Comments on: Conservatives Plan To Attack The Supreme Court Nominee No Matter Who It Is

By: Jon

Jon — Thu, 21 May 2009 15:09:18 +0000

SEPARATION OF RAUNCH AND STATE !

(It’s still legal – and always God-honoring – to air messages like the following. See Ezekiel 3:18-19. In light of government backing of raunchy behavior (such offenders were even executed in early America!), maybe the separation we really need is the “separation of raunch and state”!)

In Luke 17 in the New Testament, Jesus said that one of the big “signs” that will happen shortly before His return to earth as Judge will be a repeat of the “days of Lot” (see Genesis 19 for details). So gays are actually helping to fulfill this same worldwide “sign” (and making the Bible even more believable!) and thus hurrying up the return of the Judge! They are accomplishing what many preachers haven’t accomplished! Gays couldn’t have accomplished this by just coming out of closets into bedrooms. Instead, they invented new architecture – you know, closets opening on to Main Streets where little kids would be able to watch naked men having sex with each other at festivals in places like San Francisco (where their underground saint – San Andreas – may soon get a big jolt out of what’s going on over his head!). Thanks, gays, for figuring out how to bring back our resurrected Saviour even quicker!

[If you would care to learn about the depraved human "pigpen" that regularly occurs in Nancy Pelosi's district in California, Google "Zombietime" and click on "Up Your Alley Fair" in the left column. And to think - horrors - that she is only two levels away from being President!]

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 19 May 2009 16:42:53 +0000

“Wouldn’t it be nice if the right were interested in getting the best person onto the Court instead worrying about litmus tests on primarily religious-based issues?”
Wouldn’t it be nice if you had asked the same question about the left when Bork, Thomas and Roberts were under consideration? Typical hypocrisy of the left.

By: qsabe

qsabe — Tue, 19 May 2009 16:26:21 +0000

So whats news. The people that screwed everything up just want to keep it screwed up so they can say the current batch hasn’t been able to fix what they screwed up. They know how because Limbaugh and Cheney has told them what to do.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Mon, 18 May 2009 13:14:21 +0000

#39 – Actually we need a Justice that will follow the constitution, not legislate from the bench. Political leanings shouldn’t be part of a jurists job function.

By: pedro

pedro — Mon, 18 May 2009 05:34:29 +0000

#39 The US needs an enema

By: Greg Allen

Greg Allen — Mon, 18 May 2009 03:29:28 +0000

If the conservatives are going to oppose ANYONE, then Obama shouldn’t try to compromise with them AT ALL.

We need a justice who is as far-left as Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Roberts are far-right.

And that’s pretty darn far-left.

By: Olo Baggins of Bywater

Olo Baggins of Bywater — Mon, 18 May 2009 01:13:38 +0000

brm…the authors’ peripherals do help, but with each new generation and political wind the prevailing interpretation varies. There is no “proper” interpretation, just opinions.

Otherwise, there’s no need for SCOTUS, eh?

By: Ralph, the Bus Driver

Ralph, the Bus Driver — Sun, 17 May 2009 23:48:38 +0000

#36, Paddy-O

I did read the post BUT your posted response obviously wasn’t read by you.

Moran, you were caught fudging again.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sun, 17 May 2009 16:20:45 +0000

# 28 Ralph, the Bus Driver said, “Once again, you posted something you obviously didn’t read. ”

Apparently, you didn’t read the post I was responding to…

By: Steve S

Steve S — Sun, 17 May 2009 16:09:08 +0000

brm said,
“But we have tons of their letters, papers, and other writings. And their dictionaries.
Seems pretty easy to reasonably figure out what they meant, and the process that got them there.”

You would think so but even the most simple and short statements like the 2nd amendment (27 words) can be debated and re-interpreted seemingly forever.
One thing that will always be true is the the only group of people who will consistently benefit from the continued legal debate of any issue is lawyers.

By: Dallas

Dallas — Sun, 17 May 2009 13:17:47 +0000

I’m hoping that Obama picks Chelsea Clinton. That will give the Repukes something to really bitch about.

Second choice is any 17 year old liberal whose parents lived to be 130.

By: Uncle Patso

Uncle Patso — Sun, 17 May 2009 10:52:08 +0000

“Conservatives Plan To Attack The Supreme Court Nominee No Matter Who It Is”

Well, DUH!

The fragile alliance between the Movement Conservatives and the Neo-Conservatives has been all but obliterated by Bush and the overwhelming awfulness of his administration. The Republican party is imploding. Like a grievously injured dog, it keeps biting itself. All it can think to do publicly is criticize and complain, and they have been complaining about and criticizing Obama’s Supreme Court nominee since minutes after rumors about Souter started circulating, even though there is no nominee yet.

I think the President should spread the rumor that he will nominate himself (or maybe Michelle), just to see if he can make Boehner’s head explode…

By: pedro

pedro — Sun, 17 May 2009 07:52:19 +0000

Is it a coincidence that Uncle Dave chose that new Daguerreotype to illustrate his piece of “news”?

Nice bait, Uncle Dave. Let’s see how many fall.

By: Billy Bob

Billy Bob — Sun, 17 May 2009 07:40:16 +0000

The politicization of the courts, and the Supreme Court in particular, has led to an era where major government policy is dependent upon which party is in power at the time one of nine people die or resign.

If the courts stopped legislating from the bench, they wouldn’t be exposed to these political processes.

By: GregA

GregA — Sun, 17 May 2009 05:59:07 +0000

Bwhahaha,

Go ahead, attack away! No one gives a shit what you think and you lack the power to do anything about it. The nominee could be Ralph Nader and he would get the nod.