Libs whine about activist Supremes

B

Byron

New member
Quite a hoot! Maybe Liberals should resurrect all those old "Impeach Earl Warren" signs and replace his name with Scalia's.

Activist courts are loaded guns, and they can shoot in various directions. Did they never contemplate that? Damned unseemly for Liberals to whine when one finally cranks its turret their way.

In the words of my favorite mixed metaphor: They created a monster, and its chickens have come home to roost.

Tough noogies.
 
Not sure I agree ...

One person's 'activist' justice is another person's 'rule of law' and constitutional argument ...


The liberal whining about Scalia tells us that today is a 'will of the people' day. Unfortunately, the liberals don't announce what day it is, so we just have to surmise the answer based upon their current angst. Some days are 'rule of law' days (when the 'law' is supporting the liberal scumbags), and other days are 'will of the people' days (when the 'law' is not supporting the liberal scumbags). Actually, once you get used to it, it's pretty easy to tell one day apart from the other.

In the future, to save time, we'll just refer to them as ROL days and WOTP days. OK? ;)

Regards from AZ
 
The whole system is so very fragile. It depends upon us voicing our opinions, but then following the dictates of the court. Where we will have a serious problem is when the court says one thing and the legislative branch another. In the present situation, there is no part for the executive branch of government. I fear that the U.S. Supreme Court, being polarized and without a decisive majority, will take some middle ground in order to build a greater majority. The middle ground would be a recount, but with set standards and a new deadline. I can not fault the principle, but the actual recount can be a very messy and politically dangerous process. The state legislature may take another course which may fall counter to the recount. Of course, a majority of those that know, believe that the U.S. Supremes will end everything with their decision, thus avoiding the train wreck. Gore has managed to weaken the winner and taint the mid-term elections.
 
I said this elsewhere. If the situation was reversed, everyone would be making the other side's same arguments for themselves.

Bush would be waving a dimpled chad and Gore would be yelling for the SC to save him.

Let's be real about this. You can't separate the party goal from the argument.

Would you tell Bush to give up if he was in Gore's shoes?
 
I voted for Bush. If the situation was reversed I would have told Bush to give it up a LONG time ago.

It's embarrassing for those that voted for Gore that he has dragged this out so long and is trying to litigate his way into office. (Which is why so many Democrats are changing their party affiliation.)

Then again I don't think Bush would have done this in the first place. Which is a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives.

Finally, the situation was reversed in 1960. Nixon was a gentleman and accepted the loss with good grace. Even though there was documented widespread voter fraud.

Just my 2 cents.
 
There it was!

A big, hand-lettered sign waving behind one of the network meat puppets: IMPEACH SCALIA!

Wait until GW starts undoing some of Clinton's executive orders and filling Federal Court vacancies. This is going to get really good.
 
I'm with gjwandkids. I do not believe that Bush would have pushed this thing this far. He doesn't want it as badly as Gore.

I am not so nieve to believe that Bush is as pure as the wind driven snow, but he does have a moral compass, whereas Gore does not.

Ken
 
Wendi,

I think you're right on. I don't expect that Bush would have acted as Gore is acting now, if the situation were reversed.

"Bush would have done the same thing..." BS, prove it.

This is the same liberal line used during impeachment, "They all do it..." It's a great excuse for a 4 year old, but a lot less than I want to see from a president.
 
It takes an activist court to restore the balance among the branches of government. The U.S. Supreme Court has been trying to give some of the power back to the legislatures over the last ten years, and I think their decisions in the Florida mess are best seen as part of this. They are saying that the Florida Supreme Court should not infringe on the jobs given the legislature. It actually reminds me a little of Marbury v. Madison.
 
EnochGale-

I respectfully submit that GW would have thrown in the towel after the first re-count were current situations reversed. This he would do in part for the good of the country, and in part because by conceding gracefully, he would "live to fight another day" (unlike OwlGore, who has completely shot himself in the foot, and is finished if he doesn't win this one), and not spoil the game for everyone in the process. Plus, the media would raise a clamor the likes of which we've never seen if Republican canvassing officials pulled some of the stunts the Dems have been doing in their re-counts, and GW knows it. He knows he'd be killed in the ensuing PR war.

OwlGore, following in the tradition of the Clinton-OwlGore regime, will go to any lengths to win. Maybe he's been too close to the power for too long, and feels he is truly entitled to be President. Maybe he really believes that only he can save the planet. Maybe he's just a power-hungry &^$*%^&*(!. What is clear is that he'll stop at nothing to win, no matter what it does to the country. This is evidenced by the stream of full-on lies, half truths and demagougery we have been subjected to from the OwlGore camp since the election. Makes you wonder exactly what OwlGore promised, and to whom. He's acting like his life depends on winning this election...maybe it does.

It's no wonder that the tag line "Sore-Loserman" caught on so quickly.

Trouble

"FREEDOM IS NOT FREE."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top