Ok, correction, dumbest president in my lifetime...lol. Anyone who drives around with a W sticker on their car and has heard one of his speeches has plenty to be embarrassed about. I knew my post would rile some, just my opinion really. I think our country is in serious trouble, and I think his administration is part of the problem. Like I said, I own a lot of guns and am a card carrying NRA and member of the republican party. Call me an independent thinker, I don't like Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Rove, they're as shady as they come.
Once again Pres Bush shows us the great man he is (John Roberts nominated for SCOTUS)
- Thread starter Ozzieman
- Start date
MeekAndMild
New member
OTOH many in the news media consider Diane Feinstine and Chucky Schumer to be too much in favor of the RKBA. I'd like to see more info about what he has really done to protect it before we throw in all our support.
Wraith, we agree on many subjects, but must disagree on this one. If the borders are sealed that is a 2 way proposition and although I love this country one of the things about it that appeals to me is that I can come and go as I please. (I haven't been out of the country for over 30 years but you never know when I'll want to drive across the border or sail to the Carribean.) I'd much rather approach the illegal alien question the way many other countries have done it, by (1) denying citizenship to the American born children of non citizens, (2) denying the social welfare umbrella to aliens, (3) setting a currency exchange rate which is advantageous for export rather than import, (4) requiring citizenship for property ownership, et cetera.
If you would recall the stated purpose of the "Iron Curtain" was to prevent undesirables from entering communist countries. We don't need that here.
Baba Louie
New member
If I may continue the OT spin going for one second... Actually it was to keep repressed local natives in-line and INSIDE their own borders... AND to keep horrible western influences (and soldiers bearing arms against their policies) out.
Re: Roberts... looks like his middle of the road, just doing my job, Well, [(I will add oh WyldChild
)] will probably work to his favor... or so most of the pundits opine.The questions Sen Schumer has posed to him are interesting, but in answering them, pose a potential trap or tripwire to any effective future judgements he may be called upon to render without prejudice.
I have yet to hear anything from the OTHER NY Senator's camp regarding Roberts... which I find interesting considering his Solictor Gen position on Roe v. Wade.
MeekandMild...
When I say "seal the borders" I mean securing it so that only the people we want crossing it will be able to. I envision a double chain link fence with razor wire and motion wire running through it. The National Guard of the border states will guard it from small field bases. Random patrols will be sent out from time to time.
This, IMHO is minimal. The goal would be to stop unauthorized crossings (illegals, drug smugglers). You as a US citizen would be free to cross at any checkpoint. I am only concerned with the open, unprotected swath of land that is our border with Mexico. I am much less concerned about Canada, however measures should be taken to secure our northern border as well, although I doubt they need to be any where near as drastic.
What I don't understand is why people always relate securing the border to the Berlin Wall, the Iron Curtin, or call me communist...
I just want to protect our nation, the same way any level-headed man would protect his land from a neighbor who crosses at will, parties, and destroys the property. If you want to visit, that's fine, just knock and ask me.
When I say "seal the borders" I mean securing it so that only the people we want crossing it will be able to. I envision a double chain link fence with razor wire and motion wire running through it. The National Guard of the border states will guard it from small field bases. Random patrols will be sent out from time to time.
This, IMHO is minimal. The goal would be to stop unauthorized crossings (illegals, drug smugglers). You as a US citizen would be free to cross at any checkpoint. I am only concerned with the open, unprotected swath of land that is our border with Mexico. I am much less concerned about Canada, however measures should be taken to secure our northern border as well, although I doubt they need to be any where near as drastic.
What I don't understand is why people always relate securing the border to the Berlin Wall, the Iron Curtin, or call me communist...
I just want to protect our nation, the same way any level-headed man would protect his land from a neighbor who crosses at will, parties, and destroys the property. If you want to visit, that's fine, just knock and ask me.
Over at The Volokh Conspiracy, Randy Barnett (argued for Kelo at the Supreme Court) posted this on July 20th:
WHO IS JOHN ROBERTS? WHO KNOWS? Jonathan Adler says John Roberts is the "best available" nominee. John Podhoretz says he is a "boring choice." So which is it? . . . .
Sorry, I seemed to have fallen asleep. I guess that means Podhoretz is right. John Roberts is who you get when the President finally nominates the "best qualified" candidate. I mean truly best qualified as measured by college and law school degrees (both Harvard), grades (summa, Harvard; Magna, Harvard Law School), clerkships (Friendly, Rehquist), post law school job (Chief Deputy SG), big prestigious law firm job. He is widely reputed to be considered by the Justices themselves as among the very best Supreme Court oral advocates around today. And no one dislikes him.
But what sort of Justice will Judge Roberts make? I have no idea. I have never met him, so all I have to go on is his public record--a record of enormous accomplishment. But so far as I know, we know nothing about what he stands for apart from the fact that he is undoubtedly politically conservative. Is he an originalist? We don't know. Is he a majoritarian conservative like Robert Bork? We don't know. Would he find any limits on the enumerated powers of Congress? We don't know. Would he have ruled with the majority in Kelo? We don't know.
What is important is not that we don't know, but why we don't know any of this or anything else about the sort of justice that John Roberts will be, other than a very smart one. I am not concerned with his policy preferences, which I assume, from all accounts, are generally conservative, but with how he thinks a Supreme Court justice should go about interpreting a written constitution. In his distinguished career, he has somehow managed not to give a speech or write an article that reveals the core of his judicial philosophy. As a result, we simply have no idea what to expect from him other than "well-crafted" opinions, and are unlikely to find out. Perhaps some previously expressed view will emerge from the confirmation process. If so, I very much look forward to reading it.
John Roberts appears to be the quintessential A+ student. That means being very smart, working very hard, and generally scoping out what the teacher wants to hear--which includes just the right amount of intellectual disagreement. Indeed, these would seem to be the qualities most desired in a judicial clerk who needs to anticipate and articulate the views if his judge, a Deputy SG who needs to voice the views of the administration, a Supreme Court advocate who needs to figure out what the justices want to hear while making his client's case, and an appellate judge who is trying faithfully to anticipate and follow Congress and the Supreme Court. Add to this what appears to be an admirable personal character and you have the "best qualified" person to sit on the highest court. But what may be missing is a judicial philosophy that will withstand the rigors of decades on the Court.
Am I being too hard on Judge Roberts? Perhaps. But I do know this. Writing an article, giving a speech, or even writing a column or blog about how the Constitution should be interpreted--taking a position, and defending it against all comers--is hard. Not the same kind of hard as standing up to judicial questioning in oral argument, to be sure. Almost completely different, actually. It requires a knowledge of one's own principles and an ability to articulate them and defend them publicly against contrary views.
This is a type of trial by ordeal that hones one's beliefs and commitments. Consider it the academic equivalent of briefing and oral argument about one's judicial philosophy. Even engaging in private debate is no substitute for public disclosure and scrutiny by other scholars. John Roberts has been able somehow to avoid this ordeal throughout a long and distinguished career. This degree of avoidance would seem to have taken effort and discipline.
In contrast, Judge Michael McConnell, to name another conservative, has been through this ordeal. As a law professor, he has had to make such a commitment about judicial philosophy and defend it. When it comes to originalism, he has practiced it himself, and the fruits of his analysis have been subjected to severe academic scrutiny. In doing so, he has earned the respect of his academic adversaries. But because he has a paper trail, McConnell would have had a much tougher confirmation fight, which I imagine entered into the decision to pick Judge Roberts instead.
So we are still ducking and hiding from a debate over how the Constitution should be interpreted, beyond "not legislate from the bench." Will these questions be asked by the Senators? Maybe, but not likely. Will they be answered by the nominee? Only if asked, and then I expect to get answers that the Senators want to hear, delivered in a calm, cool, articulate and thoughtful manner. In a word, "boring." I predict no gavel-to-gavel network coverage. Even CNN and Fox News will cut away. C*SPAN will end up having this one all to itself.
Should Judge Roberts be confirmed? From what I now know, absolutely. He is well within the range of Presidential picks that are entitled to Senate confirmation. This was the President's choice to make, after all, not mine. But with someone like Judge McConnell we would have known what we were getting, for better or worse. With Judge Roberts, we can only sit and wait...and hope for the best.
Read United States v. Jackson for a current dissent by Judge John Roberts. There are several areas of interest, in his dissent as to Roberts Style as a jurist.
This case was decided in April, well before Roberts could have known he would be a nominee. There's a grain of salt for you!
WHO IS JOHN ROBERTS? WHO KNOWS? Jonathan Adler says John Roberts is the "best available" nominee. John Podhoretz says he is a "boring choice." So which is it? . . . .
Sorry, I seemed to have fallen asleep. I guess that means Podhoretz is right. John Roberts is who you get when the President finally nominates the "best qualified" candidate. I mean truly best qualified as measured by college and law school degrees (both Harvard), grades (summa, Harvard; Magna, Harvard Law School), clerkships (Friendly, Rehquist), post law school job (Chief Deputy SG), big prestigious law firm job. He is widely reputed to be considered by the Justices themselves as among the very best Supreme Court oral advocates around today. And no one dislikes him.
But what sort of Justice will Judge Roberts make? I have no idea. I have never met him, so all I have to go on is his public record--a record of enormous accomplishment. But so far as I know, we know nothing about what he stands for apart from the fact that he is undoubtedly politically conservative. Is he an originalist? We don't know. Is he a majoritarian conservative like Robert Bork? We don't know. Would he find any limits on the enumerated powers of Congress? We don't know. Would he have ruled with the majority in Kelo? We don't know.
What is important is not that we don't know, but why we don't know any of this or anything else about the sort of justice that John Roberts will be, other than a very smart one. I am not concerned with his policy preferences, which I assume, from all accounts, are generally conservative, but with how he thinks a Supreme Court justice should go about interpreting a written constitution. In his distinguished career, he has somehow managed not to give a speech or write an article that reveals the core of his judicial philosophy. As a result, we simply have no idea what to expect from him other than "well-crafted" opinions, and are unlikely to find out. Perhaps some previously expressed view will emerge from the confirmation process. If so, I very much look forward to reading it.
John Roberts appears to be the quintessential A+ student. That means being very smart, working very hard, and generally scoping out what the teacher wants to hear--which includes just the right amount of intellectual disagreement. Indeed, these would seem to be the qualities most desired in a judicial clerk who needs to anticipate and articulate the views if his judge, a Deputy SG who needs to voice the views of the administration, a Supreme Court advocate who needs to figure out what the justices want to hear while making his client's case, and an appellate judge who is trying faithfully to anticipate and follow Congress and the Supreme Court. Add to this what appears to be an admirable personal character and you have the "best qualified" person to sit on the highest court. But what may be missing is a judicial philosophy that will withstand the rigors of decades on the Court.
Am I being too hard on Judge Roberts? Perhaps. But I do know this. Writing an article, giving a speech, or even writing a column or blog about how the Constitution should be interpreted--taking a position, and defending it against all comers--is hard. Not the same kind of hard as standing up to judicial questioning in oral argument, to be sure. Almost completely different, actually. It requires a knowledge of one's own principles and an ability to articulate them and defend them publicly against contrary views.
This is a type of trial by ordeal that hones one's beliefs and commitments. Consider it the academic equivalent of briefing and oral argument about one's judicial philosophy. Even engaging in private debate is no substitute for public disclosure and scrutiny by other scholars. John Roberts has been able somehow to avoid this ordeal throughout a long and distinguished career. This degree of avoidance would seem to have taken effort and discipline.
In contrast, Judge Michael McConnell, to name another conservative, has been through this ordeal. As a law professor, he has had to make such a commitment about judicial philosophy and defend it. When it comes to originalism, he has practiced it himself, and the fruits of his analysis have been subjected to severe academic scrutiny. In doing so, he has earned the respect of his academic adversaries. But because he has a paper trail, McConnell would have had a much tougher confirmation fight, which I imagine entered into the decision to pick Judge Roberts instead.
So we are still ducking and hiding from a debate over how the Constitution should be interpreted, beyond "not legislate from the bench." Will these questions be asked by the Senators? Maybe, but not likely. Will they be answered by the nominee? Only if asked, and then I expect to get answers that the Senators want to hear, delivered in a calm, cool, articulate and thoughtful manner. In a word, "boring." I predict no gavel-to-gavel network coverage. Even CNN and Fox News will cut away. C*SPAN will end up having this one all to itself.
Should Judge Roberts be confirmed? From what I now know, absolutely. He is well within the range of Presidential picks that are entitled to Senate confirmation. This was the President's choice to make, after all, not mine. But with someone like Judge McConnell we would have known what we were getting, for better or worse. With Judge Roberts, we can only sit and wait...and hope for the best.
Read United States v. Jackson for a current dissent by Judge John Roberts. There are several areas of interest, in his dissent as to Roberts Style as a jurist.
This case was decided in April, well before Roberts could have known he would be a nominee. There's a grain of salt for you!
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Good re-post, Anti.
The US v Jackson case is also revealing, I think. Roberts holds the 4th Amendment pretty much sacrosanct. Refreshing.
Rich
The US v Jackson case is also revealing, I think. Roberts holds the 4th Amendment pretty much sacrosanct. Refreshing.
Rich
A lot of people question my use of greatnes for Pres Bush.
Yes maybe he only has 47% rate.
But then again I read just the other week that AOL did a questionair.
Who is the greatest American. Over 200,000 people answered.
OPRA was forth.
And a long way above FDR who was in the 40's if memmory serves me.
THis is one reasion that I care little what the masses think.
TV has turned the US into a large group of air heads.
Look at how many times they voted in Clinton. And after all that New York made his wife (I refuse to write her name) a senator
By the way Ragan was #1
Guess there are still some smart people out there.
Yes maybe he only has 47% rate.
But then again I read just the other week that AOL did a questionair.
Who is the greatest American. Over 200,000 people answered.
OPRA was forth.
And a long way above FDR who was in the 40's if memmory serves me.
THis is one reasion that I care little what the masses think.
TV has turned the US into a large group of air heads.
Look at how many times they voted in Clinton. And after all that New York made his wife (I refuse to write her name) a senator
By the way Ragan was #1
Guess there are still some smart people out there.
It is wrong headed when people compare sealing our borders with communist dictatorships sealing theirs (North Korea anyone?): The Iron curtain was for keeping people in. We want a curtain to keep people out.
BTW If we do ever seal off the Southern border, then we will have to seal the Northern one too, because it would have become the point of least resistance.
Incidentally I voted for Bush and can barely tolerate him, and I am a conservative. Bush is wrong on so many levels and in so many ways that it makes me ill - but he was still the better choice over Kerry, barely better but better.
MeekAndMild
New member
I never called you a communist! Also, the STATED intent of the Iron Curtain didn't have so much to do with protecting from military invasion but to prevent the Roma tribes from continuing their thousand year long history of migrations around Europe and across the new borders. They considered them to be undesirables.
The truth about the US Mexican border is that it is an artificial one and is preventing people from doing the same sort of north-south migration and commerce they've done for the past 6,000 years. If Mexico is such a bother we'd probably do better to find another Andrew Jackson and end the problem.