Souter's appointment was about 3 years after they destroyed Bork for
being a conservative. The whole idea of Souter was that he was kind
of Milky, although there was assurances by the administration that
he would be conservative (so much for that).
You never can tell with Justices. Roe v Wade was authored by a
Nixon appointee and the swing vote was an Eisenhower appointee. A
Kennedy appointee dissented.
For all the fear that Ronald Reagan was going to appoint people to
bury liberal causes, it turned out to be 3 Reagan appointees that
came together to re-affirm Roe v Wade in the Casey decision.
You never can tell what Justices will do after they get thier
lifetime appointments.
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "dfsavgny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "bluebishop82"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> wasn't Souter appointed because he was a conservative?
>
> > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "Sharon Boone"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Just commenting:
> > > Blue Bishop said: "Liberals gave us Kelo, and now their pinko-
> > >commie
> > > disrespect for private property rights continue at a local
level
> > >with this decision". So, Bishop, just what did you mean in
this
> > >statement?
> >
> >
> > The Supreme Court decision in the Kelo case last year that said
> the
> > Constitution allows for private developers to take your home was
> > drafted by and joined by all the liberal Justices. The
> > conservatives (Thomas, Scalia, Rhenquist) were all against it.
> >
> > This is no surprise to conservatives, as liberal policy has
always
> > shown a disrespect for private property. The whole idea of
being
> > a "conservative" is to "conserve" for the people that which is
> > theirs. That's where the name comes from. Conservatism is a
> people
> > driven philosopy, not a government driven philosphy, which is
why
> I
> > subscribe to it.
> >
> >
> > > 1. What's wrong with being a Liberal?
> >
> > Liberals want government control of your property.
Conservatives
> > want you to control your own property.
> >
> >
> > > 2. Who YOU calling a pinko-commie?
> >
> > Anyone who does not respect private property rights.
> >
> > > 3. What IS a pinko-commie, Mr. Atty. at Law?
> > > Is that like being a little-pregnant? Black? Gay?
> >
> > The very basis for communism was that the government owned and
> > controlled all the property - poeple owned none of it. It is the
> > primary holding in the Communist Manifesto. Capitalism is the
> > opposite - people have the right to accumulate capital (which is
> > property).
> >
> > When I see liberals and conservatives, I see the debate over
> respect
> > for people's private property. The Kelo decision, for the first
> > time in a long time, showed that this is no academic or
> hypothetical
> > debate. It affects lives greatly. The entire American ideal of
> > freedom to control one's property was at stake in Kelo, and the
> > liberal justices moved us more toward the communist ideal of
> > government control of property. Pinko-commies.
> >
> > > 4. Why the Label, or the name-calling?
> >
> > If liberals don't want me calling them commies, they shouldn't
act
> > like commies as with the Kelo decision.
> >
> > > 5. Do you equate ALL Democrats as being pinko-commies,
liberals?
> >
> > No, not all. As I've said before, 99% of all democrats give the
> > rest of the democrats a bad name.
> >
> > > My take is that for being Liberal, meaning, FREE instead of
> > > encumbered and restricted, I have to put up with a "strict
> > > constructionist"? Code language for Southerners who crossed-
> over
> > >to Republican, at the year 1964-65 for the Civil Rights Act,
> giving
> > >ME the Right to Vote and the right to sit in the front seat of
> the
> > >bus?
> >
> > I don't know why liberal means "free" to you when it means the
> > government can take your property. Obviously conservative means
> free
> > because the whole idea of it is keeping government small and out
> of
> > people's lives. That's free.
> >
> > A "strict constructionist" is someone that looks at the 5th
> > Amendment where it says government can only take your land
> > for "public use" and "strictly construes" the words - "use"
means
> > they have to "use" your property after they take it (train
> station,
> > post office, etc.). A "loose constructionist" sees "public
use"
> > and "loosely construes" the word "use" as also meaning "good."
> > Since the government declares that the developer is more "good"
> than
> > you, they can take your house and give it to the developer,
> > because "use" now means "good."
> >
> > I believe laws should be interpreted using the words that are in
> > there. I'm a strict constructionist, and anyone who believes in
> > Democracy (people write the laws, not the courts) is a strict
> > constructionist too. More appropriately I'm an originalist, but
> that
> > is another topic.
> >
> > As for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Democrats filibustered
> the
> > law. Republicans broke the filibuster. When the vote came,
more
> > Republicans voted "Yes" for it than Democrats did. If you
believe
> > your right to Vote and sit in the front of a bus is owed to the
> > Civil Rights Act of 1964, than you owe thanks to the Republicans
> who
> > were responsible for passing it.
> >
> > > Aren't you the guy that said "racism doesn't exist in AP"?
Just
> > > checking. Watch out for FLAMES!
> >
> > I still maintain there is no racism problem in Asbury. There is
a
> > problem with racists outside of here looking in at us, but no
> > problem among our people.
> >
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
