• 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.

Rehnquist is dead...

Originally posted by Navy Pride:
There is no privacy clause in the Constitution but Liberals quote one all the time..............
What do you like doing more of:

  • Hating Liberals
  • Making America better
Because doing one, stops the other. You can't do both at the same time.
 
RIP. At least he was still able to do the work he loved up until his death.
 
Billo_Really said:
What do you like doing more of:

  • Hating Liberals
  • Making America better
Because doing one, stops the other. You can't do both at the same time.

I don't hate anyone but I believe that confirming conservative judges helps America..........You see some of us think that the Liberal philosphy of "If it feels good do it." is wrong..........One of the issues this president ran on was if he got re elected he would nominate conservative judges.......Since he got re elected by over 3,000,000 votes one can only presume that is what the American people want............I know that is what I want........

Tell you what.........If you can elect a liberal president then its your call like Clinton did with Ginsberg.............Like it or not that is the American way..........

Have a nice day my friend............:lol:
 
Navy Pride said:
There is no privacy clause in the Constitution but Liberals quote one all the time..............
From Harry Browne:

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, where's the right to privacy?

It is clearly in those two amendments.

The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution.
 
shuamort said:
From Harry Browne:

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, where's the right to privacy?

It is clearly in those two amendments.

The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution.

Well about a month ago on Meet the Press Biden cited the right to privacy in the Constitution and was shot out of the saddle by Russert and the Republican guest and he had to retrack his statement.
 
Originally Posted by Navy Pride:
Since he got re elected by over 3,000,000 votes one can only presume that is what the American people want............
How can you say thats what the American people want when only half the country voted for him. Are you not considering the other half of the country that didn't vote for him and do not care for his policies. Because you can't turn your back on them or act like they don't exist or act like you don't have to deal with their issues and concerns. Because if you don't, they will make you!
 
Billo_Really said:
How can you say thats what the American people want when only half the country voted for him. Are you not considering the other half of the country that didn't vote for him and do not care for his policies. Because you can't turn your back on them or act like they don't exist or act like you don't have to deal with their issues and concerns. Because if you don't, they will make you!


That is the way we elect Presidents in this country..........If you don't like it move somewhere else..............Clinton never even got a 50% in 2 elections and he put one of the most liberal justices ever on the court in Ginsberg..........I did not hear you whinning about that then........At least President Bush got over 50% of the vote........
 
Navy Pride said:
Yes 2 strong Conservatives........Maybe we can get that murderous Roe V Wade finally overturned and stop the murder of innocent babies in the womb....I was hoping to see that before I die
I hope you're not going to die soon because it will be a cold day in hell before abortion is made illegal again.

Even Judge Roberts believes that Roe V. Wade is a precedent that should not changed...as does Laura Bush...as does Condi Rice...as does Rudy Guilliani...as does John McCain...

Cold day in hell....PLUS....the only possible thing that could happen is that it reverts back to States deciding...in which case it will still be legal in virtually every state in the union....

Cold day in hell....
 
Navy Pride said:
There is no privacy clause in the Constitution but Liberals quote one all the time..............
That's right. You don't believe that people have the right to refuse giving blood, right? You don't believe that people have the right to keep their bodies private. The prohibiting slavery, that was just in our imagination, right?
What a silly, conservative claim you made..
 
Navy Pride said:
At least President Bush got over 50% of the vote........
Ah, yes. That's why his approva-rating is in the dumps. Sure gives a mandate... NOT!
 
Originally Posted by Navy Pride:
........At least President Bush got over 50% of the vote........
He doesn't have that now!
 
steen said:
That's right. You don't believe that people have the right to refuse giving blood, right? You don't believe that people have the right to keep their bodies private. The prohibiting slavery, that was just in our imagination, right?
What a silly, conservative claim you made..

I am not sure what slavery has to do with a right to privacy. There is no consitutional right to either give blood or not give blood. There is no constitutional right to keep your body private or not keep your body private. There is a constitutional prohibition against unlawful search and seizure and the right to otherwise keep your personal papers private; but all it takes is a court order or subpoena with cause to override that particular protection.

All other laws related to privacy are at the state and local level.

Too often people are so poorly versed in the Constitution they do not separate federal, state, and local and tend to lump them all into one barrel. They especially do this if they wish to bash the sitting President or if they object to a particular President appointing a judge or appointing a Supreme Court Justice.
 
Hopefully Bush picks a moderate to replace him. A moderate would most accurately reflect the position of the country at the moment.
 
I don't want judges who reflect the 'position of the country' at the moment. I want judges who interpret the intent of the Constitution and the law and rule on that basis. Let's face it, we the people are pretty screwed up lately and don't really have it all together all that well. Need proof? Just read through the threads here at DebatePolitics or any other site.

Let's hope the judges do have it together as to what their job is and how they are supposed to do it.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I don't want judges who reflect the 'position of the country' at the moment.
Do you want a judge who find it allowable to force a person to give of their bodily resources against their will?

Do you want a judge affiliated with the federalist Society?
 
AlbqOwl said:
I don't want Roe v Wade overturned. I just want it to be enforced as written and for abortion to become socially unacceptable.

I think Rehnquist would agree. He voted for Roe v Wade.

If we thought there was a catfight over Judge Roberts, however, just wait until our President nominates the next Chief Justice. I can hear the muskets being loaded and cocked now.

Show me where in the Constitution where the Federal government is allowed to regulate abortion.

To the contrary, the 10th Amendment stipulates that powers not expressly given to the Federal government by the Constitution belong to the respective states, and to the people.
 
RecoveringPunk said:
So, if Kennedy was to die... you wouldn't say "Good riddance?"

I would wish no ill will on any justice of the SCOTUS........If Kennedy were to die I would pray that he rest in peace............
 
26 X World Champs said:
I hope you're not going to die soon because it will be a cold day in hell before abortion is made illegal again.

Even Judge Roberts believes that Roe V. Wade is a precedent that should not changed...as does Laura Bush...as does Condi Rice...as does Rudy Guilliani...as does John McCain...

Cold day in hell....PLUS....the only possible thing that could happen is that it reverts back to States deciding...in which case it will still be legal in virtually every state in the union....

Cold day in hell....

We shall see...........I can remember when Roberts said Roe V Wade was bad law and the Constitution does not apply to abortion in any way shape or form.........

I want abortion to be a state issue and we will see how the states rule..Prior to Roe V Wade almost every state banned abortion unless the mothers life is endangered.......
 
steen said:
That's right. You don't believe that people have the right to refuse giving blood, right? You don't believe that people have the right to keep their bodies private. The prohibiting slavery, that was just in our imagination, right?
What a silly, conservative claim you made..

I believe life is precious and no baby should die in the womb unless the mothers life is in in danger...............

I get a kck out of you liberals you have all the compassion in the world when it comes to the death penalty for murderers and rapists but when it comes to an innocent defenseless baby in the womb who has committed no crime you say murder it......................So sad..........
 
Navy Pride said:
I believe life is precious and no baby should die in the womb unless the mothers life is in in danger...............

I get a kck out of you liberals you have all the compassion in the world when it comes to the death penalty for murderers and rapists but when it comes to an innocent defenseless baby in the womb who has committed no crime you say murder it......................So sad..........
What a load of emotional claptrap. "innocent." "Defenseless." "murder." What a load of BS, a load of revisionist linguistics, of dishonest prolife hyperbole.
 
steen said:
Ah, yes. That's why his approva-rating is in the dumps. Sure gives a mandate... NOT!

Approval ratings are way over rated as I have already said his approval rating was in the mid forties prior to the 2004 elections and all you liberals were so full of glee because no president had ever won re election with an approval rating below 50%......well we know what happened don't we.......:lol:
 
Billo_Really said:
He doesn't have that now!

Billo, in case you have not noticed he already won re election.........

It does not matter..............
 
Originally posted by Navy Pride:
well we know what happened don't we.......
Ya, a bunch of hayseed dickboys put a liar back in office, now were the most hated nation on earth!
 
scottyz said:
Hopefully Bush picks a moderate to replace him. A moderate would most accurately reflect the position of the country at the moment.

I would not hold my breath if I was you....If Clinton can pick far out lefties like Ginsberg then President Bush can pick Conservatives and that is exactly what he will do no matter how much you Liberals complain about it...........
 
Back
Top Bottom