Supreme Court at stake in election

Why is it that every Presidential candidate for the Democratic Party is tagged "the most liberal"? Bill Clinton, a moderate by almost all standards, was "the most liberal" President. John Kerry was "the most liberal" Senator until Hillary Clinton threw her hat in the ring, at which point, she was "the most liberal" Senator, until she lost to Barack Obama, who now gets dubbed "the most liberal" Senator. Talk about flip-flops! The GOP Merry-Go-Round for naming who is "the most libera" spins enough to make your head dizzy! Methinx thou dost not have the slightest clue what you are talking about, and the use of this phrase has been so cavalierly bandied about so much that it has lost any and all real meaning. Come up with a new slogan, neocon.

Besides, how is McCain going to "restore sanity" to the court? Does this mean that Bush caused it to go insane? Or are you just one of those total domination weenies who is such a blind ideologue that you can't think straight or are unable to deal with someone disagreeing with you on any issue? Or did one of your Radio Gods put you up to this? You do know that parroting them doesn't count as independent thought.... right?

Obama is a Marxist. If elected, along with a Democratic majority in Congress, he will bring the Supreme Court far to the left. That can't happen.

Rich wrote:

Why is it that every Presidential candidate for the Democratic Party is tagged "the most liberal"? Bill Clinton, a moderate by almost all standards, was "the most liberal" President. John Kerry was "the most liberal" Senator until Hillary Clinton threw her hat in the ring, at which point, she was "the most liberal" Senator, until she lost to Barack Obama, who now gets dubbed "the most liberal" Senator. Talk about flip-flops! The GOP Merry-Go-Round for naming who is "the most libera" spins enough to make your head dizzy! Methinx thou dost not have the slightest clue what you are talking about, and the use of this phrase has been so cavalierly bandied about so much that it has lost any and all real meaning. Come up with a new slogan, neocon.
Besides, how is McCain going to "restore sanity" to the court? Does this mean that Bush caused it to go insane? Or are you just one of those total domination weenies who is such a blind ideologue that you can't think straight or are unable to deal with someone disagreeing with you on any issue? Or did one of your Radio Gods put you up to this? You do know that parroting them doesn't count as independent thought.... right?

When they think the answer is to have goverment take care of you, that makes them liberal.

Why is it that if the government gives poor folk a little help, it's called socialism. When it gives millions to big corporations it's called enhancing private enterprise.

In his Letter to the Editor, John L. Romjue made several factual errors.
The U.S. Supreme Court has seven Republican appointees and two Democratic appointees. Two of Romjue's "four ultra-liberal activist justices' are Republicans.
His complaint that the Court 'awarded U.S. citizen rights to foreign terrorists' shows that he is ignorant of Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution which says:
"The privilege of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."
The reason the terrorist suspects have been held in Guantanamo is an attempt by the Bush Administration to circumvent habeas corpus by contending that the terrorists suspects are not on U.S. soil.
They are not prisoners of war and they should be tried in criminal court. Why is Romjue afraid of criminal trials for these terrorist suspects?

What?

In 2000, people cried "the future of the Supreme Court is at stake!"

In 2004, people cried "the future of the Supreme Court is at stake!"

And the Boy Who Cried Wolf cries again.

As Hampton Democrat above me pointed out, some of these "left wing" Justices were appointed by Republicans.

Even if we assume that McCain appointed a very conservative, right wing Justice, I fail to see how that restores "sanity". Sanity, maybe, for Mr. Romjue but, clearly, in this case "sanity" is a subjective term AT BEST.

And Herman King is spot on with his comment. When a candidate tries to help the average citizen they're immediately pegged as some liberal socalist. When a candidate touts tax breaks that benefit the upper 1% and large corporations (who rarely let that money trickle down any further than the executives' salaries), they're considered champions of free enterprise.

Give me a break.

I'm voting for Obama this year for one big reason. The Republicans have had 8 years in the Executive branch. It's time for the Democrats to have a go. I'm fairly certain they can't bungle it up any more than Bush and Company did.

JWG wrote:

<quoted text>
When they think the answer is to have goverment take care of you, that makes them liberal.

JWG... you didn't read the part where it said that parroting the radio guys isn't considered independent thought. Besides, all of Bush's and Cheney's friends are making out like bandits from the government taking very special care of them. Does that make them liberals? If you count up the dollars, they are definitely then "the Most Liberal Ever".

Boy, oh boy, the author Romjue is an extra crispy bucket of crazy. I am so happy that the politics of fear is going down this year. It is great that people are tired of being scared into voting this way or that.

We need a Supreme Court that will restore our privacy rights and rein in both Congress and the Executive, like the Framers intended.

Hampton Democrat wrote:

In his Letter to the Editor, John L. Romjue made several factual errors.
The U.S. Supreme Court has seven Republican appointees and two Democratic appointees. Two of Romjue's "four ultra-liberal activist justices' are Republicans.
His complaint that the Court 'awarded U.S. citizen rights to foreign terrorists' shows that he is ignorant of Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution which says:
"The privilege of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."
The reason the terrorist suspects have been held in Guantanamo is an attempt by the Bush Administration to circumvent habeas corpus by contending that the terrorists suspects are not on U.S. soil.
They are not prisoners of war and they should be tried in criminal court. Why is Romjue afraid of criminal trials for these terrorist suspects?

His complaint that the Court 'awarded U.S. citizen rights to foreign terrorists' shows that he is ignorant of Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution which says:
"The privilege of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."
Remember 9/11? That was a attack. So I guess they can be held.

Quisp wrote:

Boy, oh boy, the author Romjue is an extra crispy bucket of crazy. I am so happy that the politics of fear is going down this year. It is great that people are tired of being scared into voting this way or that.
We need a Supreme Court that will restore our privacy rights and rein in both Congress and the Executive, like the Framers intended.

What rights have been taken away?
The court has allowed the local goverments to take away your property so they can increase there tax base & a builder can get rich putting something bigger & better on old property.
Plus remember how long did the court look the support slavery?
How long did the court look the other way as the Democrats took away the rights of blacks after the civil war?

jimmy wrote:

<quoted text>JWG... you didn't read the part where it said that parroting the radio guys isn't considered independent thought. Besides, all of Bush's and Cheney's friends are making out like bandits from the government taking very special care of them. Does that make them liberals? If you count up the dollars, they are definitely then "the Most Liberal Ever".

Who is being taken of?
Did you complain when the Clinton people moved onto higher money jobs because of there connections? That's judt the way is. Get over it?

JWG wrote:

<quoted text>
Who is being taken of?
Did you complain when the Clinton people moved onto higher money jobs because of there connections? That's judt the way is. Get over it?

Your comment has nothing whatsoever to to with the topic of this forum

Hampton Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
Your comment has nothing whatsoever to to with the topic of this forum

Replying to Jimmy. You Jimmy?

unless there is an assasination squad in play the nation will have the 9 justices that are presently seated! i have no doubt that the boss tweeds of the dem party and george soros will be waving tons of money in the justice's faces to retire but these nine no matter their positions on cases are principled and will not take the payoff and stand down! that cannot be said for a number of justices in the last 50 years who bowed to the $$$ and gave the finger to the nation!!!!!

JWG wrote:

<quoted text>
Replying to Jimmy. You Jimmy?

Your comment still has nothing whatsoever to do with this forum. You should by yourself a CB radio.

Hampton Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
Your comment still has nothing whatsoever to do with this forum. You should by yourself a CB radio.

I guess you are upset that you are not Jimmy. I'm sorry, maybe you are a Bill. That's ok too.

Captiosus wrote:

In 2000, people cried "the future of the Supreme Court is at stake!"
In 2004, people cried "the future of the Supreme Court is at stake!"
And the Boy Who Cried Wolf cries again.
As Hampton Democrat above me pointed out, some of these "left wing" Justices were appointed by Republicans.
Even if we assume that McCain appointed a very conservative, right wing Justice, I fail to see how that restores "sanity". Sanity, maybe, for Mr. Romjue but, clearly, in this case "sanity" is a subjective term AT BEST.
And Herman King is spot on with his comment. When a candidate tries to help the average citizen they're immediately pegged as some liberal socalist. When a candidate touts tax breaks that benefit the upper 1% and large corporations (who rarely let that money trickle down any further than the executives' salaries), they're considered champions of free enterprise.
Give me a break.
I'm voting for Obama this year for one big reason. The Republicans have had 8 years in the Executive branch. It's time for the Democrats to have a go. I'm fairly certain they can't bungle it up any more than Bush and Company did.

I think old ruth bader buzzy is giving kennedy a roll in the hay for his vote...

Those among us who can still see through the kool-aid induced haze must focus on the possibility of one or several Supreme Court Justices retiring during the next presidential term.

We all agree Obama isn't qualified to be president of a bowling league, but as President of the United States, he would be qualified to appoint judges to the Supreme Court.

Is there a better reason not to vote for anti-2nd Amendment Obama?

JWG wrote:

<quoted text>
His complaint that the Court 'awarded U.S. citizen rights to foreign terrorists' shows that he is ignorant of Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution which says:
"The privilege of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."
Remember 9/11? That was a attack. So I guess they can be held.

It was not a rebellion or an invasion.