Republican Party is on the way out!

[senatorjeffsmith]

Originally Posted by DAYTONA 5000

Lotta stupid statements in here.

Democrats and Republicans are both the same, its about time you guys realize this.

Best post in this thread. 100% true.

 

[younganakin]

Originally Posted by da703trailblaza

at essentials liberal slant. 1. Just because they tried to discredit Sotomayor doesn't mean diddly about them still trying to reach out to hispanics. Sotomayor was far from immensely qualified and wasn't even the best possible candidate, her nomination was purely political. They tried to discredit her philosophy and comments (comments that make me feel uncomfortable knowing she's one of the final arbiters in deciding constitutionality). But I guess it doesn't matter the supreme court is extremely politicized.

2. What policies need to be done? Why is it the government's responsibility to do these programs that "cost money?" Why not follow the constitution and what is explicitly stated as powers of the federal government? I'm willing to bet 80% of what people consider important/essential functions of the government indeed are not so.


and NT and politics dont mix, I swear most of you liberal wackos just repeat what you hear on the news and Keith Olbermann. and Rush Limbaugh is not seen as a leader for the conservative base with the exception of a small dedicated minority.

far from immensely qualified? really?

summa cum laude at princeton and a member of their law review? 30 years of service in nearly every area of law? appointments from both republican and democratpresidents? the highest rating of "professional qualification" from the american bar association?

at the very least, she was qualified. whether 'immensely' is an appropriate modifier is perhaps up for debate; her qualifications, though, are not.

very few justices are nominated bc they are the very best candidate and nearly all have political implications.

 

[da703trailblaza]

Originally Posted by KanyeWestJayZ4life

Originally Posted by da703trailblaza

at essentials liberal slant. 1. Just because they tried to discredit Sotomayor doesn't mean diddly about them still trying to reach out to hispanics. Sotomayor was far from immensely qualified and wasn't even the best possible candidate, her nomination was purely political. They tried to discredit her philosophy and comments (comments that make me feel uncomfortable knowing she's one of the final arbiters in deciding constitutionality). But I guess it doesn't matter the supreme court is extremely politicized.

2. What policies need to be done? Why is it the government's responsibility to do these programs that "cost money?" Why not follow the constitution and what is explicitly stated as powers of the federal government? I'm willing to bet 80% of what people consider important/essential functions of the government indeed are not so.


and NT and politics dont mix, I swear most of you liberal wackos just repeat what you hear on the news and Keith Olbermann. and Rush Limbaugh is not seen as a leader for the conservative base with the exception of a small dedicated minority.

Just to get this clear, you're talking about health care right? On the second bold text?

You are against medicare as well? Just asking because your party (assuming youre repub) cant seem to make up their mind.

Again just to make sure I understand your stance if it isn't explicitely stated in the constitution the government shouldn't have the right to do it?

Just making sure I'm getting your arugment right.

I swear most of you liberal wackos just repeat what you hear on the news and Keith Olbermann.

They tried to discredit her philosophy and comments (comments that make me feel uncomfortable knowing she's one of the final arbiters in deciding constitutionality).

Nters slay me..
Again just so I'm making sure I'm getting this right.
You, on your own merit, without the help of Fox News, saw the statements

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I…believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable….

Knew the context, her talking about how similar to, when a woman was on Supreme Court women were finally represented, a hispanic on a supreme court will finally represent hispanics. And that makes you "feel uncomfortable"?

All I have to respond is, I'm sorry you really believe an all white, all male, supreme court is/would be as representative to all people as a diverse supreme court.

No I'm talking about almost all entitlement programs, health care is not part of it. I am NOT a Republican. I view Medicare as more of adouble edged sword, under the current system health care and insurance is too expensive for seniors (as it is rightly so) although I don't fully agree withthe way its run I consider this to fall into the category of publick works where even though insurance may be profitable its not done in nearly as efficientlyof a manner. And yes I believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, I also states are free to govern as they see fit ie. Massachusetts providinghealth care for all of its residents.


Whats so funny about what I said? It makes more sense than the dribble spewed by most of the people here. And you using that quote as an example shows howclose minded you are or think I am, I was more concerned about her joking that the courts is where policy is made. Our current court seems to enjoy legislatingfrom the bench, we don't need more justices who see the court as a place to make laws instead of uphold them. I fully agree that experiences shape who youare and your decision calculus, it doesn't bother me that much....
And good job putting words in my mouth, I never said anything about race or gender. So

to you sir. I don't care who's on the bench as long as theyare impartial and interpet the laws to the best of their abilities.

far from immensely qualified? really?

summa cum laude at princeton and a member of their law review? 30 years of service in nearly every area of law? appointments from both republican and democrat presidents? the highest rating of "professional qualification" from the american bar association?

at the very least, she was qualified. whether 'immensely' is an appropriate modifier is perhaps up for debate; her qualifications, though, are not.

very few justices are nominated bc they are the very best candidate and nearly all have political implications.


Let me get this right? If I graduate from Harvard Law Magna Cum Laude and was the editor of the HLR I'm half way towards being qualified as being a memberof the Supreme Court? (Keep in mind I'm also African-American) (And yes I realize I used higher qualifications that Sotomayor).
Appointments from Republicans and Democrats? I hope you do know H.W. Bush nominated her for a position as part of a compromise with democrats, not because hewas enamored with her. And the democrat part is self explanitory.

I never said she wasn't qualified, I simply said she was far from immensely qualified, like you said immensely as a modifier is up for debate. I still holdmy position that there are better candidates for the position. We more or less agree with each other, semantics is the only issue.

 

[younganakin]

Originally Posted by da703trailblaza

Let me get this right? If I graduate from Harvard Law Magna Cum Laude and was the editor of the HLR I'm half way towards being qualified as being a member of the Supreme Court? (Keep in mind I'm also African-American) (And yes I realize I used higher qualifications that Sotomayor).
Appointments from Republicans and Democrats? I hope you do know H.W. Bush nominated her for a position as part of a compromise with democrats, not because he was enamored with her. And the democrat part is self explanitory.

I never said she wasn't qualified, I simply said she was far from immensely qualified, like you said immensely as a modifier is up for debate. I still hold my position that there are better candidates for the position. We more or less agree with each other, semantics is the only issue.

for the sake of argument, sure, you're "halfway towards being qualified". so what?

and save the spin for someone who doesn't know better. senator moynihan may have recommended her, but h.w. ultimately appointed her. new york's othersenator in '92? republican al d'amato, who would later describe her as an "exemplary, outstanding justice". my talking point stands: she hasshared bipartisan support through out her tenure as a judge.

justice ginsberg is still clinton's nominee, despite senator hatch's recommendation, no?

 

[lemonade41]

I see too many essays to let this post die

 

[dunknforce]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa25

Anyone who really thinks that the Republican party will cease to exist anytime soon is living in a bubble.