This is the Democrats in a nutshell - supposed a SC Justice dies tomorrow...for the Democrats, having 8 Justices will be fine until January 20th, 2009; they just don't care about America - they only care about their power.

"Democrats don't care about the Constitution, they care about their radical agenda."

This coming from the party that allows warrant less wiretapping of Americans?

"We cannot let Democrats turn our country into a cesspool of liberal ideology."

The same way we let the fringes of the GOP turn our country into a cesspool of neo-conservative ideology? And since when did we begin to say that only a certain party's ideas were to be accepted?

"While we're at it, let's censure Schumer. He is a useless liberal ideologue who won't be happy until the Democrats destroy this country."
-Matt Margolis

"....they just don't care about America...."
-Mark Noonan

My fundamental with Bush supporters: you guys have this black-and-white mentality about politics - the Republicans are the good guys, and the Democrats are evil. Sorry, but it's not like that. There's a bunch of gray matter in the middle.
I am a 17 year-old Democrat and I damn sure care about America. So do the rest of the Democrats that live in this country.

To say that we don't care about America, is just a load of bulls**t.

jonathan - a 17yo pi$$ pot knows ALL about what makes a republican?

deamoncRATs =
pro abortion (murder)
pro poronagraphy (exploitation of women)
pro gun control (violation of constitution)
pro homosexual "marriage"??
anti Christian
anti military

Ps IF you truly love America......join up and help defend her from the islaminic maniacs who threaten us.

Republicans =
pro LIFE
pro constitutian
pro military (defense)
pro Christianity
anti gun control (2nd amendment)
anti poronagraphy
anti homosexual "marriage"

"any one who wasn't a liberal when they were young didnt have a heart, and any one who is still a liberal after 30 doesn't have a BRAIN".
Come back whey youve got a brain.

Censure Schumer for what Marky? Actually doing his job?

There is nothing... NOTHING... In the constitution that says the President is garaunteed his judicial nominees. The President nominates them, and congress either approves them or rejects them. Congress most certaily has the constitutional right to reject any nominee it sees fit to reject. This thought that the President has the sole authority to appoint judicial nominees just flat out isn't true.

You know I also find it funny how Republicans always harp on about judicial activism, and legislating from the bench. How do you legislate from the bench? You overturn existing laws that were passed by congress right? Funny how it's Alito, Roberts, and Thomas who are overturning laws at an alarming rate.

Just more blatant hypocrisy from the Republican party. Typical.

Jonathan,

No, its really not a matter of grays - if it ever was, it isn't anymore...remember, I'm the co-author of the book on Democratic corruption: I know how bad these guys are.

Face,

You see nothing wrong with a Senator saying that the Senate should pre-emptively state to a President that as long as he is President, no judges will be approved?

Certainly, the Democratic Senate majority has this power - but is that a proper use of it?

deamoncRATs =
pro abortion (murder)
pro poronagraphy (exploitation of women)
pro gun control (violation of constitution)
pro homosexual "marriage"??
anti Christian
anti military

Republicans =
pro LIFE
pro constitutian
pro military (defense)
pro Christianity
anti gun control (2nd amendment)
anti poronagraphy
anti homosexual "marriage"
Posted by: FmrMarine at July 28, 2007 03:51 PM

This is essentially, what I was talking about: you Bush supporters have this black/white mentality that the Democrats are evil and the GOP are a bunch of saints.

Anyone who really believes that their party is clean and the other is screwed up are f**ing fools.

Wake up and smell reality.......there's ALWAYS shades of gray.

Jonathan, you would have more credibility if your post had not begun with one of the most-often disproved canards of the radical Left, the whine that we are indulging in warrantless wiretapping of Americans. Once you announce that you are buying into that claim, you are announcing that you are gullible when it comes to swallowing anti-conservative rhetoric.

Yes, there is some stereotying of Liberals here. As I don't remember seeing you post here let me explain my use of the Capital L for the word Liberal. It is my belief that once upon a time there was a legitimate political movement which called itself "liberal" and to some extent it was, promoting new ideas and rejecting many old ways of doing things. But today we have a new political movement which has hijacked the word "liberal" while proving itself to be the opposite of what "liberal" really means, in either grammatical or political meaning. So I capitalize that word, to differentiate it from the real use of the word.

If you have been reading the blog much you will also have seen radical Lefties paint all conservatives with broad and negative brushes---as you yourself just did.

You reacted to the former Marine's post as if he was spouting slogans, but if you look more closely he was really repeating the avowed platforms of the Liberal movement. He did not call them names, but merely repeated what they openly support: Unlimited abortions, anti-Christian positions, gun control, pro-pornography and anti-military stances. If you choose to disagree with any of these very specific statements, and argue that any of them is NOT a component of the new Liberal agenda, please do so.

But do NOT try to take your emotional reaction to something you did not like to read and make it into something it is not, which is a blanket attack on all Liberals.

If you really are 17, and really are sincere about becoming part of the political discourse in this country,this is a very good time to learn how to read accurately and how to process what you read.

FmrMarine addressed Liberal ISSUES and he listed them accurately. He did not attack Liberals as people.

Look at your own words: "The same way we let the fringes of the GOP turn our country into a cesspool of neo-conservative ideology?" You are repeating unfounded assertions as if they are fact, and in doing so referring to an entire ideology---one which you clearly do not understand, by the way---as a "cesspool".

You sound passionate and sincere, but also very naive, very immature, and very gullible. I suggest that you try to set aside the hyper-emotionalism and negativity that mark your posts and strive for more balance and more understanding of what is really going on, rather than merely continuing to parrot Left-wing phrases which feel good but which mean nothing.

Not one word was posted which implied, in any way, that "....Democrats are evil and the GOP are a bunch of saints."

And not one word had to be bleeped out, either. I am sure that to a 17-year-old, the use of the F-bomb feels very manly and strong, but it isn't. It's silly.

We have been trying for years on this blog to engage in rational debate on real issues. If you would like to participate in this, join us, as we think some progress might be being made as a stand is finally taken against those who have merely polluted the space with nonsensical abuse. The first step would be to be able to read and understand what is being said, which in this case was to point out POSTIONS that were found offensive, not to make blanket statements about any persons or party.

Jonathan says "...I damn sure care about America. So do the rest of the Democrats that live in this country."

More painting with too broad a brush, Jonathan. Maybe YOU really do care about America, but it is foolish to claim that "..So do the rest of the Democrats that live in this country." You are doing what you accuse US of doing, and in this case painting all Dems as good guys, all caring about America.

You don't define "caring" though, do you? I have a feeling you would define "caring about America" as wanting to rid it of the vile cesspool of conservative ideology.

See how running everything through your personal ideological filter distorts it?

So let's clarify things: That is to say, talk about ISSUES.

Do you think the interests of the country are best served by strict adherence to the Constitution?

Do you think there is, within the Constitution, a provision that permits, according to the original wording, the refusal of the Senate to vote on the nomination of a Supreme Court candidate by the President?

Do you take the position that it is constitutional to replace the simple majority required within that constitution, for approval of a presidential nominee, with a new requirement for a two-thirds majority, wihtout going through the constitutionally mandated process for amending it? If so, why?

Do you believe it is in the best interest of the country to have Supreme Court positions unfilled?

Do you believe that it is within the right of the Senate to keep those positions open, for reasons of political partisanship?

Do you agree with the claim that the filibuster was originally devised to provide the minority party with a means to extend debate on matters of legislation, or do you think its intent was always broad enough to include matters such as the "advice and consent" required of the Senate regarding Supreme Court nominees? If the latter, why?

Do you consider yourelf an "originalist" regarding the Constitution, or do you think it should be viewed as a general guideline, able to be amended without the Consitutional requirement for amendment but instead by fiat imposed by partisan judges?

Do you understand the concept of legislating from the bench, and if so, do you agree with it?

What do you think the role of the Supreme Court is? What has it been historically? What do you think it should be?

Certainly, the Democratic Senate majority has this power - but is that a proper use of it?
Posted by: Mark Noonan [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 28, 2007 07:27 PM

Yes, because after two nominees he knows exactly the kind of judge Bush will send over for confirmation. There is no need to waste the people's time on hearings. We now know it would be a typical Karl Rove made for Faux news lie fest. “Me, I won't change a thing. I believe in precedent.” Won’t work anymore. Roberts and Alito have proven Republicans will lie and say what ever it takes.

Josh Keaton,

You're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!

We want JUDGES who will CORRECTLY INTERPRET the CONSTITUTION and OUR LAWS the way those who wrote and approved them meant and intended... until WE the PEOPLE change them!

Who does the Constitution give the role and responsibility to make laws? The PEOPLE, through their ELECTED members of Congress!

Who does the Constitution give the role and responsibility to AMEND the Constitution, thereby changing it's meaning and intend? The PEOPLE, through their ELECTED members of Congress, and their ELECTED members of their state legislatures!

Does the Constitution give JUDGES the role or the right to make or change the laws enacted by the people through their chosen representatives in Congress and the State legislatures? No! ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Does the Constitution give JUDGES the role or the right to change our laws or, worse of all, change the meaning and intent of the Constitution, thereby "de facto" Amending the Constitution itself? No! ABSOLUTELY NOT!

It's time we STOP those arrogant JUDGES who UNCONSTITUTIONALLY usurped the role, duty, and responsibility of our lawmakers -- CONGRESS -- and the PEOPLE who have ELECTED them!

It's time we STOP those arrogant JUDGES who UNCONSTITUTIONALLY are "de facto" AMENDING the CONSTITUTION -- effectively changing its meaning and intent. The CONSTRICTION itself specifically states how it is to be changed, modified, and AMENDED... and it is NOT by a bunch of ARROGANT JUDGES!

It's time the American people STAND UP for OUR CONSTITUTION and demand judges who interpret the Constitution and our laws as they were meant and intended by those who wrote and approved them... until and unless WE THE PEOPLE change them as provided by OUR CONSTITUTION which serves as the very BASIS and FOUNDATION of our NATION, our DEMOCRACY, our LAWS, our FREEDOMS, our PROTECTIONS, and our RIGHTS!

We essentially have NO CONSTITUTION, NO RIGHTS, NO FREEDOMS, NO GUARANTEES, and NO REPRESENTATION when JUDGES are permitted to change its meaning and intent as THEY see fit!

DEMAND that Congress approve ONLY those JUDGES who believe in the OUR CONSTITUTION and OUR LAWS and who will interpret and rule based what our founders and Congress meant and intended... when they wrote and approved those laws... on OUR behalf... on YOUR behalf!

DEMAND that Congress ask the ONE QUESTION that judges must answer YES to before they are approved:

"Do YOU, judge support the Constitution, the roles, the responsibilities, and the Amendment process specified therein;

and will YOU, judge rule and decide on matters relating to the CONSTITUTION based on the original MEANING and INTENT of those who wrote and ratified it on OUR behalf;

and will YOU, judge rule and decide on matters of our LAWS based on the original MEANING and INTENT of those who wrote and passed them on OUR behalf;

and will YOU, judge rule and decide based on how those who wrote, ratified, and approved our Constitution and laws would have ruled...

UNTIL and UNLESS the Constitution and our laws are PROPERLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY amended and changed BY THE PEOPLE through their ELECTED representatives?

We must DEMAND judges who will answer YES to all above and rule accordingly -- regardless of whether they are Conservative, Liberal, Democrats, Republican, or anything else!

Judges who do not subsequently rule and decide in that manner must be IMPEACHED -- removed from office -- and replaced with others who will...

PROTECT the CONSTITUTION, PEOPLE, and ALL FOR WHICH IT STANDS!

Call, write, and e-mail your members of Congress! Tell them we -- YOU -- will not tolerate any more LAW GIVER JUDGES! Ask your friends to do likewise.

If Congress won't stand up on BEHALF of the CONSTITUTION... on OUR behalf... on YOUR behalf... vote them out of office and put someone in who DOES BELIEVE in and SUPPORT the CONSTITUTION... on YOUR behalf!!!

AAR

>>Perino... said Schumer's comments show "a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution"...

Did Schumer show less respect for the U. S. Constitution than the guy who said "Don't throw the constitution in my face, it's just a goddamn piece of paper?"

“Me, I won't change a thing. I believe in precedent. Roberts and Alito have proven Republicans will lie and say what ever it takes. – Keaton"

First, I don’t remember Roberts or Alito ever stating in their confirmation hearings “I won’t change a thing”. That would be absurd. Second, believing that precedent is important when deciding a case certainly doesn’t mean whatever is being argued shouldn’t be changed. Again, that would be absurd. Any judge who followed your reasoning would apparently still be in favor of slavery. Is that what you're advocating?

Now, I take particular exception to your generalized accusations of “Republicans lying or saying what ever it takes”. In the days of the “Old West” to call someone a liar without any substance would get you shot. Do you have a specific case were either Roberts or Alito ruled where it went against what they stated in their confirmation hearings? I highly doubt you even know the details of ANY case they’ve been involved with much less what their personal opinion was, how they voted and how it related to their past rulings or more specifically how that ruling parlayed with the Constitution.

But aside from your general baseless animosity, why would you find it acceptable for a Senate to state they won’t consider or vote on ANY Supreme Court nomination should a position become open? How incredibly UN-AMERICAN. Ask a potential nominee any pertinent question.View their past, both as a person and as a judge. If you believe the nominee is ill fit to serve on the Supreme Court then vote accordingly.

Do you really wish for Senators to play this unwise game? I’ve no doubt it will come back to haunt them if they do.