why does Rusha hate me?

[Ktoyou]

I think your posts are different as well
and
don't you wonder why anyone feels the need to change their avatar?

First, you are the only one who sees a difference in my posts; second, few people care at all about the avatar change and more like it than dislike it. Why not just let it go and concentrate on the content of my posts?

Look at my post on 'topic of the day', you will notice my same complex analysis, or do you think I hired a lawyer to write it?:chew:

 

[Ktoyou]

Glad you read it! Let there be peace!

 

[Frank Ernest]

I'm sure you can tell the difference between the Bush judges and the Clinton/Obama ones

Once a judge is appointed, it doesn't matter who appointed. However, I do recall from history the attempt by FDR to expand the size of the Supreme Court in order to further his socialist agenda. If FDR had succeeded, SCOTUS would be approximately the size of Congress by now. :chuckle:

 

[chrysostom]

Once a judge is appointed, it doesn't matter who appointed. However, I do recall from history the attempt by FDR to expand the size of the Supreme Court in order to further his socialist agenda. If FDR had succeeded, SCOTUS would be approximately the size of Congress by now. :chuckle:

it looks like you are avoiding the question

 

[Frank Ernest]

it looks like you are avoiding the question

I am dismissing the question as irrelevant.

There is no court ruling anywhere that says, "By the way, I was appointed by (fill in the blank)." Matters not. There is still a confirmation process by the Senate. Appointed by does not necessarily guarantee partisan purity. Confirmation does not necessarily guarantee partisan purity.

In the courts, I do not want partisan purity, I want justice applied according to law. If that doesn't happen, there are legal remedies such as impeachment. Our founders established based on the resolve of "We the People." If "We the People" do not have the resolve to keep the system clean, we deserve what we get.

 

[bybee]

Agreed

Agreed

I am dismissing the question as irrelevant.

There is no court ruling anywhere that says, "By the way, I was appointed by (fill in the blank)." Matters not. There is still a confirmation process by the Senate. Appointed by does not necessarily guarantee partisan purity. Confirmation does not necessarily guarantee partisan purity.

In the courts, I do not want partisan purity, I want justice applied according to law. If that doesn't happen, there are legal remedies such as impeachment. Our founders established based on the resolve of "We the People." If "We the People" do not have the resolve to keep the system clean, we deserve what we get.

I agree.
bybee

 

[chrysostom]

I agree.
bybee

so you can't tell the difference between the Bush judges and the Clinton/Obama ones?

 

[bybee]

Pay Attention!

Pay Attention!

so you can't tell the difference between the Bush judges and the Clinton/Obama ones?

I agree that if "We the People" don't take the initiative to pay attention to what is going on and if we are not willing to make changes then we deserve what we get!!!
Answer your own question. Can you tell the difference?
bybee

 

[WizardofOz]

In the courts, I do not want partisan purity, I want justice applied according to law.

:thumb:

As we all should......

 

[CabinetMaker]

Nobody said it would, but it would certainly make someone think before acting.

Depends on how one compiles the stats, as we discover. By your implied reasoning here, should we decide to legalize murder, we would have fewer murders. Legally that would be true, but, as a practical matter, no.

Criminalizing an act is a trivial matter of no particular social effect? I'm sure the people in prison and those sitting on death row would be interested to know that.

I agree and legal sanctions will help to do that. If one wishes to "change people's hearts", one must first get their attention.

And what is this "much greater problem?" Seems to be you're trying to morph the problem into some kind of benign aberration suitable for the next Oprah show.

Lofty pontification which renders the problem unsolvable. Seems that your "solution" is to just let it happen and cry about the general state of humanity.

I agree that abortion should be illegal. I also think it should be obvious at this point that there is not the congressional support to outlaw abortion. The democrats flat out support it so they will do nothing to end it. The Republicans don't dare do anything to end because they fear losing the votes of the Christian right. Secretly, I think most republicans, in their heart of hearts, support abortion rights.

Jo Scott and her husband have done more to stop abortion then Washington will ever do. If you want to stop abortion then quit thinking Washington will ever do anything to stop it and get out and start doing something about it!

 

[chrysostom]

I agree that if "We the People" don't take the initiative to pay attention to what is going on and if we are not willing to make changes then we deserve what we get!!!
Answer your own question. Can you tell the difference?
bybee

yes I can tell the difference
and
there is a big difference
so
I am amazed at those who suggest there isn't

now can you tell me if you see the difference?

 

[CabinetMaker]

yes I can tell the difference
and
there is a big difference
so
I am amazed at those who suggest there isn't

now can you tell me if you see the difference?

See if you can. Go to this page http://www.ontheissues.org/court/court.htm and follow the links. It is very interesting.

 

[chrysostom]

do you know what partial birth abortion is?
and
do you know how the Supreme Court ruled on it?
and
how each judge voted?

this is how you learn

 

[CabinetMaker]

do you know what partial birth abortion is?

Yes, it is an abortion. It is the most horrific form of abortion but all abortions accomplish the same end.

and
do you know how the Supreme Court ruled on it?
and
how each judge voted?

this is how you learn

Did you follow the link? Did you notice that several of the republican appointed justices consider a woman's right to choose as settled law and see no reason to change it?

 

[chrysostom]

Did you notice that several of the republican appointed justices consider a woman's right to choose as settled law and see no reason to change it?

then why did they vote to keep the ban on partial birth abortion?

 

[chrysostom]

it was a Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal
and
it will be a Supreme Court decision that makes it illegal
now
do you know how to get the right judges on the court?

 

[CabinetMaker]

it was a Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal
and
it will be a Supreme Court decision that makes it illegal
now
do you know how to get the right judges on the court?

How long after the court makes abortion illegal will it be before it reverses itself yet again and makes abortion legal once again?

What we really need is a constitutional amendment that says life begins at... Once that is defined by amendment, it doesn't matter what the court makeup is, they are charged with upholding the constitution and will be forced to support it.

 

[CabinetMaker]

then why did they vote to keep the ban on partial birth abortion?

Even within the realm of abortion supports, a great many people saw partial birth as nothing short of infanticide. There is some good news mixed in with the bad.

 

[chrysostom]

How long after the court makes abortion illegal will it be before it reverses itself yet again and makes abortion legal once again?

What we really need is a constitutional amendment that says life begins at... Once that is defined by amendment, it doesn't matter what the court makeup is, they are charged with upholding the constitution and will be forced to support it.

do you know what it takes to change the constitution?

 

[CabinetMaker]

do you know what it takes to change the constitution?

So, since its to much work you want to just drop it? That is kind of sad. Aren't you glad that the suffragettes didn't think that fighting for your right to vote republican felt it was to much effort and just quit?