PonyFans.com

abezontar wrote: Interesting......explain.

Well one example is the appointment of unelected Supreme Court justices who subverted the system by enacting law that no legislature beholden to the people would have dared enact. Any means to get to the desired result.

At least the terrorists are going to Iraq to kill Americans instead of coming here to kill Americans. And at least the Americans there can shoot back.

ponyboy wrote:

abezontar wrote: Interesting......explain.

Well one example is the appointment of unelected Supreme Court justices who subverted the system by enacting law that no legislature beholden to the people would have dared enact. Any means to get to the desired result.

What's your point? Are ultra right-wing Republicans for amending the Constitution to provide for election of Supreme Court justices? No, like all parties, they are for appointing justices who will push there agenda in the direction they want it to go.

John Roberts is the perfect example of why this is not true. He believes, like Judge Learned Hand, that the job of the judge is to apply the law not to invent it. Bush, by the way, deserves the credit for this excellent nominee in John Roberts.

Yes, there is always interstitial lawmaking -- it's a necessary evil. But your job as judge is to simply apply what the legislature creates, not to circumvent elected legislators and invent your own laws.

I had a conversation once with Justice Scalia, another "conservative" judge who believes in judicial restraint. I asked him how the theory of original understanding could be a *theory*. His reply was, in effect, yes isn't that sad. The rules are clear but the temptation was simply too great for liberals and they chose to put politically desirable results above legitimate process. See Robert Bork's "Tempting of America."

ponyboy wrote:Bush, by the way, deserves the credit for this excellent nominee in John Roberts."

Does he still deserve credit considering this was his second choice after his attempt of trying to ramrod his personal lawyer and freind through the nomination process?......one of the worst attempts at Cronyism in recent memory....

Agreed. She was a baffling nominee.

Again, I don't see what any of this has to do with the subject matter of the Methodist clergy's protest. Just pretending they do not have a point about the war does not make it so.

I thought I had already answered your question with my two posts on the previous page of this thread. We're dealing with a highly irrational group of pirahnas, uh people, who make up a tiny minority of Methodists and who have very selective memories with respect to who all believed that there were WMDs.

bagice wrote:

ponyboy wrote:Bush, by the way, deserves the credit for this excellent nominee in John Roberts."

Does he still deserve credit considering this was his second choice after his attempt of trying to ramrod his personal lawyer and freind through the nomination process?......one of the worst attempts at Cronyism in recent memory....

Alito was the nominee in response to the backlash against Miers (sp), not Roberts.

ponyboy wrote:

abezontar wrote: Interesting......explain.

Well one example is the appointment of unelected Supreme Court justices who subverted the system by enacting law that no legislature beholden to the people would have dared enact. Any means to get to the desired result.

Typically when one desires an explanation they want to hear answers to the questions who, what, when, where and why. Your response does not explain anything at all.

To which party are you referring?
What is the law of which you speak?
What decision by the Supreme Court enacted such law?
Are you familiar with the concept of common law?
What means was used to to reach the goal of the party of which you speak?
What is the end that is desired?

Additionally, before you respond please consider whether your analysis can be applied to both parties or only one and explain why it can or cannot.

ponyboy wrote:I thought I had already answered your question with my two posts on the previous page of this thread. We're dealing with a highly irrational group of pirahnas, uh people, who make up a tiny minority of Methodists and who have very selective memories with respect to who all believed that there were WMDs.

Oh, so your tirade about the the "other party" and the propensity of its judicial appointees is just that, an off-topic political tirade with nothing to do with your disdain for this "tiny minority" Methodist clergy. BTW, you bring up an interesting point. I do not see in any of their statements that they denied any other administration thought there were WMD's, just that they don't want the Dubya library associated with SMU because he was the one who ultimately acted on this obviously bad information. Did you see something like that?

SMU LB wrote:PS: If anyone cares, which you should not, I have changed my screen name to protect the innocent, which in this case is me. (This has nothing to do with ponyfans, strickly personal.)

You're okay, but I miss the other guy.

jtstang wrote:

SMU LB wrote:PS: If anyone cares, which you should not, I have changed my screen name to protect the innocent, which in this case is me. (This has nothing to do with ponyfans, strickly personal.)

You're okay, but I miss the other guy.

You are always welcome in my seats. I am a nonpartisan seat provider.

SMU LB wrote:

jtstang wrote:

SMU LB wrote:PS: If anyone cares, which you should not, I have changed my screen name to protect the innocent, which in this case is me. (This has nothing to do with ponyfans, strickly personal.)

You're okay, but I miss the other guy.

You are always welcome in my seats. I am a nonpartisan seat provider.

myrdel???? How do you change a screen name?

smupony94 wrote:

SMU LB wrote:

jtstang wrote: You're okay, but I miss the other guy.

You are always welcome in my seats. I am a nonpartisan seat provider.

myrdel???? How do you change a screen name?

PM SmooPower. He can do it when he has time.