Pat Robertson: Federal judges are worse than Al-Qaeda - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

CShine · 05-02-2005, 07:53 AM

God, I love nutjobs. Why didn't I vote for this guy fer Prez?

Quote:

Federal judges are a more serious threat to America than Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorists, the Rev. Pat Robertson claimed yesterday.

"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," Robertson said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

"I think we have controlled Al Qaeda," the 700 Club host said, but warned of "erosion at home" and said judges were creating a "tyranny of oligarchy."

Confronted by Stephanopoulos on his claims that an out-of-control liberal judiciary is the worst threat America has faced in 400 years - worse than Nazi Germany, Japan and the Civil War - Robertson didn't back down.

"Yes, I really believe that," he said. "I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together."

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-261517c.html

guy44 · 05-02-2005, 08:09 AM

Imagine if this was a game of Family Feud, and the question was, "What is something that is destroying the fabric that holds our nation together?" As a contestant, you had to guess the top five responses from the general public.

Would judges be up there? No, of course not. Because that would be one hell of a fucking stupid answer.

Which tells you an awful lot about Pat Robertson.

Charlatan · 05-02-2005, 09:05 AM

I can totally see where he is coming from... I don't agree with him in the slightest but that isn't surprising.

What people like Robertson can't stand is that the law is not always on their side. The US is a secular nation by choice and the law generally protects those rights.

kutulu · 05-02-2005, 09:11 AM

This doesn't surprise me one bit. These fundies are a bunch of crazy people.

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-02-2005, 09:15 AM

What people like Robertson can't stand is how the judicary is legislating from the bench, which in a sense is true. Every major social change of the last 30 years has come as a result of the judiciary, not the people, and even that pisses me off.

guy44 · 05-02-2005, 09:18 AM

That simply isn't true. Roe v. Wade, sure, that was from the Supreme Court. But what other major social change?

And, by the way, if our government is too damn slow to desegregate our schools, I'll welcome a Brown v. Board any time.

raveneye · 05-02-2005, 09:24 AM

My guess is that Tom DeLay basically agrees with him.

The Republican party, at least in the eyes of the voters, is becoming more and more the party of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Over 60% of Americans think the religious right has too much influence in government. I think that's increasingly bad news for Republicans and good news for everyone else.

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-02-2005, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

That simply isn't true. Roe v. Wade, sure, that was from the Supreme Court. But what other major social change?

And, by the way, if our government is too damn slow to desegregate our schools, I'll welcome a Brown v. Board any time.

I'm not saying I feel one way or another, but homosexual marriage for one. Also the role religion plays in public, I would seem to think all the "separation of church and state" talk that has floated around in recent years is another prime example of where Robertson is coming from.

*edited so as not to thread jack

guy44 · 05-02-2005, 09:55 AM

No offense mojo, but if you want to talk about Pat Robertson and the seperation of church and state, you better be careful where you step. Because there are landmines:

Quote:

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Robertson — who founded the Christian Coalition — also said he would be wary of appointing Muslims to top positions in the U.S. government, including judgeships.

His comments on Islam drew a heated response from Muslim leaders, who criticized them as racist and inaccurate.

...

Robertson, who launched a brief presidential bid in 1988, said that if he were president he would not appoint Muslims to serve in his Cabinet and that he was not in favor of Muslims serving as judges.

"They have said in the Koran there's a war against all the infidels," he said. "Do you want somebody like that sitting as a judge? I wouldn't."

Yeah, Pat's a real mensch.

Manx · 05-02-2005, 10:00 AM

I don't agree that the judiciary is a threat.

But I do agree that Al Qaeda is not.

So, I'll suggest that Pat Robertson is more of a threat to the U.S. than Al Qaeda.

samcol · 05-02-2005, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

I don't agree that the judiciary is a threat.

But I do agree that Al Qaeda is not.

So, I'll suggest that Pat Robertson is more of a threat to the U.S. than Al Qaeda.

I agree with you completely.

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-02-2005, 10:34 AM

Yes Freedom of speech is a threat.

samcol · 05-02-2005, 10:41 AM

......................................

oops please delte this post

Ilow · 05-02-2005, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

I don't agree that the judiciary is a threat.

But I do agree that Al Qaeda is not.

So, I'll suggest that Pat Robertson is more of a threat to the U.S. than Al Qaeda.

LOL, couldn't have said it better myself. Having been onto his campus on a few occasions for research (suprisingly Regent's law library seemed pretty good, at least for a bachelor student) you really get the feeling that things are a little bit different in "Robertsonworld" than reality.

roachboy · 05-02-2005, 01:00 PM

i note that the accusation that judges "legislate from the bench" is a particularly non-referential one, seeming to require no proof of any kind. apparently, in this particular case, repetition is in itself an index of validity. which shows the type of nice work in raising the standard of debate being carried out by the cadres on the right.

as for robertson, well...what is there really to say about him?
i look at pat robertson as being an almost perfect embodiment of the extreme right in its protestant evangelical form.
but i find it a bit unnerving that anyone, anywhere, takes him seriously.
what a tool.

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-02-2005, 01:35 PM

i note that the accusation that judges don't "legislate from the bench" is a particularly non-referential one, seeming to require no proof of any kind. apparently, in this particular case, repetition is in itself an index of validity. which shows the type of nice work in raising the standard of debate being carried out by the cadres on the left.

filtherton · 05-02-2005, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

i note that the accusation that judges don't "legislate from the bench" is a particularly non-referential one, seeming to require no proof of any kind. apparently, in this particular case, repetition is in itself an index of validity. which shows the type of nice work in raising the standard of debate being carried out by the cadres on the left.

Judges interpret the law. They don't create the law. The idea that judges are somehow creating laws is foolhardy. Name me one law that was created by the judiciary. Repeating the tired old "judges are legislating from the bench" mantra is silly - it has no basis in fact.

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-02-2005, 02:06 PM

So abortion was legislated by the congress at the behest of the people? Also please show me where the FF and their original intent protect things such as abortion or gay marriage, those have both been issues legislated by the bench. The whole doctrine of separation of church and state is created by the judiciary, it has zero mention in any of the founding documents or the constitution, yet it is worshipped as gospel by liberals and their policy hawks behind the bench. Hell the whole "right to privacy" notion didn't come about until 100 years after the founding of our country, no where is it mentioned in the constitution, however in Griswold v. Conn. all the court needed do was state that it was "implied". You are a few hamburgers short of a value meal if you don't think the judiciary can and doesn't legislate from the bench, and I'm not even limiting it to pissed off conservatives.

Coppertop · 05-02-2005, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

Imagine if this was a game of Family Feud, and the question was, "What is something that is destroying the fabric that holds our nation together?" As a contestant, you had to guess the top five responses from the general public.

Would judges be up there? No, of course not. Because that would be one hell of a fucking stupid answer.

Which tells you an awful lot about Pat Robertson.

Bumped for truth.

roachboy · 05-02-2005, 02:35 PM

mojo:

some questions for you:

just for the record, are you really the strict constructionist that you appear to be when you write about legal questions?
would you mind please laying out the basis for this position--why you hold it, not the basis for the position as such.
are you studying law or studying to study law? (no need to answer this one if it seems to directly personal--i ask because you are qucik to cite cases but once you start developing your line on them, your reasoning becomes--to me at least--unclear in terms of what holds the steps together. i assume this follows from differing frames of reference on these questions)

like filtherton--hell, like most folk who work outside the strict constuctionist framework--what the courts did in the case of roe v wade was interpretation in light of existing precedent and constitutional standards--that you might not like the outcome does not make it other than it is.

to link things at another level, this why i asked about your general position first rather than move straight into this particular possible debate: the semantic debate about what constitutes interpretation and what legislation and where the boundary lay seems to me fruitless insofar as it would be simply a way to draw lines based on positions not outlined. so maybe this way, starting with the general position, would be easier.

RAGEAngel9 · 05-02-2005, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

So abortion was legislated by the congress at the behest of the people? Also please show me where the FF and their original intent protect things such as abortion or gay marriage, those have both been issues legislated by the bench. The whole doctrine of separation of church and state is created by the judiciary, it has zero mention in any of the founding documents or the constitution, yet it is worshipped as gospel by liberals and their policy hawks behind the bench. Hell the whole "right to privacy" notion didn't come about until 100 years after the founding of our country, no where is it mentioned in the constitution, however in Griswold v. Conn. all the court needed do was state that it was "implied". You are a few hamburgers short of a value meal if you don't think the judiciary can and doesn't legislate from the bench, and I'm not even limiting it to pissed off conservatives.

Well, isn't "Church and State" based off of letters (or treaties or something, I forget right now) when Jefferson was POTUS? I'd say that's a pretty good basis for it (not inalienable(sp??), but still solid). As for privacy in general, I'd say that it is heavily implied into the founding of our country.
I will agree that at times the judiciary can seem to go over bounds, but I see the current cries of "judicial activism" as nothign but BS political posturing and whining.

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-02-2005, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

mojo:

some questions for you:

just for the record, are you really the strict constructionist that you appear to be when you write about legal questions?
would you mind please laying out the basis for this position--why you hold it, not the basis for the position as such.
are you studying law or studying to study law? (no need to answer this one if it seems to directly personal--i ask because you are qucik to cite cases but once you start developing your line on them, your reasoning becomes--to me at least--unclear in terms of what holds the steps together. i assume this follows from differing frames of reference on these questions)

like filtherton--hell, like most folk who work outside the strict constuctionist framework--what the courts did in the case of roe v wade was interpretation in light of existing precedent and constitutional standards--that you might not like the outcome does not make it other than it is.

to link things at another level, this why i asked about your general position first rather than move straight into this particular possible debate: the semantic debate about what constitutes interpretation and what legislation and where the boundary lay seems to me fruitless insofar as it would be simply a way to draw lines based on positions not outlined. so maybe this way, starting with the general position, would be easier.

In the way I understand the definition of constructionist RB, I would probably have to say that yes I am one. As for why I hold the position, I couldn't really tell you, I contend that the law is open to interpretation, as such I would obviously try and use it to my favor in debate over legal questions. Right now in school I am a Poli Sci major and experimenting with a law enforcement minor, we'll see how it all pans out. At this point in time, ideally I would like to get a graduate degree in Poli Sci, then law school, we'll see if reality allows any of that.

RAgeAngel19:
Thomas Jefferson did write a letter to the Danbury baptists with mention of separation. However it is contended he did such as a means of quoting a famous Baptist preacher from the 17th century Roger Williams who was the first to mention separation, but only in the sense that it was one sided, this was due to rememberence of the Anglican Church in England as being established as the state religion. The Danbury baptists wrote the original letter to congress in fear of having heard rumours that the gov. was going to establish a national religion. The idea wasn't freedom from religion, it was reasonably freedom of Religion.

As for the Treaty of Tripoli which might have some bearing into this, the original treaty's 11th article did state that the country was in no way founded as a christian nation. There are however different things to factor in, the treaty was sent to muslim pirates from early Libya, the Arabic version is said to not have even had the 11th article in it, and after going back to war with the pirates and redrafting the second treaty the 11th article had been dropped and re-signed without it.

Superbelt · 05-02-2005, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

So abortion was legislated by the congress at the behest of the people? Also please show me where the FF and their original intent protect things such as abortion or gay marriage, those have both been issues legislated by the bench. The whole doctrine of separation of church and state is created by the judiciary, it has zero mention in any of the founding documents or the constitution, yet it is worshipped as gospel by liberals and their policy hawks behind the bench. Hell the whole "right to privacy" notion didn't come about until 100 years after the founding of our country, no where is it mentioned in the constitution, however in Griswold v. Conn. all the court needed do was state that it was "implied". You are a few hamburgers short of a value meal if you don't think the judiciary can and doesn't legislate from the bench, and I'm not even limiting it to pissed off conservatives.

These issues are not being legislated from the bench. They are being interpreted from the bench. There are no constitutional level laws that forbid abortion, thus we must allow it. There are no constitutional level laws that forbid gay marriage, thus, one day we will have to allow it. (Equal protection clause)

The Supreme Court of the United States decided that states could regulate abortions only in certain circumstances but otherwise women did have a right to privacy and reproductive autonomy.
The Supreme Court based their decision on the most clear and simple wording that our first legislative body, the continental congress, has ever written. The right to self autonomy, the protection of life, and the pursuit of happiness.
The SC based their decision on what our highest laws of the time said. If the anti-abortion crowd doesn't like it they have to redefine "life" to include a zygote from conception. A zygote is not specifically excluded, but it is not included either. The SC was required to interpret the laws as best they could and they DID.
There is as of yet no constitutional law that can challenge the constitutional interpretationof Roe V. Wade.
You anti-abortionists have to get legislators elected who will get this written into the constitution.

Stop the complaining that the Bench is legislating, especially in this case, because it was not. It is interpreting and that is their right and duty.

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-02-2005, 06:31 PM

Well Superbelt that is a pretty interesting way to make your point, the main reason being there is only one law at the constitutional level, and that is treason. Everything in the constitution pertains to delegation of powers or affirmation of rights. So going from there it is bullshit to say that just because there is or isn't an amendment to the constitution laws should/shouldn't be allowed, amendments in the constitution have been struck down has unconstitutional, they are not binding anymore then a state law except for jurisdiction.

Superbelt · 05-02-2005, 06:53 PM

Then try to strike it down.
Don't expect us to lie down and take it though

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-02-2005, 06:57 PM

I guess that "we" don't have to strike down anything merely uphold what has been voted in by the congress at the behest of the people who elect their representives as was intended by the constitution. Your team can continue to piss gasoline on the fire though, just means more victories for us down the line.

Superbelt · 05-02-2005, 07:15 PM

Right, let's uphold life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That was, as said, voted on by the Original congress.

I seriously doubt "Red Team" comes out with more victories this time around. They are pretty clearly mirroring "Blue Team" from the late 80's

roachboy · 05-03-2005, 04:18 AM

thanks for the explanation, mojo.
am pressed for time, so will only ask one question at this point:

how do you use the notion of strict construction as you understand it to sort out this distinction you seem to find to be important between interpretation and "legislation from the bench"? it seems to me that about the only logical and methodological point of strict construction is the setting-up of this kind of distinction, but i have to say that i do not understand how the distinction itself actually gets set up: which legal trends are understood as "legislation from the bench" and which are not? what grounds are used to justify this distinction?

pan6467 · 05-03-2005, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Well Superbelt that is a pretty interesting way to make your point, the main reason being there is only one law at the constitutional level, and that is treason. Everything in the constitution pertains to delegation of powers or affirmation of rights. So going from there it is bullshit to say that just because there is or isn't an amendment to the constitution laws should/shouldn't be allowed, amendments in the constitution have been struck down has unconstitutional, they are not binding anymore then a state law except for jurisdiction.

Maybe I am misreading this but when has the Supreme Court EVER struck down an amendment? They can't. That's why they are AMENDMENTS.

Again, this is a pathetic display of the right trying to take focus off an administration extremely corrupt and with no true plans to get out of a war that is going to bite us in the ass.

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-03-2005, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

thanks for the explanation, mojo.
am pressed for time, so will only ask one question at this point:

how do you use the notion of strict construction as you understand it to sort out this distinction you seem to find to be important between interpretation and "legislation from the bench"? it seems to me that about the only logical and methodological point of strict construction is the setting-up of this kind of distinction, but i have to say that i do not understand how the distinction itself actually gets set up: which legal trends are understood as "legislation from the bench" and which are not? what grounds are used to justify this distinction?

Let's see if I'm understanding this. I can really only answer this personally too, here goes. The distinction I make between interpretation and legislation tows the party lines. A prime example is Gay marriage. Democrats or the left have no political authority, they have power, but they can't do anything with it; as it stands they are the loser of two pres. elections, don't have control over either house of congress, and states are more red as far as governors go. It is not a stretch to say that homosexual marriage has become a party platform for the democrats these days, since they have no authority to legislate it properly through the congress, as well as by the will of the people (I'm talking marriage here, unions are different), they are only allowed one option to achieve their agenda, the courts. So we get the case in Mass., I'm not a scholar on the state constitution, but somehow the court found that the 1780 document drafted by John Adams allowed it. Now to me that sounds a little suspect, I honestly think that anyone who thinks original intent of the founding father included right to marriage of homosexuals is a few fries short of a happy meal.

Another legit argument in the favor of homosexual marriage is the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause. Again personally I'm not sold on it, this is due to the fact that the amendments states

Quote:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

This part to me leaves it open to interpretation. What constitutes due process of law? I guess it would come to the matter if legislation of congress is considered party to the due process of law. Chances are it is talking about the courts and system of justice, who knows. I am done rambling.

Also Pan, the 18th amendment, prohibition, was repealed by the 21st amendment. So you are right, I misspoke when I said amendments had been struck down, my bad.

dksuddeth · 05-03-2005, 09:02 AM

Mojo, what i'm seeing you say is that the consitution will be redefined every so often, depending on which party has the most power at any given time, is that right?

also, the 14th amendment has to be interpreted with its intent at the time. The 14th was written so that the southern states could not make seperate laws regarding blacks after the civil war.

uncle_el · 05-03-2005, 09:15 AM

wow, the thread's gone way off topic. in any event, i watched "this week" this past sunday, and the pat robertson segment was simultaneously hilarious and thought provoking. he pretty much said all non-judeo-christian religion following/believing people should not be judges. not because they can't understand the law, but because they're coming from a different faith base, and thus have different values. he stated that all muslims want to kill all non muslims - saying that in the koran that you are either with allah or against allah...

stephonopolous also asked him about his predictions earlier in the year, as robertson stated earlier in the year that God told him that bush would pass social security reform.

when stephonopolous asked him about God's involvement with the tsunami versus God's role in politics in the u.s., robertson also stated that God doesn't control nor stop natural disasters (he stated that tectonic plates in the area shifted, and God doesn't control that). robertson did, however, state that God is involved in politics because plenty of people are praying, and it's important to Him.

i'm a christian, but i totally disagree with robertson and think he's far off his rocker.

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-03-2005, 09:16 AM

I'm not saying it's contigent on the party in power, in this case I would hold that it is being redefined by the party that isn't in power, it's the only means that they can currently achieve their agenda.

And I also disagree with your assesment that the 14th has to interpreted with it's intent at the time; I think that is narrow and doesn't really coincide with the reality that society and norms change, also the fact that the constitution was drawn up (for better or worse) to evolve with the times. Original intent only can go so far, you think the FF who drafted this every dreamt of dealing with issues such as abortion or gay marriage?

uncle_el · 05-03-2005, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

I'm not saying it's contigent on the party in power, in this case I would hold that it is being redefined by the party that isn't in power, it's the only means that they can currently achieve their agenda.

And I also disagree with your assesment that the 14th has to interpreted with it's intent at the time; I think that is narrow and doesn't really coincide with the reality that society and norms change, also the fact that the constitution was drawn up (for better or worse) to evolve with the times. Original intent only can go so far, you think the FF who drafted this every dreamt of dealing with issues such as abortion or gay marriage?

i think there are plenty of things the founding fathers didn't envision, such as all african-americans being free regardless of where they were born or women being able to vote.

we can't simply say that the ff didn't envision it, and there's no mention of it, thus it shouldn't exist or be legal. that sounds a bit short sighted and ridiculous.

maximusveritas · 05-03-2005, 11:20 AM

I found it interesting that he said he would never vote for John McCain under any circumstances.
What's that all about?
I had always assumed McCain was the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2008, but if Robertson and the other nutjobs are serious about opposing him, things could get interesting.

dksuddeth · 05-03-2005, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

I found it interesting that he said he would never vote for John McCain under any circumstances.
What's that all about?
I had always assumed McCain was the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2008, but if Robertson and the other nutjobs are serious about opposing him, things could get interesting.

the religious right will only vote for those that have the desire to promote their religious agenda first and foremost. If they don't have that candidate, the religious right will just not vote.......handing the election to democrats.

pan6467 · 05-03-2005, 12:30 PM

I love the argument that the Supreme Court upholds gay marriage. It doesn't. I love how the Right is trying to use this so as to grab religious zealots (not meant in a bad way only word I can think of), prejudice people and blind followers to support them.

First, The Supreme Court has NOT ruled on any gay marriage I know of. What they have done as far as I am aware is uphold the RIGHT OF A STATE'S supreme court to make a judgement. Gay marriage is nothing more than a smokescreen by the Right to move people over to them so that they can gain power in other ways.

The Right has Congress and the Presidency..... where exactly are these "anti-abortion laws, anti-gay marriage laws, anti- whatever liberal law" they promised to deliver?????

Ah yes..... there aren't any really getting through is there? They are saber rattling and blaming the Supreme Court but not truly acting on promises ........ Where is that nationwide amendment they swore in '04 banning gay marriage?????

Wake up blind follwers, followers of morals laws and religious people...... a few years ago your voice Rush Limbaugh kept talking how we couldn't make laws on morals and yet now that is exactly what you are being told the Supreme Court must do.

Wake up you true conservatives, the neo cons are riding you up your ass without K-Y and telling you they love you as the plunge deeper. All the while they are telling you the Supreme Court is too liberal and taking rights away...... using this as an example... meanwhile the truth is the Supreme Court did nothing but UPHOLD A STATE'S RIGHT. I thought true conservatism was less federal government...... why are you supporting more government especially in places it doesn't belong (the bedroom).

I'm sure one of you true conservatives can explain to me the reasoning for your support of more government as long as it isn't from Democrats

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-03-2005, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I love the argument that the Supreme Court upholds gay marriage. It doesn't. I love how the Right is trying to use this so as to grab religious zealots (not meant in a bad way only word I can think of), prejudice people and blind followers to support them.

First, The Supreme Court has NOT ruled on any gay marriage I know of. What they have done as far as I am aware is uphold the RIGHT OF A STATE'S supreme court to make a judgement. Gay marriage is nothing more than a smokescreen by the Right to move people over to them so that they can gain power in other ways.

The Right has Congress and the Presidency..... where exactly are these "anti-abortion laws, anti-gay marriage laws, anti- whatever liberal law" they promised to deliver?????

Ah yes..... there aren't any really getting through is there? They are saber rattling and blaming the Supreme Court but not truly acting on promises ........ Where is that nationwide amendment they swore in '04 banning gay marriage?????

Well first and foremost the congress has passed a few abortions bills. One such one was the death of a fetus in a federal crime was amounted to murder, which the liberals were kicking and screaming about. Then they delivered on the partial birth abortion ban, that took a day to get ruled illegal by a low court.

As for the amendment surrounding gay marriage, the republicans tried to pass the law, it didn't have the support to pass the congress, the system worked.

The whole amendment thing is a preemptive strike. Right now we have DOMA in effect, but it won't last for ever. The Supreme Court will eventually have to hear a case regarding gay marriage, if an amendment were in place it would negate any ruling that would go against DOMA which in one decision could be thrown out the window.

Quote:

I'm sure one of you true conservatives can explain to me the reasoning for your support of more government as long as it isn't from Democrats

Namely democrats suck, to me personally they embody a black hole of reason and responsibility. I don't see how an amendment would be more government, it would merely restrict the courts ability to rule on it at a national level, which would take away the states rights as they are afforded through DOMA.

prb · 05-03-2005, 02:34 PM

Pat is always a hoot.

I remember when he was running for president and claimed that he had turned a hurricane away from his home state of North Caolina by his prayers -- I guess to try to collect some home state votes in the primary. The only problem was that the hurricane swung north and hit New York -- a state with more electoral votes than North Carolina.

Fundies are funny.

maximusveritas · 05-03-2005, 04:07 PM

what's funnier is that he said in this very interview that God didn't stop the Asian tsunami because He can't change the laws of nature. But somehow God managed to swing a hurricane northward because Robertson prayed for it.
Oh well, God works in mysterious ways I guess.

05-02-2005, 08:09 AM	#2 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Imagine if this was a game of Family Feud, and the question was, "What is something that is destroying the fabric that holds our nation together?" As a contestant, you had to guess the top five responses from the general public. Would judges be up there? No, of course not. Because that would be one hell of a fucking stupid answer. Which tells you an awful lot about Pat Robertson. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

05-02-2005, 09:05 AM	#3 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I can totally see where he is coming from... I don't agree with him in the slightest but that isn't surprising. What people like Robertson can't stand is that the law is not always on their side. The US is a secular nation by choice and the law generally protects those rights. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

05-02-2005, 09:18 AM	#6 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	That simply isn't true. Roe v. Wade, sure, that was from the Supreme Court. But what other major social change? And, by the way, if our government is too damn slow to desegregate our schools, I'll welcome a Brown v. Board any time. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

05-02-2005, 01:00 PM	#15 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i note that the accusation that judges "legislate from the bench" is a particularly non-referential one, seeming to require no proof of any kind. apparently, in this particular case, repetition is in itself an index of validity. which shows the type of nice work in raising the standard of debate being carried out by the cadres on the right. as for robertson, well...what is there really to say about him? i look at pat robertson as being an almost perfect embodiment of the extreme right in its protestant evangelical form. but i find it a bit unnerving that anyone, anywhere, takes him seriously. what a tool. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 05-02-2005 at 01:02 PM..

05-02-2005, 02:06 PM	#18 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	So abortion was legislated by the congress at the behest of the people? Also please show me where the FF and their original intent protect things such as abortion or gay marriage, those have both been issues legislated by the bench. The whole doctrine of separation of church and state is created by the judiciary, it has zero mention in any of the founding documents or the constitution, yet it is worshipped as gospel by liberals and their policy hawks behind the bench. Hell the whole "right to privacy" notion didn't come about until 100 years after the founding of our country, no where is it mentioned in the constitution, however in Griswold v. Conn. all the court needed do was state that it was "implied". You are a few hamburgers short of a value meal if you don't think the judiciary can and doesn't legislate from the bench, and I'm not even limiting it to pissed off conservatives. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 05-02-2005 at 02:11 PM..

05-02-2005, 09:11 AM	#4 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	This doesn't surprise me one bit. These fundies are a bunch of crazy people.

05-02-2005, 09:15 AM	#5 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	What people like Robertson can't stand is how the judicary is legislating from the bench, which in a sense is true. Every major social change of the last 30 years has come as a result of the judiciary, not the people, and even that pisses me off.

05-02-2005, 09:24 AM	#7 (permalink)
raveneye Born Against	My guess is that Tom DeLay basically agrees with him. The Republican party, at least in the eyes of the voters, is becoming more and more the party of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Over 60% of Americans think the religious right has too much influence in government. I think that's increasingly bad news for Republicans and good news for everyone else.

05-02-2005, 10:00 AM	#10 (permalink)
Manx Loser	I don't agree that the judiciary is a threat. But I do agree that Al Qaeda is not. So, I'll suggest that Pat Robertson is more of a threat to the U.S. than Al Qaeda.

05-02-2005, 10:34 AM	#12 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Yes Freedom of speech is a threat.

05-02-2005, 10:41 AM	#13 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	...................................... oops please delte this post

05-02-2005, 01:35 PM	#16 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	i note that the accusation that judges don't "legislate from the bench" is a particularly non-referential one, seeming to require no proof of any kind. apparently, in this particular case, repetition is in itself an index of validity. which shows the type of nice work in raising the standard of debate being carried out by the cadres on the left.

05-02-2005, 02:35 PM	#20 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	mojo: some questions for you: just for the record, are you really the strict constructionist that you appear to be when you write about legal questions? would you mind please laying out the basis for this position--why you hold it, not the basis for the position as such. are you studying law or studying to study law? (no need to answer this one if it seems to directly personal--i ask because you are qucik to cite cases but once you start developing your line on them, your reasoning becomes--to me at least--unclear in terms of what holds the steps together. i assume this follows from differing frames of reference on these questions) like filtherton--hell, like most folk who work outside the strict constuctionist framework--what the courts did in the case of roe v wade was interpretation in light of existing precedent and constitutional standards--that you might not like the outcome does not make it other than it is. to link things at another level, this why i asked about your general position first rather than move straight into this particular possible debate: the semantic debate about what constitutes interpretation and what legislation and where the boundary lay seems to me fruitless insofar as it would be simply a way to draw lines based on positions not outlined. so maybe this way, starting with the general position, would be easier. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-02-2005, 06:31 PM	#24 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Well Superbelt that is a pretty interesting way to make your point, the main reason being there is only one law at the constitutional level, and that is treason. Everything in the constitution pertains to delegation of powers or affirmation of rights. So going from there it is bullshit to say that just because there is or isn't an amendment to the constitution laws should/shouldn't be allowed, amendments in the constitution have been struck down has unconstitutional, they are not binding anymore then a state law except for jurisdiction.

05-02-2005, 06:53 PM	#25 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Then try to strike it down. Don't expect us to lie down and take it though

05-02-2005, 06:57 PM	#26 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I guess that "we" don't have to strike down anything merely uphold what has been voted in by the congress at the behest of the people who elect their representives as was intended by the constitution. Your team can continue to piss gasoline on the fire though, just means more victories for us down the line.

05-02-2005, 07:15 PM	#27 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Right, let's uphold life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That was, as said, voted on by the Original congress. I seriously doubt "Red Team" comes out with more victories this time around. They are pretty clearly mirroring "Blue Team" from the late 80's

05-03-2005, 04:18 AM	#28 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	thanks for the explanation, mojo. am pressed for time, so will only ask one question at this point: how do you use the notion of strict construction as you understand it to sort out this distinction you seem to find to be important between interpretation and "legislation from the bench"? it seems to me that about the only logical and methodological point of strict construction is the setting-up of this kind of distinction, but i have to say that i do not understand how the distinction itself actually gets set up: which legal trends are understood as "legislation from the bench" and which are not? what grounds are used to justify this distinction? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-03-2005, 09:02 AM	#31 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	Mojo, what i'm seeing you say is that the consitution will be redefined every so often, depending on which party has the most power at any given time, is that right? also, the 14th amendment has to be interpreted with its intent at the time. The 14th was written so that the southern states could not make seperate laws regarding blacks after the civil war. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

05-03-2005, 09:15 AM	#32 (permalink)
uncle_el Crazy Location: n hollywood, ca	wow, the thread's gone way off topic. in any event, i watched "this week" this past sunday, and the pat robertson segment was simultaneously hilarious and thought provoking. he pretty much said all non-judeo-christian religion following/believing people should not be judges. not because they can't understand the law, but because they're coming from a different faith base, and thus have different values. he stated that all muslims want to kill all non muslims - saying that in the koran that you are either with allah or against allah... stephonopolous also asked him about his predictions earlier in the year, as robertson stated earlier in the year that God told him that bush would pass social security reform. when stephonopolous asked him about God's involvement with the tsunami versus God's role in politics in the u.s., robertson also stated that God doesn't control nor stop natural disasters (he stated that tectonic plates in the area shifted, and God doesn't control that). robertson did, however, state that God is involved in politics because plenty of people are praying, and it's important to Him. i'm a christian, but i totally disagree with robertson and think he's far off his rocker. __________________ An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of inprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law. - Martin Luther King, Jr. The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses. - Malcolm X

05-03-2005, 09:16 AM	#33 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I'm not saying it's contigent on the party in power, in this case I would hold that it is being redefined by the party that isn't in power, it's the only means that they can currently achieve their agenda. And I also disagree with your assesment that the 14th has to interpreted with it's intent at the time; I think that is narrow and doesn't really coincide with the reality that society and norms change, also the fact that the constitution was drawn up (for better or worse) to evolve with the times. Original intent only can go so far, you think the FF who drafted this every dreamt of dealing with issues such as abortion or gay marriage?

05-03-2005, 11:20 AM	#35 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	I found it interesting that he said he would never vote for John McCain under any circumstances. What's that all about? I had always assumed McCain was the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2008, but if Robertson and the other nutjobs are serious about opposing him, things could get interesting.

05-03-2005, 12:30 PM	#37 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I love the argument that the Supreme Court upholds gay marriage. It doesn't. I love how the Right is trying to use this so as to grab religious zealots (not meant in a bad way only word I can think of), prejudice people and blind followers to support them. First, The Supreme Court has NOT ruled on any gay marriage I know of. What they have done as far as I am aware is uphold the RIGHT OF A STATE'S supreme court to make a judgement. Gay marriage is nothing more than a smokescreen by the Right to move people over to them so that they can gain power in other ways. The Right has Congress and the Presidency..... where exactly are these "anti-abortion laws, anti-gay marriage laws, anti- whatever liberal law" they promised to deliver????? Ah yes..... there aren't any really getting through is there? They are saber rattling and blaming the Supreme Court but not truly acting on promises ........ Where is that nationwide amendment they swore in '04 banning gay marriage????? Wake up blind follwers, followers of morals laws and religious people...... a few years ago your voice Rush Limbaugh kept talking how we couldn't make laws on morals and yet now that is exactly what you are being told the Supreme Court must do. Wake up you true conservatives, the neo cons are riding you up your ass without K-Y and telling you they love you as the plunge deeper. All the while they are telling you the Supreme Court is too liberal and taking rights away...... using this as an example... meanwhile the truth is the Supreme Court did nothing but UPHOLD A STATE'S RIGHT. I thought true conservatism was less federal government...... why are you supporting more government especially in places it doesn't belong (the bedroom). I'm sure one of you true conservatives can explain to me the reasoning for your support of more government as long as it isn't from Democrats __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

05-03-2005, 02:34 PM	#39 (permalink)
prb Psycho	Pat is always a hoot. I remember when he was running for president and claimed that he had turned a hurricane away from his home state of North Caolina by his prayers -- I guess to try to collect some home state votes in the primary. The only problem was that the hurricane swung north and hit New York -- a state with more electoral votes than North Carolina. Fundies are funny.

05-03-2005, 04:07 PM	#40 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	what's funnier is that he said in this very interview that God didn't stop the Asian tsunami because He can't change the laws of nature. But somehow God managed to swing a hurricane northward because Robertson prayed for it. Oh well, God works in mysterious ways I guess.