1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

What do Democrat socialists really want in a judicial appointee?

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Little-Acorn, Jul 12, 2009.

  1. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Some people say they want "tolerance". Others say they want "sympathy for the downtrodden". In the last few decades, belief in an ironclad right to have an abortion, has been high on liberals' radar screens for judicial appointees.

    These and several other things have been emphasized by liberals and other socialists in picking judicial nominees. But none is really "the" quality they want in a court judge.

    All of these qualities do have something in common, though. And that points to what the liberals really want in a nominee or judge.

    Q: What do they have in common?
    A: None of those qualities are mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the document that gives the Federal government all its powers (and restricts it to ONLY those powers).

    That may seem like a trivial coincidence. But in fact, it gets to the heart of what the liberals want. In fact, it points to the most basic issue in all of politics, and the fundamental conflict between liberals and conservatives.

    The most basic purpose of the Constitution, was to RESTRICT the Federal government's powers. It created the Fed govt in is present form, and assigns each branch the powers it can exercise. And the assumption was made that, if it didn't assign a certain power, then the Fed govt was forbidden to have that power. That assumption was later "cast in stone" by the 10th amendment.

    Conservatives are fine with that arrangement, and believe it is a vital characteristic that keeps government out of the way of the citizens except for the few things government MUST do.

    Liberals profoundly disagree, and feel that the more govt does to "help" people, the better off the people will be. They ignore the second half of the quote from Jefferson: "That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves."

    Liberals want the U.S. to become a country where the government does more and more for people. But the Constitution expressly forbids such expansion of government authority unless a long amendment process is followed. And since the job of Federal judges is to make sure laws conform to the Constitution, conservatives want judges who will do that, while liberals and other socialists want judges who will try to get around that requirement, and permit the expansion of government the Constitution was designed to prevent.

    To put it another way, conservatives see the Constitution as a framework for small government and a set of restrictions that forbid going outside that framework. Leftists also see the Constitution as a framework for small government... but one that is an obstacle to be gotten around. And the liberals dearly want judges who will also see it as a nuisance, an obstacle to be defeated.

    How do they know which judges will do that? If a judge has previously ruled in favor of the qualities mentioned above (extra support for minorities, abortion etc.), then it is clear that that judge does not believe in the strict rules laid out in the Constitution to prevent them. And this is the kind of "judge" the socialist Democrats want on the bench - one who will rule in favor of their attempts to expand government beyond the bounds laid out in the Constitution.

    When liberals favor judges who permit abortion, it's not because they like abortions (although undoubtedly some of them may). And when they favor judges who support racist policies like reverse discrimination, it's not because they oppose white people (although some of them may). It's because those judges are more likely to favor the MANY sretches and outright violations of the Constitution, the liberals need to convert this country to the big-government Nanny State they desire.

    Abortions are not the ultimate goal, official boosting of minorities is not the ultimate goal, harm to big business is not the ultimate goal, though the liberals favor all those things as they come up. The ultimate goal is the same one socialists all ove the world have had for centiries: To create a society where government takes care of people, and people serve the government instead of serving themselves.

    Finding judges who support abortion or reverse discrimination etc., is merely one step in that long process. But it's a vital step, since Federal judges are in a position to defeat the liberal socialists' ultimate goal. If they believe the Constitution is a document that should be followed instead of evaded, then the liberals are uninterested in supporting them. But if a judge believes more in his personal idyllic vision of a government-controlled society, the liberals will fight hard to get him on the bench.

    Our liberal socialists want judges who will permit their attempts to expand government in ways the Constitution was designed to prevent. Judges who have supported abortion or reverse discrimination, are merely examples of suuch people - good indicators that they might be permissive of unconstitutional legislation in general.
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. Bob the Builder

    Bob the Builder New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    307
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What do they want?? Somebody who will crap on the Constitution, and wipe their butts with the Bill of Rights!
     
  3. samsara15

    samsara15 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Moonbase 2B
    That's the kind of people Bush appointed.
     
  4. Bob the Builder

    Bob the Builder New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    307
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh really? And would you care to name ONE opinion from the Supreme Court where either Chief Justice Roberts or Associate Justice Alito rendered a decision (whether in the majority, or the dissenting minority) that was in any way unconstitutional?

    I can name several decisions by the liberals on the bench that were BLATANTLY unconstitutional, and that's not counting the MANY blatantly unconstitutional decisions rendered by Sotomayor!
     
  5. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Quite simply.....someone who's qualified....unlike Lil' Dumbya's AG.​

    oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.....quite the creds, for the Country's Chief Law-Officer, huh?

    :rolleyes:
     
  6. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We can always depend on you "conservatives" to show your kinky-side.

    :rolleyes:
     
  7. Bob the Builder

    Bob the Builder New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    307
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hey Shaman, I just recently discovered that you're a Canadian, which begs the question, why do you care about our politics?
     
  8. asur

    asur New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Easy, they want a RACIST that supports racist policies in favor of blacks and latinos.
    They do not want a color blind appointee.

    My batting average on this forum is 100%
    Next question please :)
     
  9. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    They want people who will stretch or even ignore Constitutional restrictions on what laws can be passed.

    People who have supported Affirmative Action, or who have supported Federal bans on abortion, or who have supported Federal "gun control" laws etc., have established track records for stretching or ignoring those restrictions.

    They are what our socialist liberals want on the Courts. The higher the better.
     
  10. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Better stop payment on that check to your PI. Ya' been hustled....unless, of course, you-two consider Northern-Central PA a part of Canada.

    :rolleyes:
     
  11. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Pretty amazing at how adept you "conservatives" are, at reading-the-minds of Dems.

    :rolleyes:
     
  12. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Funniest part about these judicial appointees, is that the characteristics that conservatives say disqualify a candidate, liberals say are the most important things to qualify her!

    Conservs and liberals don't disagree on what most leftist judicial candidates are. They just disagree on whether it's good or not.
     
  13. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What's funnier, yet, is....as Republican-Senators were giving their opening 10-minute statements & trashing her, you could just FEEL them losing more-and-more Hispanic-support, for (any) up-coming elections.

    [​IMG]
     
  14. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Miguel Estrada ring any bells for you Shaman? Hispanic, compelling story, well qualified, yet brutally attacked by Democrats all the same.

    In fact many of the same people who trashed him are praising Sotomayor for the same qualities. Hypocritical?
     
  15. Bob the Builder

    Bob the Builder New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    307
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh, so you're just a Communist? It's so hard to tell the difference.
     
Loading...

Share This Page