"Right" and "Left" mean very different things from one country to another. In America Mussolini would be most at home on the left and would indeed go somewhere between Lieberman and Lenin. However since he is an acknowledged bad guy the New York Times would call him a "Right" because their definition of "Right" is whatever they don't like - so they can put to diametrically opposed views together and call them both "Right" which is nonsensical.
Where did he write that he wanted to punish gays for having sex? I'm pretty sure he wanted to leave the decision to the states rather than forcing his own opinion on everyone. Perhaps he was like me. Way back when nearly everyone supported laws against gay sex I thought such laws were horrible and should be repealed. But I also thought it was the job of the legislatures to do so, not the job of nine judges who decided they would rather be dictators.
Harry Reid shut down the government by blocking the budget the House had passed to fund the government. Harry Reid was to blame for the government shutdown. Look it up. Read what actually happened and figure it out.
Well just recently the Court refused to respect the fact that the Constitution says absolutely nothing about gay marriage. Ironically (or not given that they make this stuff up to suit what they want) they first overturned the Defense of Marriage Act because they said that only States can define what a marriage is. Then a short time later they decided that no, only the Supreme Court can decide what a marriage is.
Several of the members are well known to turn a blind eye to the 2nd amendment. Several are known to have trouble with the "free exercise" clause of the first amendment. I don't have time to list all the examples or look up case names. Just read the Constitution a few times so you know what is actually in it (for example it does not say "free expression" or "separation of church and state") and then start paying attention to the news.
For all the talk about Scalia as an originalist, he also place a high value on precedent (I've read that this is something that separates him from Thomas who is more willing to overturn precedents that he sees are wrong). The commerce clause was already regularly stretched and in fact one of the original cases expanding the commerce clause dealt with the exact issue of a plant that was "not produced or consumed across state lines". Note that Gonzales v. Raich is exactly what you asked for, a case where Scalia broke with the conservatives and concurred with the leftists. You asked for multiple instances. Well-known very liberal slate.com has examples for you. They say introduce it by saying, "But every once in a while, Scalia’s insistence on interpreting the Constitution exactly how it was (purportedly) understood by the framers leads him to unexpectedly progressive opinions. From flag burning to warrantless searches to free speech, Scalia’s liberal streak has made a surprisingly profound impact on constitutional law."
You mean like Scalia? Well no, I disagreed with him a number of times, but when I did he at least had a valid argument even if I thought other arguments were stronger. This is unlike the liberal justices who so often are just clearly pushing their agenda.
I guess I missed it. He was "conservative" in that he ruled based on written law and precedent rather than trying to change things to what he wanted. That's not political, that's a judges job.
That's why so many people who normally vote Republican are turning to Cruz and Trump. They're sick of the Republican establishment. It's a shame Trump got into this. He's no more conservative than the Republican establishment, and he's making it a challenge for a decent guy like Cruz to get the nomination.
You mean that guy the Democrats kept from getting an appointment because they didn't Republicans to put the first hispanic on the Supreme Court? I do wonder how he feels.
Shouldn't the American people get to decide and have a voice on important matters?
The American people have made fascist racist sexist dishonest crooks the front-runner in both parties. Are you sure you want them having a voice on this?
I want someone like Scalia or Thomas, willing to make unpopular decisions not because they want to, or because they think it is good policy, or because they think it will make the country richer, more compassionate, kinder, gentler, or happier, but because it's what the law says and it's their job to decide what the law is and not what's good for us.
National Review is a right wing rag. Obama could have nominated Hitler and NR would have said he was soft on the death penalty.
National Review would likely point out that Hitler and other progressives never seem to have much respect for rule-of-law and the U.S.Constitution, and as such Hitler would be just as likely as the other liberal judges to judge based on his political views rather than on the law.
I remember Robert Bork. I was young but I remember a news reporter going to his neighborhood and reporting ominously that he had high hedges in front of his porch and his neighbors didn't see him much. (Do you supposed a guy qualified for the Supreme Court might be exceedingly hard working and not have a lot of time for socializing?) It was my first recognition of bias in the news media. It would certainly not be my last.
Not really all that clever. The Republicans boxed Obama into a corner - everyone knew a very liberal justice like Sotomayor or Kagan.to be dismissed immediately. The best he could hope for was to name a centrist.
I think the Republicans should take it as a victory and confirm the guy. They're certainly not going to get a better nomination out of Trump or Clinton. Cruz would pick someone who respects the Constitution but he may not get the nomination. We have to keep trying though.,
The Republicans should take him. Right now it looks like the parties will nominate Clinton. Whichever of those two dishonest fascist racist sexist liberal crooks gets elected, things won't look good for getting a Supreme Court nominee who will respect the Constitution. Garland is probably the best we'll get. At least he adds some diversity to the court. Right now we have Catholics and Jews from California and northeast of Pennsylvania. Garland doesn't help with the religious diversity, but he is from Illinois which helps with the regional diversity.
A quick google search tells me that he generally evades the question of evolution. That's fine with me. A good politician tries to avoid offending people and anyway the question has little relevance to modern day politics. He says he's a Christian so I assume he believes God created the Universe (and whatever else there may be). HOW God did it doesn't seem to matter that much to modern politics. What matters to me, and what I assume was not asked, was whether he understands the theory of evolution, whether he understands the process of evolution, and whether he can see how such mechanisms happen throughout human history and modern day occurrences. Does he understand why overuse of antibiotics is a problem? Does he understand how societies evolve? Does he understand how market forces, survival of the fittest, and creative destruction create more 'fit' economic behaviors, and how 'fitness' can be both a good thing and a bad thing (that evolution doesn't always lead wo what we would call 'improvement'?
But I don't expect anyone will ask him those questions. Even if the journalists were smart enough to form those questions, the general public wouldn't understand or care and the liberal journalists are more interested in trying to make Cruz look bad than in finding out how intelligent and well-informed he may be.
I agree we shouldn't be concerned about looks. But the sad fact is that most of our fellow voters will be swayed more by charm and looks than by talent so it is something we have to be aware of.
I'm less hostile toward Obamacare than a lot of conservatives - but I would rather have seen smaller reforms first. For example we should end the connection between employment and healthcare. Why do people lose their healthcare when they lose their jobs? Because the government wrote the tax code to make people get healthcare through their employer. One reform Obamacare does that I think could and should have been done separately is the rule that you don't lose your insurance when you get sick. The plan ought to be required to cover the cost of the illness you got when you had the insurance even if the illness outlasts the insurance.
When I think about it, this makes Hillary seem more trustworthy. I'm much more willing to trust someone who can't fake sincerity than I am to trust someone who can looks sincere no matter what they're saying.
But based on their positions and history I'm voting for Cruz.
Slashdot Mirror
"Right" and "Left" mean very different things from one country to another. In America Mussolini would be most at home on the left and would indeed go somewhere between Lieberman and Lenin. However since he is an acknowledged bad guy the New York Times would call him a "Right" because their definition of "Right" is whatever they don't like - so they can put to diametrically opposed views together and call them both "Right" which is nonsensical.
Where did he write that he wanted to punish gays for having sex? I'm pretty sure he wanted to leave the decision to the states rather than forcing his own opinion on everyone. Perhaps he was like me. Way back when nearly everyone supported laws against gay sex I thought such laws were horrible and should be repealed. But I also thought it was the job of the legislatures to do so, not the job of nine judges who decided they would rather be dictators.
Harry Reid shut down the government by blocking the budget the House had passed to fund the government. Harry Reid was to blame for the government shutdown. Look it up. Read what actually happened and figure it out.
He upheld the second amendment. No problem with that.
Well just recently the Court refused to respect the fact that the Constitution says absolutely nothing about gay marriage. Ironically (or not given that they make this stuff up to suit what they want) they first overturned the Defense of Marriage Act because they said that only States can define what a marriage is. Then a short time later they decided that no, only the Supreme Court can decide what a marriage is.
Several of the members are well known to turn a blind eye to the 2nd amendment. Several are known to have trouble with the "free exercise" clause of the first amendment. I don't have time to list all the examples or look up case names. Just read the Constitution a few times so you know what is actually in it (for example it does not say "free expression" or "separation of church and state") and then start paying attention to the news.
For all the talk about Scalia as an originalist, he also place a high value on precedent (I've read that this is something that separates him from Thomas who is more willing to overturn precedents that he sees are wrong). The commerce clause was already regularly stretched and in fact one of the original cases expanding the commerce clause dealt with the exact issue of a plant that was "not produced or consumed across state lines". Note that Gonzales v. Raich is exactly what you asked for, a case where Scalia broke with the conservatives and concurred with the leftists. You asked for multiple instances. Well-known very liberal slate.com has examples for you. They say introduce it by saying, "But every once in a while, Scalia’s insistence on interpreting the Constitution exactly how it was (purportedly) understood by the framers leads him to unexpectedly progressive opinions. From flag burning to warrantless searches to free speech, Scalia’s liberal streak has made a surprisingly profound impact on constitutional law."
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
You mean like Scalia? Well no, I disagreed with him a number of times, but when I did he at least had a valid argument even if I thought other arguments were stronger. This is unlike the liberal justices who so often are just clearly pushing their agenda.
I guess I missed it. He was "conservative" in that he ruled based on written law and precedent rather than trying to change things to what he wanted. That's not political, that's a judges job.
That's why so many people who normally vote Republican are turning to Cruz and Trump. They're sick of the Republican establishment. It's a shame Trump got into this. He's no more conservative than the Republican establishment, and he's making it a challenge for a decent guy like Cruz to get the nomination.
You mean that guy the Democrats kept from getting an appointment because they didn't Republicans to put the first hispanic on the Supreme Court? I do wonder how he feels.
Shouldn't the American people get to decide and have a voice on important matters?
The American people have made fascist racist sexist dishonest crooks the front-runner in both parties. Are you sure you want them having a voice on this?
I want someone like Scalia or Thomas, willing to make unpopular decisions not because they want to, or because they think it is good policy, or because they think it will make the country richer, more compassionate, kinder, gentler, or happier, but because it's what the law says and it's their job to decide what the law is and not what's good for us.
National Review is a right wing rag. Obama could have nominated Hitler and NR would have said he was soft on the death penalty.
National Review would likely point out that Hitler and other progressives never seem to have much respect for rule-of-law and the U.S.Constitution, and as such Hitler would be just as likely as the other liberal judges to judge based on his political views rather than on the law.
New York Times is a left-wing rag. So you can't trust their use of the term "centrist".
I remember Robert Bork. I was young but I remember a news reporter going to his neighborhood and reporting ominously that he had high hedges in front of his porch and his neighbors didn't see him much. (Do you supposed a guy qualified for the Supreme Court might be exceedingly hard working and not have a lot of time for socializing?) It was my first recognition of bias in the news media. It would certainly not be my last.
Not really all that clever. The Republicans boxed Obama into a corner - everyone knew a very liberal justice like Sotomayor or Kagan.to be dismissed immediately. The best he could hope for was to name a centrist.
I think the Republicans should take it as a victory and confirm the guy. They're certainly not going to get a better nomination out of Trump or Clinton. Cruz would pick someone who respects the Constitution but he may not get the nomination. We have to keep trying though.,
He's a centrist "According to the New York Times" which means he's somewhere between Lieberman and Lenin.
The Republicans should take him. Right now it looks like the parties will nominate Clinton. Whichever of those two dishonest fascist racist sexist liberal crooks gets elected, things won't look good for getting a Supreme Court nominee who will respect the Constitution. Garland is probably the best we'll get. At least he adds some diversity to the court. Right now we have Catholics and Jews from California and northeast of Pennsylvania. Garland doesn't help with the religious diversity, but he is from Illinois which helps with the regional diversity.
Carter's religion didn't involve trying to take over the nation and then the world and institute Christianity as the sole religion
Who are you suggesting wants to do that?
A quick google search tells me that he generally evades the question of evolution. That's fine with me. A good politician tries to avoid offending people and anyway the question has little relevance to modern day politics. He says he's a Christian so I assume he believes God created the Universe (and whatever else there may be). HOW God did it doesn't seem to matter that much to modern politics. What matters to me, and what I assume was not asked, was whether he understands the theory of evolution, whether he understands the process of evolution, and whether he can see how such mechanisms happen throughout human history and modern day occurrences. Does he understand why overuse of antibiotics is a problem? Does he understand how societies evolve? Does he understand how market forces, survival of the fittest, and creative destruction create more 'fit' economic behaviors, and how 'fitness' can be both a good thing and a bad thing (that evolution doesn't always lead wo what we would call 'improvement'?
But I don't expect anyone will ask him those questions. Even if the journalists were smart enough to form those questions, the general public wouldn't understand or care and the liberal journalists are more interested in trying to make Cruz look bad than in finding out how intelligent and well-informed he may be.
I agree we shouldn't be concerned about looks. But the sad fact is that most of our fellow voters will be swayed more by charm and looks than by talent so it is something we have to be aware of.
I'm less hostile toward Obamacare than a lot of conservatives - but I would rather have seen smaller reforms first. For example we should end the connection between employment and healthcare. Why do people lose their healthcare when they lose their jobs? Because the government wrote the tax code to make people get healthcare through their employer. One reform Obamacare does that I think could and should have been done separately is the rule that you don't lose your insurance when you get sick. The plan ought to be required to cover the cost of the illness you got when you had the insurance even if the illness outlasts the insurance.
He looks more like Lou Costello to me.
When I think about it, this makes Hillary seem more trustworthy. I'm much more willing to trust someone who can't fake sincerity than I am to trust someone who can looks sincere no matter what they're saying.
But based on their positions and history I'm voting for Cruz.
From what I've seen and heard, Cruz is a darling too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...