Do you think Hillary should keep the democrat race going?

reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
I loved the hillary line.
"I have a lifetime of experience, John McCain has a lifetime of experience. Obama gave a speech"
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by JDL
http:///forum/post/2598647
Every single President can be viewed as horrible. This isnt about dems vs. repulicans and what one President does doenst label a party. That type of thinking is what put the US in the mess it is in.
Just remember, congress is more to blame then any president. While President Bush didnt do the best job, congress voted for the war. Sure President Bush vetos everything good, but congress is the real horror because they pass everything bad.
Vote for the person that is going to make a difference, no matter if it is a man, a woman, white, black, yellow, red, green, republican, democrat, independant, 10000 years old, ....
I agree, except Congress gave authorization to go to War... they basically gave too much power to Bush. But I will say that they are guilty for voting for Bush policy... so in many ways the actions of the president does label the party.
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2598787
I hope Hillary stays in until Obama is so rattled he fills his shorts. McCain all the way. Gimmi some more of those Conservative judges

Judges should be "conservative" as in they should be reluctant to inflict themselves in the legislative process or trying to redefine the Constitution in light of modern times. Had the founders intended for the Constitution to change with the times by what some judge thinks is appropriate they wouldn't have felt the need to include the amendment proceedure. One need not be conservative to be a constructionis. A liberal can also take the position that the Constitution means what it says.
And for the record if Roe v Wade were reversed tomorrow abortions would not become illegal under federal law, it would once again be left up to the states to set policy.
I disagree, the law can be interpreted in many ways... I think the Judges should represent a balance... not all conservative and not all liberal... an imbalance would have a negative effect on policy in my opinion.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2599757
I disagree, the law can be interpreted in many ways...

Excuse me? What?
And a tree can be a flower based off of someone's interpretation then. Why have laws if they can be interpreted differently?
 
cowfishrule

cowfishrule

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2598517
She has no chance, unless she gets all the remaining superdelegates, which she won't. The remaining superdelegates need to end this one way or another...
She should have never ran in the first place.
besides that, why does only 1 party have superdelegates. If they have the power to choose somebody and end it, then why are they letting this dog-and-pony show go on? unless there are kickbacks to be earned during the final stretch....
just sayin.
 
jdl

jdl

Member
the best part about this entire campaign is when billary said she was under sniper fire.


and she said it more then once. How in the world do you get a story like that confused
 
jmick

jmick

Active Member
Originally Posted by COWFISHRULE
http:///forum/post/2599840
She should have never ran in the first place.
besides that, why does only 1 party have superdelegates. If they have the power to choose somebody and end it, then why are they letting this dog-and-pony show go on? unless there are kickbacks to be earned during the final stretch....
just sayin.

Republicans have uncommitted delegates and they are similar to Super delegates (the difference is that there are fewer uncommitted delegates and they don't have as much impact).
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2599835
Excuse me? What?
And a tree can be a flower based off of someone's interpretation then. Why have laws if they can be interpreted differently?
No that is not what I am saying... but there are things that come before the court that fall under the interpretation of the Judges, such as Shivo, Plessy vs Bd. of Edu, Roe vs Wade, and the thousands of other landmark cases that have a significant impact on our daily lives. These judges set the presedent to how law is interpreted in lower courts and for future cases. There jobs probably have the most signifcant impact on our daily lives IMO.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Depending on your view. It benefits Hillary for her to continue. She can't win, but if Obama is hit again with yet another big scandal, then she might get the super delegates. But, even if not, if she can disrupt things for as long as possible, trashing Obama, etc, under the guise of this campaign, then she is effectively working for McCain's campaign. And a win for McCain would place Hillary in a very good spot for the 2012 election.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2599757
I disagree, the law can be interpreted in many ways... I think the Judges should represent a balance... not all conservative and not all liberal... an imbalance would have a negative effect on policy in my opinion.

The trouble is a judges political pholosophy shouldn't enter into the decision period. Conservative tend to show more restraint that liberals when it comes to overturning laws and creating new precident.
Look at the 9th circus court. The most liberal, and most overturned court in the land.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2599757
I disagree, the law can be interpreted in many ways... I think the Judges should represent a balance... not all conservative and not all liberal... an imbalance would have a negative effect on policy in my opinion.
Rylan, once again your position shows a blatant disregard for the US Constitution.
Judges should have absolutely no effect on policy whatsoever. That is not, in any way, their Constitutional role. They are to interpret law based on the Constitution, nothing more.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by AquaKnight
http:///forum/post/2599334
And possibly electing someone with 2.5 years experience as a junior senator won't?

That is funny.
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2601885
Rylan, once again your position shows a blatant disregard for the US Constitution.
Judges should have absolutely no effect on policy whatsoever. That is not, in any way, their Constitutional role. They are to interpret law based on the Constitution, nothing more.
But suzy has already explained the constitution is an old outdated piece of paper, that is unimportant.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2604157
That is funny.
But suzy has already explained the constitution is an old outdated piece of paper, that is unimportant.

I wonder if Suzy knows how many died to bring that piece of paper into being.
I wonder if she knows how many died defending it.
I wonder if she knows it is likely the most important document in world history.
She and Michelle Obama apparently think alike.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2604712
I wonder if Suzy knows how many died to bring that piece of paper into being.
I wonder if she knows how many died defending it.
I wonder if she knows it is likely the most important document in world history.
She and Michelle Obama apparently think alike.
But america is bad because we are a bunch of evil white racists.
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2601885
Rylan, once again your position shows a blatant disregard for the US Constitution.
Judges should have absolutely no effect on policy whatsoever. That is not, in any way, their Constitutional role. They are to interpret law based on the Constitution, nothing more.
There are probably 5% of cases that they need to interpret law. And the Constitution is over 200 years old... there are certain things and amendments that need updated or changed based on interpretation, and judges do have an effect on policy, because many of their cases set precedents.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2604752
There are probably 5% of cases that they need to interpret law. And the Constitution is over 200 years old... there are certain things and amendments that need updated or changed based on interpretation, and judges do have an effect on policy, because many of their cases set precedents.
That simply isn't true, interpretation of law is the bulkload of cases. That is why that ruling being handed down about D.C.'s gun ban is quite interesting because it is a case without significant precedent.
"This may be one of the only cases in our lifetime when the Supreme Court is going to be interpreting the meaning of an important provision of the Constitution unencumbered by precedent,'' said Randy E. Barnett, a constitutional scholar at the Georgetown University Law Center. "And that's why there's so much discussion on the original meaning of the Second Amendment.''
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...502358_pf.html
Using simple logic that quote would imply that most court cases are simply an interpretation of law.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2604752
There are probably 5% of cases that they need to interpret law. And the Constitution is over 200 years old... there are certain things and amendments that need updated or changed based on interpretation, and judges do have an effect on policy, because many of their cases set precedents.

All their un overturned decisions (lower courts) set precedent. HOWEVER they are not supposed to make a decision that changes the meaning of the constitutuion. The Dred Scott case is an excellent example of what happens when a court tries to change or update the constitution based on what they "think" the founders would intend based on current circumstances. The court did the same thing with Roe v Wade. The notion that the right to privacy trumps the governments right to regulate an activity is not contained in the constitution nor is it applied to other medical proceedures. Both decisions were reached as a result of a political agenda, not legal reasoning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top