lostfan

QUOTE (BearSox @ May 27, 2009 -> 09:44 PM) If my toilet paper had a quote by Norman Thomas on every sheet, I wouldn't use it. But then again, I'm a little crazy and support capitalism.

Yeah I love it. I'm afraid I'm gonna overuse it though.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 27, 2009 -> 06:36 PM) It explains why liberal judicial folks think that they can interpret laws by "living and breathing" versus what the constitution really says. They bastardize that amendment, among others. I'll try to explain - but I'm going out of town so I may not get the chance. M2M accounting?

QUOTE (chw42 @ May 27, 2009 -> 03:35 PM) Finally. The LeBron is better than Jordan s*** can stop now. He can't win it by himself, see? Neither could Jordan.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ May 27, 2009 -> 05:39 PM) at this rate he will have retired by October The end of October, after winning World Series MVP and throwing a CG in the WS for good measure (and without a DH, of course)

Damn, 51 (52?) pro games and already in AAA. At this rate he's going to be on the major league team and maybe even before September.

That's actually Nixon's.

brb going to shoot self in face

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 27, 2009 -> 04:20 PM) Here's the full quote in context, FWIW. Basically, if you actually read the speech, she's saying the exact opposite of what those opposed to her are trying to suggest she believes using the quote-mining. Newt Gingrich on Sotomayor: "Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman.' new racism is no better than old racism." Newt Gingrich after I've quoted him: "My experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman." racism is better."

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 27, 2009 -> 04:31 PM) the 14th cannot explain away the logical paradox of "objective interpretation." By definition, an interpretation is subjective. Also something I was trying to say. I don't think an interpretation is relative. It's subjective and therefore impossible to define as "this" or "that."

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 27, 2009 -> 04:26 PM) Go read the 14th amendment. Seriously. And I'll tell you why later if I get the chance. I have to go. Makes freed blacks full citizens, equal protection clause, due process, one of the Reconstruction amendments, etc, I know the 14th amendment. I don't know where you're going with this though. You seem to be arguing something completely different from what I am.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 27, 2009 -> 04:20 PM) Please explain how the idea of "objective interpretation" doesn't just eat itself in logic. Yes. Thank you. You look at something that doesn't have a black-and-white answer, different people will interpret it in different ways. That's why there are 9 justices FFS.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 27, 2009 -> 04:16 PM) Sure - and I don't care because it's not explicit - EXCEPT with judicial nominees. It's VERY explicit then. But again, it's always ok when Democrats do whatever the hell they want and those same actions are motherf***ing evil when the GOP does it. Dude. You're doing it right now.

No, a conservative interpretation (read: a constitutional answer) is the correct answer by default, the goal of a liberal is to distort everything as much as they possibly can since everything they believe is wrong. All of the answers are clearly listed in the Constitution even when they get to the Supreme Court. I get it.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 27, 2009 -> 04:10 PM) No they don't - at least they are not supposed to. They are supposed to INTERPRET the law, and if the law is f***ed up, they (legislative branch) go back and re-write it to pass Constitutional muster. PERIOD. What is all this relativism for? Why do libs love to hang themselves on everything being relative? Constitutional interpretations of the law = legal rulings = policy. Outside of that I have no idea what you're talking about.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 27, 2009 -> 04:05 PM) Everyone knows she is getting in. But the opportunity here is to educate about the policies of this president - people need to understand that he believes in "policy from the courts". Of course, libs think he's messianic wonderful, so to libs, nothing to see, move along. And if a conservative was appointed, there would be conservative "policy from the courts." The only difference is that somebody actually said it out loud. It's pretty mind-numbing that conservatives manage to get away with pretending they don't do the exact same thing liberals do. If it wasn't intended to be that way the president wouldn't get to appoint judges/justices.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 27, 2009 -> 04:05 PM) Here's the question though. Do you believe the Senate should require a majority vote or a 60% supermajority for all votes? Whatever the Constitution says. Isn't that a majority vote?

Please explain to me how an appellate judge or a Supreme Court justice does not make policy. Plain and simple, yes, they do. Whether they are liberal or conservative. When an appellate court makes a ruling it sets a precedent for the lower courts to follow, likewise for the Supreme Court. The case wouldn't go up if it was clearly and easily defined (because of $$$). To pretend otherwise is pretty much trying to bulls*** yourself because it's simply not true.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ May 27, 2009 -> 03:51 PM) I personally believe a President should have all of his choices up for a vote in front of the full Senate. I do not agree with her thinking, but neither her, nor Stevens' nor Ginsburg's replacement will change anything. Vote her in and get on with business. That's pretty much all anyone should ask. A conservative won't like a liberal nominee and vice versa, unless the person is just absurdly unqualified, then the Senate should just vote yes or no and let that be that. All the rest is for show though.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ May 27, 2009 -> 03:10 PM) To say that any appellate court case is one particular judge's is a bit of a misnomer. Appellate court judges hear and decide cases in panels, so even if one judge writes the opinion, at least one other judge has to endorse it for it to comprise the opinion of the court. Technically, its "their" case; not "his" or "hers." Point taken, but I have to speak in the language "they" are using.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 27, 2009 -> 01:56 PM) The better question is: How many of her rulings were appealed to the Supreme Court and were never heard? Supreme Court only hears the cases that it wants to hear, and usually that means it is going to change something. Very rarely (if ever) does the supreme court take an appeal and just say "Oh the appellate judge was right, we just wanted to reinforce it." 300 and something. There were, what, 6 of her cases that went before the Supreme Court?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 27, 2009 -> 12:09 PM) The thing you're missing is that the "one best qualified candidate" logic allows you to justify having a group made up of 8-9 white males deciding cases involving rights for minorities and women and you don't have to feel guilty about it. The "best qualfied" by default is always a white male. Always. It's just funny this argument never comes up when a white male is nominated for anything. Nobody questions (directly or indirectly) that a white male is unqualified based on the fact that he's a white male. When it's a woman or minority you have to practically beg people to look at their qualifications.

QUOTE (BearSox @ May 27, 2009 -> 10:49 AM) I call that speaking da truth CHUUUCH

lol, listening to you guys talk I'm so glad I can't be drafted now. Fighting in one ill-advised war is enough.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 27, 2009 -> 10:26 AM) So essentially your answer is that we can't look at any results in Nix's, so the fact that Nix hasn't been any better this year doesn't matter, it is just that according you he looks better. There is no point in arguing with anti-logic like that. Go ahead with your pitchforks and torches, because there is no point in trying to talk intelligently to you about this. BearSox is... well... over the top (as usual) but he does have a point. Nix's sample size is small, and he is an inexperienced former first-round pick with sporadic ABs, so his low batting average can be misleading. If he's made improvements, it won't show that way unless he plays every day. It's the same logic Anderson supporters use.