Supreme Court ruling on land owners

[Torveaux 10]

NJ,

 

I just gave you one example, Kennedy. He votes on his understanding of the Constitution even when it disagrees with his personal political philosophy, as in this case.

 

Many of the others are only pro-states' rights when the subject matter suits them.

[Kahuna 172]

Prairie Scouter:

 

I don't want to start a flame war and there is absolutely nothing personal in my response. I strongly disagree, however, with your observations. Thanks, though, for saying you usually agree with me!

 

I do believe that what you said and I said about Judge Bork is the same thing: He was an intelligent judge who had a written record showing what his views were and the liberal element didn't like him. I didn't know much about him at the time, but having read and heard him since, I don't think he would have had a bit of trouble making "objective" decisions, if objective decisions means interpreting the Constitution in terms of the Founders intentions. It is true that intelligent judges can make objective decisions, it's just that they are much more likely to have a record of written views upon which they can be critiqued.

 

No "blanket" statement is ever a blanket, of course. However, I think it is apparent that the Democrats hate Bush and will do whatever they can to stop his agenda. The war in Iraq was something they felt they couldn't prevent and would have lost face in the attempt, although some of them tried and now, they pretty much are all piling on, saying the war is a "quagmire" and that we need a timetable to get out. I was not in favor of the war and it obviously was based on faulty intelligence, although I don't agree with those who say Bush lied about all that to get the war going. However, we are now in it, and have expended a lot of lives and money to get this far and it seems to me wrong to give the enemy a schedule for withdrawal. That's what worked so well for North Vietnam in an earlier war. I certainly don't think the Democrats voted for the war out respect for Bush's views on it or any thought that it was a correct war. IE, I think it was pure politics.

 

In light of today's resignation of Justice O'Conner, it is interesting to hear the comments of Senator Kennedy and some other Democrats who are already saying: "We don't like whoever Bush appoints and will fight it to the death!" That's what I meant when I said they will block anything Bush wants. I've never seen anything quite like it. Even the Republicans, who certainly are guilty of having done the same in the past, gave more slack to their arch enemy, President Clinton. I don't much care whether the Democrats agree with his choices or not. Bush won the election and he gets to choose. I'm not Republican or Democrat, but I'm not much in favor of the "let's all get along" school of politics. The people choose the politicians and the majority decides the issues.

 

To your last question, according to http://gohawaii.about.com/library/gallery/blgallery732.htm

Coco Palms has never reopened. I guess at this point it won't, unless they bulldoze the whole thing and start over. I can't say that I actually remember the place when it was open, but I have seen the abandoned hulk of it. Lots of other nice places to stay on Kauai, though! :-)

[SR540Beaver 116]

Kahuna,

 

I'm with you or not starting a flame war, so please don't take this wrong. The opposition party never likes the sitting president. We all seem to have short memories. Let's not forget that before the Democrats "hated" Bush, the Republicans spent 8 years, millions of dollars and every ploy they could imagine to unseat Clinton who they "hated". Heck, they still gripe about him daily after leaving office 5 years ago. Has politics gotten more vitriolic since then? Yes. Why? I think for the most part it is all of the 24 hour news channels, the internet blogs and talk radio that has fueled the fire. But the hate is on both sides and has always existed in politics to one degree or another. The Republicans can't point a finger at the Democrats witout having several pointing back at themselves and vice versa.

[Kahuna 172]

SR540B: Nor am I letting the Republicans off the hook. I'm simply saying that never before have we had judges blocked when the majority party had the votes to seat them. Judicial appointments are not exempt under the rules of the Senate from filibuster, but it hasn't been done. And, yes, I am aware that the Republicans have used committee hangups to avoid judges getting to the floor. I don't think the vitriol has to do with the 24 hour news thing. It just seems to me the Democrats are out of power and they are acting like a bunch of spoiled kids who don't understand why they aren't getting their way. I DO think the reason they are out of power has a lot to do with the rise in the last ten years or so of blogs and talk radio, which have made information and different points of view available for the first time.

 

Anyway, my original point was simply to say that judges who are intelligent have less chance of getting on the Court because there is more material for those who oppose their views to read. That is true whether they are liberal or conservative or moderate. I never intended to get into the Democrat vs. Republican thing at all. I merely pointed out the the Democrats have declared war on Bush's appointees, which I think is indisputable.

[GernBlansten 10]

Remember when GWB won the election, he ran on being a uniter not a divider. If GWB nominates a moderate to the SC, he will in my mind have satisfied that commitment. However, I judge a man from his actions not his promises. I expect a hard line conservative and a terrible confirmation fight.

[Kahuna 172]

GWB also ran with a record and pretty clear idea of what kind of judges he would nominate. I tend to see the Democrats as being devisive in their opposition. The people chose Bush knowing full well what he was going to do.

[GernBlansten 10]

Kahuna,

So then if everyone knew what GWB was before he was elected, they either believed he was an uniter and were lied to, or they knew he was a divider and he was lieing about being a uniter. Either way, the American public deserves better. Or perhaps they deserve the government they elect.