RedRocket1647545505 Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 Damn near every one of these politicians is crooked. It seems that every single one of them votes for their party. Republicans vote yes, Democrats vote no. The only people I've seen vote the other way were three democrats who voted yes. Nelso, Johnson, and Byrd. Why is it that they have to do this? Is there not a single honest person in this nations legislature, save for those 3 democrats? It seems that every one of them votes based on whether he will help their party or not. And not based on whether he's qualified for the job. :bs: Any thoughts on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wnaplay1647545503 Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 In my opinion there should be no parties. My reasoning is that peoples opinions are affected because of their unity to a certain party. One should not feel compelled to act/vote a certain way for fear of alienating their particular party. A politician should vote merely on what they feel is right/best for the constituants they represent. The mere act of choosing a political party over another in my opinion, has already cast doubt on a person for the simple fact that if your party should happen to be leaning a certain direction, one in which you dont necessarily feel is right who do you side with. Either your with the party or your against them. This is the way parties work. If you dont support each other your are critisized by the other members. So for fear of repubution(sp) most will go against what they know to be right and vote along party lines. Thus, the politician in my eyes is now considered crooked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted January 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 In my opinion there should be no parties. My reasoning is that peoples opinions are affected because of their unity to a certain party. One should not feel compelled to act/vote a certain way for fear of alienating their particular party. A politician should vote merely on what they feel is right/best for the constituants they represent. The mere act of choosing a political party over another in my opinion, has already cast doubt on a person for the simple fact that if your party should happen to be leaning a certain direction, one in which you dont necessarily feel is right who do you side with. Either your with the party or your against them. This is the way parties work. If you dont support each other your are critisized by the other members. So for fear of repubution(sp) most will go against what they know to be right and vote along party lines. Thus, the politician in my eyes is now considered crooked. Agreed. I really don't see a need for partys. I could be wrong though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pomade Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 I was thinking about this the other day as I was watching the votes being tallied. Like you, I noticed that the vast majority of the senate simply voted down party lines. I have an issue with the President being allowed to nominate Supreme Court justices. If there is truly a separation between the branches of government - as, IMO, it was necessarily designed to be, then one branch (i.e., the executive - the President) should not have that much influence over another (i.e., the judicial - the Supreme Court). And don't argue that there isn't influence there - if the President nominates someone, and the President's party is in the majority in the legislature, then that nominee typically gets confirmed (minus any obvious debacles, like the Harriett Myers incident). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 I was thinking about this the other day as I was watching the votes being tallied. Like you, I noticed that the vast majority of the senate simply voted down party lines. I have an issue with the President being allowed to nominate Supreme Court justices. If there is truly a separation between the branches of government - as, IMO, it was necessarily designed to be, then one branch (i.e., the executive - the President) should not have that much influence over another (i.e., the judicial - the Supreme Court). And don't argue that there isn't influence there - if the President nominates someone, and the President's party is in the majority in the legislature, then that nominee typically gets confirmed (minus any obvious debacles, like the Harriett Myers incident). Yes. Though in this particular case, I think the Dems are sighting a genine distrust of the candidate. Why? Not because he isn't a stand up guy, but because he was nominated by W, and history has shown us that he stacks his offices with yes men, and only yes men, and they don't figure this will be any different. Had the nomination come from any other republican not directly associated with W/Rove/Cheny/Rumsfeild, he would have been wearing his robe a month ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pomade Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 Yes. Though in this particular case, I think the Dems are sighting a genine distrust of the candidate. Why? Not because he isn't a stand up guy, but because he was nominated by W, and history has shown us that he stacks his offices with yes men, and only yes men, and they don't figure this will be any different. Had the nomination come from any other republican not directly associated with W/Rove/Cheny/Rumsfeild, he would have been wearing his robe a month ago. Agreed completely. Bush loves his sycophants, and has historically shown his appreciation by offering them highly prestigious, influencial positions for which they are seemingly underqualified (see Condolezza Rice and Harriet Myers). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Agreed completely. Bush loves his sycophants, and has historically shown his appreciation by offering them highly prestigious, influencial positions for which they are seemingly underqualified (see Condolezza Rice and Harriet Myers). +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berto Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 I was thinking about this the other day as I was watching the votes being tallied. Like you, I noticed that the vast majority of the senate simply voted down party lines. I have an issue with the President being allowed to nominate Supreme Court justices. If there is truly a separation between the branches of government - as, IMO, it was necessarily designed to be, then one branch (i.e., the executive - the President) should not have that much influence over another (i.e., the judicial - the Supreme Court). And don't argue that there isn't influence there - if the President nominates someone, and the President's party is in the majority in the legislature, then that nominee typically gets confirmed (minus any obvious debacles, like the Harriett Myers incident). This is especially important for the supreme court since the judges hold office until death. They don't have terms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperhead Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Damn near every one of these politicians is crooked. It seems that every single one of them votes for their party. Republicans vote yes, Democrats vote no. The only people I've seen vote the other way were three democrats who voted yes. Nelso, Johnson, and Byrd. Why is it that they have to do this? Is there not a single honest person in this nations legislature, save for those 3 democrats? It seems that every one of them votes based on whether he will help their party or not. And not based on whether he's qualified for the job. :bs: Any thoughts on this? Did you just say KKK Byrd is an honest person? Do some reading up on that fuck, he was one of the KKK LEADERS before joining the senate. The West Virginians that elected him know this and don't care, which is obvious since he is the longest running senator in our government right now. Then there is his attempts to pave the entire state of WV into a 500 lane highway from here to DC at the federal government's expense. The other two guys I know nothing about. Byrd is one of the most crooked politicians I've ever heard of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scoobysnack Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 I was thinking about this the other day as I was watching the votes being tallied. Like you, I noticed that the vast majority of the senate simply voted down party lines. I have an issue with the President being allowed to nominate Supreme Court justices. If there is truly a separation between the branches of government - as, IMO, it was necessarily designed to be, then one branch (i.e., the executive - the President) should not have that much influence over another (i.e., the judicial - the Supreme Court). And don't argue that there isn't influence there - if the President nominates someone, and the President's party is in the majority in the legislature, then that nominee typically gets confirmed (minus any obvious debacles, like the Harriett Myers incident). Not trying to flame or anything, but just a serious question. How would you like members of the United States Supreme Court to be selected then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismindless Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 AUstin L911 ... just because a person votes for their party doesnt make them bad, thats kinda what they do ... now if you are a republican you are gonna be happy right now but if you are a demo than you are NOT gonna so happy. The system in place is very fair. You forget, the President isnt the one ultimately picking the justices ... the ppl voted Bush in, so the ppl wanted, in a majority, Bush to make that choice for them, and he is. The supreme court will now be less liberal and more conservative. Now, if you feel this is unfair, well it isnt, its about majority, I think the one thing my liberal friends only agree with when it agress with them. For 30 some odd years liberals have had their stab at things and power has shifted in the past 6 years. Its a shift of power, that is all. If your points of views are not held by the majority, then there is a reason, you can claim it is this or that BUT ultimately MORE ppl side with the Conservative Republican party than the Democrat (Liberal) party. So far the only thing I have seen that is BAD politics are the filabusters to prevent Bush's nominee a FAIR Up or DOWN vote ... all I ever asked is give these guys a vote, thats it ... but the Left didnt want that, they wanted to stop at all costs. At this point in time, Liberalism has lost its grasp on all 3 major branches of govt and yes, things are going to change. So my advice is to deal with it, and figure out where you stand and believe in your ideals and be proud of who you are and what you believe, even if I think you might mbe wrong, we can disagree, but welcome to America, where we can disagree today and have a beer together tonight ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismindless Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 Remember, it is a govt OF the ppl. FOR the ppl, and BY the ppl ... the principles are that the ppl vote ppl in to make the decisions for them, if they dont like the decisions a politcan makes they dont vote them in again ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orion Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 if there is a republican president, and a republican senate and house, then clearly the democrats need to do something different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismindless Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 ^^^ true but not so true ... the democrats need to stick to a set of ideals and stick to em. I do agree if the demos want power they need to rework their strategies BUT i also think they need to stick to their core values ... I kinda dont know what their core values are as Ive seen them say this and do that, so IM confused on that whole party, i dont really know what they stand for, does someone know? Im curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pomade Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Not trying to flame or anything, but just a serious question. How would you like members of the United States Supreme Court to be selected then? Great question. Without thinking about it too much, I'd guess that I'd most like them to gain nomination through some type of vote, and then to be selected (i.e., admitted to the Court) some other type of vote. And I'd like for the general population to be involved in at least one of those votes. After all, given the pervasiveness and inclusiveness of their decisions, it could be argued that the members of the Supreme Court have more power over your day-to-day life than does the President. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 ... the democrats need to stick to a set of ideals and stick to em... Brilliant. In one post you are redundant, contrary, ignorant (of core values), and confused. Then, after summing up your entire opinion, you state you don't understand the party about which you were speaking, making the entire post seem like a waste of your own time. Bravo sir, bravo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismindless Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 ^^^ that is true, they do have power, that wasnt the idea, in the constitution it says congress has the power to override ANY judical decision. So the Judical was never intended to have the power it does now. thats why it was never designed to have public votes. Their (judicial branch) job is to interpret the laws, NOT WRITE THE LAWS. that is for congress ... a big reason why california is so radical, the judcial branch has major pull and in the end almost practically writes the laws ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 ...Their job is to enforce the laws, NOT WRITE THE LAWS. http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/students/misc_files/image001.gif Nope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Thank you Eli. I think we should make the Democrats fight the Republicans to the death, and reward the winners with a swift and painless execution. Want to eliminate bi partisan bickering? Eliminate the parties. No more "Bi-partisan commission to investigate" bla bla. If you want to get to the bottom of something, hire on some one who hates both parties, an Independant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scoobysnack Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 Great question. Without thinking about it too much, I'd guess that I'd most like them to gain nomination through some type of vote, and then to be selected (i.e., admitted to the Court) some other type of vote. And I'd like for the general population to be involved in at least one of those votes. After all, given the pervasiveness and inclusiveness of their decisions, it could be argued that the members of the Supreme Court have more power over your day-to-day life than does the President. I don't come around here much anymore so sorry if this an old topic. I like that the general public does not have a vote in the selection of Supreme Court members. One of the reasons these judges are protected from removal is so they can feel safe to make decisions to uphold the rights of minorites despite the general public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pomade Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 I don't come around here much anymore so sorry if this an old topic. I like that the general public does not have a vote in the selection of Supreme Court members. One of the reasons these judges are protected from removal is so they can feel safe to make decisions to uphold the rights of minorites despite the general public. Good point, though I never implied that a vote by the public for seating on the Supreme Court would then result in limited terms for the justices. No, you could have a public vote and still maintain the permanency of the seatings. You still have a good point, although I wouldn't completely agree that all justices serve to uphold the rights of minorities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supldys Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 Good point, though I never implied that a vote by the public for seating on the Supreme Court would then result in limited terms for the justices. No, you could have a public vote and still maintain the permanency of the seatings. You still have a good point, although I wouldn't completely agree that all justices serve to uphold the rights of minorities. I have a problem with popular opinion over matters like supreme court justices. Politicians know that people can be swayed easily, just bring up whatever the hot topic is and you can make the people think they have a strong feeling for it. So what would this bring? Supreme court campaigning, justice nominees making decisions prior to the vote to try and win votes. And that is NOT what the supreme court is about. Justices need to be free from any party so that they can be free to make rational decisions without fear of losing votes, or being pushed down the party line. Lower courts you can, because there can always be an appeal, but its awfully hard to appeal to a supreme court decision. Especially when they're in there for life. Supreme court system works, lets keep it that way. And my view on things, democrats are just whining because Bush got to pick 2 judges, which in a way does seem unfair, but you can not have proceedings without the full court, otherwise nothing will get solved. The problem with the democrats losing seats is they are too spread out. I think someone mentioned that they dont know what issues they are for. Its tough to know, some are way left and some are closer to moderate and I think thats what pushes some people away. Republicans have a full right spectrum as well, and a lot of different stands on things, but they just seem to work as a team better than democrats, at least from what Ive noticed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desperado Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 Agreed completely. Bush loves his sycophants, and has historically shown his appreciation by offering them highly prestigious, influencial positions for which they are seemingly underqualified (see Condolezza Rice and Harriet Myers). Myers,,, yes, I am still trying to figure out what the hell he was thinking. Rice how ever, I feel is doing a pretty good job. As far as why is there so much shit flying, personal opinion is that the judicial is the only branch or government that the libs had control of. And they did seem to legislate from the bench (create law by there twisted interpretation of the Constitution). It was the liberals last strong hold of control and Alito's nomination, specifically replacing O'Conner (a lib) changes the balance of power in the Supreme Court (duh, you knew that, but I figured I would say it anyhow) This doesn't really surprize me, the democratic party is imploding. They have lost all sense of direction, other than Bush bashing. Hell, 2 months ago, he was an inept boob that was incapable of running the Iraq war, now the claims are that he is so sly that he "Tricked" the libs into a debate on national security which he obviously has a better record of action on. Add to that, when a high ranking democrat senator was ask simply who the current leader of the democratic party was, he said it was to difficult a question or a leading question, or some bullshit like that. I believe it was Harry Reed that was ask, but don't hold me to that. Thing is, it's not a difficult question, who's in charge? No one seems to know. It sure ain't Howard Dean, unless they want to commit political suicide, again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismindless Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 Mensan, you're ... ??? what??? your pic agrees 100% with what i said and why did you say NOPE? so i went ahead and defined the word THEIR for you ... does that make it more clear for you? BTW, Kerry lost, get over it ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 Mensan, you're ... ??? what??? your pic agrees 100% with what i said and why did you say NOPE? so i went ahead and defined the word THEIR for you ... does that make it more clear for you? BTW, Kerry lost, get over it ... No, you very obviously edited you post because when I had quoted you, you had defined the wrong section of our government. It states right under your post that you edited it today, and at exactly what time. WTF does John Kerry have to do with anything in this thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.