jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (40 posts)

Can you say "Legislate from the bench?"

  1. mio cid profile image66
    mio cidposted 5 years ago

    If president Obama is reelected, he will probably be nominating another Supreme court justice maybe more, does this put the fear of god into the right wing nuts that have enjoyed decades of a majority in the supreme court?

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Eh...Obama's actions don't put the "fear of god" into anyone because he doesn't speak nor act for God.  Maybe the fear of the devil.

      1. mikelong profile image73
        mikelongposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Ridiculousness as usual.....  Typical Brenda.

  2. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Should put the fear of God in everybody.

  3. mio cid profile image66
    mio cidposted 5 years ago

    Not me I'm actually looking forward to it.

    1. Repairguy47 profile image61
      Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Thats because you side with the minority that wants to govern against the will of the people.

      1. mio cid profile image66
        mio cidposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        No that's because I side with the majority that has been taken hostage by a minority of right wing loons.

        1. Repairguy47 profile image61
          Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Once again liberal logic on display.

        2. lovemychris profile image78
          lovemychrisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Correctomundo!

          If 72% want to tax the rich more, and they don't do it...what's that tell you?

          1. Repairguy47 profile image61
            Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            It tells me that there are smarter people in Congress than we originally believed!

          2. JSChams profile image59
            JSChamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Yes and if you raise Warren Buffets taxes he still won't pay them now will he?
            Of course he shouldn't have to pay any should he? He's on your little football team right?

          3. lifelovemystery profile image85
            lifelovemysteryposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            chris....so why did Obama shelter nearly $50K in 2011?

            Since you don't know the answer, it's because he DIDN'T WANT TO PAY TAXES.

            I would love to see you actually be able to stand on your feet in one of these threads instead of attacking the GOP. It is so old.

            1. lovemychris profile image78
              lovemychrisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              What are you talking about?

              I see this GOP as the enemy of America...what would you have me do?

              And please show me this 50K that Obama hid. And then show me the money Romney is hiding.

              And then tell me what each of their policy plans are to address this money issue...tyvm.

              1. lifelovemystery profile image85
                lifelovemysteryposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Oh so they aren't reporting that on the one channel that you watch.

                FACT; the Obama's sheltered $48K because they donated it to their daughters.

                This KEPT HIM OUT OF the BUFFET RULE.

                How do you not know this?
                It's a matter of public record.
                Your only enemy is yourself.

                1. lovemychris profile image78
                  lovemychrisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Mitt Romey has a 100 million dollar trust fund for his boys, from which he pays their taxes....AND?

                  Obama's made 600,000. 48K more would not put them in Buffet territory.

                  btw---do you live with me to tell me what I watch and don't watch?? Dint think so.

      2. Hollie Thomas profile image59
        Hollie Thomasposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Is that the same liberal minority that brought Obama to power with a liberal majority? You just end and start everything with "you liberals" and some BS in between.

        1. JSChams profile image59
          JSChamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Let me try and help.

          In the United States political scene:

          20% are liberals

          45% are conservatives

          35% are independents or moderates.

          Now those are Gallup numbers and I don't want to hear Democrats and Republicans because there are liberal republicans and Conservative Democrats. It's the moderates that decide an election really.

          Now in 2008 the liberals discovered that they had Barack Obama and all they had to do really was call an opponent a racist and they would shrivel in the sun like a vampire. They also went to great lengths to portray him as a Messiah.
          Women fainted frequently at his campaign rallies and there were some really creepy videos made for him by GE/NBC that basically had children singing a hymn to Barack.

          Well it's four years later and he does not exactly carry that same...shal we say gravitas...now that people have seen what they are getting. He is starting to lose support from his ultra and I do mean ultra left base who wanted him to legalize pot and various other ill advised things.

          There, I hope that shaped things up for you a bit.

          1. mio cid profile image66
            mio cidposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            you must be trying to clarify this to yourself , because you the righties are the ones who think everyone who is not an extreme right wing nut is a LBRL.

            1. JSChams profile image59
              JSChamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Actually the lady had a question. Try this one on for size:

              http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/22/scien … en-minded/

          2. Josak profile image59
            Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Of course there are more conservatives in the US there always has been, as the number of poor rises and the wealth gap increases conservatives insist that things are fine we just need to reduce entitlements, which will only serve to further impoverish the population and provide them with less help and as your economy collapses and the quality of life for the average American continues to collapse, (number 13 in the world now soon to become # 14) America had a conservative president for 8 years and the economy failed, poverty rose monumentally, thousands of our best sons and daughters were lost on the other side of the world, our liberties were stolen and unemployment did nothing but rise (actually it nearly doubled) now they are sure that if we just get another conservative president all will be well. The bookies money is that Obama wins the next election and he is better but neither democrat nor republican has the answer.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … owth_rate_(latest_year)

            Look through these and decide for yourself what the unifying trait of successful economies is and what links failing economies, the evidence speaks for itself.

            1. JSChams profile image59
              JSChamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              We are just evil here aren't we?

              1. Josak profile image59
                Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Nope as usual you are attacking a straw man, I never said that, I live here, most of my family lives here all I said was the America economic system is failing because it is slow to adapt and change and why is it slow to adapt and change? Because it is dragging anchor called conservatism.

            2. lifelovemystery profile image85
              lifelovemysteryposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              How is he better?

              By lowering our credit rating?
              By using drones to kill Americans in other countries?
              By being anti-business?
              By driving up energy prices?
              By being the great apologizer?
              By taking four months if vacation last year?
              By not allowing oil companies to drill here but foreigners can?
              By jumping into local matters as a race batter?
              By refusing to meet with his generals the first 10 months in office?

              The list is so long I can't possibly post it here?

              Is he better because GITMO is still open?
              Is it because he extended The Patriot Act?

              I'm dying to know how he is better.

              1. mikelong profile image73
                mikelongposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Tripe...

                1. mio cid profile image66
                  mio cidposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Hey I love tripe.

                  1. lifelovemystery profile image85
                    lifelovemysteryposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Your response indicates that you have nothing of value to add to this conversation. Why is reality so uncomfortable for you?

                2. Josak profile image59
                  Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  mmmmmm tripe, that is unfortunately terrible tripe though.

                  Honestly I don't know how we are still having this who owns the media debate, the media is relatively balanced because different groups have been modified to meet certain demands, like FOX was modified specifically for crazy people, but the democratic movement is more or less an anti corporate one and has some association with OWS and and taxes on the wealthy and raising corporate taxes etc. Now who owns the media? The answer is a ridiculously rich guy and several corporations now how exactly could that be a liberal controlled media?

        2. Quilligrapher profile image90
          Quilligrapherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Hollie, I know you to be one Brit that does not need things shaped up for you. May I add another perspective to those already sent your way?

          The 2008 election was not determined by Gallup Poll surveys or party affiliation. There are no indications any racist claims shriveled any vampires, or raisins, in the sun. The election was an expression of a grassroots desire for change. President Obama has not delivered all of the improvements he promised but not because he didn’t try.

          The 2010 election echoed the exact same public dissatisfaction with a broken political system that does not meet the expectations of the electorate. They are still not happy with the way they are being governed and they know they are running out of time.

          I expect this years election will be another attempt to induce changes in a government mismanaged by two parties that are unresponsive to today’s realities. Americans know millions of people can not afford health care and they want that to change. They yearn for a government that will harness big business and keep corporate moguls from just taking from society without giving a little back. They need the jobs sent overseas to come home again. They can see the wisdom in balanced federal budgets that do not call for more indebtedness. This country wants to restore the credit rating that Congress sacrificed on the altar of political partisanship. They do not want a government that will lower the national debt by placing the entire burden on the middle class. They believe those few who created the economic collapse, benefited from all the recovery programs, and suffered the least from the meltdown should contribute a little more toward regaining our former economic health.

          Will the voice of the people be heard? Not if the existing establishment has it’s way.

          1. Josak profile image59
            Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Well put.

          2. Hollie Thomas profile image59
            Hollie Thomasposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            As always Quill, you are the voice of reason. In another thread I have challenged another hubber to think about redistribution (if we can call it that) turned on it's head. To think about the notion that it is not the economically deprived that benefit from redistribution of wealth, but the already wealthy who benefit from the economically deprived. They are not the speculators, pharmaceutical companies or corporations, that led your nation and mine into financial disarray.   Yet they are the ones who have paid and will continue to pay.

            The way I see it, correct me if I'm wrong, is that the current President attempts to redress the balance but is met with obstructionism at every turn, not just by the opposition but by the very people he is attempting to help. Having said that, just like many politicians before him, deals seem to be the order of the day-for political survival.

            Ideas are what will lead us all forward IMHO, however, the old school of left vs right ideology has seen it's day- and has become a force for destruction.

            1. Quilligrapher profile image90
              Quilligrapherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Hey there, Hollie. Your observations from afar are in many ways more accurate than those of some Yanks closer to the action.

              There are many signs of obstructionism. I have seen a lot during the last two years particularly from freshman legislators who view compromise as failure. Deal making, on the other hand, is the currency of compromise. The current administration seems willing to acknowledge that this is a republic. One designed to encourage all factions to share in the process of governance. 

              Aware that Americans faced harsh economic realities and daunting uncertainties, President Obama extended the Bush era tax cuts that were in effect since 2003. He included another $116 billion in tax cuts for individuals in the stimulus legislation enacted in February 2009. More than 30% of the benefits provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act took the form of payroll tax credits for people earning less than $75,000. Hence, 97% of American households saved an average of $1,179 in taxes during 2009. He has been playing the cards dealt by the previous administration. To his credit, the recession is in retreat, corporations are enjoying record breaking profits, and most retirement portfolios have recovered. Only new job creation in the private sector and the housing markets are stubbornly sluggish.

              However, the political theatre continues as both parties dally with legislation they knew beforehand would not survive. This week, the Democrats in the Senate failed to pass a “Buffet Rule” tax measure on the wealthy and the Republicans in the House passed a hopeless $46B tax reduction measure favoring 99% of all US corporate employers. The bill was brazenly called the “Small Business Tax Cut Act.” Meanwhile, too many in the Congress continue to advocate for the wealthy, their corporate alter egos, and for the greedy few that brought this country to its knees four years ago. They know that effective corporate taxes are at a 40 year low. The top corporate tax rate of 35%, while one of the highest in the world, is one very few companies actually pay. Overall, corporations pay no where near this rate. In the last three years, at least 30 major corporations made $160B in profits and paid no federal corporate income tax at all.

              Ah, but this is much more than you bargained for. I am sorry, Hollie. Brevity was never my strong suit.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
                Hollie Thomasposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Not at all Quill, I actually enjoyed reading it. It's really quite refreshing when somebody uses actual facts to illustrate their points. Now if only some others would take your lead....smile

          3. lovemychris profile image78
            lovemychrisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            "Appearing on Fox News today, Fox News contributor Christopher Hahn called out conservative talking points by pointing out that Senate Republicans constantly resort to filibusters to block bills that have the support of a majority of senators.

            As we've pointed out, the conservative media have been hiding Republican obstructionism in order to label Democratic senators as "lazy" and "do-nothing." But Republicans have repeatedly resorted to filibusters to block legislation -- such as bills to ensure that the richest Americans pay their fair share in taxes -- that would otherwise have passed the Senate. Republicans are on a pace to filibuster more often than Democrats did when they were in the minority.

            Today, Republican strategist Chip Saltsman, a regular Fox guest, claimed that the Republican House is passing bills but the Democratic Senate is not. In response, Hahn pointed out that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that his most important goal was "to make sure that President Obama was a one-term president." Hahn added that McConnell has tried to do that by "block[ing] everything, using the filibuster more than any time in the history of this country."

            http://mediamatters.org/blog/201204230012

            1. lifelovemystery profile image85
              lifelovemysteryposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              The conservative media. That's hilarious.

              1. lovemychris profile image78
                lovemychrisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                It happens to be true. Sometimes people laugh at the truth because it makes them uncomfortable.

                someday when you're bored...google "Who Owns the Media".....

                for that matter..."who owns hollywood"...."who owns the american gvt"....who owns the federal reserve".....

                maybe something will spark....and you will say AHHHHHH, NOW it makes sense!

                RMoney and Bibi....friends since 1976. Octopus. Honestly, and this is no bs...if I could link, I would...
                Read The Last Circle by Cheri Seymour...it's on the internet. It's long, but OMG...it will make you see things in a whole different light....the true light of what is going on in this world.

  4. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    They set out vowing to destroy him the second he took office!
    It is a plan.
    And it worked in 2010...and now they are trying the same game plan for 2012.

    If it works again, I'm denouncing my citizenship and becoming Swedish.

    I don't care how this sounds....I'm not aligning myself with a country whose populace is so stupid.
    Call me names, I don't care. If RMoney is in, and congress is GOP....I refuse to be an American in that climate. None of my values will be represented, and why should I pretend otherwise?

    2000-2008 was bad enough. Who needs Bush on steroids? No thanks. If we don't have the intelligence not to repeat that crap again....Hur mar du? Svenska flicka, jag er.

  5. Wayne Brown profile image88
    Wayne Brownposted 5 years ago

    No one in America should be interested in a system in which any one on the bench has the ability to legislate in any way.  Our system of checks and balances provide for the laws to come from our Congress and then through the Executive Branch.  The Judicial System is the litmus test for compliance with the Constitution as we are seeing at the moment with Obama-Care.  No law, regardless of how well intentioned it intended, is above the litmus test of "constitutionality".  If we indeed reach that point at some time, our republic will be in demise and the Constitution will be nothing but a piece of useless paper.  Those who would desire the "enititlement" aspect of Obama-Care over the legality regarding its consititutional compliance seem more than willing to trade liberty and pursuit of happiness for anything that does not require they provide for themselves...a very dangerous attitude. WB

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It is a nice idea, and how things are supposed to work.  Unfortunately when we see the SC voting constitutionality cases along party affiliation lines time after time it becomes apparent that it doesn't work that way.

      Rather than looking at the law, they use their own beliefs in how the country should be run to decide constitutionality.  It's called "legislating from the bench".

  6. mikelong profile image73
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    I didn't realize that I was putting on a "great display of dialectic discourse" for you....  I didn't realize I was here to put on a show...  Communication requires no flair.

 
working