say what you want, but his kid knows how to get down...
The best dirt the lefties have on Roberts so far is that he wore plaid pants in the 1970's, and he once played the role of Peppermint Patty in a high school play, so therefore he must be gay.
I swear I am not making that up.
Gay groups are outraged at the suggestion they would wear plaid pants.
OK, I made that up.
I saw a post on the Democratic Underground that suggested his son, Jack, was gay as well.
Jack is 4 years old.
Then, you have the LA Times making fun of how they dressed for the News Conference.
Yeah, the Left is grasping on this one...
Wasn't there legislation to officially change the court's designation to the 9th Circus?
It's interesting to me that two of the most conservative federal judges sit on that court (Janice Rogers Brown and Alex Kozinski) and yet it gets roundly ridiculed. I guess until it's geneously-conservative . . . .
The Supreme Court affirmed more 9th circuit cases last term than 5th Circuit cases.
That means 8 cases heard by the 5th circuit merited an appeal before the supreme court. 19 cases from the 9th circuit merited an appeal to the supreme court. What does that tell you? It tells you that the 9th circuit is making judicial decisions that are out of line with the rest of the nation.The Supreme Court affirmed more 9th circuit cases last term than 5th Circuit cases.
Judges should not legislate from the bench, right or left. It's not their job.
Well, I was playing fast and loose with the numbers for effect . . . .
I don't think the 9th Circuit is as out-of-line as some think. The 9th Circuit is faced with a great number of issues (based on the geographical area that it covers and the interests that reside therein) that don't arise in other parts of the country. Given the issues of first impression, they are left to read the existing authority and come to conclusions in those cases. Frankly, if people took the time to read the cases (and didn't just rely on what the media hyperbolically says about the cases) they'd see that the court does expend a great deal of energy to square its conclusions with whatever precedent exists on the subject.
While you may not like it (or choose to disbelieve it) the 9th Circuit's ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance in Newdow was rooted in Supreme Court precedent that strongly suggests that mention of religion in the public schools is strictly forbidden by the Establishment Clause. The 9th Circuit construed that precedent and understood it to state a broad rule pertaining to any mention of religion, including the mention of God mandated by the federal statute that sets forth the Pledge. It's not as if the Court just woke up and decided, without any precedent whatsoever, that compelling a pledge of allegiance that invokes "God" should be uncons utional -- there is some authority to support its position. If you think the authority on that issue is wrong, the problem lies in the Supreme Court, not in the 9th Circuit.
remember circuit rullings only apply to that district so some other states don't have to obey untill it gets to suprmee court
So what's wrong with this guy other than him being a Bush nominee? Seriously, I could give a less if he told a bad joke 30 years ago. I've been around too long to believe the apocalypse is upon us if any judge, right or left, is nominated. What is wrong with the man? Why can't he do his job?
i think the guys pretty moderate as far as bush nominees would go
but its not a bad idea to study up on some anonchode
if i were to guess a conservative sc nom bush would name id guess naturally a middle aged rich white guy named-- i you not "john roberts"
its easy to say now, but that would have been at least my third guess
So he's rich and he's white. So are most elected Democratic officials.
I need something more.
something more to what?
love him without question
its another thread why most elected fed gov officials are old, rich, white and male
You know Jefferson wrote the main body of the Cons ution in a single sitting. In his first writing he out right said slavery should be abolished. So the rest of 'em didn't like it and made him go back and take it out. Anyway, I wish they would have spent a bit more time writing the Cons ution. One of the greatest do ents ever written but a few more weeks could have done wonders. I've come to believe it has some flaws that a bunch of creeps, those creeps being human beings, take advantage of. The framers of the Cons ution tried their best to deal with the human condition but that is a tall order. The spirit of the US Cons ution and the intent of the framers, has been dead for quite a while. I'd say starting around the mid-80's was when the assault began, full force, and it ramped up big time in the 90's and has now been relegated to nothing more than a museum piece.
Yeah, you got some really bad information there word. The Cons ution was debated and drafted in 1787. Jefferson was in Paris during most (if not all) of that year. I don't think Mr. Jefferson was participating from across the pond via fax, e-mail, or video conferencing.
Generally speaking, James Madison is known as the Father of the Cons ution, primarily because he kept detailed journals of the daily debates that took place in Philadelphia during the Cons utional Convention. Many suspect that Madison was the primary drafter of the do ent as well.
Thomas Jefferson wrote the entirety of the Declaration of Independence (which isn't a law-giving do ent, despite its primacy as a founding do ent), but had nothing to do with drafting the Cons ution -- the man didn't even sign the Cons ution.
I stand corrected. I was thinking about that tour in Philly .. None the less, I think the Cons ution has some flaws that will ultimately, kill us
Not what is IN the Cons ution or the BOR, but rather, what is lacking. The 'inalienable rights' is a quote of Jeffersons in the Declaration who's spirit seems to be being chipped away at in law.
Last edited by word; 07-23-2005 at 12:35 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
