Arizona Senator John McCain (official)

[Flocka]

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

Regan appointed both. If they're not conservative enough for the right, themn maybe you all should knock ol Ronny off his pedestal a little.

I am not upset that they are not conservative enough. My point was that they are the swing voters. Liek with Souter, just because they are appointed by a conservative does not make them a Scalia.

[sandgk]

Originally Posted by bigballin2987

I am not upset that they are not conservative enough. My point was that they are the swing voters. Liek with Souter, just because they are appointed by a conservative does not make them a Scalia.

So, it isn't that they are not sufficiently conservative, merely that they don't vote in line with conservative positions in cases before the Court?

OK.

[Flocka]

Originally Posted by sandgk

So, it isn't that they are not sufficiently conservative, merely that they don't vote in line with conservative positions in cases before the Court?

OK.

What are you talking about?

I was saying they are not known as conservative judges, and the fact that they were appointed by a Republican does not make them a conservative judge.

[buckeyegrad]

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

So, you don't want a conservative Court, you want a radical conservative Court. Like I said, such a Court scares the [censored] out of me. I won't rehash those reasons here... but, such a Court would be scary indeed.

It is only radical if you consider the current courts conservative, which they are not. To say they are anything other than moderate is laughable.

Re Souter: Well, maybe Bush the Elder shouldn't have picked him. Not my fault your side of the aisle can't figure out who to appoint, or that the extremists you prefer get laughed out of congress.

I'm not complaining about past appointment here, I'm taking issue with your characterization of the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts as being conservative. Who appointed whom is irrelevant.

And if you consider Robert Bork (the only appointee I can think of being rejected by the Congress) an extremist, tells me how out of touch you are considering he is one of the most respected legal minds of the last 30+ years in the United States.

you haven't seen Big Business/Government get away with [censored]ing you until you have such a Court.

Ah yes, the "big business boogie-man". I'll take my chances with them over big governmen any day as they don't have the ability to tax or imprison me.

Anyway.... the "conservative" Courts in years past have firmly established that black people aren't actually people.... and are partly responsible for the crash of 1929 (in keeping very little check on business shenanigans) and so on.... careful what you wish for. We're in a precarious economic situation as is..... (which, incidentally, is ALSO a problem brought on by conservatives.... )

Right, and early 21st century conservativism is just like pre-Depression conservatism. Then again, maybe I should use your anachronistic line of reasoning and point out that it was the Democrats who were the ones who defined Blacks as property, so I guess that means it really was the liberals who did this. As for today's economic problems, they have much more to do with a hyper-interventionist Fed that thinks it can engineer the economy so as to prevent anyone from failing rather than allowing the market to self-correct itself.

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Originally Posted by buckeyegrad

It is only radical if you consider the current courts conservative, which they are not. To say they are anything other than moderate is laughable.

Says who? You? You'll forgive me my ignorance in having a different view of the world. I should know by now, it's the Right's way or "wrong."

My bad.

And if you consider Robert Bork (the only appointee I can think of being rejected by the Congress) an extremist, tells me how out of touch you are considering he is one of the most respected legal minds of the last 30+ years in the United States.

Being "brilliant" has nothing to do with it.

Ah yes, the "big business boogie-man". I'll take my chances with them over big governmen any day as they don't have the ability to tax or imprison me.

I said "Big Business/Gov" to mean big business AND Government. I hate to pull the "I do this for a living" card, but... I don't care what you think about the issue of if conservative Justices are pro or con Government, I know for a fact that they are.

Right, and early 21st century conservativism is just like pre-Depression conservatism. Then again, maybe I should use your anachronistic line of reasoning and point out that it was the Democrats who were the ones who defined Blacks as property, so I guess that means it really was the liberals who did this. As for today's economic problems, they have much more to do with a hyper-interventionist Fed that thinks it can engineer the economy so as to prevent anyone from failing rather than allowing the market to self-correct itself.

Maybe you should.... but you'll note I said conservative... not Republican. So, you can blame the "democrats" all you want... it's irrelevant to what I'm talking about. Fact... the Court was conservative in the relevant years leading up to the Crash. Fact... the Court was conservative in the "slavery" relevant years.... You can call them Republicans, Democrats, Whigs or whatever else you want, Bgrad. I don't give a [censored].

Re: who's to blame for today's problematic economy.... I should have expected an excuse. I suppose if this was still the Clinton administration we could agree to place the blame squarely on his shoulders. Good enough for me. But.... alas, when Clinton was in the big chair, the economy was doing just fine (And, of course, the Republicans took the credit....) and then Dubya comes, and the spending goes up... (and the dems somehow get the blame)... and it gets worse and worse... gas goes up, economy gets even weaker... starts to look like the mid 70s stagflation all over again... and now.... well.. it's a meddeling Fed.... I'm just shocked that the Super-duper Republicans have been so inept at figuring out how to address that issue... But.. hey... it's not thier fault, right? Always, always, always blame someone else. Never admit a weakness, let alone a failure... and history? Bah.. who needs it.

And... what's with the hostility?

[buckeyegrad]

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

Says who? You? You'll forgive me my ignorance in having a different view of the world. I should know by now, it's the Right's way or "wrong."

That is exactly my point, this is all a matter of perspective! I simply began this whole issue by saying that one of the reasons I favor McCain is because it will give us a conservative court for the first time in a long time. You took issue with me not considering the current courts conservative. Hence, you were the one who first took exception to a different world view other than your own.

Being "brilliant" has nothing to do with it.

You're right, we shouldn't want brilliant justices. We should only want ones who you don't consider to be "extreme".

said "Big Business/Gov" to mean big business AND Government. I hate to pull the "I do this for a living" card, but... I don't care what you think about the issue of if conservative Justices are pro or con Government, I know for a fact that they are.

Go ahead and pull out the card. I know plenty of lawyers who both agree and disagree with you, so that means nothing. My perspective was not created in my own head, it comes from reading numerous articles by both professors of law and practicing attorneys.

Maybe you should.... but you'll note I said conservative... not Republican. So, you can blame the "democrats" all you want... it's irrelevant to what I'm talking about. Fact... the Court was conservative in the relevant years leading up to the Crash. Fact... the Court was conservative in the "slavery" relevant years.... You can call them Republicans, Democrats, Whigs or whatever else you want, Bgrad. I don't give a [censored].

I was pointing out two issues here. First, you were the one implying that justices must be conservative if they were appointed by Republican presidents. I was showing the fallacy of such reasoning by showing how absurd such a notion is by saying appointments by Democrat presidents must be liberal by default. Second, the other issue was the anachronistic idea that today's conservatives are anything like those of pre-Depression era days. Again, I was showing the absurdity of comparing today's conservatives to the conservatives of the pre-Civil War era as you wanted to imply.

And... what's with the hostility?

Perhaps it was the hostility I felt from you (not saying you intended it, but I felt it) implying that my perspective of seeing the Court of the last 25 years as being moderate as illegitimate simply because you have a different perspective.

Edit: I really don't like nor want to get into these arguments with you. While it had a time and place IMO, I feel as though we have exhausted any benefits. I want a more conservative court as I feel we have had only liberal and moderate ones over the last 80+ years and there needs to be a correcting balance. You disagree, fine, we both know this, so I don't see the reason for challenging the other's perspective anymore.

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Originally Posted by buckeyegrad

That is exactly my point, this is all a matter of perspective! I simply began this whole issue by saying that one of the reasons I favor McCain is because it will give us a conservative court for the first time in a long time. You took issue with me not considering the current courts conservative. Hence, you were the one who first took exception to a different world view other than your own.

I see... so when you state you're opinion, you're just stating your opinion... but, when I say that the idea of a conservative court scares the [censored] out of me, I'm picking a fight. Gotcha.

You're right, we shouldn't want brilliant justices. We should only want ones who you don't consider to be "extreme".

I have no idea what "we" should want. I don't want people I consider extreme. A) People can be brilliant without being extremists. B) Plenty of brilliant extremists do things I consider quite ugly.... Say... Adolf Hitler, for example... (Feel free to spare me the typical "No way you just compared Bork to Hitler" rant. It's clearly not what I'm doing here)

Go ahead and pull out the card. I know plenty of lawyers who both agree and disagree with you, so that means nothing. My perspective was not created in my own head, it comes from reading numerous articles by both professors of law and practicing attorneys.

Of course it comes from your own head, since you're making the deicisions of which pieces of information to credit and which to not. I don't mean to imply you haven't looked in to it, and I really don't have any issue with your position. I disagree with it. I think I'm right. But, I don't have any expectation that you think Im right.

I was pointing out two issues here. First, you were the one implying that justices must be conservative if they were appointed by Republican presidents. I was showing the fallacy of such reasoning by showing how absurd such a notion is by saying appointments by Democrat presidents must be liberal by default.

It is pretty rare that an appointed judge does a 180 from what his appointer had in mind... or should have had in mind...

Frankly, my "favorite" judge in the "pure" sense of the word is the "swing vote" judge. Because it is this judge who is actually listening and deciding a case, without an agenda. If you ask me about "pure" law, my mind is made up that there should be NO political component to the judiciary at all. Reality is something quite different.

Second, the other issue was the anachronistic idea that today's conservatives are anything like those of pre-Depression era days. Again, I was showing the absurdity of comparing today's conservatives to the conservatives of the pre-Civil War era as you wanted to imply.

And I completley understand why you, a modern day conservative, would want to distance yourself from those idiots. But.. Conservatism is Conservatism... I acknowledge times change, as do opinions when messured over them. But... the bottom line is, you look at history and you see ... let me rephase... I look at history and I see that each and every time, the Conservative idea was dead [censored]ing wrong. (And, of course, I'm generalizing. Not all conservative ideas are bad, but a bunch of biggies were, in my view. I'm sure you feel that way about liberals... )

Perhaps it was the hostility I felt from you (not saying you intended it, but I felt it) implying that my perspective of seeing the Court of the last 25 years as being moderate as illegitimate simply because you have a different perspective.

Not sure how you got that from me making the remark that such a court scares me. Maybe I was a little cavalier with my remark about the current court not being 80 years ago....

Anyway... I don't want to get in to a personal [censored]ing match... I would hope by now both of us realize we're just arguing positions....

[NJ-Buckeye]

McCain should use this pic .. to get the female vote

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I thought for sure my "you're opinion" remark above would have got at least one "That's not very Tressel-like"

[tibor75]

What a stooge

McCain mistaken on Iran and al-Qaida - Yahoo! News

I'm shocked the liberal media hasn't played this up more.

McCain, expressing concern about Iran's rising sway in the Mideast, said, "Al-Qaida is going back into Iran and is receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran." He made the comments Tuesday at a news conference in Jordan; he made similar comments earlier to radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt.

Iran is a predominantly Shiite Muslim country and has been at pains to close its borders to al-Qaida fighters of the rival Sunni sect.


Yep, ready to be commander in chief.

[FCollinsBuckeye]

Originally Posted by tibor75

I'm shocked the liberal media hasn't played this up more.

Uhh...McCain *is* liberal.

[ORD_Buckeye]

Originally Posted by FCollinsBuckeye

Uhh...McCain *is* liberal.

Depends on the day and the audience. He's kind of the Republican version of Bill Clinton...all over the map depending on what his own political survival mandates. I wonder at what point he'll find his "Sister Soulja."

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

This thread needs more

WHHHOOOOOOOOO-AAAHHHH!!!

[MaxBuck]

Originally Posted by FCollinsBuckeye

Uhh...McCain *is* liberal.

Adolf! I thought we lost you in that bunker!

[Buckeye86]

Originally Posted by ORD_Buckeye

Depends on the day and the audience. He's kind of the Republican version of Bill Clinton...all over the map depending on what his own political survival mandates. I wonder at what point he'll find his "Sister Soulja."

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the 2000 Presidential primaries changed McCain for the worse and morphed him into the jumbled up mess he is today.