O'Connor resigns

:astonished:

Liberals lose another important swing judge.
Thoughts, anyone?

party party party…

-Imp

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought she was fairly unpredictable when it came to Conservative/Liberal. I mean, I know about the whole Roe v Wade thing, but she was on the right side of the vote for Bush to have the Presidency during the Gore fiasco. Can someone fill me in on history, and explain why this is such an occaision for Conservatives to be totally happy, and Liberals totally bummed? I mean, it’s good for Conservatives in the sense that Bush is the one who will appoint her successor (assuming the Dems will let there be a vote before his term is up) but I’m more interested in what it is about O’Conner herself that makes her so Lib-friendly.

I think it’s a loss for everyone if bush sticks a hardlining conservative in there instead of a level headed moderate.

O’conner was a moderate conservative, and made alot of sane swing votes.

though I’d be curious to see how she voted in the case of the recent eminent domain clause for private property.

O’conner lib friendly? maybe because she didn’t play the BS partisan politics game? maybe because she didn’t vote (or decide if you will) down the party line? A good politician will not always vote with his/her party.

becasue liberals know that their issues lose at the ballot box…

they can’t get their agenda through elections so they have to get it through court decisions…

they don’t want to lose their last vestige of perceived power…

they can’t appoint stalin or castro as a supreme but that’s exactly what they want…

I can’t speak for conservatives, but I am happy because the Medusan face of liberalism is being exposed…

-Imp

ok now I know your kidding.

Stalin and Castro are dead!

So I see your still holding the old:

Liberalism = Communism.

I thought that died in the 80’s with Jerry Falwell aiding Reagan behind closed doors and prompting him to start WW3.

Sandra Day O’Connor is considered a “moderate conservative,” though I don’t think she ever based her decision on one party line. She went liberal on some issues like abortion (good decision, in my opinion) but was more conservative towards liberal agendas like affirmative action, which she voted to limit (again, IMO, a good decision). I consider myself a moderate liberal, and view O’Connor’s resignation, particularly in the wake of Bush’s promise to elect a hardline conservative to the court, a huge blow to our legal system.

I hope senate Democrats block all the fools Bush tries to nominate :angry:

don’t you feel like your in the middle of a game of dodgeball where the side that currently has a majority feels the need to throw a medicine ball around?

and that majority (using the playground analogy) happens to be 2 more people?

the whole point of a 2 party system is balance.

  I don't understand this sentiment. I mean, I sort of do, because maybe I'd be saying the same thing if the Dems were in power, but it basically amounts to "I sure hope the correct process for selecting a Supreme Court judge is interupted somehow", which can't be good.  The way things are suppose to go, a Supreme retires, the President picks a new one, and if 51% agree, then they become a Supreme Court justice.  If you're asking for a special exception to that (like say, through a filibuster), you basically are advocating the democrating process working differently depending on who's in charge. 
   There's a matter of bias and extreme language here, too.  First of all, nobody Bush nominates will be a 'fool'. A true fool would be beneath any President's notice for a such a position, fools are people like you and me.  The person the President nominates will be wise, qualified, and an outstanding individual- one of the creme of the crop of our culture- who will probably also happen to be a conservative. To say that the person must be a fool knowing nothing more than the President picked him, means you're saying that all conservatives are fools by proxy. 
  Further, I'd like to point out that in global terms, there are no 'hardline conservatives' that make it very far in politics in the United States.  That most important votes, even among the Supremes, come down to one vote should tell you something- are just under half the current Supremes fools?

not kidding at all… but no, liberalism><communism… communism means no government… liberalism = totalitarian socialism… screw falwell, god remains dead

-Imp

they’ll try, but frist will use the dreaded constitutional option which says that nominees are approved with a simple majority vote of the senate…

there aren’t 6 republicans who are willing to commit political suicide…

-Imp

You don’t consider the House Majority Leader, Tom Delay, to be a hardline conservative? He’s made it pretty far. Hardline conservatives certainly make it far in American politics, and those are the only ones whose views I do not respect.

I think the whole system–in which the President appoints a Judge for life–is flawed. I realize that this flaw is something that I will be forced to live with (At least for sometime), and, in the meantime, I do not want one party (espectially one with which I tend to disagree with) dominating the judicial branch.

Alas, abortion won’t… a wide majority of Americans support some form of Abortion.

Where is your usual cynical realism? Political parties don’t have agendas, they have campaigns, and contributors to pay for them.

I thought the last vestige of Liberal power was academia…

They would probably want a poor, gay, black woman.

What exactly Is the “liberal agenda” ?
I love conservatives at this point in the US as they try and paint themselves as an aggrieved minority, even though they control all three branches of government, most of the governor seats and essentially dominate oral media - ie TV and Radio. I also truly love it when they run around screaming that the Christian sky is falling when something like 3/4 of the us population is still regularly church going and more or less pious.

My personal favorite is the total lack Of subtlety that causes folks to equate the bland and Pathetic universalising programs the characterize American LIberalism and European socialism with Stalin’s evil, Mao’s hairbrained scheming (back yard foundries for god’s sake! W/ the kitchen knives!) , Che’s unrepentant Batistaista killings, Pol Pot’s asian despotism. It’s not simply comparing apples to oranges, it’s a zealous paranoia that cannot view things with a touch of common sense. To equate Hillary Clinton with Jiang Qing or some typical conservative character assassination is “analysis” that not only crosses the line into asinine country, but fully homesteads there and goes so far as to dig a well and sow crops.

liberal agenda…

libagenda.moveoff.us/

-Subvert education with Humanism, PC and rewritten history.
-Use Judges to bypass the Constitution.
-Dumb-down the public so they will not understand their rights.
-Distort the media so that their agenda is not addressed.
-Support and advance whacko junk-science and social values.
-Reduce the Military power and position of the USA.
-Encourage the USA to become subservant to the Untied Nations.
-Ignore the MexAmerica syndrome.
-Attempt supression of the Judeo-Christian American social ethics.
-Promote Islamic and Muslim indoctrination of children.
-Portend to be for “the masses” while actually advancing their elite agenda.

-Imp

great place to get the “truth” about liberalism from an anti liberal site!

what?

that’s BS, the goal of the liberals is to prevent the right wing whacko christians from subverting the theory of evolution with the whacked out theory of “intelligent design”.

NONE of the judges where put in by “liberals” as the “neo-con” congress wouldn’t let clinton place any judges.

wrong, again… the goal of the neo-cons there, not of liberals.

let’s look at who currently has control of the media. The republicans. Look at who Matthew Cooper is protecting! Karl Rove.

Scientology ring a bell? they’re neo-con supporters.

the one true statement, The neo-cons are still living in the cold war and think that terrorims can be fought with military might.

Let’s instead encourage the USA to act against all nations to piss the world off.

instead of fencing them off and not helping the situation in Mexico?

really?

publicchristian.com/index.php?p=205

What?

your getting the parties mixed up again imp.

Welcome Back Hermes. You were missed.

A few things to catch you up with what’s going on at ILP.

WhiteLotus may or may not be James No. 2, but it doesn’t matter, as either way he seems to be a rather nice, thoughtful fellow.

Polemarchus is gone I suppose, though Dunamis joined the site and claimed the crown of reigning intellectual.

For a while a large clique of posters whom i shall call the Mundane Mafia took over the Mundane Babble and Rant sections. In fighting seems to have put them in disarray at the moment, alas.

Obviously Imp and Xanderman are both Mods now. Don’t think too harshly towards Imp for his political views. Try debating him about his sceptical philosophy one day. :stuck_out_tongue:

She is now SomeNewName and has an interest in our secret identities.

Various conservatives seem to run rampant across the site, except for the Philosophy forum, take that for what you will.

We have not one but TWO professional headshrinkers visiting the site now. They both hate each other and ofetn refer to their opposing head shrinker as being “insane” or some such drama.

De’Trop fell in love and told everyone his cock size. I forget the exact measurement right now, I am sure several of the ladies could tell you what it was if you are interested.

PoR found Jesus.

Monooq recently returned from a long hiatus.

Gamer pretended to be a guy pretending to be a girl (I think) while another female poster pretended to be a guy that pretended he was a girl. ILP may open a cross dressing forum soon.

Thrasymachus, in various guises and under various usernames, continues to assert that Justice is the advantage of the stronger.

I think that is about it.

As for conservative vs. Liberal, I have to agree with my Political Philosophy Prof… if you believe Human nature is basically good, then democracy accords with letting the greatest number of human beings live as they see fit. This, in itself, is a liberal worldview. Thus, even American conservatives are liberal in comparison

no, the ignorance of the parties is yours and yours alone…

-Imp