Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-09-2008   #11
Golden, Colorado
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,012
Actually, Ron's while rant on the Supreme Court is worth a read Darren, you ignorant slut (Ron's words not mine )

The nomination of Judge John Roberts to sit on the Supreme Court has reopened a bitter cultural divide in America, and the Senate confirmation hearings in September may exhibit more of the partisan rancor that characterized the Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas hearings.

Itís sad that so many Americans see their freedoms as dependent on a single Supreme Court justice. Federal judges were never meant to wield the tremendous power that they do in modern America. Our Founders would find it inconceivable that a handful of unelected, unaccountable federal judges can decide social policy for the entire nation.

Dozens of political pressure groups stood ready to launch an immediate public relations attack on any judge nominated by President Bush, while dozens of others stood ready to support the nominee no matter what. These groups reflect the unfortunate reality that millions of Americans unquestioningly support or oppose judicial nominees based solely on the party affiliation of the current president. Once again, blind loyalty to political parties has politicized a process that our Founders never intended to be political. When we as voters and citizens allow the nomination of judges to become political, we have only ourselves to blame for the politicization of our courts themselves. When courts become politicized, judges not surprisingly begin to act like politicians.

Judicial activism, after all, is the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views. With the federal judiciary focused more on legislating social policy than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.

Congress is guilty of enabling judicial activism. Just as Congress ceded far too much legislative authority to presidents throughout the 20th century, it similarly has allowed federal judges to operate wildly beyond their constitutional role. In fact, many current members of Congress apparently accept the false notion that federal court judgments are superior to congressional statutes. Unless and until Congress asserts itself by limiting federal court jurisdiction, judges will continue to act as de facto lawmakers.

The congressional power to strip federal courts of jurisdiction is plainly granted in Article III, and no constitutional amendments are required. On the contrary, any constitutional amendment addressing judicial activism would only grant legitimacy to the dangerous idea that social issues are federal matters. Giving more authority over social matters to any branch of the federal government is a mistake, because a centralized government is unlikely to reflect local sentiment for long. Both political parties are guilty of ignoring the 9th and 10th amendments, and federalizing whole areas of law that constitutionally should be left up to states. This abandonment of federalism and statesí rights paved the way for an activist federal judiciary.

The public also plays a role in the erosion of our judiciary. Since many citizens lack basic knowledge of our Constitution and federalist system, they are easily manipulated by media and academic elites who tell them that judges are the absolute and final arbiters of US law. But the Supreme Court is not supreme over the other branches of government; it is supreme only over lower federal courts. If Americans wish to be free of judicial tyranny, they must at least develop basic knowledge of the judicial role in our republican government. The present state of affairs is a direct result of our collective ignorance.

blutzski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2008   #12
the fort, Colorado
Paddling Since: 2001
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 672
mccain is as pro-military/pro pre-emptive strike as bush2 and maybe even more so, given his and his family's military background. if he is elected pres in november, we can expect to invade iran sometime in the next 4 years. think how much more money will go down the tubes if that happens. i don't care who is the dem nominee (i want obama), i will vote for them to keep a mccain ticket out of the white house.

By the waterside I will lay my head.
Listen to the river sing sweet songs to rock my soul.
the_dude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2008   #13
pnw, Washington
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,404
Obama wins Louisiana, Nebraska, and Washington State.
"Yesterday I was clever and tried to change the world. Today I am wise and try to change myself." -Rumi
gh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2008   #14
Roy's Avatar
Denver, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1993
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 682
Originally Posted by gh View Post
Obama wins Louisiana, Nebraska, and Washington State.
Don't Forget the Maine!
Roy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2008   #15
Self-Aggrandizing jackass
heliodorus04's Avatar
The Ranch, Colorado
Paddling Since: 04
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,134
For those of you still paying attention to Republicans, McCain just betrayed the Constitution today.

He said that while it's illegal for members of the military to torture prisoners, he doesn't want to restrict the CIA, so he won't vote for a bill in Congress aimed at making illegal any of the "enhanced interrogation" techniques.

I don't know if he'll reconsider, but unless he does, he's lost my vote. I won't vote for someone who won't explicitly say torture is unequivocally wrong*** (except see below***)

In other political news, Hillary Clinton's new best friend is John McCain attacking Obama. McCain will attack Obama because McCain knows he has the best chance to win the general election if Hillary is the nominee. Obama now has to fight a two front war, and Hillary can keep her hands clean watching McCain do her dirty work.

On the subject of superdelegates: Much math points to a convention where Clinton and Obama are so close in committed delegates that the Superdelegates would have to decide the delegation.

Sub-plot 1: Florida and Michigan: Their votes were dismissed by the Dem Party (and the Repub party, too) back before anyone had any idea that the Obama/Clinton fight would be this close. When Florida and Michigan were discounted, no one thought those 100-or so delegates would matter. They will.

So what to do with Florida and Michigan? Hillary won both (in Michigan, she was the only person on the ballot, and more votes were cast for "uncommitted" than for her, but she still won, and by the rules of that primary, she should get the vast majority of those delegates.

Sub-plot 2: What about Florida, where she also won, after campaigning and breaking a promise that no Democratic candidate would campaign there. This is FLORIDA - you recall 2000, right?

Well, if Hillary tries to say "all those delegates should be mine" she may look like the George Bush of this election. Nightmare scenario for the Dems there.

Both Florida and Michigan will probably be compelled to re-vote, and that will drain more money from Democrats. If they don't re-vote, look for groups to point out that these two important states were disenfranchised.

Sub-Plot 3: Superdelegates and the popular vote.
Recent momentum is swinging Obama's way (Tuesday in Wisconsin could stop that if Hillary wins, and that's the strongest state for her since SuperTuesday). Those Dems who are the superdelegates, some are saying they'll side with one or the other (Hillary has a slight edge in Superdelegates pledged) but those pledges amount to nothing before Denver this summer.

As momentum has swung Obama's way, you've seen some Superdelegates who were committed to Clinton say "I need to wait and see." They're hedging. Obama clearly has pull with independents and a lot of crossover Republicans.

Right now, the discussion of Superdelegates is focusing on Obama's momentum. He's won 22 of 35 states. Almost 2-to-1 over Clinton. In a general election, it's winner take all (the Dem primaries are proportional to popular vote, the Republicans are winner-take-all), which bodes well for Obama in the general.

There are two interesting issues for the convention and Superdelegates: If they are going to be the deciding factor (as it seems likely from this point), will the Clintons fight behind closed doors to get the superdelegates to side with them and give them the nomination? If so, a whole lot of independents and moderate republicans are going to see them as beholden to the love of power more than anything else. Indeed, there's also a theory that blacks will see the Democrat party as giving only lip-service to their interests, and seeing a great defection of blacks to the Republican party like hasn't been seen in 100 years (don't know about that myself, just a theory I've read posited).

But what about this:
What if Obama wins the higher number of states, and delegates, but Hillary has the combined popular vote. This could very well happen. In which case, Hillary can claim that the popular vote should be respected.

That would be the serious fly in the ointment to the superdelegate question.

This is the most fascinating primary of my lifetime, on the Dem side.

***(unless it's two consenting adults who know how to use a safe word).
"self-aggrandizing jackass" - it says it right on the label
heliodorus04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2008   #16
Livingston's Avatar
Denver, Colorado
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 679
A couple corrections Helio.
1) Hillary did not campaign in Florida, I believe she arrived in Florida after the polls closed for a party.
2) The Dems decided not to count the delegates of Mich or Florida but the Rep's only stripped them of half, not all.
"I think I handled my alcohol pretty well considering how drunk I was." -Cousin Dan
Livingston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2008   #17
Self-Aggrandizing jackass
heliodorus04's Avatar
The Ranch, Colorado
Paddling Since: 04
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,134
I stand corrected on point 2. Knew that, forgot it.

I thought Hillary had campaigned. In any event, Bill Clinton today already has gone on record as saying those delegates should be counted.

It will be interesting to see what happens there and Michigan.
"self-aggrandizing jackass" - it says it right on the label
heliodorus04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2008   #18
Livingston's Avatar
Denver, Colorado
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 679
Yeah, and it keeps getting more interesting. Ironic that Mich and FL would have made quite a bit of difference if they had stayed on schedule as super Tuesday states.
Unfortunate that it looks like Hillary's best chance is now to change the rules to get MI and FL delegates seated, and then attempt to keep the part of those original rules (that some are calling undemocratic) in place to get the most superdelegates. It will be hard for her to agrue both and not look hippocritical.
"I think I handled my alcohol pretty well considering how drunk I was." -Cousin Dan
Livingston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2008   #19
Denver, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1995
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,239
pretty much agree with you

Michigan and Florida were only'disenfranchised' by the the party for violating party Primary rules,they still get to vote in the real election.Does'nt seem very democratic though,big or small D.

tHEY CAN AND SHOULD AVOID ANY APPEARANCE OF Impropriety,by agreeing publically on the rules of superdelegates,well ahead of time.It is confusing should a superdelegate vote; thier conscience,thier party's best chance to win the general election,or represent thier constituency's wishes?It's a dumb system like the electoral college.If the process is percieved as fair Blacks will vote Hillary,and if not they are not likely to go GOP any more than evangellicals will go demo.Maybe disillusioned people would stay home?

On the republican side ,all I can figure is they are stuck with McCAIN,the conservatives can only make deals and threats for their support,but it is not like they will vote for Hillary,maybe some independents go to Obama.Who knows what the right will pressure McCain into[other than hard right judges]
cayo 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2008   #20
rwhyman's Avatar
Unincorporated Douglas County, Colorado
Paddling Since: 2005
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 961
Some funny election thread t-shirts.


rwhyman is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Topic Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The first step in Election 2008 heliodorus04 The Eddy 157 02-04-2008 11:38 AM
Are low gas prices before the election a coincidence? cstork The Eddy 11 10-31-2006 03:39 PM
Eagle River Water District Board Election WhiteLightning Whitewater Kayaking 5 05-01-2006 06:58 PM
Election Day Poll wycoloboater Whitewater Kayaking 0 09-21-2004 11:45 AM

» Classified Ads
Demo Jackson Karma Medium

posted by 4CRS

Used 2016 Jackson Karma Medium whitewater kayak - lightly...

Used Pyranha 9R...

posted by Rendezvous River Sports


Hala Atcha 86 w stompbox

posted by Rendezvous River Sports

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities

Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.