Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
As I pointed out, the "variation" thing makes no sense. This is about people being too politically biased. What would have made more sense would have been showing that Clarence Thomas didn't vote consistently Republican on issues. I was describing him swinging away from conservatives, not from Scalia. That premise hadn't even been introduced to the thread yet.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
That's not relevant. When I called Thomas "swing" I was saying he was more likely to vote more liberal than Scalia and Alito, which is true. It had nothing to do with either a 6% difference between Scalia and Thomas or what you choose to call Scalia in pointing out he's the head of the conservatives. That's the last I'll speak of it because I'm repeating myself.
|
really, that's good because so far all you're doing is digging a deeper and deeper hole. Again, I asked you what you meant by swing, at
post #80 of which you finally answer at
post #91 but really not any real answer but yet another answer with wide enough berth and definition so that in your mind you can conveniently weasel out of in later posts when people refute again what you've posted.
It is actually relevant that you are making this stuff up because clearly you don't know what you're talking about. There are many posts here you've made wherein your statements DIRECTLY conflict a previous point you've made.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
We've already had lengthy discussions on TFP about what "conservative" means. When most people say "conservative" now they usually mean one of two things: traditional conservative (libertarian) or neo-conservative. Which are you using? Or are you using a third kind?
|
seriously more smoke and mirrors? are you seriously trying to state that when SCOTUS hands down a conservative decision you're wondering if it means "traditional conservative (libertarian) or neo-conservative." You really are talking out of your ass now. You have no freaking clue or idea of what you are speaking on.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
Edit: BTW, mea culpa about the checks and balances thing. I wasn't communicating what I was thinking correctly. It is proper checks and balances. I don't think two branches choosing the leadership of a different branch is a good idea, but it is checks and balances. If you'd like further clarification, I'll be glad to respond.
|
Yes, please respond. You've had plenty of opportunity as I have asked over and over and over and over to explain how and what you understand the separation of powers and the checks and balances to be. Yet I got crickets and have been asking and explaining the differences since your
post #13 But will, you didn't state you think it is a good idea, you stated it's stupid, sorry not strong enough, you stated it's FUCKING stupid in
post #15. In
post #20 you stated it was stupid to allow the exectuive and legistlative to choose the jucicial, this means you clearly understand what the framers meant and the actions happening. In
post #24 you stated that it's the opposite of checks and balances and that the 3 seperate branches need to remain seperate to stop a runaway branch.
There's a GLARING big difference between all your statements, sentences, and words you've used.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
Why, on god's green earth, do we allow a president, king of partisanship, to choose a judge to sit on the highest court in the land? It's (pardon my french) fucking stupid.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
I don't think two branches choosing the leadership of a different branch is a good idea, but it is checks and balances.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
They had no way of knowing the power political parties would hold in the future (thus the amendment process). Still, allowing one branch to choose the leadership in another branch flies in the face of checks and balances. They had to have known that.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
Stupid was allowing the executive and legislative to choose the judicial. The process by which members are appointed should be independent of one another, as they are with the executive and legislative. This makes impropriety more difficult.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
It's the opposite of checks and balances. They need to remain 3 separate branches in order to actually be functional in stopping a runaway branch. How can the judicial branch stop a runaway executive when they're picked by said executive? How can the judicial branch stop the legislative when they're okayed by the legislative?
They must be independent or they can't perform the functions necessary to balance.
|
So there's not a situation of "I wasn't communicating what I was thinking correctly" but actually you not knowing what the hell you are talking about. There's no shame in stating you don't know something, but please stop with the
intellectual dishonesty. It's embarassing even disheartening to see that someone who has some really good discussion and debate turn into this complete charade of smoke and mirrors, subject changing and feignt.
But hey, I'm still expecting to hear the ever so famous Willravel patented and trademarked, "We'll just have to agree to disagree."™
I'd like to be proven wrong.
EDIT: I just realized that by stating "They need to remain 3 separate branches in order to actually be functional in stopping a runaway branch." You do have NO IDEA how the seperation of power and the checks and balances work at all. Because no branch has ENOUGH power to be a runaway branch. No branch has any ability to usurp power to be a runaway branch. The framers were very careful in splitting up the powers as it grew out of the fear of tyranny.
So please do explain.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.