pan6467

Why were the bills that were passed ruled illegal in lower court? And with the reasoning in mind, why not pass laws that will not be ruled illegal?

Personally, as much as I loathe abortion, I would rather have it legal than watch it being done by hacks in back alleys. Abortions have and will always be done, we cannot legalize it. What we can do is make it legal with education. Counsel the woman and offer her choices, introduce via tapes women who have had abortions and regretted it. Education will work far far better than just throwing a blanket law over the problem and saying it is immoral.



I see, Dems suck so you will blindly follow the GOP. Even if it means they pass more harsher laws and are just as invasive (if not more so on some issues) against states rights?

I truly don't understand this "conservative" ideology that is being bandied about by the GOP. They use a couple issues and promises yet the "Neo-Cons" control your party and true conservativism and the Barry Goldwater (who at one time was considered the leader of conservativism) are simply ignored. Such as less federal involvement, a more cost conscious government with less red tape.... and so on.

The GOP long ago sold its soul to the Religious Right in order to gain power and in doing so has made promises that goes against Barry Goldwater's conservativism.

What you have now is the very wealthy and the religious right dictating how they want the government. I'm not saying the Dems of 20-30 years ago were not in the same boat with the radical left, but the Dem Party is changing with the times and more and more Dems are socially liberal and fiscally conservative..... which believe it or not the vast majority of people are. The problem is POWER, the religious right uses fear, the rich use the old cliches of how taxes burden them down, and the Neo-Cons use voices like Limbaugh to discredit the Dems.

But it's all a penduulum and in the 60's and 70's the punduulum swung very left..... the 80's it swung towards the center and now it has swung very right and is trying to start to swing back to center. But the Religious Right and the Neo Cons voices are trying very hard to drive fear into the mix and keep the penuulum from moving..... it may slow it down a bit.

And it is funny how Justices O' Connor and Rehnquist were considered "perfectly conservative" not more than 20 years ago by the GOP and religious right and now those 2 are considered almost too liberal. I don't think their ideologies changed or that they became ultra liberal.... I think it proves the GOP has gone too far right.

What's even more telling is only 2,TWO, were named by a Dem president.... Ginsberg and Breyer. The rest were all placed by true conservative presidents.... so maybe instead of crying about how liberal the court is you should look to see how far right your party has become.

__________________
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?"

Superbelt

Also, 7 of the 11 US Circuit Court of Appeals have majorities appointed by republican presidents.
How are you complaning of a judiciary dominated by Nixon/Ford, Reagan, and Bush(s) appointees?

kutulu

Wow, that is perfect. It sums up all of the whining of the right these days.

Mojo_PeiPei

How are you asserting that the breakdown even works like that, that it even matters? It takes one judge or any two judges from a 3-panel from a lower court to uphold or strike down any law as unconstitutional, it really just matters what case ends up in front of which people.

Mojo_PeiPei

I find this last paragraph LAUGHABLE to the highest degree, you are asserting that the DEMOCRATS are the ones riding with the will of the people?! I suppose this accounts for the two presidential elections, a majority of governers seats, and the fact that the republicans have actually picked up more seats in the congress in the last two elections. People are not "socially liberal" as you would assume or like, that's why sadly the righteous right has had such a successful movement. Most people don't like a lot of the "hardcore" shit some dems, the ones with the most clout it seems (Kennedy, Feinstein, Boxer), stand for and the direction they are moving. Look at Clinton, she is becoming more centerist, because it's the only viable way to win the presidency, if she ran on her true platform of convictions she would lose in a landslide election.

I'll admit that nothing lasts forever, and I more or less agree with your assesment of the pendulum, I just think you may be briefly over stating it's current position, I guess we will know fore sure come 2006.

And for the record, I don't blindly follow the GOP, do you blindly follow the DFL? I put my weight behind the party I feel better represents me and that can do so effectively.

pan6467

I think your using Mrs. Clinton as an example, pretty much proves my point of the Left changing with the times and becoming more centrist and therefore matching the beliefs of the majority of the US.

And yes, while you won the election, I can pretty much guarantee a Dem Governor in Ohio because Taft and Bush are destroying the party here.

I think by '06 the GOP will have shown how much power the Religious Right wields and the GOP may still hold offices but will be weakened and primed for losing in '08.

I truly believe the vast majority of people are far more socially liberal than the elections show. Again, I submit, the problem is the Dem. party is weak because of the penduulum swing and reforming to match the desires of the people. The GOP still uses the old "tax and spend label" to win, which as deficits increase and scandals come forward with the GOP it will show the truth. Another problem the Dems have is competing with the Rush's and the Right Winged banner carriers, however, they have hit their peaks and looking at numbers starting to lose their audience.

I also submit that the more the Religious Right whackos talk the more people will realize how much change is needed.

I just firmly believe the penduulum right now is primed to swing back, provided it is allowed to naturally follow it's due course. There are factors right now that could influence that, such as the strength of the Dem party, they have to find people appealing to the voters that can drive the voters out, the GOP shutting the Religious Right up, another 9/11 (which allowed the right to hold the penduulum that much longer).

I firmly believe the numbers showed had the Dems had a more potent and charismatic candidate they would have won, Kerry just didn't have it, but I think the leaders of the party can come up with a little something.

As far as Boxer, Feinstein and Kennedy being the leaders, they are elders and we may respect some of their ideology but, the Baraks (sp), Clintons (WHO WERE NOT AS LEFT AS THE GOP would have people believe....if anything they were too centrist and the Dems. at the time were willing to try to sacrifice them to hold onto their power.... it backfired), the Deans, and so on are becoming the voice.

How long do you think reports such as the biggest expense GM has is it's healthcare before reform is demanded and the Left has already claimed that issue. The Right has shown they are too much in that industry's corner.

What's the Right's solution? To destroy the pensions and retirement programs the boomers are going into and allowing healthcare industries free reign to keep rising costs? That issue will be HUGE in '06 and will hurt the GOP to no end.

But back to the threads purpose, you still have not given reason why with 7 of 9 Supreme Justices placed by true Goldwater Conservatives, you believe them to be too liberal, when less than 20 years ago some conservatives thought Thomas, Soutter and Kennedy were too conservative. Seems to me, the only one the Right truly still likes is Scalia and he is in the pocket of Cheney, and 30 years ago Stevens was supposed to be the perfect torch bearer for the GOP on the bench and now he is too liberal???????

Seems to me your party needs to look at what it's true values and platforms are. The penduulum is swinging back my friend.

__________________
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?"

Mojo_PeiPei

I never said the issue was with the Supreme court, if I did I apologize, not what I was trying to say. The SCOTUS has tried their damndest to stay out of many of these high profile cases read: the pledge of allegiance, when they dismissed it on a technicality, or various other cases they refuse to hear such as commandments or Schiavo. The problem it would seem lies in the lower courts.

pan6467

As Super pointed out though, the GOP controls 7 of 11 lower courts and YOU STILL cry they are too liberal. When 15 and 20 years ago your own party felt Reagan/Bush were becoming too conservative in their appointees.

Mojo, I understand what you are saying about the Supreme Court and I respect that, but it is the topic of the thread so I segued into it, I didn't mean you personally, I meant your political party.

The Schiavo judge that everyone persecuted was a conservative Baptist who was thrown out of his church and has had death threats against him.

Is this truly indicative of where you want your party to be?

I know I shudder to think of members of my party supporting those people who threw paint on people's fur coats and resorted to anti-social behavior to prove political points for their own self interests. Just as the Dems did at the height of their power, so do the GOP at the height of theirs. That's when the penduulum corrects itself.

And you know what...... because of both sides going so far and to extremes 20 years from now our country will be in a better place (hopefully, providing we learn from the recent mistakes) and if we have learnt, we'll probably be far more fiscally conservative and socially liberal than we are today. That is how the history of the US has gone so far socially..... fiscally is another story, though.

__________________
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?"

Mojo_PeiPei

I guess the only way to solve this would to be to go over every court decision and seperate them by affiliation/appointment, and see if "liberal" judges uphold or strike down more laws at greater rates. I would guess this would be highly impratical as far as actually being able to find that type of information.

guy44

Nope, mojo, you can find this info. It's out there. I'm not exactly sure where, but one of my colleagues is doing a study of just that. If I'm able to discover where her sources are, I'll post it.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

raveneye

As far as federal judges are concerned, if they are so liberal then why did the GOP this year transfer class action lawsuits from the state to federal courts? The sponsors apparently believe that federal judges will be more sympathetic to business interests and less sympathetic to consumer activists.

And that's no surprise, since Republicans have controlled the White House for 24 of the last 36 years, and most of the federal judiciary was nominated by Republican presidents.

If we define "judicial activism" in operational terms, namely any attempt to stack the courts with justices who appear to match your political ideology, then it seems clear that Republicans have been much more successful in this pursuit than Democrats.

Here are the pertinent stats:

--Ninety-four of the 162 active judges now on the U.S. Court of Appeals were chosen by Republican presidents.

--On 10 of the 13 circuit courts, Republican appointees have a clear majority.

--Since 1976, at least seven of the nine seats on the U.S. Supreme Court have been filled by Republican appointees.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._judges18.html


Here are the circuit courts:

http://www.independentjudiciary.com/