Democrats Send Bush a BIG Message

[Garfield1966]

Stacking of the courts?? You must be talking about judges that will actually decide cases based on precedent and not relying on foreign courts decisions.

No, the ones who have to pass the radical rights litmus test on abortion, corporate rights and other issues on the conservative agenda.

 

[MrAeroMan]

Bush can VETO all he wants, that will only send the BILL BACK TO THE SENATE...where it has another opportunity to pass!!!

I am so sure...as sure as I'm sitting here...that what the Bush Vetos will be splashed all over the media ad nauseum...which will only HURT the next Republican contenders in 2008!

Obviously, there is a mandate for CHANGE from the American Voters...LOUD AND CLEAR, no one can deny that. If Bush spends his next two years using his vetoing power to "get smart" with the elected Dems...he'll only go down in history as the biggest arrogant loser president U.S. ever elected twice!

The mandate for change that you're talking about was not what you think.
What happened was conservative voters slapped the snot out of the republican party and sent a message to all conservative politicians that they better stop trying to out liberal the demolibs and get back to the job conservatives sent them to DCA to do.

If there had been more Republicans senate and house seats up for grabs, the gap would have been much wider, my friend.

Just wait in two years...you Repub. will be so far behind, will take you guys a couple of decades to change the tide. Keep in mind, the youth are becoming voters and they ARE NOT HARD CORE RELIGIOUS fanatics with ultra conservative ideologies...my way or the highway mentality.

This is exactly where the demolibs misjudge the conservative movement. Republicans are not all hard core religous fanatics like you would like everyone to believe. It's the conservative movement that gave the democrats control of Congress and it was a message to conservative politicians that we are watching and we don't like what we see and if you keep it up there will be more hell to pay.

Hey Lily of the fields...

Please tell me that you are not suggesting that the HOUSE and SENATE are powerless with a presidential veto????

I think you need to review events that occured earlier this week, BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE HAVE A MAJORITY THAT ARE DEMS. My crystal ball sees the Republicans going against the Pres on many issues. If the Republican incumbants continue not to listen to their constituants and follow the Lame quack pres, they will be voted out of office in 2008(giving up even more seats) along with any Republican presidential candidate!!!!

You following the bouncing ball???? 🙄

You're exactly right the Republicans will not go against their constituancy and what they're saying is not the same thing the demolibs are saying. Don't fool yourself. This isn't the end of the Republican party and conservatism. It's anything but, it's a rebirth.

No, the ones who have to pass the radical rights litmus test on abortion, corporate rights and other issues on the conservative agenda.

Nope...wrong again. The only requirements are making decisions based on LAW not on some idealogy.

 

[MrAeroMan]

Do you have a citation of any federal cases where judges relied on foreign court's decisions?

And when you say foreign, do you mean a foreign country or another jurisdiction in which the deciding court is not sitting (i.e. Northern District of Illinois using a case from the District of Delaware)?

I'm talking about the Supreme Court using foreign courts decisions to determine cases brought before them. I did a quick look and found this one but there are other instances.

Here's what I'm talking about.

Another one

 

[PITbull]

You're exactly right the Republicans will not go against their constituancy and what they're saying is not the same thing the demolibs are saying. Don't fool yourself. This isn't the end of the Republican party and conservatism. It's anything but, it's a rebirth.

, yea, ok buddy. Whatever you say... rebirth...afterbirth...birth-day,

 

[delldude]

My immediate reaction was to think that no one would be able to pin Bush with "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," the necessary elements to be impeached and convicted.

I still do not advocate impeachment; but if the House is able to determine that Bush intentionally manipulated national security intelligence, then they may have a shot. The House would need to qualify this type of act as a high crime. Then, in order to be successful, I believe the House (and Senate during the proceedings) would need to show that the war would not have been politically desired had Bush not manipulated the intelligence in the first place.

I don't think it will come to impeachment though. There is hardly enough time before the next elections and do we really want #2 to fill Bush's shoes?

I was hoping the new kids on the block would put aside petty crap and focus on dealing with more imminent and pressing issues,but I guess I was wrong as they're already getting drunk on power.If they drag out a bunch of hearings up to the next election most likely it will hurt them more than help them.
Don't we have more pressing issues other than how Katrina and Iraq were handled?

 

[Ch. 12]

The mandate for change that you're talking about was not what you think.
What happened was conservative voters slapped the snot out of the republican party and sent a message to all conservative politicians that they better stop trying to out liberal the demolibs and get back to the job conservatives sent them to DCA to do.

Here I thought you would have made it past the denial stage by now. That's quite a message if the Repubs vote in Dems. I guess they sent a message while sending their reps home for the next 2-6 years to think about what they've done. Let me ask you something...if you run a business and want to get more out of your employees, do you lock them in a small room, put them in shackles, and tranquilize them?

No...poll after poll...even those on FOX show that US citizens are less and less aligned with the neocon direction b/c that direction has become more and more extreme...yet you sit in denial.

Please enlighten me about how your hippy, tree-hugging, limp-wristed (did I get enough of those in? ) conservatives have gone liberal? I haven't seen anything. In fact...as I've pointed out, we are in a critical phase of globalization and our leadership has been going back the the FDR, go-it-alone-to-hell-with-the-rest attitude that worked when you didn't need the rest of the world but times are a changin'.

Your silly denial-laden hallucinations are humurous, though...I'll give you that.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

I'm talking about the Supreme Court using foreign courts decisions to determine cases brought before them. I did a quick look and found this one but there are other instances.

Here's what I'm talking about.

Another one

Thank you for the sources that contain the citations. I was aware of some of the foreign citations in Lawrence v. Texas; but I was not aware of the political positioning after the opinion was published.

I found some of those citations to be harmless because they were not determinative in the court's decisions; but rather, were just examples of how other foreign courts have dealt with the issue. The case of Roper v. Simmons is a bit different though. While reading that case, I had the impression that the court may have relied on foreign sources a bit too much.

It is also important to note that citations to foreign courts, particularly old courts in the U.K., are necessary in the United States. Our judicial system and common law was borrowed, in large part, from the common law of England. Thus, it is often important that we cite old English law in order to appropriately decipher constitutional text written against the backdrop of 18th century English law.

Regardless of those harmless citations, I am a bit concerned about the trend... I believe ex-Justice O'Connor called it "transjudicialism." This could easily become a slippery slope. Where do we draw the line?

In that regard, I side with Justice Scalia. In the dissenting opinion of Roper he stated, "I do not believe that approval by other nations and peoples should buttress our commitment to American principles any more than disapproval by other nations and peoples should weaken that commitment."

 

[Garfield1966]

I have done google search after google search but cannot find anything close to what I am looking for. My understanding is that the core constituents did not change their votes. What I heard on various news sources was that it was the independents and the undecided vote that carried the day. I would find it quite surprising that a staunch conservative would change sides so easily.

 

[delldude]

Sources close to the investigation say Abramoff has provided information on his dealings with and campaign contributions and gifts to "dozens of members of Congress and staff," including what Abramoff has reportedly described as "six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic senators."

This just in.....

 

[local 12 proud]

The real losers in all this crap is the American people.

 

[Garfield1966]

Sounds like a cover up to me. I hope they find them and put the SOB's in jail right next to him.

 

[Ch. 12]

The real losers in all this crap is the American people.

THAT is the wisest thing I've heard you say and I agree 100%. No matter which party is involved in scandals and driving partisan wedges, it is the American people that suffer b/c our gov't is making am mockery of itself. Dems and Reps can share the blame in this one.

 

[MrAeroMan]

Here I thought you would have made it past the denial stage by now. That's quite a message if the Repubs vote in Dems. I guess they sent a message while sending their reps home for the next 2-6 years to think about what they've done. Let me ask you something...if you run a business and want to get more out of your employees, do you lock them in a small room, put them in shackles, and tranquilize them?

If you ran a business the way the politicians run the government you'd be put in jail. I'm dead serious. Name me a business that allows you run a deficit year after year and still stay in business?

No...poll after poll...even those on FOX show that US citizens are less and less aligned with the neocon direction b/c that direction has become more and more extreme...yet you sit in denial.

That may be true but not when you're talking about conservatives.

Please enlighten me about how your hippy, tree-hugging, limp-wristed (did I get enough of those in? ) conservatives have gone liberal? I haven't seen anything. In fact...as I've pointed out, we are in a critical phase of globalization and our leadership has been going back the the FDR, go-it-alone-to-hell-with-the-rest attitude that worked when you didn't need the rest of the world but times are a changin'.

Your silly denial-laden hallucinations are humurous, though...I'll give you that.

No denial on this end there sport. You're in the power party now. Now's the time to step up and lead. We're waiting!!

, yea, ok buddy. Whatever you say... rebirth...afterbirth...birth-day,

Yeah...well we'll see won't we. I'll be interested in seeing what you and your party have to offer America and it's people.
Me thinks it won't be anything of substance.

 

[Ch. 12]

If you ran a business the way the politicians run the government you'd be put in jail. I'm dead serious. Name me a business that allows you run a deficit year after year and still stay in business?

This one is easy for both of us...THE AIRLINES!!!!

 

[MrAeroMan]

This one is easy for both of us...THE AIRLINES!!!!

Touche'!!