|
3 years ago ::
May 28, 2009 - 10:21AM
#102
|
|
|
What do the American people say? Gallup from overnight. LINK. Republicans are in for a rough ride.
Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 28, 2009 - 9:53AM
#101
|
|
|
*shrug* after reading what I have about her cases, I don't see the point in going against her. None of her opinions come across harshly against any of my own so why should I stand up to denounce her nomination? It is sort of like the position that libs were in when John Roberts was first picked, IMO. She is a 'generically' liberal judge replacing a seat held by a 'generically' liberal judge (although I admit the Court might miss what more this jurist meant to be). I think I'll not worry about this one. Let us see who Obama nominates when Ginsburg decides to leave.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 28, 2009 - 9:24AM
#100
|
|
|
Wow, it took her a while to find a law school she could make it work at?
Going to school isnt huge. It means you can retain knowledge long enough to pass tests.
No, they were schools which she has either worked at or have made awards to her.
f you think politicians impress me, Ebon, we should do coffee, a long one.
And I stand by my statement.
So, let me get this straight, you won't accept the opinions of law schools or professional bodies (i.e. people who know what they're talking about) or of politicians. In other words, anyone who might say anything positive has already been pre-judged by you to be worthless. So, we're back to opposing her purely because she was nominated by Obama. Nevertheless, thank you for the offer of coffee. I'm sure that would be pleasent.
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31Fiat justitia ruat caelum 
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 27, 2009 - 10:00PM
#99
|
|
|
Utah Tex is an old timer making a return visit 
Non Quis, Sed Quid
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 27, 2009 - 9:37PM
#98
|
|
|
Agnosticspirit
From your name I pressume you consider yourself Agnostic, so must seach for knowlwge. Agnostics were an important part of the early church when it was in formation and searchers of truth were at the head of formation. There eventualy came a point at which some organization had to come forward to lead the people who just needed a patern to follow for everyday living. The masses were not capaple of understanding the complex continuos search. After several world council meetings to deal with the inumerable versions of what the church should be, the Catholic Church emerged as a world leader. It went on to create a world order along with various powerful Kings. The church created many intitutions still in order. Being so big and managed by imperfec humans it made its share of mistakes.
I know the history of the church, and I make no apologies. The liturgy and timing of the feasts and celebrations are a tradition of daily life though out the year. The fundraisers and charity work is satisfying. The churh is one billion members. We come together to remember our founder Jesus the son of God starting saturday evening and troughout the day on Sunday. Aside from that many Catholics are still in search of deeper knowledge. We are Apostolic but many are Agnostics,Mystics,Naturists,Charismatic, pentecostal,Evangelical. Many converts are joining the community and bringing their knowledge with them, they find comfort in the " eucharistic" celebration.
Its not all about religion, its peolpe in communion. The media makes money by picking at politics and public opinion about the Church.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 27, 2009 - 7:30PM
#97
|
|
|
Ah, a few new faces on USNP! Utahtex, Mexican Catholic, JeffersonLives.... consider this your welcome if you have not already been warmly welcomed! Feel free to stop by our Introductions thread ---- or the Saloon, where anything you drink won't make you either drunk or fat.... Jefferson was one of my favorite presidents.... When I have to 'splain my political POV, the short version is - registered Independent. The long version is..... Classical Liberal Jeffersonian style Libertarian... Utahtex, do you lives in both places? How many Utahs will fit into the state of Texas? :) MexicanCatholic, we have something in common.... paternal branch of the family tree came from Old Mexico and Spain.... they were Catholics. I've NEVER been tempted to become a Catholic chick.... Kind regards to all, agnosticspirit - Bnet Community co-host USNP
Tribalism, ethnocentricism, racism, nationalism, and FEAR is the Mind Killer... >:( For user to user support and to look up the latest glitch reports, check the Beliefnet Knowledgebase by clicking on the link below! Beliefnet Knowledgebase
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 27, 2009 - 5:17PM
#96
|
|
|
Lone:
Voices-crying managed to dig up the released ruling from that case and the majority opinion (including Sotomayor) is fairly obviously intended, if you understand legalese, to move the case onto the SCOTUS:
(excerpt, Katzman writing for the majority) "The Supreme Court now has before it a petition for certiorari in this case, which I recognize presents difficult issues. As the Supreme Court decides whether to grant certiorari, it has for it's review the district court's opinion, the panel's per curiam opinion and opinions concurring with and dissenting from the decision denying rehearing en banc. The issues are therefore sharply defined for the Supreme Court's consideration of whether to grant certiorari".
lashawnbarber.com/wp-content/uploads/200...
Thank you Ebon!...but I could either guess what it means or have someone who speaks the language translate it for me to confirm it's meaning...*smiles goofily with his eyes crossed*...please?
LOL, I'm such a sucker for puppy eyes.
OK, "certiorari" is a term which means, more or less, "the SCOTUS will hear this"; "per curiam" just means "this one speaks for us all"; "en banc" just indiactes a full bench rather than a panel. So, rough translation:
"Somebody has aked the SCOTUS to take a look at this maddening case. Since this thing is gonna get appealed anyway, we're just going to issue a basic concurring decision to move this thing along. All the evidence and opinions are there so SCOTUS, it's all yours"
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 27, 2009 - 5:01PM
#95
|
|
|
Well, presuming they have any respect left outside of themselves, an increasingly tiny and unimportant minority.
Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 27, 2009 - 4:30PM
#94
|
|
|
Since President Obama will probably have two more nominations to the Supreme Court during his administrationS, the Republicans would be foolish to mount an all out war over a nominee that is probably, secretly, acceptable to all but the most rigid Right Wingers. They shouldn't use up what little respect they still have with the public.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
May 27, 2009 - 4:00PM
#93
|
|
|
Lone:
Voices-crying managed to dig up the released ruling from that case and the majority opinion (including Sotomayor) is fairly obviously intended, if you understand legalese, to move the case onto the SCOTUS:
(excerpt, Katzman writing for the majority) "The Supreme Court now has before it a petition for certiorari in this case, which I recognize presents difficult issues. As the Supreme Court decides whether to grant certiorari, it has for it's review the district court's opinion, the panel's per curiam opinion and opinions concurring with and dissenting from the decision denying rehearing en banc. The issues are therefore sharply defined for the Supreme Court's consideration of whether to grant certiorari".
lashawnbarber.com/wp-content/uploads/200...
Thank you Ebon!...but I could either guess what it means or have someone who speaks the language translate it for me to confirm it's meaning...*smiles goofily with his eyes crossed*...please?
LOL, I'm such a sucker for puppy eyes. OK, "certiorari" is a term which means, more or less, "the SCOTUS will hear this"; "per curiam" just means "this one speaks for us all"; "en banc" just indiactes a full bench rather than a panel. So, rough translation: "Somebody has aked the SCOTUS to take a look at this maddening case. Since this thing is gonna get appealed anyway, we're just going to issue a basic concurring decision to move this thing along. All the evidence and opinions are there so SCOTUS, it's all yours"
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31Fiat justitia ruat caelum
|
|
|
