Congress 2017-18

Oklahomahawk said:
Ah, but you need to remember my definition of "Activist Judge" from when I teach American Government. I always tell me students the best definition of an activist judge is "a judge who disagrees with me and what I think the Constitution says". ;)

As for the current president, I really don't want him in SCOTUS either, but when I think about how much it would piss off Mitch McConnell I say "go for it". That sorry tub of Diarrhea absolutely deserves that sort of (metaphorical) 2 x 4 up side of his head IMO. Rafael Cruz too. Shut the government down again bitches, just because you didn't get your way. Tell me again how "we need to let the American people speak" about the next Justice bitches. Oh and maybe you can tell us again how you believe the President should seek the counsel of Congress (ie his betters) if he was on the Supreme Court.

Yeah, I know punishing the whole nation isn't a good thing just because you want to punish a handful of "right wing bought and paid for douche bags" but it's a pleasant thought. And how could he be more useless than Clarence Thomas?
Click to expand...

Clarence Thomas is a great judge. And if I was a parent who had a kid in your class I would hope you would teach them the actual definition of "activist judge" rather than your made up one. Cruz would be an incredible supreme court judge. Perfect spot for him really.
 
What makes " Clarence Thomas is a great judge "

???

Why " Cruz would be an incredible supreme court judge "

???
 
weso1 said:
Clarence Thomas is a great judge. And if I was a parent who had a kid in your class I would hope you would teach them the actual definition of "activist judge" rather than your made up one. Cruz would be an incredible supreme court judge. Perfect spot for him really.
Click to expand...

For you maybe, but only because you agree with them. Thomas has stuck largely to natural law theory in his approach (when he expressed much of anything--which is rare), which can be in contradiction with the natural rights theory that is a more ready comparison to our constitutional system. Cruz is as much, or more, of a partisan warrior than either Clinton or Obama.
 
50PoundHead said:
For you maybe, but only because you agree with them. Thomas has stuck largely to natural law theory in his approach (when he expressed much of anything--which is rare), which can be in contradiction with the natural rights theory that is a more ready comparison to our constitutional system. Cruz is as much, or more, of a partisan warrior than either Clinton or Obama.
Click to expand...

But wait, wouldn't that prove my definition to be true? As for weso's opinion of Thomas, which he's totally entitled to be the way, what actual evidence is there that he's even been awake for the last 20 years? Oh I know all the conservative sites love him but why? Is it because he makes fair judgments or because he makes constant right leaning ones? That's what constitutes great though for conservatives, as long as they get the "seal of approval" from certain groups then they're automatically great and you can't question it or you're some (insert insult, preferably a profane one here). I will say this for Thomas, at least he hasn't tried to shut down the government every time sometime came along that he didn't like, unlike some people we know.

Oh and as for how I teach, you can ask my students, I point out the positives and negatives (admittedly usually more negatives than positives) about both sides. I even had one student ask me a few years back, "Were there any presidents that you actually did like". I am not partisan in my classroom, negative perhaps, real, definitely, but I don't choose sides. They have to learn how to think for themselves, which means they learn how to think, not what to think. You're a really smart dude most of the time about most things weso, I really cannot grasp why you like Cruz. I mean it's totally your right to do so, I just don't get it. To me he does say a lot of the right things but he's about as transparent in his BS as Lady Godiva's famous horse riding outfit.
 
I like Thomas's consistency. A very rational judge. People grump because he doesn't ask questions, but that's a pointless grump. The questions are just for show. He's actually a very intelligent and thoughtful judge. He's shown his intellect in his public appearances and well sourced opinions.

Cruz is horrible on camera and in social situations. He appears slimy and creepy. And he definitely does play the game. But I've read many honest political folks who know Cruz state that he's actually very sincere in his positions. So if he's sincere and I agree with his politics then why wouldn't I like the guy? I don't really care how nice he is.
 
For the record (which nobody seems to give much of a damn about anymore), here is the reason why Thomas rarely speaks from the bench, in his own words:

"When I was 16, I was sitting as the only black kid in my class, and I had grown up speaking a kind of a dialect ... called Geechee. Some people call it Gullah, and people praise it now. But they used to make fun of us back then. It's not standard English," the Supreme Court justice told the Times.

So I learned that, and I just started developing the habit of listening. And it just got to be, I didn't ask questions in college or law school," he said. "For all those reasons and a few others, I just think that it's more in my nature to listen rather than to ask a bunch of questions. The only reason I could see for asking the questions is to let people know I've got something to ask. That's not a legitimate reason in the Supreme Court of the United States."
 
Hawk said:
For the record (which nobody seems to give much of a damn about anymore), here is the reason why Thomas rarely speaks from the bench, in his own words:

"When I was 16, I was sitting as the only black kid in my class, and I had grown up speaking a kind of a dialect ... called Geechee. Some people call it Gullah, and people praise it now. But they used to make fun of us back then. It's not standard English," the Supreme Court justice told the Times.

So I learned that, and I just started developing the habit of listening. And it just got to be, I didn't ask questions in college or law school," he said. "For all those reasons and a few others, I just think that it's more in my nature to listen rather than to ask a bunch of questions. The only reason I could see for asking the questions is to let people know I've got something to ask. That's not a legitimate reason in the Supreme Court of the United States."
Click to expand...

Come on fellow Hawk, if a lib Justice said the same exact thing would you still be defending him/her?

This is the point I've been trying to make all day, weso like Thomas because he thinks he's a great justice, an opinion neither he nor you has backed up at all. The fact of the matter, which you did point out is that to touch on what makes a great justice. weso likes Thomas because of his "consistency", which in this case means he votes a straight hard line right wing ticket. That doesn't prove he's great (or terrible either), it proves my main original point which is that people like justices and think justices are great who they agree with. That's what constitutes great these days, and maybe forever, who knows.

Remember my comment on what makes an "activist judge or justice", it's one that I (the speaker, not me personally) disagree with. Tell me that isn't true. I know most Americans have gotten so drunk on the Kool-Aid that they literally can't see past their own partisan alliances, but I really thought maybe we'd get a few of us on this forum to realize the bull****e that has practically inundated the entire country these days.

If a uber conservative justice is on the Supreme Court and votes a straight consistent hard line stance on everything that doesn't make him great. It also doesn't make him terrible, it simply makes him what a conservative wants him to be, no more no less. Same thing goes with the left. The other statement that got all this started was how terrible someone as far left as Obama would be on the court and how we needed more moderates. Hell we need ALL moderates, but nobody and I mean literally nobody out there wants that. They want more people who think and act just like themselves and nothing else will do.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
Come on fellow Hawk, if a lib Justice said the same exact thing would you still be defending him/her?

This is the point I've been trying to make all day, weso like Thomas because he thinks he's a great justice, an opinion neither he nor you has backed up at all. The fact of the matter, which you did point out is that to touch on what makes a great justice. weso likes Thomas because of his "consistency", which in this case means he votes a straight hard line right wing ticket. That doesn't prove he's great (or terrible either), it proves my main original point which is that people like justices and think justices are great who they agree with. That's what constitutes great these days, and maybe forever, who knows.

Remember my comment on what makes an "activist judge or justice", it's one that I (the speaker, not me personally) disagree with. Tell me that isn't true. I know most Americans have gotten so drunk on the Kool-Aid that they literally can't see past their own partisan alliances, but I really thought maybe we'd get a few of us on this forum to realize the bull****e that has practically inundated the entire country these days.

If a uber conservative justice is on the Supreme Court and votes a straight consistent hard line stance on everything that doesn't make him great. It also doesn't make him terrible, it simply makes him what a conservative wants him to be, no more no less. Same thing goes with the left. The other statement that got all this started was how terrible someone as far left as Obama would be on the court and how we needed more moderates. Hell we need ALL moderates, but nobody and I mean literally nobody out there wants that. They want more people who think and act just like themselves and nothing else will do.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending Thomas, nor did I ever claim he was a great justice. I'm just injecting his perfectly reasonable (and fascinating) answer as to why he doesn't often speak in court into the debate. It's a) not his method and b) in his eyes useless given the comprehensive briefs submitted to the court well in advance of oral arguments (which are really just show).

Let me turn the tables on you: what makes him a bad justice?

I know you realize that how a judge votes is only a sliver of the role they play on the court. Their opinions serve as guiding lights for lesser courts on a wide range of issues and give insight into the legal and moral components of their decision making process.

Yes, he's consistent. That's what strict constructionism is. To him, the constitution is black and white ... it's the one document we have to go by that shouldn't really be so open to mixed interpretation. How is that a bad thing? Especially when he's just one of a few who tend that way? The whole point of a court is balance.

All of the judges have their own idiosyncrasies and tendencies. That's why I love the court and respect it more than I do any other institution in our government.

Thomas is not an idiot. Let's be honest, that's what the real angle is here.
 
GOP candidate in MI-01 Jack Bergman admits he’s been living in Louisiana through at least last spring

There’s no question that this is a tight race. However, after trailing Bergman since he entered the race last spring, Johnson now has a narrow 1-point lead according to the latest polls. More importantly, he is now up over Bergman by 16 points with voters 65 years of age or older, a dramatic shift from previous polling and a clear sign that Bergman’s plans to privatize Social Security and Medicare are damaging his support. Johnson also outraised Bergman during the last quarter $455,118 to $383,924. $83,000 of Bergman’s haul was actually his own money.

http://www.eclectablog.com/2016/10/...n-louisiana-through-at-least-last-spring.html
....

You see people this s how you get rid of "establishment types " in Congress.
You vote them out

Dare I say "Change you can believe in"
 
Stephen Wolf Verified account
‏@PoliticsWolf

Stephen Wolf Retweeted Jonathan Kappler

Telling that Obama will do an ad for a Senate Dem in a state he narrowly lost. He is more popular than in 2012 & NC is no longer a red state
 
Reid J. Epstein Verified account
‏@reidepstein

Democrats in Iowa are knocking on doors of GOP houses asking for women & being turned away by their husbands http://www.wsj.com/articles/in-iowa-hillary-clinton-campaign-sees-a-possible-opening-

CvS4EZ7UIAAMZGt.jpg
 
Republicans drew 193 House districts by themselves after 2010, Democrats just 44. In 2012, the first election that was run using*these new maps, Democratic House candidates earned 1.4 million more votes than Republicans,*but Republicans kept the majority nevertheless. Michigan gave 240,000 more votes to Democratic House candidates, but sent nine Republicans and five Democrats to Washington. Pennsylvania favored the Democrats by nearly 100,000 votes, but the sophisticated new lines returned a delegation that somehow broke 13*to*5 for the GOP.

Yes, there’s a “rigged election”: The one that ensures a Republican House majority
 
I want Obama on the Supreme court. It would serve the Republican party right. On his inauguration night they hold a dinner to pledge to obstruct Obama throughout his presidency? I remembered that. Or the "you lied" garbage. That made me run out and vote in 2012 for Obama. Oh I want him on the SC. I hope he sits down at every state of the union arrogantly and uppity lol. Oh that mess offended me as a black woman. Michelle and the girls can campaign for the democrats going foward. I need this to happen stat!!!!
 
Will Jordan
Verified account
‏@williamjordann
Texas likely voters by age:

65+: Trump +22
45-64: Trump +14
30-44: Clinton +8
18-29: Clinton +21

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top