• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

John Roberts nominated to be New Chief Justice

MasterDebater06 said:
I think Roberts is more moderate than people think.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. He seems to be more conservative with economic issues and moderate with social ones.
 
alex said:
I agree with this. He seems to be more conservative with economic issues and moderate with social ones.
Click to expand...

You liberals better hope so..........Roberts is protege of Rehnquist....Nuff said..........
 
Navy Pride said:
To bad there is no way we can bet on this because I can tell you that Gonzales will not be nominated....It will be a woman with the same politcal beliefs as Roberts...That is a promise he made when running for re election and one he will keep.........

Like I said its a great time to be a Conservative and I stand by that statement......
Click to expand...
When did he make that promise? Never came to my mind when I was debating, but hey, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. It is not a good time to be a conservative when you are about to lose a huge number of seats in the upcoming election, but this is neither the time nor the thread for this topic.

It will be Gonzales-I don't want him either, but he might be good for me, especially in regards to abortion. He sure isn't moderate, but he scares conservatives to death and that is never a bad thing when you are in the political arena.

The woman that he could theoretically nominate would be Janice Rogers Brown, who pardon my speak, is evil. Seriously, she has done horrible work for the California supreme court, she has a horrible reputation with lawyers, she scares her law clerks, she has thrown a tantrum or two....stuff like that. But she is conservative-so all is forgiven, right NP? Bush is very high on Brown, so if it has to be a woman, like Navy Pride said, it will be her and she will not get through the confirmation process if the Dems have any balls.
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
To bad there is no way we can bet on this because I can tell you that Gonzales will not be nominated....It will be a woman with the same politcal beliefs as Roberts...That is a promise he made when running for re election and one he will keep.........

Like I said its a great time to be a Conservative and I stand by that statement......
Click to expand...

Gonzales may very well be nominated. It would be a smart move on the President's part to do it.

Source:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/09/07/MNG3FEJFL61.DTL
 
ShamMol said:
When did he make that promise? Never came to my mind when I was debating, but hey, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. It is not a good time to be a conservative when you are about to lose a huge number of seats in the upcoming election, but this is neither the time nor the thread for this topic.

It will be Gonzales-I don't want him either, but he might be good for me, especially in regards to abortion. He sure isn't moderate, but he scares conservatives to death and that is never a bad thing when you are in the political arena.

The woman that he could theoretically nominate would be Janice Rogers Brown, who pardon my speak, is evil. Seriously, she has done horrible work for the California supreme court, she has a horrible reputation with lawyers, she scares her law clerks, she has thrown a tantrum or two....stuff like that. But she is conservative-so all is forgiven, right NP? Bush is very high on Brown, so if it has to be a woman, like Navy Pride said, it will be her and she will not get through the confirmation process if the Dems have any balls.
Click to expand...

You liberals said the same thing about the 2002 and 2004 elections.......What you fail to realize that his country is made up of moderate and conservatives...........They will never elect someone to far to the left or the right...........

Oh and you don't have to worry about Gonzales...he is a little to liberal on social issues..........
 
Navy Pride said:
You liberals said the same thing about the 2002 and 2004 elections.......What you fail to realize that his country is made up of moderate and conservatives...........They will never elect someone to far to the left or the right...........

Oh and you don't have to worry about Gonzales...he is a little to liberal on social issues..........
Click to expand...
Your definition of liberal and conservative is far different than mine I believe. It is a country that is distinctly in the middle of the political spectrum (autoritarian to anarchism) that battles about little issues. Those little issues define the parties, but that has changed, so where you see that it is made up of conservatives and moderates, I see that it is made up of everyone. But hey, I don't ignore over 30% of the country when I talk.

What same thing did we say? I don't get what we said. You need to define what you want to say in a post and then say it. Thank you so that I don't get confused.
 
Navy Pride said:
Ain't going to happen.You libs don't know this president very well.....Unlike Clinton when he says something he means it.........
Click to expand...

What is up with you and "libs" and "liberals"? Is your thought-process that narrow? There is more to this country than liberals and conservatives. Try stepping outside into the real world and take in a great big breath of diversity.
 
ShamMol said:
Your definition of liberal and conservative is far different than mine I believe. It is a country that is distinctly in the middle of the political spectrum (autoritarian to anarchism) that battles about little issues. Those little issues define the parties, but that has changed, so where you see that it is made up of conservatives and moderates, I see that it is made up of everyone. But hey, I don't ignore over 30% of the country when I talk.

What same thing did we say? I don't get what we said. You need to define what you want to say in a post and then say it. Thank you so that I don't get confused.
Click to expand...

Well I can give you my definition of a conservative........

I am:

Social issues:

1. Pro Life
2. Anti Gay Marriage
3. Pro Death Penalty
4. Pro School Prayer
5. Pro 2nd Amendment when it comes to gun ownership
6. Pro strong family values
7. Anti Afirmative action (use to be for it but think it has outlived usefulness)
8. Pro controlled immigration

Fiscal Issues:

1. Pro States Rights
2. Pro small Government
3. Pro Balance Budget
4. Pro Tax Cuts
5. Pro Military and a Strong Defense

I may have missed a few but that is ballpark........I would venture to say that Liberals that are far left disagree with almost all of these positions.....
 
Now I am also conservative but with a libertarian edge:

NavyPride is according to his post:
Social issues:

1. Pro Life (So am I but think states and/or local communities should be able to make abortion legal in very narrowly defined circumstance.)

2. Anti Gay Marriage (So am I but I will support civil unions for gays that provide all the privileges and protections they say they want.)

3. Pro Death Penalty (Yes for certain specified crimes.)

4. Pro School Prayer (I prefer a moment of silence to start the school day, but allow voluntary student prayers at special events on a rotating basis so all faiths can be represented.)

5. Pro 2nd Amendment when it comes to gun ownership (Yes)

6. Pro strong family values (Yes - add to this incentives and encouragement to traditional two parent families.)

7. Anti Afirmative action (use to be for it but think it has outlived usefulness)
(Yes)

8. Pro controlled immigration (Yes)

Add to this (for me) - mandatory work projects for welfare recipients capable of doing them, incentives and encouragement that empower private organizations to do even more to help people up and out of poverty.

Fiscal Issues:

1. Pro States Rights (yes)

2. Pro small Government (Yes - I don't want government doing anything that cannot be done more efficiently and effectively in the private sector.)

3. Pro Balance Budget (Yes)

4. Pro Tax Cuts (Yes)

5. Pro Military and a Strong Defense (Yes)

Add to this free trade,

a constitutional amendment making a person being an automatic U.S. citizen if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen rather than receving automatic citizenship by virtue of being born in the U.S.

Allow states or communities to deny social services to anyone in this country illegally.

Revoke all rights to minors other than what the parents grant to them. (Abuse or neglect of children shall remain punishable by law.)
 
Last edited:
1. Pro Life
2. Anti Gay Marriage
3. Pro Death Penalty
4. Pro School Prayer
5. Pro 2nd Amendment when it comes to gun ownership
6. Pro strong family values
7. Anti Afirmative action (use to be for it but think it has outlived usefulness)
8. Pro controlled immigration

Fiscal Issues:

1. Pro States Rights
2. Pro small Government
3. Pro Balance Budget
4. Pro Tax Cuts
5. Pro Military and a Strong Defense
Click to expand...

Well, on fiscal issues we differ on all points except for one, and you contradict yourself quite clearly thanks to 2 and 5, but that not withstanding, that is usually the one true way to tell a conservative from a liberal or a moderate from either of those.

You might be surprised to know that I agree with you on one main issue, that of being pro-life. Your problem, as I see it is that you define that too narrowly. I see life differently than you do-I see life as begininng and ending with conscious thought not anything else, at least in human beings. That is why I am pro-life. I am also pro-constitution, which you can take to mean so many different ways. It means that I will support your right to own a gun, even if I don't like it and want to regulate the hell out of it-stuff like that. Stemming from that is my disagreement with most of your stances on social issues, but we have gone off topic, now haven't we?

I believe you are wrong in your assumptions of liberals-we are not as closeminded as you apparently think. We (and I speak for myself and the liberals I surround myself with) are always changing our opinions if we find the evidence to the contrary. That is the way it is. The main difference on social issues that you will find is that liberals want to use goverment to garunetee equal rights, while conservatives do not usually want to use the government. That is it...that and fiscal matters. Welcome to America-where we fight over the middle ground and leave the anarchists and totalitarians out to dry.
 
ShamMol said:
Well, on fiscal issues we differ on all points except for one, and you contradict yourself quite clearly thanks to 2 and 5, but that not withstanding, that is usually the one true way to tell a conservative from a liberal or a moderate from either of those.

You might be surprised to know that I agree with you on one main issue, that of being pro-life. Your problem, as I see it is that you define that too narrowly. I see life differently than you do-I see life as begininng and ending with conscious thought not anything else, at least in human beings. That is why I am pro-life. I am also pro-constitution, which you can take to mean so many different ways. It means that I will support your right to own a gun, even if I don't like it and want to regulate the hell out of it-stuff like that. Stemming from that is my disagreement with most of your stances on social issues, but we have gone off topic, now haven't we?

I believe you are wrong in your assumptions of liberals-we are not as closeminded as you apparently think. We (and I speak for myself and the liberals I surround myself with) are always changing our opinions if we find the evidence to the contrary. That is the way it is. The main difference on social issues that you will find is that liberals want to use goverment to garunetee equal rights, while conservatives do not usually want to use the government. That is it...that and fiscal matters. Welcome to America-where we fight over the middle ground and leave the anarchists and totalitarians out to dry.
Click to expand...


I truly believe that liberals are feel good people.........I can remember their mantra in the sixties when this country first starting going to hell in a hand basket......."If it feels good do it." Damn the consequences.........

It makes you feel good to take tax payers money and spend it on failed social programs.........You claim to be people with high morals but you don't bat and eye knowing that 40,000,000 innocent babies have been murdered in the womb since 1972.........You have all the compassion in the world for rapists and murderers when it comes to the death penalty but no compassion for those babies murdered in the womb who have committed no crime and only want the same chance that you got to live....................
 
Navy Pride said:
I truly believe that liberals are feel good people.........I can remember their mantra in the sixties when this country first starting going to hell in a hand basket......."If it feels good do it." Damn the consequences.........

It makes you feel good to take tax payers money and spend it on failed social programs.........You claim to be people with high morals but you don't bat and eye knowing that 40,000,000 innocent babies have been murdered in the womb since 1972.........You have all the compassion in the world for rapists and murderers when it comes to the death penalty but no compassion for those babies murdered in the womb who have committed no crime and only want the same chance that you got to live....................
Click to expand...
See, but we don't share your view for the most part that they are babies. I sure don't until 5-6 months when fetuses can start conciously thinking.

I wasn't around in the sixties, so please don't brand me with the same iron. I am not your mother's hippy or your hippy for that matter, I am a thinking, rationale liberal-no hippy blood here.

We spend money on the programs because the alternative would be nothing. I am all for reforming welfare because I have worked inside of it for a sumer in an attempt to understand it and realize the problems that it has. But if we just got rid of it in hopes that we woul come up with a new one soon, we would never come up with a new one. That is the way our country works.
 
ShamMol said:
We spend money on the programs because the alternative would be nothing. I am all for reforming welfare because I have worked inside of it for a sumer in an attempt to understand it and realize the problems that it has. But if we just got rid of it in hopes that we woul come up with a new one soon, we would never come up with a new one. That is the way our country works.
Click to expand...

The alternatives would be nothing? There was 'nothing' (as you seem to define it) for the first 170 years of this country's existence. People looked to government to make and enforce the laws and beat back aggressors. They did not expect government to provide housing, clothing, food, medical care, jobs, or any other necessities or luxuries of life. And you know what? Fewer people went without housing, clothing, food, medical care, jobs, or other necessities of life because other Americans took care of them. Collections were taken up, soup kitchens were manned, and material needs met until the unfortunate one was back on his/her feet. You read of very hard times experienced by Americans throughout American history, but you don't hear of mass starvation or death by neglect.

Even as late as the 1940's and 1950's, the homeless were called 'hoboes' and worked their way across the country. It was considered a badge of honor to perform useful work to pay for a meal or a place to sleep out of the rain. It was a rare person who turned them away when they showed up, hat in hand, at the back door. Sometimes somebody got tired of being on the road and accepted permanent work, but most preferred that way of life and they became a part of Americana. There was no sense of 'entitlement'.

Once the government took over the 'benevolence' once handled by the private sector, it all became regulated and impersonal, less efficient, and much more expensive. Now some people no longer felt that had to participate in their welfare. They felt being taken care of was a right and some enjoyed that a lot, even to the point they lost their work ethic, devalued the traditional family--fathers/husbands got in the way of welfare--and demanded more and better for themselves. With unlimited time on their hands and no worries about where their next meal was coming from, the young became bored, then angry, formed themselves into street gangs, entertained themselves with sex, illegal substances and activities, and crime, teen pregnancies and illegitemacy skyrocketed.

And whole generations have been consigned to permanent wards of the state.

Can we get back to where we were? I don't know, but what we are doing sure isn't helping people.

And that brings us back to constructionist judges that I want to see on the Supreme Court. Such judges understand that inalienable rights do not include free medical care, a great house, a nice car, an income etc., and they will resist rulings that make it mandatory for the states or cities to provide such things.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The alternatives would be nothing? There was 'nothing' (as you seem to define it) for the first 170 years of this country's existence. People looked to government to make and enforce the laws and beat back aggressors. They did not expect government to provide housing, clothing, food, medical care, jobs, or any other necessities or luxuries of life. And you know what? Fewer people went without housing, clothing, food, medical care, jobs, or other necessities of life because other Americans took care of them. Collections were taken up, soup kitchens were manned, and material needs met until the unfortunate one was back on his/her feet. You read of very hard times experienced by Americans throughout American history, but you don't hear of mass starvation or death by neglect.
Click to expand...
And luckily we don't really need the government like we did in the wild west days and days of Indians raiding our camps. You may think that charities will work again, but I am a realist and now that there is such a difference between rich and poor, I don't see the same number of people contributing to charities as there was in that time. I hear about mass poverty, I hear about hunger, I hear about children who are incredibly intelligent having to go to at best third-rate schools, I hear about a lot.
Even as late as the 1940's and 1950's, the homeless were called 'hoboes' and worked their way across the country. It was considered a badge of honor to perform useful work to pay for a meal or a place to sleep out of the rain. It was a rare person who turned them away when they showed up, hat in hand, at the back door. Sometimes somebody got tired of being on the road and accepted permanent work, but most preferred that way of life and they became a part of Americana. There was no sense of 'entitlement'.
Click to expand...
There is now and you would want that if you were out on the street. There are so many things that fall under entitlement though that if you were to get rid of them, you would find yourself wanting in the future/near future.
Once the government took over the 'benevolence' once handled by the private sector, it all became regulated and impersonal, less efficient, and much more expensive. Now some people no longer felt that had to participate in their welfare. They felt being taken care of was a right and some enjoyed that a lot, even to the point they lost their work ethic, devalued the traditional family--fathers/husbands got in the way of welfare--and demanded more and better for themselves. With unlimited time on their hands and no worries about where their next meal was coming from, the young became bored, then angry, formed themselves into street gangs, entertained themselves with sex, illegal substances and activities, and crime, teen pregnancies and illegitemacy skyrocketed.
Click to expand...
Wow...actually, I don't even have anything to respond to that because of threee things. 1.) It has no factual basis. 2.) It has no source correlating those things with the introduction of entitlement. And 3.) It's rubbish and is a....rhetoric that one does not oft hear repeated outside the safety of your own home. I am done.
And whole generations have been consigned to permanent wards of the state.
Click to expand...
Ummm...which generations have these been? The ones that were educated in public schools? Is that what you are getting at?
Can we get back to where we were? I don't know, but what we are doing sure isn't helping people.
Click to expand...
If you are ever in Los Angeles, please give me a call and I will set you up to see some real desperation that goes on each day. Their lives are made only marginly better by the charity and welfare taht they get, you would be humbled to know it.
And that brings us back to constructionist judges that I want to see on the Supreme Court. Such judges understand that inalienable rights do not include free medical care, a great house, a nice car, an income etc., and they will resist rulings that make it mandatory for the states or cities to provide such things.
Click to expand...
To quote Bill Clinton..."In the new economy, information, education, and motivation are everything. " We have the responsibilty to give them two of those...and we aren't right now. Basically, I responded to what you just said with something that didn't make sense, much like you did to mine. I don't like constructionist judges, but you must have already known that.
 
ShamMol said:
And luckily we don't really need the government like we did in the wild west days and days of Indians raiding our camps. You may think that charities will work again, but I am a realist and now that there is such a difference between rich and poor, I don't see the same number of people contributing to charities as there was in that time. I hear about mass poverty, I hear about hunger, I hear about children who are incredibly intelligent having to go to at best third-rate schools, I hear about a lot.
There is now and you would want that if you were out on the street. There are so many things that fall under entitlement though that if you were to get rid of them, you would find yourself wanting in the future/near future.
Wow...actually, I don't even have anything to respond to that because of threee things. 1.) It has no factual basis. 2.) It has no source correlating those things with the introduction of entitlement. And 3.) It's rubbish and is a....rhetoric that one does not oft hear repeated outside the safety of your own home. I am done.
Ummm...which generations have these been? The ones that were educated in public schools? Is that what you are getting at?
If you are ever in Los Angeles, please give me a call and I will set you up to see some real desperation that goes on each day. Their lives are made only marginly better by the charity and welfare taht they get, you would be humbled to know it.
To quote Bill Clinton..."In the new economy, information, education, and motivation are everything. " We have the responsibilty to give them two of those...and we aren't right now. Basically, I responded to what you just said with something that didn't make sense, much like you did to mine. I don't like constructionist judges, but you must have already known that.
Click to expand...

You obviously completely missed the point, but I'll let it go. It is my experience that those who completely miss the point usually do so intentionally.
 
AlbqOwl said:
You obviously completely missed the point, but I'll let it go. It is my experience that those who completely miss the point usually do so intentionally.
Click to expand...
Ah, fine, and I will respond by saying you have completely missed the point about constructionist judges-they are outdated. But whatever, I will respond to your non-response with a dismissal of my own.

You obviously m issed the point, and I will let it go. It is my experience that people who berate other people needlessly do so because they don't want to explain themselves. AKA-if I missed the point, make it again. But of course, you don't want to.
 
Navy Pride said:
One thing for certain..Its a great time in this country to be a Conservative........
Click to expand...
A Roberts nomination would certianly be a good turn of events in the Judiciary.

While he is most certianly conservative, I think he is fair, objective and a true constructionist. However, we have a long way to go to getting the judiciary back on track in this country. Until America gets better informed and educated, we will be far from hitting the mark.

conan
 
conan said:
A Roberts nomination would certianly be a good turn of events in the Judiciary.

While he is most certianly conservative, I think he is fair, objective and a true constructionist. However, we have a long way to go to getting the judiciary back on track in this country. Until America gets better informed and educated, we will be far from hitting the mark.

conan
Click to expand...

I watched the hearings all day and he made the dems look like real dummies......They could not lay a glove on him......He will make a great Chief Justice for many years to come...
 
Navy Pride said:
I watched the hearings all day and he made the dems look like real dummies......They could not lay a glove on him......He will make a great Chief Justice for many years to come...
Click to expand...
Other than Fiengold, the others quite embarassing to watch. Not a good time to be a Liberal Democrat.

What did you think of Lindsay Graham?
 
conan said:
Other than Fiengold, the others quite embarassing to watch. Not a good time to be a Liberal Democrat.

What did you think of Lindsay Graham?
Click to expand...

I like Graham......He is and up and coming Conservative who tells it like it is......
 
Navy Pride said:
I like Graham......He is and up and coming Conservative who tells it like it is......
Click to expand...
sorry to interrupt the discourse here, but Sessions didn't even ask a question in his first six minutes or so of questioning. He just complimented him...and you are talking about the Democrats looking like Dummies? They get 30 minutes to ask questions in the first round and instead of doing that, the Repub chose not to...hmm...right...got you.

Anyway, I was quite impressed by Dianne who did her job by asking the privacy questions that nobody else besides the chair will ask. She really represents the views of California well...but then again, we are just a crazy state to you guys anyways.
 
ShamMol said:
sorry to interrupt the discourse here, but Sessions didn't even ask a question in his first six minutes or so of questioning. He just complimented him...and you are talking about the Democrats looking like Dummies? They get 30 minutes to ask questions in the first round and instead of doing that, the Repub chose not to...hmm...right...got you.

Anyway, I was quite impressed by Dianne who did her job by asking the privacy questions that nobody else besides the chair will ask. She really represents the views of California well...but then again, we are just a crazy state to you guys anyways.
Click to expand...

Yeah Feinstein really hit it big time when she brought up the case about the toad.......:roll:
 
The best somebody can say about Feinstein is that she is at least slightly less flaky than Boxer. But yeah, the toad case was way over the top. The most stunning crapola came from Chuck Schumer who has been throwing up Ruth Bader Ginsburg's confirmation as illustration that a good, reputable judge will answer constitutional questions extensively. That is a bald face lie since he and Biden specifically counseled her from the committee in public NOT to answer questions that could in any way relate to any issue that might come before the court. And she didn't.

And now those pompous blowhard hypocrites have the audacity to accuse Judge Roberts for declining to rule on cases now that might come before the court? I hope they lose 10 more seats in the next election.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The best somebody can say about Feinstein is that she is at least slightly less flaky than Boxer. But yeah, the toad case was way over the top. The most stunning crapola came from Chuck Schumer who has been throwing up Ruth Bader Ginsburg's confirmation as illustration that a good, reputable judge will answer constitutional questions extensively. That is a bald face lie since he and Biden specifically counseled her from the committee in public NOT to answer questions that could in any way relate to any issue that might come before the court. And she didn't.

And now those pompous blowhard hypocrites have the audacity to accuse Judge Roberts for declining to rule on cases now that might come before the court? I hope they lose 10 more seats in the next election.
Click to expand...
The toad case has been cited as precedent before and it is an example of one of the cases that might come up before him-so he should know at least how to answer. And Navy, why don't you respond to my post...just a suggestion, I responded to yours.

I agree with you about Schumer and that pissed me off, but not as much as the Repubs not asking serious questions...with the exception of Spector who did a great line of reasoning on abortion.

anyone who is seriously up for the Supreme court gets coached extensively and Roberts and Ginsburg are no exceptions...anyone who says anything else is lying.

I seem to remember the Repubs asking questions as well of Roberts that he declined to answer because they might come up, so are they hypocrites as well? No? Didn't think so.

We will see in the next election, but it honestly had nothing to do with this thread and I will ask why you put it there other than to satisfy your own need to feel superior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom