Shooter, don't you find it ironic that a conservative like yourself is talking about "reaching across the aisle?" Why would he? Did Bush? Did Bush the First? Whether it's the left or right side of the aisle I always find it humorous that whoever is not in power believes the other side should reach across to them and then they turn it around when they are in power.

 

It's the way it's always been, why would it stop now. :ohbrother:

 

Why ask Obama to reach across the aisle? Because he said he would. Not that I believed him. He only wants to appear to be reaching across the aisle. Therefore, I'm advocating calling his bluff. Ask him to match his actions to his rhetoric. Of course he won't appoint a moderate justice. Then, when Obama asks for Republicans to reach across the aisle, which will be code for Republicans need to cave to his agenda, the Republcians can use this as one of many examples where Obama actions do not match his words.

Bush 41 certainly did "reach across the aisle" by appointing Souter. I won't argue with you about the rest. Obama won and he can appoint whatever left leaning, democracy destroying liberal he wants to. I was only answering your question about George Herbert Walker Bush. He definately appointed a more left leaning moderate.

 

Probably because George the First was a moderate himself. He never was the Conservative that Reagan was.

 

I've just always found it humurous in the Supreme Court debate that many from the GOP talk about needing more Conservative justices but the GOP Presidents actually appointed the majority of the Justices we have now.

Whomever Obama chooses will be heralded by the media as a "brilliant choice" and one of the truly thoughtful nominees in our history.

 

The nominee will be a wild-eyed liberal, probably a female of minority descent or background, and will be easily confirmed.

 

Obama's statements that a nominee should be empathetic indicates that either he is ignorant of the role of the supreme court or that he is aware but chooses to ignore it in order to further his "program". I believe it is the latter.

 

The statement of one of his underlings that the "haves" already have reprensentation on the supreme court and that it is time to have representation for those who put Obama in office is uninformed, ridiculous on its face, and dangerous. The legislative branch is for representation not the judicial branch.

 

Souter's resignation is only the first. Look for two more within a "proper" period of time.

Ginsberg and Stevens will follow.

 

Those who believe it is the purpose of the court to interpret and not to legislate better pray that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy remain healthy. If one of them goes during this administration, it will be open season on traditional Judeo-Christian values.

 

And, keep in mind that the Christians are the ones who decided the election. All the other groups went just as would be expected. You reap what you sow.

"I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives," Obama told reporters after speaking with Souter by telephone.

 

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-sns-ap-us-scotus-souter-retiring,0,3710828.story?track=rss

 

WOW! :scared: Not at all what I thought being a Supreme Court Justice was about.

"I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives," Obama told reporters after speaking with Souter by telephone.

 

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-sns-ap-us-scotus-souter-retiring,0,3710828.story?track=rss

 

WOW! :scared: Not at all what I thought being a Supreme Court Justice was about.

:lol: I still don't understand why people feel the need to bash the President. Some of the things that the President's statements are ridiculous enough on their own merit.

Whomever Obama chooses will be heralded by the media as a "brilliant choice" and one of the truly thoughtful nominees in our history.

 

The nominee will be a wild-eyed liberal, probably a female of minority descent or background, and will be easily confirmed.

 

Obama's statements that a nominee should be empathetic indicates that either he is ignorant of the role of the supreme court or that he is aware but chooses to ignore it in order to further his "program". I believe it is the latter.

 

The statement of one of his underlings that the "haves" already have reprensentation on the supreme court and that it is time to have representation for those who put Obama in office is uninformed, ridiculous on its face, and dangerous. The legislative branch is for representation not the judicial branch.

 

Souter's resignation is only the first. Look for two more within a "proper" period of time.

Ginsberg and Stevens will follow.

 

Those who believe it is the purpose of the court to interpret and not to legislate better pray that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy remain healthy. If one of them goes during this administration, it will be open season on traditional Judeo-Christian values.

 

And, keep in mind that the Christians are the ones who decided the election. All the other groups went just as would be expected. You reap what you sow.

 

Ok, I can understand why you would be unhappy with a wild eyed liberal as you call them but what problem would you have with a female of a minority descent or background? Are females with a minority descent a threat to Judeo-Christian values??:idunno:

Ok, I can understand why you would be unhappy with a wild eyed liberal as you call them but what problem would you have with a female of a minority descent or background? Are females with a minority descent a threat to Judeo-Christian values??:idunno:

 

Because to exclude someone because they are not a female of a minority descent or background is discriminatory.

Ok, I can understand why you would be unhappy with a wild eyed liberal as you call them but what problem would you have with a female of a minority descent or background? Are females with a minority descent a threat to Judeo-Christian values??:idunno:

 

Don't read your own interpretation into my words. I am making a prediction based upon the present climate. Whether one is a woman or a minority or both is of little consequence. The issue is the philosophy of that individual. I would be quite pleased with such a person if that person had traditional Judeo-Christian values. However, there is absolutely no chance that that is going to happen and all should be aware of it.

 

Minority women are not necessarily more of a danger to traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs than is anyone else per se. However, you can bet that his pick, even if I'm wrong about the race and/or gender (and I don't think that will be the case), will be a serious threat to those beliefs regardless of the initial waive of unending praise and expressions of awe that will, undoubtedly, follow the nomination.

 

By the way, I would love to be wrong. But, that won't be the case and I believe that nearly all of you posters know it.

Don't read your own interpretation into my words. I am making a prediction based upon the present climate. Whether one is a woman or a minority or both is of little consequence. The issue is the philosophy of that individual. I would be quite pleased with such a person if that person had traditional Judeo-Christian values. However, there is absolutely no chance that that is going to happen and all should be aware of it.

 

Minority women are not necessarily more of a danger to traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs than is anyone else per se. However, you can bet that his pick, even if I'm wrong about the race and/or gender (and I don't think that will be the case), will be a serious threat to those beliefs regardless of the initial waive of unending praise and expressions of awe that will, undoubtedly, follow the nomination.

 

By the way, I would love to be wrong. But, that won't be the case and I believe that nearly all of you posters know it.

 

Question: Which traditional Judeo-Christian values would you agree with? Would they be the Catholic, anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-unjustified war values? Would they be the gay-minister-allowing Episcopalian values? Would they be the values of the Southern Baptist Convention? The values of the Methodist Church? Pentecostal?

 

Simply....there are many variations of the "traditional" Judeo-Christian values label.

 

I believe you would like to see someone who isn't interpreting the Consitution, but applying the Constitution in their rulings. I'm not sure Judeo-Christian values are even a factor in that process.

Where is William O. Douglas when you need a good ole hardcore lefty to appoint?

Don't read your own interpretation into my words. I am making a prediction based upon the present climate. Whether one is a woman or a minority or both is of little consequence. The issue is the philosophy of that individual. I would be quite pleased with such a person if that person had traditional Judeo-Christian values. However, there is absolutely no chance that that is going to happen and all should be aware of it.

 

Minority women are not necessarily more of a danger to traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs than is anyone else per se. However, you can bet that his pick, even if I'm wrong about the race and/or gender (and I don't think that will be the case), will be a serious threat to those beliefs regardless of the initial waive of unending praise and expressions of awe that will, undoubtedly, follow the nomination.

 

By the way, I would love to be wrong. But, that won't be the case and I believe that nearly all of you posters know it.

 

I didn't I asked a question for you to clarify, which I'm still not sure you did. If philosophy is all that matters and race and gender are of little consequence why were they even listed in your description??

Race should NOT be a factor IMO. I fall into the "the Constitution is colorblind" camp.

Question: Which traditional Judeo-Christian values would you agree with? Would they be the Catholic, anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-unjustified war values? Would they be the gay-minister-allowing Episcopalian values? Would they be the values of the Southern Baptist Convention? The values of the Methodist Church? Pentecostal?

 

Simply....there are many variations of the "traditional" Judeo-Christian values label.

 

I believe you would like to see someone who isn't interpreting the Consitution, but applying the Constitution in their rulings. I'm not sure Judeo-Christian values are even a factor in that process.

 

Well, there are the traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and there are the what's-happening-now Judeo-Christian beliefs. I believe in the3 former.

 

Your last paragraph is confusing. Can I assume that you are not well versed in regard to the constitution?

I didn't I asked a question for you to clarify, which I'm still not sure you did. If philosophy is all that matters and race and gender are of little consequence why were they even listed in your description??

 

Race and gender are of little consequence in regard to the effect an appointment will have on future decisions. It is philosophy that counts. My statement was, as I have said, a prediction of what he will do.

 

From his birth, through his childhood, through his years of formal education, through his post-college experiences, and to the present, Obama has always been surrounded by and influenced by those with radical liberal beliefs. Why would anyone think that, with his history and his record in the last three months, he will act differently when choosing a justice? You can be sure that loading the US Supreme Court with liberals is at the top of his list.

Well, there are the traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and there are the what's-happening-now Judeo-Christian beliefs. I believe in the3 former.

 

Your last paragraph is confusing. Can I assume that you are not well versed in regard to the constitution?

 

 

You may assume I'm not a constitutional expert, but not that I'm not well versed in regard to the constitution. One of the key components of the constitution ensures the separation of church and state. Therefore, religious values of any particular influence should not enter into the application of constitutional rights.

 

I'm not sure how this could be confusing to you.