- Joined
- Feb 12, 2006
- Messages
- 24,409
- Reaction score
- 15,054
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
actually Palin's qualifications to be president-given what we have had of late are far stronger than Hillary's to be a justice
Hillary only got into Yale Law because she was female. She didn't even make Cum Laude in college. She didn't make the law review didn't clerk for an appellate judge (let alone a justice) wasn't order of the coif and she flunked the DC Bar.
Lets look at recent USSC picks
Scalia-#1 in his colllege class, #1 at Harvard law. Souter-Rhodes Scholar, Thomas-the weakest but still top half of his class at yale Law and was an appellate judge, Sotomayor Phi Beta Kappa, Top of her law school Class.
Roberts-#1 at Harvard law, seen as the top supreme court advocate in the USA. Alito-PBK at Princeton top of his class at yale law. RB Ginsburg. made the law review at Harvard and Columbia (transferred due to her husband's illness), Breyer top of his class at both college and law school, Kennedy, Phi beta Kappa, Order of the Coif, law review at Harvard, etc
Hillary isn't evan as qualified as Thomas. She isn't anywhere near her husband's two picks and like it or not W's two picks were the strongest of any president in the last 100 years
That's the fallacy of the "strict constructionist" mentality. Why would you rely on the minds of people from the 1700's when the world is a completely different place, with different technology today.
The other problem with the so-called "strict constructionists" is that they love to talk about "strict constructionism" until it doesn't fit their agenda....at which time, they engage in right-wing activism...e.g.....Corporations are "people" under the Constitution.
Where in the US Constitution does it say that a Corporation is a "person" if you are a "strict" constructionist. :doh:doh:doh
What.....that she can see Russia from her house?
So, TD, are you saying that the prez didn't actually misspeak, but rather he actually BELIEVES there are 57 states in the US? Is that what you're saying?
I find it funny that the lib press has such a double standard. Yeah he mis=spoke just as Bush did. I worry about what people do rather than how they way it. I also find it funny that people call VP candidate Palin "stupid" yet give Biden a pass when that guy is dumber than a post as is Pelosi
Well hey, the world is a completely different place now, right? Why worry about what some old, dead guys said 200 years ago? It's a living document! :2wave:Where in the US Constitution does it say that a Corporation is a "person" if you are a "strict" constructionist. :doh:doh:doh
Well hey, the world is a completely different place now, right? Why worry about what some old, dead guys said 200 years ago? It's a living document! :2wave:
The White House quickly ended speculation today about another potential nominee: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Her named had been floated as a possibility by Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, but White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama “is going to keep her as his secretary of state.”
So they're using the "living document" method. What's the issue, that they are reaching conclusions with which you don't agree? This is the very reason we should be sticking to the letter of the document to begin with!I agree. THAT was my exact point - the fallacy and the hypocrisy from the so-called "strict" constructionists. I'm glad to see that you agree.:2wave:
Don't they usually appoint established judges to the High Court?
So they're using the "living document" method. What's the issue, that they are reaching conclusions with which you don't agree? This is the very reason we should be sticking to the letter of the document to begin with!
The point is: "Strict" Constructionists love to claim that they stick to the letter of the document, however, in decision after decision, they only do so when it is convenient to their agenda. If a decision doesn't fit their agenda, they have no problem interpreting the Constitutition or overturning precedent.
They cling to the label, but are dishonest in their application.
overturning precedent does not have anything to do with being a strict constructionist. Poorly reasoned precedent that conflicts with original intent should be overturned.
:shock: Well, actually this may be a good thing. She's old and will probably die when we have a Republican in office. We don't need liberal judges, we need lawful judges.
pretty severe double standards figuring this activist McCain-Feingold repeal shenanigan done by the conservative ruling on corporate finance
And how do you decide what is poorly reasoned? Who makes the call? Why is some one elses opinion on reasoning more valid than anothers?
you missed the point--overturning a past decision does not necessarily conflict with strict construction
Actually, I think you missed mine, but I expect that.
Nope, wrong again. now explain why being a strict constructionist means respecting all precedent including precedent that ignores strict construction
so what part of the constitution empowered the federal government to restrict such spending?
You did miss my point. Completely. By miles. Just way over your head.
There was legislation in place to limit the influence of corporate finance on campaigns. I'm a little disappointed that the supreme court just repealed it. It had been in place for decades, and I don't know how comfortable I feel having the billionaire rich having a significantly stronger political voice than my own.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?