|
|
Post by hotjan on Apr 19, 2004 0:08:56 GMT -5
Riddle me this Freedomphiles: Why is the judge who makes me pay ten dollars for not wearing my selt belt elected by the people and the judge who decides whether or not the National Guard can burst in my house and search it in the middle of the night appointed. Shouldn't we decide who we want to be the protectors of OUR Constitution?
Peace,
Jan
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Apr 19, 2004 0:13:45 GMT -5
Riddle me this Freedomphiles: Why is the judge who makes me pay ten dollars for not wearing my selt belt elected by the people and the judge who decides whether or not the National Guard can burst in my house and search it in the middle of the night appointed. Shouldn't we decide who we want to be the protectors of OUR Constitution? Peace, Jan That is a very good question, Jan. I think I am going to hold out on voting until I hear some pros and cons from the forum freedomphiles. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by dr snootch on Apr 19, 2004 7:52:43 GMT -5
Riddle me this Freedomphiles: Why is the judge who makes me pay ten dollars for not wearing my selt belt elected by the people and the judge who decides whether or not the National Guard can burst in my house and search it in the middle of the night appointed. Shouldn't we decide who we want to be the protectors of OUR Constitution? Peace, Jan I totally agree with you. The Supreme Court can't be much of a check or balance against the Executive branch if they're appointed by the President. All it takes is one President like Bush with enough Supreme Court vacancies to fill and we'll be living in a theocracy before too long. It probably wasn't as big a deal back in the Founding Fathers' time when most people still had opinions and ideas of their own. With the current two-party system, you get Justices like Scalia who don't even pretend to be fair or impartial. You know something's wrong with the system when you can predict how a SC Justice will rule based on who appointed him. |
|
|
|
Post by hotjan on Apr 19, 2004 11:17:46 GMT -5
I totally agree with you. The Supreme Court can't be much of a check or balance against the Executive branch if they're appointed by the President. All it takes is one President like Bush with enough Supreme Court vacancies to fill and we'll be living in a theocracy before too long. It probably wasn't as big a deal back in the Founding Fathers' time when most people still had opinions and ideas of their own. With the current two-party system, you get Justices like Scalia who don't even pretend to be fair or impartial. You know something's wrong with the system when you can predict how a SC Justice will rule based on who appointed him. Right on, Snootch! The Supreme Court is supposed to be the court to end all courts. They are supposed to protect the rights given to us in the Constitution. But all they are now is a bunch of activists looking out for the welfare of their parties not for the people. And I certainly don't trust Congress to help appoint them. I mean Congress is the brain trust that voted in the Patriot Act WITHOUT EVEN READING IT!!!!!! And I find that to be the most heinous assault on our liberties since the draft. That act scares the bejeezus out of me. Especially since I'm an Arab with ideas considered radical by Hitler... I mean Ashcroft. The dirty fucking rotter. -Jan |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Apr 19, 2004 11:48:19 GMT -5
You guys make excellent points and I am leaning in your direction - any dissenters?
- Rick
|
|
|
|
Post by whatever on Apr 19, 2004 21:15:07 GMT -5
Right on, Snootch! The Supreme Court is supposed to be the court to end all courts. They are supposed to protect the rights given to us in the Constitution. But all they are now is a bunch of activists looking out for the welfare of their parties not for the people. And I certainly don't trust Congress to help appoint them. I mean Congress is the brain trust that voted in the Patriot Act WITHOUT EVEN READING IT!!!!!! And I find that to be the most heinous assault on our liberties since the draft. That act scares the bejeezus out of me. Especially since I'm an Arab with ideas considered radical by Hitler... I mean Ashcroft. The dirty fucking rotter. -Jan Yeah, what she said! I thought that was great, every single word. I'm not Arab, but I'm not Christian either. I'm just evil  |
|
|
|
Post by whatever on Apr 19, 2004 21:24:29 GMT -5
Yeah, what she said! I thought that was great, every single word. I'm not Arab, but I'm not Christian either. I'm just evil Oh, and I voted for the dancing, because I figure if he can't learn to dance, he's got no soul  |
|
|
|
Post by dr snootch on Apr 20, 2004 7:24:04 GMT -5
"Women don't ruin things. Did a woman on the Supreme Court ruin the judicial system?" -Peggy Hill
"Yes, and that woman's name was Earl Warren." -Hank Hill
|
|
|
|
Post by hotjan on Apr 20, 2004 8:58:08 GMT -5
Oh, and I voted for the dancing, because I figure if he can't learn to dance, he's got no soul That's right! The Supreme Court has a definate soul deficency. -Jan |
|
|
|
Post by hotjan on Apr 20, 2004 9:21:59 GMT -5
"Women don't ruin things. Did a woman on the Supreme Court ruin the judicial system?" -Peggy Hill "Yes, and that woman's name was Earl Warren." -Hank Hill "Why do you hate love, Hank?" --Dale Gribble |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Apr 20, 2004 11:01:57 GMT -5
Dale: We've awakened a sleeping, pooping giant!
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Apr 24, 2004 10:20:06 GMT -5
I've finally voted for elections of justices.
- Rick
|
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Apr 25, 2004 6:30:42 GMT -5
Well I think they should be elected by the people but the people always seem so damned uninformed so there's not much comfort there either. Maybe a non partisan independant counsil of some kind that functions independantly of the President.
|
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Apr 25, 2004 9:06:28 GMT -5
Well I think they should be elected by the people but the people always seem so damned uninformed so there's not much comfort there either. Maybe a non partisan independant counsil of some kind that functions independantly of the President. Well, before someone has a chance to disagree with me... I think I will do it myself. I knew as I was typing this on my keyboard that it wouldn't work. Blame it on the fact that it was 6am and I've been up all night. There's no such thing as an independant non partisan council in D.C Just look at Ken Starr and his INDEPENDANT investigation into Whitewater. That was one of the most disgusting abuses of authority in recent history (at least pre 9/11) So I guess it should go the people. |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Apr 25, 2004 9:12:11 GMT -5
Well, before someone has a chance to disagree with me... I think I will do it myself. I knew as I was typing this on my keyboard that it wouldn't work. Blame it on the fact that it was 6am and I've been up all night. There's no such thing as an independant non partisan council in D.C Just look at Ken Starr and his INDEPENDANT investigation into Whitewater. That was one of the most disgusting abuses of authority in recent history (at least pre 9/11) So I guess it should go the people. Nobody's better at arguing with you than you! ;D - Rick  |
|
