this country have the dignity they did many years ago. Today, we put our own countrymen out of work so we can save a buck. Money is an obsession with many of us regardless of how much we have. People try and succeed in rigging the elections by cheating. Those who contribute nothing to this society of ours could care less if we go broke supporting them and their family. They have no shame paying for their food with a food stamp card and have the other cart behind them full of pet supplies, beer and then ask for a carton of cigarettes they pay cash for. No shame at all.
You are forgetting about Senate confirmation.
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17305
Jan 14, 2013
 
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
All recent nominees have pledged that they uphold the idea of "Stare Decisis", respect for precedent. However, it is obvious that the conservative SCOTUS Judges would like nothing better than to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and would do it in a second if they had the numbers. Likewise, the Citizens United decision overturned long-standing precedent, even though John Roberts repeatedly supported "Stare Decisis" during his confirmation hearings.
I have never figured out how or why abortion made it to the Supremes since I am confused as what their jurisdiction is. Some one want to enlighten me?
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17306
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
To suggest that they didn't realize that the appointment process itself would be enmeshed with and influenced by politics seems to me to not acknowledge their foresight, in general. Its foolish to think they didn't know that, specifically.
What they surely knew was that once someone was vetted and approved, they could not be removed other than through death, a legal finding of incompetency, or voluntary retirement.
woof
Of course, be aware of a very different perspective & attitude of government by the founders.
They were the ones in the trenches of the fight for independence which of course But 1; they had to have some formula. 2. Our nation was young enough, new enough, a little naive, quite inexperienced & idealistic enough to NOT realize what effect career politicians would have.
Remember, they expected 'Citizen Representation', NOT 40 yr reps.
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17307
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You are forgetting about Senate confirmation.
TRUE. Which is supposed to create a good governmental balance which it seems has failed to do so since at least FDR if not B4 him.
It's a shame that the system doesn't work as intended.
Another reason for term limits.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17308
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Pops wrote:
<quoted text> Of course, be aware of a very different perspective & attitude of government by the founders.
They were the ones in the trenches of the fight for independence which of course But 1; they had to have some formula. 2. Our nation was young enough, new enough, a little naive, quite inexperienced & idealistic enough to NOT realize what effect career politicians would have.
Remember, they expected 'Citizen Representation', NOT 40 yr reps.
That's because it paid nothing. Serving in federal government was looked at similar to serving in the military today. You didn't get squat and only the satisfaction of serving for your fellow Americans.

Now these jokers give themselves raises as if they were good little employees. No input on our behalf. They get up there and stomp their feet about CEO's and their golden parachute, but never bother to explain their retirement benefits to us. How is it they all leave the Congress millionaires if not multi-millionaires?

I constantly hear those violin stories about how they sleep in their offices while in DC because they have nowhere else to stay. Well, instead of voting for raises, why don't they vote for an apartment complex where they could stay while working?

What a racket.
Old Guy

Brookville, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17309
Jan 14, 2013
 
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>I have never figured out how or why abortion made it to the Supremes since I am confused as what their jurisdiction is. Some one want to enlighten me?
Here's where it started:
"In June 1969, Norma L. McCorvey discovered she was pregnant with her third child. She returned to Dallas, Texas, where friends advised her to assert falsely that she had been raped in order to obtain a legal abortion (with the understanding that Texas law allowed abortion in cases of rape and incest). However, this scheme failed because there was no police report documenting the alleged rape. She attempted to obtain an illegal abortion, but found the unauthorized site had been closed down by the police. Eventually, she was referred to attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington.[8](McCorvey would give birth before the case was decided.)

In 1970, Coffee and Weddington filed suit in a U.S. District Court in Texas on behalf of McCorvey (under the alias Jane Roe). The defendant in the case was Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade, representing the State of Texas. McCorvey was no longer claiming her pregnancy was the result of rape, and later acknowledged that she had lied about having been raped.[9][10] "Rape" is not mentioned in the judicial opinions in this case.[11]

The district court ruled in McCorvey's favor on the legal merits of her case, and declined to grant an injunction against the enforcement of the laws barring abortion.[11] The district court's decision was based upon the 9th Amendment, and the court relied upon a concurring opinion by Justice Arthur Goldberg in the 1965 Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut,[12] finding in the decision for a right to privacy.[13]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

The District Court's decision was appealed by those that opposed legal abortion. That eventually led to the Supreme Court decision.
why support anyone

Waverly, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17310
Jan 14, 2013
 
why should we support anyone in any form of the law and government? there is no such thing as justice for all. no one honors the constitution and there are no honest and fair law enforcment in any form.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17311
Jan 14, 2013
 
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>I have never figured out how or why abortion made it to the Supremes since I am confused as what their jurisdiction is. Some one want to enlighten me?
The SCOTUS only takes cases that it chooses to take. A case arrives at the SC through a petition for a writ of certiorari. That is a petition explaining to the court why the side that lost in the lower court believes the case involves a federal constitutional right. In Roe v. Wade, Roe made the argument that the law criminalizing her abortion violated her right to privacy under the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th amendments. At least four justices have to agree to hear the case.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17312
Jan 14, 2013
 
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>TRUE. Which is supposed to create a good governmental balance which it seems has failed to do so since at least FDR if not B4 him.
It's a shame that the system doesn't work as intended.
Another reason for term limits.
Robert Bork's nomination was stopped by the Senate. At least a couple of W.'s picks were aborted short of making it to the court.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Maumee Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
2004 cadillac esv problems Aug 22 Ericc 1
OH Who do you support for Treasurer in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) Aug 20 Marvin Levels 188
Debate: Ferguson - Toledo, OH Aug 19 fightforourrights 1
national day of rage toledo Aug 19 pissedofamerican 1
Abortion clinic vows to keep serving Aug 18 ATE CHRISTY 12
Buckeye cable system Aug 16 Gerald Goodman 2
Review: Pleasure365 Aug 15 Sunshine 1
•••
•••
•••

Maumee Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Maumee People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Maumee News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Maumee
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••