SCOTUS Will Overturn Obamacare...Bank On It !!

The Constitution was deliberately written so that anyone who was considered literate could understand it. But, to twist, distort, and subvert it. . . that requires "scholarship". Originally Posted by Iaintliein

You are correct sir!

No one is nominated to the Supreme Court on the basis of their scholarship or intelligence. They are nominated because the President wants them to vote a certain way. Lawrence Tribe should have been on the Court years ago, and is one of the greatest Constitutional scholars alive today. Even though he is a liberal, I would have appointed him. Robert Bork as well. He was hugely slandered to keep him off the Court. And the Republicans have made sure that Tribe will never get there. It would be great to see those two minds grappling with the issues today, but it won't happen, because they are smart enough to think independently, and might not be a reliable vote.

Instead we get these clowns who have no business on the Court, like Thomas, Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg etc. because they have a particular slant. None of them had a body of work to examine, so they were told how to vote before they were nominated.

Don't think the Court is a bastion of legal intelligence. It is now just as political as the other branches of government.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I agree that presidents from both parties do appoint supreme court judges partly because of their politics.

But if you look at the supreme court judges appointed by Republican presidents that turned out to be flaming liberals or moderates, you have to figure they weren't screened too tightly. Souter, O'Connor and Kennedy have not proven to be consistantly conservative in their rulings and were appointed by Bush and Reagan.

In 1953 president Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren as chief justice. His rulings were extremely left wing. Eisenhower said that his biggest regret in eight years in office was the appointment of Earl Warren.

I don't know of any justices appointed by a Democrat president that turned out to be conservatives.

I agree that presidents from both parties do appoint supreme court judges partly because of their politics.

But if you look at the supreme court judges appointed by Republican presidents that turned out to be flaming liberals or moderates, you have to figure they weren't screened too tightly. Souter, O'Connor and Kennedy have not proven to be consistantly conservative in their rulings and were appointed by Bush and Reagan.

In 1953 president Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren as chief justice. His rulings were extremely left wing. Eisenhower said that his biggest regret in eight years in office was the appointment of Earl Warren.

I don't know of any justices appointed by a Democrat president that turned out to be conservatives. Originally Posted by joe bloe

I think you may be confusing the terms, "Republican" and "Conservative". The "RINO" label that's come into vogue is everyday proven to be incorrect, the "RINOs" are typical of the Republican establishment. A better term would be "CINOs".

In my opinion, they have one more election in which to pull their collective head out (and they aren't doing it). After that the GOP will become the third party.

I think you may be confusing the terms, "Republican" and "Conservative". The "RINO" label that's come into vogue is everyday proven to be incorrect, the "RINOs" are typical of the Republican establishment. A better term would be "CINOs".

In my opinion, they have one more election in which to pull their collective head out (and they aren't doing it). After that the GOP will become the third party. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

I was speaking in relative terms. I agree that most Republican presidents are strictly speaking, moderates; they are conservatives only by comparison to the Democrats who are completely socialistic.

The problem with our political system is that the two parties don't provide a balance. We have a left wing party (the Democrats) and we have centrist moderate party (the Republicans). This allows the Democrats to constantly move the country further and further to the left. The Republicans only slow the progression to complete socialism.

one can only hope

instead of turning the country over to the corporations, the way Bush and his appointees have done Originally Posted by rockbass

The Democrats take far more money from Wall Street bankers than the Republicans.

John Corzine (Democrat) ,former senator and governor of New Jersey, as well as former CEO at Goldman Sachs, is about to be indicted for swindling six hundred million dollars from investors in the MF Global bankruptcy. He made most of his fortune doing IPO's that were borderline illegal. He used a technique called "laddering". Goldman Sachs would sell stock at deeply discounted rates to big brokerage firms so that when the stock went public in the IPO it skyrocked and creating a feeding frenzy.

Jeffrey Immelt is CEO at GE and is Obama's lap dog. GE makes billions and pays no taxes.

Both parties are compromised to some extent because of the corrupting influence of money; but to say that the corporations own the Republicans without acknowleging the Democrats shortcomings is not fair.

http://corporatefraud.tripod.com/democrookery/id2.html

Not only is it not fair, it is inaccurate at best, and dishonest at worst.

Not only is it not fair, it is inaccurate at best, and dishonest at worst. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Those are more accurate descriptors.