treedancer
Commander
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2005
- Messages
- 2,216
Re: "house Of Corruption?"
OK Mr. Tree lets engage intellectually shall we? N' cut the carp!!! The above post is real cute, but: that is the extent of it.
#1 Democrats run on a platform of more taxes at all levels of Government. They are very effective in their persuit of that philosophy here in God's Country. Our phone bills, our Cable TV, our Water, our Sewer, our Electricity our gas bills, they are proposing a tax on breathing I hear tell!!
Ok JR, lets ?lets engage intellectually shall we?, can?t speak for the Seattle area, but will try to address my read on the Republicans on the National level. Your statement that it is the philosophy of the Democrats to raise taxes is flawed. My reading is that the Democrats are being responsible by paying as you go, not burdening our grandchildren with an unbearable debt put on there backs by there grandparents, Using some crazy Ponzi scheme of paying it off with inflated dollars, when we are but a distant memory.
< legislate from the bench dim wit Dems>
So much for (?lets engage intellectually shall we>?
Now lets take a look at that old conservative bogyman ?libruulll judges ?that are likely to legislate from the bench. First we have too define judicial activism, one that I found was, a propensity to strike down statutes passed by congress. Sounds like judicial activism to me, when you strike down something that was passed by our lawmakers. Now lets look at Justice Clarence Thomas, he has voted to strike down Congressional laws at the rate of 65.63 percent, Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. Here is the whole list, it?s a bit dated but still relevant.
<Thomas 65.63 %, Kennedy 64.06 % Scalia 56.25 %,,Rehnquist 46.88 %,
,O?Connor 46.77 %, Souter 42.19 %, Stevens 39.34 %, Ginsburg 39.06 %
and ,Breyer 28.13 %>
. There went that old bogyman down the tubes.
Now lets take a look at what a ?constructionist judge? is. Evidently this administration considers a ?constructionist judge? somebody like Justice Scalia who went hunting with the Vice President and then refused to recuse himself from an upcoming case involving the Vice President. Perhaps we have been looking in the wrong places for a ?constructionist Judge, ?perhaps President Bush had it right, when he nominated ?Harriet Miers,? for the supreme court, in spite of her never serving as a judge, nothing like a little out of the box thinking. Myself I think what Rudy Giuliani said recently pretty well fills the bill.
< What 'strict constructionist' means is that a judge will interpret the Constitution in accordance with what someone else meant when they wrote those words and not try to legislate," said Rudy. "If you are not a strict constructionist, I believe you imperil the American democracy because you take the role of a legislator.">
< I've steered clear of the helping America's enemies, n' voting against missile defence et al, (which also bugs me about dim wit Dems)>
I've steered clear of the helping America's enemies, n' voting against et al,
Here JR, take a look at this vote.
Vote Number: 245 Vote Date: July 12, 2007, 04:10 PM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
YEAs-90 NAYs-5 Not Voting--5
Statement of Purpose: To state the policy of the United States on the protection of the United States and its allies against Iranian ballistic missiles. Bummer right JR.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00245
Glad you decided to ?engage intellectually? with me JR instead of calling names.
My only hope is when you pull your head out, it is still facing the front.Respectfully, DC.
"
OK Mr. Tree lets engage intellectually shall we? N' cut the carp!!! The above post is real cute, but: that is the extent of it.
#1 Democrats run on a platform of more taxes at all levels of Government. They are very effective in their persuit of that philosophy here in God's Country. Our phone bills, our Cable TV, our Water, our Sewer, our Electricity our gas bills, they are proposing a tax on breathing I hear tell!!
Ok JR, lets ?lets engage intellectually shall we?, can?t speak for the Seattle area, but will try to address my read on the Republicans on the National level. Your statement that it is the philosophy of the Democrats to raise taxes is flawed. My reading is that the Democrats are being responsible by paying as you go, not burdening our grandchildren with an unbearable debt put on there backs by there grandparents, Using some crazy Ponzi scheme of paying it off with inflated dollars, when we are but a distant memory.
< legislate from the bench dim wit Dems>
So much for (?lets engage intellectually shall we>?
Now lets take a look at that old conservative bogyman ?libruulll judges ?that are likely to legislate from the bench. First we have too define judicial activism, one that I found was, a propensity to strike down statutes passed by congress. Sounds like judicial activism to me, when you strike down something that was passed by our lawmakers. Now lets look at Justice Clarence Thomas, he has voted to strike down Congressional laws at the rate of 65.63 percent, Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. Here is the whole list, it?s a bit dated but still relevant.
<Thomas 65.63 %, Kennedy 64.06 % Scalia 56.25 %,,Rehnquist 46.88 %,
,O?Connor 46.77 %, Souter 42.19 %, Stevens 39.34 %, Ginsburg 39.06 %
and ,Breyer 28.13 %>
. There went that old bogyman down the tubes.
Now lets take a look at what a ?constructionist judge? is. Evidently this administration considers a ?constructionist judge? somebody like Justice Scalia who went hunting with the Vice President and then refused to recuse himself from an upcoming case involving the Vice President. Perhaps we have been looking in the wrong places for a ?constructionist Judge, ?perhaps President Bush had it right, when he nominated ?Harriet Miers,? for the supreme court, in spite of her never serving as a judge, nothing like a little out of the box thinking. Myself I think what Rudy Giuliani said recently pretty well fills the bill.
< What 'strict constructionist' means is that a judge will interpret the Constitution in accordance with what someone else meant when they wrote those words and not try to legislate," said Rudy. "If you are not a strict constructionist, I believe you imperil the American democracy because you take the role of a legislator.">
< I've steered clear of the helping America's enemies, n' voting against missile defence et al, (which also bugs me about dim wit Dems)>
I've steered clear of the helping America's enemies, n' voting against et al,
Here JR, take a look at this vote.
Vote Number: 245 Vote Date: July 12, 2007, 04:10 PM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
YEAs-90 NAYs-5 Not Voting--5
Statement of Purpose: To state the policy of the United States on the protection of the United States and its allies against Iranian ballistic missiles. Bummer right JR.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00245
Glad you decided to ?engage intellectually? with me JR instead of calling names.
My only hope is when you pull your head out, it is still facing the front.Respectfully, DC.
"
