Questions for Obama.

[2centsworth]

George Will raised some interesting questions. If any other liberal has the answers please feel free to post them.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/134316



Senator, concerning the criteria by which you will nominate judges, you said: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old." Such sensitivities might serve an admirable legislator, but what have they to do with judging? Should a judge side with whichever party in a controversy stirs his or her empathy? Is such personalization of the judicial function inimical to the rule of law?
• Voting against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, you said: Deciding "truly difficult cases" should involve "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy." Is that not essentially how Chief Justice Roger Taney decided the Dred Scott case? Should other factors—say, the language of the constitutional or statutory provision at issue—matter?
• You say, "The insurance companies, the drug companies, they're not going to give up their profits easily when it comes to health care." Why should they? Who will profit from making those industries unprofitable? When pharmaceutical companies have given up their profits, who will fund pharmaceutical innovations, without which there will be much preventable suffering and death? What other industries should "give up their profits"?


• ExxonMobil (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Exxon+Mobil+Corporation)'s 2007 profit of $40.6 billion annoys you. Do you know that its profit, relative to its revenue, was smaller than Microsoft's and many other corporations'? And that reducing ExxonMobil's profits will injure people who participate in mu-tual funds, index funds and pension funds that own 52 percent of the company?
• You say John McCain (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=John+McCain) is content to "watch [Americans'] home prices decline." So, government should prop up housing prices generally? How? Why? Were prices ideal before the bubble popped? How does a senator know ideal prices? Have you explained to young couples straining to buy their first house that declining prices are a misfortune?
• Telling young people "don't go into corporate America," your wife, Michelle, urged them to become social workers or others in "the helping industry," not "the moneymaking industry." Given that the moneymakers pay for 100 percent of American jobs, in both public and private sectors, is it not helpful?
• Michelle, who was born in 1964, says that most Americans' lives have "gotten progressively worse since I was a little girl." Since 1960, real per capita income has increased 143 percent, life expectancy has increased by seven years, infant mortality has declined 74 percent, deaths from heart disease have been halved, childhood leukemia has stopped being a death sentence, depression has become a treatable disease, air and water pollution have been drastically reduced, the number of women earning a bachelor's degree has more than doubled, the rate of homeownership has increased 10.2 percent, the size of the average American home has doubled, the percentage of homes with air conditioning has risen from 12 to 77, the portion of Americans who own shares of stock has quintupled … Has your wife perhaps missed some pertinent developments in this country that she calls "just downright mean"?
• You favor raising the capital gains tax rate to "20 percent or 25 percent." You say this will not "distort" economic decision making. Your tax returns on your 2007 income of $4.2 million show that you and Michelle own few stocks. Are you sure you understand how investors make decisions?

[jochhejaam]

From the Obama Camp;

"Barack will be fielding questions on the 6th Monday of each month, in the event that a particular month may not have 6 Mondays a list of questions may be submitted on the 3rd Monday of every month starting with the letter N.

Your understanding and patience are appreciated.

[smeagol]

• ExxonMobil's 2007 profit of $40.6 billion annoys you. Do you know that its profit, relative to its revenue, was smaller than Microsoft's and many other corporations'? And that reducing ExxonMobil's profits will injure people who participate in mu-tual funds, index funds and pension funds that own 52 percent of the company?

So because taxing companies hurts the value of their stock you are saying you should never increase taxes?

Pretty stupid concept.

[Anti.Hero]

LOL, far too much detail in those questions.


Ask something more like, "Lord Obama, how long will it take before Americans are ecstatic about standing in line behind 15 million illegal aliens while our family members are dying and need health service."

Then proceed to get out a chisel and stone tablet for his holiness' answer as glorious rays of sunshine shine down upon yourself.



So because taxing companies hurts the value of their stock you are saying you should never increase taxes?

Pretty stupid concept.

More like, Obama and the dems should quit brainwashing the ignorant by demonizing business, but instead educate them on how to profit off another man's profit. You see, our beloved government gets to enter into the back room deals with corps but tries to keep us away from making honest money. We're easier to control that way and don't clog up the boat ramps nearly as much!

Politicians are like celebrities. They are not restricted/affected by the policies they choose/endorse for us common folk.

Who is rich elite whitey? The one that works for a living, or the one that gets to tax the one that works for a living? Who holds the leash?


It's a god damned shame they trick so many people into believing the rich are getting punished, while the realty is they (the guvment) are only slowing YOU down.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'm trying to find the posts from the 2cents regarding bush's contradictios over the last 8yrs. We all know he is objective and holds republicans to those same standards.... Can anyone help me find those posts? I am having a hard time locating anything related to this post about republicans..


Wait I just thought of something.. If there aren't any would that make him a hypocrite? Oh well I'll keep looking.

[jochhejaam]

I'm trying to find the posts from the 2cents regarding bush's contradictios over the last 8yrs. We all know he is objective and holds republicans to those same standards.... Can anyone help me find those posts? I am having a hard time locating anything related to this post about republicans..
Nothing resembling an answer to the questions posed, predictable. And of course, in every post you've submitted, you've been sure to present every other viewpoint out there...or have you?






Wait I just thought of something.. If there aren't any would that make him a hypocrite? Oh well I'll keep looking.
When did hypocrisy become a synonym for subjectivity?




And since you brought up "objectivity", was submitting a strawman argument, laced with ad hominem and sarcasm, meant to raises you to the level of standard bearer for objectivity?
And you have the gall to speak of hypocrisy?

Whatever you were attempting to prove here, failed, and miserably so.
The joke's on you <and how does that make you feel george?>

[Mr. Peabody]

Not mine, but the guy meets your qualification of being a liberal.


Q – "Senator, concerning the criteria by which you will nominate judges, you said: 'We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.' Such sensitivities might serve an admirable legislator, but what have they to do with judging? Should a judge side with whichever party in a controversy stirs his or her empathy? Is such personalization of the judicial function inimical to the rule of law?”

A – Mr. Will, you're taking Obama's comments out of context. He was talking about Supreme Court judges who, rightly so, must look at how statutes and their Constitutionality apply in the context of 21st century America. He never said or implied that a winning party in a dispute should be the side that does the best job of playing on a justice's sympathy.

Q – “Voting against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, you said: Deciding 'truly difficult cases' should involve 'one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.' Is that not essentially how Chief Justice Roger Taney decided the Dred Scott case? Should other factors, say, the language of the constitutional or statutory provision at issue "matter?”

A – Roger Taney and Clarence Thomas have a lot in common. Beyond that, Mr. Will, if you had bothered to read the Federalist Papers and other writings of the Framers, he would have seen great concern amongst the founders that future generations would understand that the Constitution was not intended to be frozen in time. Yes, the language of the Constitution is crucial. So, too, is putting the issue at hand in the context of what the Constitution intended and what life is like in the 21st century.

Q – You say, 'The insurance companies, the drug companies, they're not going to give up their profits easily when it comes to health care.' Why should they? Who will profit from making those industries unprofitable? When pharmaceutical companies have given up their profits, who will fund pharmaceutical innovations, without which there will be much preventable suffering and death? What other industries should 'give up their profits'?

A – Out of context, again, Georgie boy. Obama never said the drug companies should "give up their profits." In the context of the speech he was making, Obama referred to the extraordinarily high profits phara companies make in the US, much higher than they happily earn in Canada, Britain and the EU. Drug prices are negotiated and regulated in every Western economy except the US, setting a fair margin that the drug companies are happy with based on the fact that they keep doing business in those nations. Moreover, Obama was also talking about giving Medicare authority to negotiate drug prices -- just as the VA does.

Q – ExxonMobil's 2007 profit of $40.6 billion annoys you. Do you know that its profit, relative to its revenue, was smaller than Microsoft's and many other corporations'? And that reducing ExxonMobil's profits will injure people who participate in mutual funds, index funds and pension funds that own 52 percent of the company?

A – ExxonMobile's profit annoys everyone because it was a windfall resulting from as yet-unexplained rocketing upwards of oil prices (which ExxonMobil and other oil companies drill, sells to itself to refine and then sells to itself to put in mostly company-owned gas stations (as well as stations owned by others). If one carefully follows the footnotes in Exxon's 10K and other SEC filings, one will notice that Exxon, like BP, Chevron and other majors, operate an elaborate web of holding companies inside subsidiaries inside divisions, the purpose of all of them being "petroleum trading and storage." In other words, hoarding and pure speculation -- much like Enron. In fact, the McCain sponsored "Enron exemption" allows oil companies to do this. By contrast, CITGO, owned by Penevesa, has maintained its typical and healthy profit margins despite giving away heating oil to poor nations around the world -- including in the Northeast and Gulf Coast US where people have been especially hard hit by rising prices.

Q – You say John McCain is content to 'watch [Americans'] home prices decline.' So, government should prop up housing prices generally? How? Why? Were prices ideal before the bubble popped? How does a senator know ideal prices? Have you explained to young couples straining to buy their first house that declining prices are a misfortune?

A – George, you really ought to look up the words "taken out of context." Obama made that statement in the context of McCain opposing a bill that would financially assist families who are in danger of losing their homes due to mortgage lender fraud and abusive practice. (See last week's FBI arrest of 409 mortgage traders, brokers and real estate agents; the FBI says the investigation is continuing and that "hundreds, perhaps thousands, more arrests may follow."

Q – Telling young people 'don't go into corporate America,' your wife, Michelle, urged them to become social workers or others in 'the helping industry,' not 'the moneymaking industry.' Given that the moneymakers pay for 100 percent of American jobs, in both public and private sectors, is it not helpful?

A – I'm getting really tired of putting things in context for a nationally published columnist. Obama, and his wife, have said repeatedly that Obama would propose a program to pay for university. In exchange, recipients of the tuition grants, would be required to work X-number of years in their community: Teaching, doing social work, community organizing, whatever, as the means of paying back the country.

Q – Michelle, who was born in 1964, says that most Americans' lives have 'gotten progressively worse since I was a little girl.' Since 1960, real per capita income has increased 143 percent, life expectancy has increased by seven years, infant mortality has declined 74 percent, deaths from heart disease have been halved, childhood leukemia has stopped being a death sentence, depression has become a treatable disease, air and water pollution have been drastically reduced, the number of women earning a bachelor's degree has more than doubled, the rate of homeownership has increased 10.2 percent, the size of the average American home has doubled, the percentage of homes with air conditioning has risen from 12 to 77, the portion of Americans who own shares of stock has quintupled. Has y our wife perhaps missed some pertinent developments in this country that she calls 'just downright mean'?

A – Figures can lie and liars can figure. Let's look at numbers that are more relevant. Since 2000, real per capita income has declined markedly; the spread between those earning at top levels and those at the middle level has widened dramatically; since 2000, wealth has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of a shrinking number of people as the middle class shrinks;' infant mortality declined but remains the highest in the Western world, home ownership fell dramatically over the past 18 months. If I were you Mr. Will, I would not brag about the spread of "McMansions" because they are way beyond the price range of typical income earners. Mrs. Obama is right: The country has become downright mean for much of its citizens.

[Cry Havoc]

I find it amazing that the OP and subsequent posters dismiss answers before they are even posted. Yeah, like you guys are going to listen to any kind of dissenting opinion.

Must be nice to go through life with such a closed-brain, convinced in-advance of what you already know to be 100% fact.

I'm historically a republican, but even I can't ignore what has happened to our country. And it's saddening.

[Cry Havoc]

Nothing resembling an answer to the questions posed, predictable. And of course, in every post you've submitted, you've been sure to present every other viewpoint out there...or have you?

When did hypocrisy become a synonym for subjectivity?


And since you brought up "objectivity", was submitting a strawman argument, laced with ad hominem and sarcasm, meant to raises you to the level of standard bearer for objectivity?
And you have the gall to speak of hypocrisy?

Whatever you were attempting to prove here, failed, and miserably so.
The joke's on you <and how does that make you feel george?>

Well, some answers were posted. Care to respond, or were you just hoping that no one here was educated enough to know what they're talking about? I could field the questions as well with slightly different responses, but I'm not sure you'd listen to anything I have to say.

[2centsworth]

Not mine, but the guy meets your qualification of being a liberal.

I love the "how life is like in the 21st century".

[Mr. Peabody]

I love the "how life is like in the 21st century".

My view on the issue of judges using life experience and empathy in making decisions is that you want a judge that not only understands the law, but also understands the effect of the ruling that they make. These decisions are not made in theory or in a law school moot court; they have an impact on peoples lives. Given that, it'd be nice if a judge not only knew the law, but also understood how other people live and what motivates them.

I say that because I think all too often, we try to approach the law as simply an academic or formulaic exercise (Party X did Y to Party Z and in those cases we give judgment A). Which is fine for merely looking at law in the abstract, but in court you not just looking for a recitation of law, you are looking for justice to be done. And justice requires more than just looking at the law as it's written on the books. You have to take the parties particular set of facts into consideration. In order to truly consider the facts of a case, you do need have a certain degree of life experience or empathy on which to rely.

[Cry Havoc]

I love the "how life is like in the 21st century".

If the law is so cut and dried, why do we need "Judges"? Ever consider what that title even means?

[2centsworth]

My view on the issue of judges using life experience and empathy in making decisions is that you want a judge that not only understands the law, but also understands the effect of the ruling that they make. These decisions are not made in theory or in a law school moot court; they have an impact on peoples lives. Given that, it'd be nice if a judge not only knew the law, but also understood how other people live and what motivates them.

I say that because I think all too often, we try to approach the law as simply an academic or formulaic exercise (Party X did Y to Party Z and in those cases we give judgment A). Which is fine for merely looking at law in the abstract, but in court you not just looking for a recitation of law, you are looking for justice to be done. And justice requires more than just looking at the law as it's written on the books. You have to take the parties particular set of facts into consideration. In order to truly consider the facts of a case, you do need have a certain degree of life experience or empathy on which to rely.

that's how child molestors get probation. Break the law and pay the price, simple as that. Nevertheless, I'm all about forgiveness and second chances after the price has been paid.

[2centsworth]

If the law is so cut and dried, why do we need "Judges"? Ever consider what that title even means?

Judges are there to determine if the law has been broken or if a something is constitutional. Judges are not suppossed to create new law.

[Mr. Peabody]

that's how child molestors get probation. Break the law and pay the price, simple as that. Nevertheless, I'm all about forgiveness and second chances after the price has been paid.

Right, but when you say "pay the price," what's the price to which you are referring? Our penal code sets up a range of punishment, which in some cases includes probation. There is no set price to pay.

[FromWayDowntown]

that's how child molestors get probation. Break the law and pay the price, simple as that. Nevertheless, I'm all about forgiveness and second chances after the price has been paid.

If the price in the written law is that a child molestor gets probation, is imposing probation really a problem with the judge?

It's also funny to me how the sense that a judge should use life experience in doing his or her job depends significantly upon whose ox is being gored -- as is so true of other things. Conservatives hate "activist" judges until that activism benefits conservative causes -- in many ways, the Supreme Court of Texas (comprised entirely of 9 Republicans, almost all extremely conservative) is among the most activist courts in the nation, yet it is never pointed to as an exemplar of the activist problem. Meanwhile, courts that apply the written law, but do it in a way that is controversial to some (for instance, punishing a convicted child molester with probation) are decried for their activism. Converse examples of the same would be easy to find.

I might be inclined to find some sympathy for the activism complaint if it was at all founded in any sort of principled view of the law, but it isn't; it's wholly political and almost always indefensible in any fashion other than a dislike for a particular result.

[2centsworth]

If the price in the written law is that a child molestor gets probation, is imposing probation really a problem with the judge?

It's also funny to me how the sense that a judge should use life experience in doing his or her job depends significantly upon whose ox is being gored -- as is so true of other things. Conservatives hate "activist" judges until that activism benefits conservative causes -- in many ways, the Supreme Court of Texas (comprised entirely of 9 Republicans, almost all extremely conservative) is among the most activist courts in the nation, yet it is never pointed to as an exemplar of the activist problem. Meanwhile, courts that apply the written law, but do it in a way that is controversial to some (for instance, punishing a convicted child molester with probation) are decried for their activism. Converse examples of the same would be easy to find.

I might be inclined to find some sympathy for the activism complaint if it was at all founded in any sort of principled view of the law, but it isn't; it's wholly political and almost always indefensible in any fashion other than a dislike for a particular result.


it doesn't surprise me in the least that you would point out conservative activism and defend child molestors. So far, in my debates with you, you've defended porn shops and child molestors.

btw, I agree with you on conservative activism too. Texas is a joke.

[2centsworth]

Right, but when you say "pay the price," what's the price to which you are referring? Our penal code sets up a range of punishment, which in some cases includes probation. There is no set price to pay.

There is precedent. nevertheless, when it comes to supreme court justices, letter of the law rulings is what I believe George Will was referring to. When you begin to input your "modern day experience" in constitutional law, and then that's how you get the dred scott decision.

[FromWayDowntown]

it doesn't surprise me in the least that you would point out conservative activism and defend child molestors. So far, in my debates with you, you've defended porn shops and child molestors.

I'm not defending child molestors -- I'm suggesting that judges who follow the law in sentencing child molestors are not "activists."

But if your best retort to me is to decide for yourself what my views are and to attack me based on what you've decided my views are, then I suppose there really isn't much point in trying to actually engage you in any sort of meaningful debate. Using the most heinous examples as a means to probe your viewpoints is hardly advocacy for those examples; but you certainly run quickly to the idea that I believe those things.


btw, I agree with you on conservative activism too. Texas is a joke.

Yes, then I can see why that above paragraph of yours was at all necessary.

How it must pain you to actually agree with me!!! :dramaquee

[FromWayDowntown]

There is precedent. nevertheless, when it comes to supreme court justices, letter of the law rulings is what I believe George Will was referring to. When you begin to input your "modern day experience" in constitutional law, and then that's how you get the dred scott decision.

"Modern day experience" is the difference between separate but equal doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education.

But that's hardly a worthwhile change in the law, is it?

[2centsworth]

I'm not defending child molestors -- I'm suggesting that judges who follow the law in sentencing child molestors are not "activists."

But if your best retort to me is to decide for yourself what my views are and to attack me based on what you've decided my views are, then I suppose there really isn't much point in trying to actually engage you in any sort of meaningful debate. Using the most heinous examples as a means to probe your viewpoints is hardly advocacy for those examples; but you certainly run quickly to the idea that I believe those things.



Yes, then I can see why that above paragraph of yours was at all necessary.

How it must pain you to actually agree with me!!! :dramaquee

somewhat agree. I agree about conservative activism, but I will not defend it by saying liberals do the same thing. Both are wrong, and it seems that's where you and I disagree.

I'm not just giving lip service to my disagreement with the Texas Judicial System either, DA is a mess and unconstitutional IMO.

[FromWayDowntown]

somewhat agree. I agree about conservative activism, but I will not defend it by saying liberals do the same thing. Both are wrong, and it seems that's where you and I disagree.

Again -- you and your assumptions. My point is that conservative claims of activism are ridiculous because conservatives are just as "activist" as liberals are. That's not an effort to justify one by pointing to the other; it's an effort to say that one argument is vapid because it is hypocritical. I'd say the same thing if the "activism" debate was one-sided with liberals accusing conservatives of such a thing.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm not just giving lip service to my disagreement with the Texas Judicial System either, DA is a mess and unconstitutional IMO.

I'm honestly not sure what you mean by saying DA is a mess and unconstitutional.

[2centsworth]

I'm honestly not sure what you mean by saying DA is a mess and unconstitutional.

sold as a dismissal, but it's treated as a lifetime conviction.

http://www.deferredadjudication.com/deferred_def_new.htm

[2centsworth]

Again -- you and your assumptions. My point is that conservative claims of activism are ridiculous because conservatives are just as "activist" as liberals are. They are not ridiculous. They are valid, maybe hypocritical, but valid IMO.


That's not an effort to justify one by pointing to the other; it's an effort to say that one argument is vapid because it is hypocritical. I'd say the same thing if the "activism" debate was one-sided with liberals accusing conservatives of such a thing.

you will not hear that argument from liberals, because they agree with that type of judiciary. conservatives profess not to agree, so it would be nice to hear liberals hold them accountable. Instead, liberals are content with conservatives getting away with it as long as liberals get to do the same thing. The only people fighting for change are some conservatives, as one-sided as they may be.

[FromWayDowntown]

sold as a dismissal, but it's treated as a lifetime conviction.

http://www.deferredadjudication.com/deferred_def_new.htm

Not true in either sense; and hardly unconstitutional. The offender is told, when granted deferred adjudication that one term of that punishment (and it is a punishment) is the assurance that conviction for failing to comply with the program -- and the programs have pretty basic obligations -- will result in revocation of the d.a. and enforcement of the sentence that should have been imposed. The ball is totally in the offender's court at that point -- do what you've obligated yourself to do and you'll stay out of jail and have the charge deleted from your record after a reasonable time for compliance; get busted doing something you're not supposed to do and you'll go to jail.

I'm not sure why that would be an unconstitutional "punishment" since it gives the offender nearly-complete autonomy to decide whether he or she will go to jail. Likewise, the fact that the offender was given deferred adjudication never comes up again unless he or she gets into trouble again, and then it is admissible only for the sake of assessing punishment, which necessarily means the offender has been convicted of committing a crime and is, in a very real sense, a recidivist.

On top of that, a judge who refuses to grant deferred adjudication would be violating an act of the Texas Legislature and would, in a very real sense, be the sort of activist judge that should be decried.

[FromWayDowntown]

They are not ridiculous. They are valid, maybe hypocritical, but valid IMO.

Hypocrisy is not ridiculous?


you will not hear that argument from liberals, because they agree with that type of judiciary.

There you go again with your assumptions. Perhaps you want to believe that; I'm not sure that your assumption, however, is entirely true. Take, for instance, the Supreme Court of Texas, which is arguably exceeding its constitutional jurisdiction to make far-reaching determinations regarding some fundamental matters of due process -- particularly making it difficult for juries to come to sustainable conclusions in tort cases that benefit plaintiffs. You may not know it, but liberals in Texas regularly complain of the activism of that conservative court. So, I'd dispute your conclusion that liberals prefer activist courts.


conservatives profess not to agree, so it would be nice to hear liberals hold them accountable. Instead, liberals are content with conservatives getting away with it as long as liberals get to do the same thing. The only people fighting for change are some conservatives, as one-sided as they may be.

Nonsense. Utter and total nonsense. Do you just get your information from talk radio and conservative news outlets? That's an honestly curious question, given that your criticisms of liberals in this regard seems only to track the rhetoric that those sources spit out.

[Cry Havoc]

Hmmm.

Round 3. Ding.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I wish I had my way with the English language the way Fromwaydowntown does. He always is able to put my thoughts in a coherent and logical format. My point to 2cents was simply, don't cry about something that your side is guilty of. The rightwongers who complain about activists justices are silent when it comes to conservative activists.. In fact I would bet that the same people who are crying about this were exstatic at Alitos and Roberts nominations to the SC. These guys wear their conservatism on their sleeves and aren't shy about people knowing it.

[2centsworth]

Hypocrisy is not ridiculous?

yes it is, but we were talking about judicial activism weren't we?




There you go again with your assumptions. Perhaps you want to believe that; I'm not sure that your assumption, however, is entirely true. Take, for instance, the Supreme Court of Texas, which is arguably exceeding its constitutional jurisdiction to make far-reaching determinations regarding some fundamental matters of due process -- particularly making it difficult for juries to come to sustainable conclusions in tort cases that benefit plaintiffs. You may not know it, but liberals in Texas regularly complain of the activism of that conservative court. So, I'd dispute your conclusion that liberals prefer activist courts.

we are talking about Obama aren't we? Obama is in favor of continued activism IMO.

btw, please start a thread and give me concrete examples of judicial activism in Texas. I will be one of your loudest supporters.




Nonsense. Utter and total nonsense. Do you just get your information from talk radio and conservative news outlets? That's an honestly curious question, given that your criticisms of liberals in this regard seems only to track the rhetoric that those sources spit out.

some, but I believe i've demonstrated it's not my only source. now one question for you, is judicial activism a bad thing?

[2centsworth]

I wish I had my way with the English language the way Fromwaydowntown does. He always is able to put my thoughts in a coherent and logical format. My point to 2cents was simply, don't cry about something that your side is guilty of. The rightwongers who complain about activists justices are silent when it comes to conservative activists.. In fact I would bet that the same people who are crying about this were exstatic at Alitos and Roberts nominations to the SC. These guys wear their conservatism on their sleeves and aren't shy about people knowing it.

You need to first come with coherent thoughts and facts to somewhat measure up. Your sincerely Joe Conservative post don't help you. Btw, please give examples of Alitos and Robert's activism.

[JoeChalupa]

I'm a free thinking American. To hell with all the labels.

[2centsworth]

I'm a free thinking American. To hell with all the labels.

we are talking about judicial activism.

[Oh, Gee!!]

we are talking about judicial activism.

and Joe doesn't like the "Judicial Activist" label

[JoeChalupa]

I'm for judicial justice.

[2centsworth]

I'm for judicial justice.

another label?

see the I don't like labels is a stupid game. When discussing a topic labeling is neccessary in order to clarify points.

now, what does justice mean to you?

[JoeChalupa]

another label?

see the I don't like labels is a stupid game. When discussing a topic labeling is neccessary in order to clarify points.

now, what does justice mean to you?

Fairness? It is up to interpretation but it is not always clear. I don't think labeling is necessary to clarify points. I know conservatives who have liberal views and vice-versa.

[FromWayDowntown]

yes it is, but we were talking about judicial activism weren't we?

And hypocrisy in discussing judicial activism isn't ridiculous?


we are talking about Obama aren't we? Obama is in favor of continued activism IMO.

I'd love to have a source for that conclusion. Really.


btw, please start a thread and give me concrete examples of judicial activism in Texas. I will be one of your loudest supporters.

It's not really worth my time -- shooting down the hypocrisy of those who complain about judicial activism is more enjoyable to me than complaining about judicial activism.



some, but I believe i've demonstrated it's not my only source.

Demonstrated? How, exactly? You just recite the same hot rhetoric that media windbags offer up and rely on the same old cliched criticisms of those you disagree with, simply concluding that "most of them would agree with this thing that I disagree with" (to paraphrase). I'll apologize when you can show me that there's something other than rehashed right-wing saws to inform your opinions about who supports judicial activism.


now one question for you, is judicial activism a bad thing?

Honestly, I avoid categorical statements like that because what constitutes judicial activism is never quite clear to me. Is the Supreme Court eschewing stare decisis and holding that Separate but Equal violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection a function of activism? If so, then that's an example of judicial activism being a good thing. Is the recognition that the Constitution functionally includes a right to privacy a matter of activism? If so, then that's another example of judicial activism being beneficial to society.

I'm also never clear on what exactly constitutes "activism" when it comes to novel constitutional questions (the area where activism seems to worry most conservatives, in my estimation).

For instance, is the Massachusetts Supreme Court declaring that state discrimination against same-sex marriages violates constitutional guarantees when the state has enacted no law on the subject an example of "activism"? I would say that the Court was asked to pass on a legal question that has significant moral ramifications, but one that is not resolved textually by constitution or statute -- in that instance, our society has accorded the courts with the obligation to resolve those questions, even if the result is unpopular. If the state supreme court declares in that context that prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, I wouldn't characterize that as activism; it would be a function that is at the heart of what courts do. I don't think the fact that the courts reach a conclusion that is unpopular is evidence of activism, either. I think, in some ways, reaching that conclusion is the converse activism if the law supports the unpopular result; courts shouldn't be looking to recent polling data to determine what the law does or does not say. If the court's conclusion is unpopular, it is for the legislature to change the law, or for the People to amend the constitution.

Do I think it's a good thing for courts to ignore existing law in reaching conclusions? Sometimes, but rarely. Do I think courts that make decisions that must be guided by an interpretation of the law that might prove to be unpopular are activist courts? Absolutely not.

[JoeChalupa]

I concur.

[2centsworth]

And hypocrisy in discussing judicial activism isn't ridiculous?

you are talking about two entirely different subjects. Are you calling me the hypocrit after you admitted I agreed with you on conservative activism? If I'm not the hypocrit, and then focus on the topic at hand.




I'd love to have a source for that conclusion. Really. He belives the constitution is a living document.




It's not really worth my time -- shooting down the hypocrisy of those who complain about judicial activism is more enjoyable to me than complaining about judicial activism. shooting down and otherwise legitamate subject is more enjoyable to you?





Demonstrated? How, exactly? You just recite the same hot rhetoric that media windbags media windbags? I see you're above the fray.


offer up and rely on the same old cliched criticisms of those you disagree with, simply concluding that "most of them would agree with this thing that I disagree with" (to paraphrase). I'll apologize when you can show me that there's something other than rehashed right-wing saws to inform your opinions about who supports judicial activism. Did i not include a link on conservative judicial activism earlier? Did I not agree with you earlier? the stereotyping is coming from you.




Honestly, I avoid categorical statements like that because what constitutes judicial activism is never quite clear to me. Is the Supreme Court eschewing stare decisis and holding that Separate but Equal violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection a function of activism? If so, then that's an example of judicial activism being a good thing. Is the recognition that the Constitution functionally includes a right to privacy a matter of activism? If so, then that's another example of judicial activism being beneficial to society.

I'm also never clear on what exactly constitutes "activism" when it comes to novel constitutional questions (the area where activism seems to worry most conservatives, in my estimation).

For instance, is the Massachusetts Supreme Court declaring that state discrimination against same-sex marriages violates constitutional guarantees when the state has enacted no law on the subject an example of "activism"? I would say that the Court was asked to pass on a legal question that has significant moral ramifications, but one that is not resolved textually by constitution or statute -- in that instance, our society has accorded the courts with the obligation to resolve those questions, even if the result is unpopular. If the state supreme court declares in that context that prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, I wouldn't characterize that as activism; it would be a function that is at the heart of what courts do. I don't think the fact that the courts reach a conclusion that is unpopular is evidence of activism, either. I think, in some ways, reaching that conclusion is the converse activism if the law supports the unpopular result; courts shouldn't be looking to recent polling data to determine what the law does or does not say. If the court's conclusion is unpopular, it is for the legislature to change the law, or for the People to amend the constitution.

Do I think it's a good thing for courts to ignore existing law in reaching conclusions? Sometimes, but rarely. Do I think courts that make decisions that must be guided by an interpretation of the law that might prove to be unpopular are activist courts? Absolutely not.

finally some substance.

[2centsworth]

I concur.

I thought you were a person that thought for yourself? I concur is coping out.

[FromWayDowntown]

you are talking about two entirely different subjects. Are you calling me the hypocrit after you admitted I agreed with you on conservative activism? If I'm not the hypocrit, and then focus on the topic at hand.

I'm not calling you anything. I'm saying that conservatives who claim the high ground in debates about judicial activism are hypocrites. I'm also saying that either side believing itself to be superior on issues of activism is ridiculous. How any of that implicates you or your beliefs is entirely a question of your insecurities -- it's certainly not a matter of my beliefs or rhetoric.


He belives the constitution is a living document.

So, only textualists are non-activists? That's an awfully broad categorization.



shooting down and otherwise legitamate subject is more enjoyable to you?

Pointing out the senselessness of the judicial activism debate strikes me as a better use of my time than bitching and moaning about perceived activism. I say that both because I would dispute that most instances of claimed activism aren't activism at all, but unhappiness with a particular result (which is basically sore loser-ness) and because there's no real point in arguing that one side is better than the other when it comes to real instances of activism.


media windbags? I see you're above the fray.

I see that you didn't provide me with any reason to think that your opinions are sourced from anything other than those who bring their particular political bents to calling things activist or not.


Did i not include a link on conservative judicial activism earlier? Did I not agree with you earlier? the stereotyping is coming from you.

Nonsense. The fact that we agree that both sides are frought with activists doesn't mean that your rhetoric is anything other than a parroting of popular conservative opinion on this subject.


finally some substance.

Notably met by a lack of anything resembling it.

[Cry Havoc]

media windbags? I see you're above the fray.

Are you serious? Do you really claim the media at-large is worth giving merit or precedent to, especially when you have failed to cite any sources? I could find a media source that agrees with just about any position I want. It does not bolster your argument when you shoehorn the segments of the commercially-driven hosts that agree with you to show that you have opinion on your side.



finally some substance.

Far more than you've brought. Espousing talk show pundits who intentionally state controversial positions is a waste of time for all involved. Care to share any conclusions you've come to on your own, or should I just quote Matt Damon from Good Will Hunting and be done with you?

[JoeChalupa]

I thought you were a person that thought for yourself? I concur is coping out.

So agreeing with someone is a cop out? I read the post.,..thought about it...and I concurred. Is that so hard to comprehend? :lol

[2centsworth]

I'm not calling you anything. I'm saying that conservatives who claim the high ground in debates about judicial activism are hypocrites. I'm also saying that either side believing itself to be superior on issues of activism is ridiculous. How any of that implicates you or your beliefs is entirely a question of your insecurities -- it's certainly not a matter of my beliefs or rhetoric.

asking for clarity is a question of my insecurities :lol.




So, only textualists are non-activists? That's an awfully broad categorization. That would be my standard.[/quote]

broad? making moral decisions from the bench is broad. Question of morality should be made by voters.





Pointing out the senselessness of the judicial activism debate strikes me as a better use of my time than bitching and moaning about perceived activism. I say that both because I would dispute that most instances of claimed activism aren't activism at all, but unhappiness with a particular result (which is basically sore loser-ness) and because there's no real point in arguing that one side is better than the other when it comes to real instances of activism.

Here's an example, same sex marriages. Why are judges better equipped to judge what is moral rather than what is legal?




I see that you didn't provide me with any reason to think that your opinions are sourced from anything other than those who bring their particular political bents to calling things activist or not.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-633.ZS.html




Nonsense. The fact that we agree that both sides are frought with activists doesn't mean that your rhetoric is anything other than a parroting of popular conservative opinion on this subject. you just said activism doesn't exist, but now it does, make up your mind.



Notably met by a lack of anything resembling it.[/quote]

[FromWayDowntown]

asking for clarity is a question of my insecurities :lol.

You assuming that I'm quarreling with you is a question of your insecurities.


That would be my standard.

So the entire concept of judicial review, with which every judge in the nation agrees but has no textual constitutional support, is evidence of activism and implicates every sitting judge across the nation. Yep -- not too broad there.


broad? making moral decisions from the bench is broad. Question of morality should be made by voters.

Sure, but what happens when the voters haven't yet given an answer to that question? Are the judges who are forced to make the legal determinations that have moral ramifications activists? What if the legal outcome comports with your sense of morality? Is that activism?

Furthermore, by resorting to the voice of the voter, I assume that you're talking about both constitutional amendments and legislatively-enacted statutes. And taking my assumption as true for the moment, would your argument be that a legislatively-enacted statute can never be overturned as unconstitutional and that the majority's viewpoint should always hold on matters that you deem to implicate moral decision-making? If so, would you consider it activism for a court to strike down a law prohibiting interracial marraige? Or to strike down a law that categorically prohibits adults from purchasing things like contraceptives? Do you really believe that the morality of the majority should be controlling as to all of society?


Here's an example, same sex marriages. Why are judges better equipped to judge what is moral rather than what is legal?

I'd argue -- as I have before -- that the guarantee of equal protection of the law in a fundamental matter like marriage isn't much of a guarantee if it can be deprived to people based on the fact that they wish to marry someone of the same gender. That's not an activist viewpoint in my mind, it's completely consistent with a reasonable understanding of the function of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. It certainly runs afoul of certain moral choices that might be made by the majority of society, but I'm not sure that the majority should be able to enforce its moral will upon all of society. That a court sees a prohibition on same-sex marriages as contrary to the equal protection clause is not, in my mind, an act of activism; it's precisely the sort of thing that judges are called upon to do regularly as a function of engaging in judicial review of statutory law (where such law actually exists).

Is your argument that judges simply shouldn't review matters that are deeply moral in nature? Is it that where things are deeply moral in nature, that judges shouldn't give an earnest reading to the controlling constitutional language and should, instead, keep the majority viewpoint in mind and rule accordingly? Is it that courts should just uphold any law that is challenged if the challenge would seem to have a moral component? I honestly don't see how you're arguing against activism if you condition what judges should or shouldn't do -- or how judges should or shouldn't rule -- on the relative moral questions raised by particular legal issues.

Frankly, if moral support for a particular position like same-sex marriage is so strong, there should be no problem seeking and obtaining a constitutional amendment that would forever foreclose the legal questions raised in that regard.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-633.ZS.html

What about Roper? Is that a suggestion of judicial activism? If so, how so?


you just said activism doesn't exist, but now it does, make up your mind.

You've obviously completely misunderstood just about everything I've written in this thread. I've never denied that activism exists; I've insisted that it exists on both sides of the political spectrum. I've also said that I think it is folly to think that one side is somehow on higher ground when it comes to this issue. The fact that you think that liberals support judicial activism while conservatives mostly object to it strikes me as nothing more than regurgiation of popular conservative rhetoric.

[JoeChalupa]

IT does exist on both sides.

[2centsworth]

this will be the end of it from my side because we're beating a dead horse to death.


You assuming that I'm quarreling with you is a question of your insecurities.

we're respectfully (most of the time) discussing the issue for clarity. Never assumed you were quarreling. However, it was important to my argument to understand who you were talking about, me or conservatives in general. Having it directed at me is nothing personal, but would have made me argue a different point.




So the entire concept of judicial review, with which every judge in the nation agrees but has no textual constitutional support, is evidence of activism and implicates every sitting judge across the nation. Yep -- not too broad there. are you arguing there is a consensus opinion on judicial review? Can the judiciary overstep here?




Sure, but what happens when the voters haven't yet given an answer to that question? Are the judges who are forced to make the legal determinations that have moral ramifications activists? What if the legal outcome comports with your sense of morality? Is that activism?

the voters have given the answer to same sex marriage.



Furthermore, by resorting to the voice of the voter, I assume that you're talking about both constitutional amendments and legislatively-enacted statutes. And taking my assumption as true for the moment, would your argument be that a legislatively-enacted statute can never be overturned as unconstitutional and that the majority's viewpoint should always hold on matters that you deem to implicate moral decision-making? If so, would you consider it activism for a court to strike down a law prohibiting interracial marraige? there is no such law that I'm aware of.


Or to strike down a law that categorically prohibits adults from purchasing things like contraceptives? Do you really believe that the morality of the majority should be controlling as to all of society?

I do not want to live under the rule of judges (unelected kings). I prefer representative democracy.




I'd argue -- as I have before -- that the guarantee of equal protection of the law in a fundamental matter like marriage isn't much of a guarantee if it can be deprived to people based on the fact that they wish to marry someone of the same gender. That's not an activist viewpoint in my mind, it's completely consistent with a reasonable understanding of the function of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

the definition of marriage is 1 man 1 woman. your sense of morality shouldn't play here.



It certainly runs afoul of certain moral choices that might be made by the majority of society, but I'm not sure that the majority should be able to enforce its moral will upon all of society. That a court sees a prohibition on same-sex marriages as contrary to the equal protection clause is not, in my mind, an act of activism; it's precisely the sort of thing that judges are called upon to do regularly as a function of engaging in judicial review of statutory law (where such law actually exists). [/quote]

that's activism IMO. the definition of marriage has been determined by the voters. Should marriages be more than 2 people? Why do we outlaw polygamy?



Is your argument that judges simply shouldn't review matters that are deeply moral in nature? Is it that where things are deeply moral in nature, that judges shouldn't give an earnest reading to the controlling constitutional language and should, instead, keep the majority viewpoint in mind and rule accordingly?

forget majority viewpoint, stick to the written law.


Is it that courts should just uphold any law that is challenged if the challenge would seem to have a moral component?
judges shouldn't based their decisions on the morality, but on legality. For instance, I think Porn Shops are Immoral, but you will protect them because they are legal. If I were a judge I bet you I could make a very compelling argument to outlaw porn shops based on morality.



I honestly don't see how you're arguing against activism if you condition what judges should or shouldn't do -- or how judges should or shouldn't rule -- on the relative moral questions raised by particular legal issues. is it legal judge?




Frankly, if moral support for a particular position like same-sex marriage is so strong, there should be no problem seeking and obtaining a constitutional amendment that would forever foreclose the legal questions raised in that regard. some states have adopted laws, but have been overuled by activist judges.



You've obviously completely misunderstood just about everything I've written in this thread. I haven't, but am trying to change your perspective.



I've never denied that activism exists; I've insisted that it exists on both sides of the political spectrum. I've also said that I think it is folly to think that one side is somehow on higher ground when it comes to this issue. The fact that you think that one side does hold the higher ground strikes me as nothing more than regurgiation of popular conservative rhetoric.ama

you argued it doesn't exist, but then you argued it does. I'm sort of following, but it is contradictory. nevertheless, I'll leave it at this. I do not want judges making moral decisions. I rather Obama persuade voters and influence ammendments, which should be easy with a democratic congress, and pass new law instead of appointing supreme court justices who will create their own laws usurping the power of the voter.

[FromWayDowntown]

this will be the end of it from my side because we're beating a dead horse to death.

Nothing like making a number of assertions and then promising to just end the discussion by assuring yourself the last word.


we're respectfully (most of the time) discussing the issue for clarity. Never assumed you were quarreling. However, it was important to my argument to understand who you were talking about, me or conservatives in general. Having it directed at me is nothing personal, but would have made me argue a different point.

I haven't directed anything at you, other than my sense that you choose to create strawmen through assumptions about my arguments and impose those assumptions (erroneous as they are) upon me. With that, I think the judicial activism argument from any quarter is nonsense.


are you arguing there is a consensus opinion on judicial review? Can the judiciary overstep here?

Do you dispute that all judges in the country engage in judicial review, which is not a textually-supported function of the judiciary?


the voters have given the answer to same sex marriage.

Sure, in the sense that they've supported initiatives concerning that matter in some states or elected representatives who've passed laws to that effect. My point, however, is to ask if you think that popularly-passed laws are essentially insulated from constitutional challenge because they are popularly-passed?


there is no such law that I'm aware of.

Not that long ago, there were. And but for the determination of the Supreme Court of the United States that such laws were unconstitutional, those laws might still exist. Activism?


I do not want to live under the rule of judges (unelected kings). I prefer representative democracy.

Laudable and undoubtedly a widely-shared view (including my own). But I also don't think that the existence of a political majority on an issue (moral or otherwise) should be able to trump constitutional guarantees; otherwise, the majority is insanely powerful and the minority is trampled all over. I think judicial review is an essential component of assuring that the beliefs of the majority do not impinge upon the rights of the minority. And in that process, it is sometimes necessary for the judiciary to declare challenged acts of the voters to be unconstitutional. That is true for everything other than a constitutional amendment.

With the same-sex marriage issue, states that have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage have done away with state-law challenges to such bans -- it's difficult to argue that a constitutional amendment is violative of the constitution in which it is found. It would be possible, of course, to argue that such constitutional provisions violate the federal Constitution; and I would expect to see some rather heated litigation over the issue at some point in the not too distant future. If a state constitutional provision offers less protection than the federal constitution affords, that provision can certainly be deemed unconstitutional. And in the large number of states that have statutes prohibiting same-sex marriage (Arizona, Wyoming, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Florida, North Carolina, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Vermont, Washington) the existence of a law would leave open the possibility for attacks on both state and federal constitutional grounds. I guess with all of that, my question is whether a judge who strikes down the law is a judicial activist if his or her conclusion is one that is based on a fair interpretation of the constitution? It would seem to me that you're just quarreling with the outcome if the judge strikes down the law and using this amorphous notion of activism as the basis for that dispute.

None of this begins to contemplate even the simplest questions of federalism.


the definition of marriage is 1 man 1 woman. your sense of morality shouldn't play here.

According to whom?


that's activism IMO. the definition of marriage has been determined by the voters. Should marriages be more than 2 people? Why do we outlaw polygamy?

But, curiously, the definition of marriage isn't a matter that voters of every state have agreed upon -- indeed, in at least 2 states, there are laws permitting same-sex unions. Are those voters legally wrong? If so, why?

I understand the slippery-slope argument concerning other forms of marriage, but there are perfectly reasonable arguments to suggest that equal protection contemplates marriage between two people who aren't currently married. That's a very different question, to me, than the basic question of the 14th Amendment's scope when it comes to fundamental rights.


forget majority viewpoint, stick to the written law.

But if the written law violates the constitution, should the fact that the majority supports that law justify its continued enforcement?


judges shouldn't based their decisions on the morality, but on legality. For instance, I think Porn Shops are Immoral, but you will protect them because they are legal. If I were a judge I bet you I could make a very compelling argument to outlaw porn shops based on morality.

There you go again with suggesting that you know anything about my own political views.

I'll note, however, that given your definitions of judicial activism, you'd be a judicial activist if you made that argument.


is it legal judge?

Legal determinations have moral consequences. Some of those consequences are popular with the majority, others aren't. My point is that if the law compels a result that is unpopular with those who are in the moral majority (not the Moral Majority), the complaint shouldn't be with the judge who realizes that -- it should be with those who drafted the law or the lack of a more binding law (constitutional amendment) to preclude the activity.


some states have adopted laws, but have been overuled by activist judges.

So, again, an adopted law can never be deemed unconstitutional without that result being the product of judicial activism?


I haven't, but am trying to change your perspective.

Good luck with that, given the arguments you've offered here.


you argued it doesn't exist, but then you argued it does. I'm sort of following, but it is contradictory.

I've never argued that it doesn't exist. I've argued that much of what is claimed to be judicial activism isn't that at all, unless judicial activism is just a euphamism for "I didn't like the result." Honestly, I think that's much of what this debate is. But I also think there are legitimate examples of activism on both sides, and I don't think I've ever disputed that.

Nothing contradictory about those statements.


nevertheless, I'll leave it at this. I do not want judges making moral decisions. I rather Obama persuade voters and influence ammendments, which should be easy with a democratic congress, and pass new law instead of appointing supreme court justices who will create their own laws usurping the power of the voter.

Are you aware of the fundamental difference between constitutional amendment and statutory law and the stunning gulf between the effect of one and the effect of the other?

I would argue, too, that even if Obama could convince a Congress to pass laws that were insanely popular but which violated the Constitution, the role of the judiciary would be to strike down those laws. I would also differ with your characterization that any judge who strikes down a popular law on constitutional grounds is either creating his or her own law or usurping the power of the voter. I would argue that such judges are performing their judicial functions by assessing the constitutionality of laws in light of the Constitution itself and that a refusal to strike down laws that violate the Constitution would be the very sort of heinous activism that you lament.

[2centsworth]

Not true in either sense; and hardly unconstitutional. The offender is told, when granted deferred adjudication that one term of that punishment (and it is a punishment) is the assurance that conviction for failing to comply with the program -- and the programs have pretty basic obligations -- will result in revocation of the d.a. and enforcement of the sentence that should have been imposed. The ball is totally in the offender's court at that point -- do what you've obligated yourself to do and you'll stay out of jail and have the charge deleted from your record after a reasonable time for compliance; get busted doing something you're not supposed to do and you'll go to jail.

it's not deleted.




I'm not sure why that would be an unconstitutional "punishment" since it gives the offender nearly-complete autonomy to decide whether he or she will go to jail. Likewise, the fact that the offender was given deferred adjudication never comes up again unless he or she gets into trouble again, and then it is admissible only for the sake of assessing punishment, which necessarily means the offender has been convicted of committing a crime and is, in a very real sense, a recidivist.
Penal Code, a dismissal and discharge under this section may not be deemed a conviction for the purposes of disqualifications or disabilities imposed by law for conviction of an offense. For any defendant who receives a dismissal and discharge under this section:

DA stays on your record and is considered a conviction most times.


On top of that, a judge who refuses to grant deferred adjudication would be violating an act of the Texas Legislature and would, in a very real sense, be the sort of activist judge that should be decried.

what is unconsitutional is they grant DA with the promise of expunction, and then they never ever expunge the case. On the contrary, it stays on your record and is considered a conviction by most public entities when it comes to licensing and employment.

Think of me as a "liberal" for understanding.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I'm trying to find the posts from the 2cents regarding bush's contradictios over the last 8yrs. We all know he is objective and holds republicans to those same standards.... Can anyone help me find those posts? I am having a hard time locating anything related to this post about republicans..


Wait I just thought of something.. If there aren't any would that make him a hypocrite? Oh well I'll keep looking.

What does Bush being a fuckup have to do with Obama and his cult needing to address the above facts?

Typical liberal bullshit. Change the topic or say 'hey, look at what so and so did'.

That's not a valid answer to the above questions.