Obama Insults PA Voters

[red states rule]

I support judges who wisely adjudicate. period.
and again...have 49 seats in the senate may allow Reid to name committee chairs, but it falls way short of the number of seats necessary to "rule". Your party in the senate and their filibuster power, and your president with his veto pen can and have stopped the democrats from ruling anything with 49 seats. that will change in november, thankfully.

I understand that you do not consider the feds actions as a wall street bail out, but many do not share that opinion..


again... as republicans talk about democratic pork, I only need say: BRIDGE TO NOWHERE. I rest my case.

Why not support Judges who base their decision on the US Constitution, and not their liberal POV?

Again, MFM you are missing my main point. What have Dems proposed that would solve the SS issue, lower gas prices, and reduce pork. Dems said they would do just that, so what bills did they bring to the floor that Republicans shot down?

Of cousre you do not want to talk about Dem pork - it shows they lied to the voters, and it gives you another excuse to raise our taxes

[retiredman]

Why not support Judges who base their decision on the US Constitution, and not their liberal POV?

Again, MFM you are missing my main point. What have Dems proposed that would solve the SS issue, lower gas prices, and reduce pork. Dems said they would do just that, so what bills did they bring to the floor that Republicans shot down?

Of cousre you do not want to talk about Dem pork - it shows they lied to the voters, and it gives you another excuse to raise our taxes

Why don't YOU support judges who adjudicte with wisdom and compassion?

if you want to understand democrat's proposals for the significant issues that confront America, you can learn a great deal by visiting Hillary and Obama's campaign websites. All of those issues are discussed in great detail. You would find it fascinating, I'm sure.

And of course you want to NOT talk about the BRIDGE TO NOWHERE. It makes the entire "pork" argument one that is similar to the story of Jesus witnessing the stoning of the prostitute. "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"

[red states rule]

Why don't YOU support judges who adjudicte with wisdom and compassion?

if you want to understand democrat's proposals for the significant issues that confront America, you can learn a great deal by visiting Hillary and Obama's campaign websites. All of those issues are discussed in great detail. You would find it fascinating, I'm sure.

And of course you want to NOT talk about the BRIDGE TO NOWHERE. It makes the entire "pork" argument one that is similar to the story of Jesus witnessing the stoning of the prostitute. "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"

I want Judges enforing currents laws, not creating new ones as you want. Jusges do not make law MFM. For a guy who claims to support the US Cinstitution you sure ignore it when it fits your politcal views

I am not asking what Dems are promising now, I am asking what they did to honor past promises. What bills did the Dems bring to the floor of the HOuse and Senate that would solve the SS issue, and lower gas prices?

So Dem pork to you is fine. It is fine to raise our taxes to pay for it, as long as it goes for more Dem pork. Once again, another broken promise from the Dems

[glockmail]

Why don't YOU support judges who adjudicte with wisdom and compassion?

That is such Liberal BULLSHIT. Conservative judges don't have "wisdom"? What we need is judges who decide cases without compassion, and based on the frigging law.

[red states rule]

That is such Liberal BULLSHIT. Conservative judges don't have "wisdom"? What we need is judges who decide cases without compassion, and based on the frigging law.

Libs like MFM will twist the US Constitution into more positions then a Bill Clinton intern

[retiredman]

That is such Liberal BULLSHIT. Conservative judges don't have "wisdom"? What we need is judges who decide cases without compassion, and based on the frigging law.

I never said that conservative judges did not have wisdom. And your opinions as to the qualities you'd like in judges are certainly valid. I happen to have a different opinion.

[theHawk]

Why don't YOU support judges who adjudicte with wisdom and compassion?

And I suppose your definition of compassion is a judge who will maintain the status quo of abortion on demand. And your idea of wisdom is a judge who legislates from the bench, as opposed to allowing the citizens to determine their own laws.

[red states rule]

I never said that conservative judges did not have wisdom. And your opinions as to the qualities you'd like in judges are certainly valid. I happen to have a different opinion.

You want liberal Judges making law from the bench and avoid going thru the legislature

It is easier to get your looney liberal polcies put into law using the Judical branch then getting a consensus of lawmakers

[retiredman]

You want liberal Judges making law from the bench and avoid going thru the legislature

It is easier to get your looney liberal polcies put into law using the Judical branch then getting a consensus of lawmakers

I think that the bench can certainly protect minority rights from the tyranny of the majority which is sometimes expressed in legislation. that is the way our founding fathers planned it.

[red states rule]

I think that the bench can certainly protect minority rights from the tyranny of the majority which is sometimes expressed in legislation. that is the way our founding fathers planned it.

Those protections should come from the legislature, not the judical branch

I see what kind of Judges you want. Touchy feel good liberals who make up law as they go along to fit the current polls and focus groups

[retiredman]

Those protections should come from the legislature, not the judical branch

the legislature represents the majority. the judicial system prevents the tyranny of the majority by insuring the rights of the minority. that is an example of checks and balances working as designed. At the state level, Massachusetts courts ruling to allow gay marriage is just such a ruling. The majority of the people may not have wanted gays to be able to marry, but the courts decided that marriage was a right that they ought not be denied simply by the tyranny of the majority. If a majority of citizens decided that they wanted to go back to segregated schools, and their legislature passed it and governor signed it into law, the courts would be there to overturn that law in their role as protector of minority rights.

[red states rule]

the legislature represents the majority. the judicial system prevents the tyranny of the majority by insuring the rights of the minority. that is an example of checks and balances working as designed. At the state level, Massachusetts courts ruling to allow gay marriage is just such a ruling. The majority of the people may not have wanted gays to be able to marry, but the courts decided that marriage was a right that they ought not be denied simply by the tyranny of the majority. If a majority of citizens decided that they wanted to go back to segregated schools, and their legislature passed it and governor signed it into law, the courts would be there to overturn that law in their role as protector of minority rights.

Translation - I want liberals making up the law as they go along. If the Democrat party can't win at the ballot box and in the legislature, screw em. A Judge will do all the work for us

[retiredman]

Translation - I want liberals making up the law as they go along. If the Democrat party can't win at the ballot box and in the legislature, screw em. A Judge will do all the work for us

translation: the legislature advocates for the majority. the judiciary is the advocate for the minority to protect against the tyranny of the majority, or do you spit on the founding fathers as well?

and really, RSR...can't you EVER debate an issue without stupid little "translation" bits? Can't you explain to me why you think the founding fathers didn't really mean to protect the rights of the minority?

[red states rule]

translation: the legislature advocates for the majority. the judiciary is the advocate for the minority to protect against the tyranny of the majority, or do you spit on the founding fathers as well?

and really, RSR...can't you EVER debate an issue without stupid little "translation" bits? Can't you explain to me why you think the founding fathers didn't really mean to protect the rights of the minority?

The translation fits

If Dems can't get their liberalism passd into law, they run to a liberal Judge to do it for them

That is why you want liberal judges on the bench.

[retiredman]

The translation fits

If Dems can't get their liberalism passd into law, they run to a liberal Judge to do it for them

That is why you want liberal judges on the bench.

are you incapable of discussing the concept of the tyranny of the majority and the deliberately planned role of the judiciary in protecting against it?