Arlen Specter concedes
- Thread starter sudsman
- Start date
Help Support :
Ah, well,
he certainly was not one of the worst Republicans to ever grace the hallowéd walls of Washington.
The teabaggers are being asked their opinion on human status for gays this week. Responses so far have been running nearly 100% that this is a Christian country and we don't have any right to marriage, adoption or other "special" status - that's all reserved by God for man and wife, alone.
Tell me again, please, about how the teabaggers are really all about freedom?
he certainly was not one of the worst Republicans to ever grace the hallowéd walls of Washington.
The teabaggers are being asked their opinion on human status for gays this week. Responses so far have been running nearly 100% that this is a Christian country and we don't have any right to marriage, adoption or other "special" status - that's all reserved by God for man and wife, alone.
Tell me again, please, about how the teabaggers are really all about freedom?
Well, yes, of course.
You can count their agenda on nine fingers.
How's Jack?
You can count their agenda on nine fingers.
How's Jack?
Flipped/Flopped to gain points to which party?
The people knows a Red Herring when they see one and this fish really stinks.
The people knows a Red Herring when they see one and this fish really stinks.
hahahah
One Rather Felt Sorry For the Man
Upon seeing Mr. Specter's face on the news this morning, the man seemed to be holding back tears.
Quite honestly it is time we get Washington back to politics and service for one's country, rather than the nest feathering, career furthering and dynastic nonesense we've had lately.
It is a new century, time for some new blood.
Upon seeing Mr. Specter's face on the news this morning, the man seemed to be holding back tears.
Quite honestly it is time we get Washington back to politics and service for one's country, rather than the nest feathering, career furthering and dynastic nonesense we've had lately.
It is a new century, time for some new blood.
Hunter,
You've never called a "party line" and asked for an "escort". Their first question is blonde or brunette? Boy or girl?
This guy played both sides of the aisle. He was a Republican right up until the day he knew he couldn't win the next one, then he suddenly woke up one morning and was a Democrat.
No principles. Well, better put, lots of principles. And all of them began with "what's in it for me?".
Good riddance.
You've never called a "party line" and asked for an "escort". Their first question is blonde or brunette? Boy or girl?
This guy played both sides of the aisle. He was a Republican right up until the day he knew he couldn't win the next one, then he suddenly woke up one morning and was a Democrat.
No principles. Well, better put, lots of principles. And all of them began with "what's in it for me?".
Good riddance.
I will pose this as a question instead of an opinion. Where you proud of president Clinton, when discussing the hypothetical appointment of himself or Hillary, to the supreme court? President Clinton stated, something like, in fact both Hillary and I are a little too old. My intent is not to start an ageism debate or be disrepectful. I wonder if the Founding Fathers, anticipated the advanced age of many in Government? Sestak stated on Rachel Maddow tonight that Arlen Specter, did call, congratulate and offer support. I thought that was class. alr2903
Ageism?
I don't think Age matters in particular if the person is good at what they do.
But why should either Clinton think they should be on the supreme court? Why should individuals who have participated in the legislative branch be allowed to be in the judicial?
You do NOT want to see the point of view of the legislator in deciding whether or not a law is constitutional.
One of the problems we have in American government on both sides of the aisle is that folks get into the government administration machine and stay there...for decades. Billary were in power for 8 years -- I genuinely believe she ran the presidency while he was the figure head with charisma. Their time is done.
I don't think Age matters in particular if the person is good at what they do.
But why should either Clinton think they should be on the supreme court? Why should individuals who have participated in the legislative branch be allowed to be in the judicial?
You do NOT want to see the point of view of the legislator in deciding whether or not a law is constitutional.
One of the problems we have in American government on both sides of the aisle is that folks get into the government administration machine and stay there...for decades. Billary were in power for 8 years -- I genuinely believe she ran the presidency while he was the figure head with charisma. Their time is done.
lordkenmore
Well-known member
Actually, one can make an argument for older people serving the Supreme Court or even Congress. With the age, can come experience and wisdom.
Another issue with the Clintons on the Supreme Court: I suspect both have dreams of getting back into the White House. Old dreams die hard.
"You do NOT want to see the point of view of the legislator in deciding whether or not a law is constitutional. "
In general, this is true. What worries me more, though, is the way that the Supreme Court seems to be a political field. Judges are added not on their ability to fairly judge law, but whether or not their beliefs align with the current President and his party and (if his party controls Congress, like happened during those awful Bush years) Congress. Roe Vs. Wade (or Keep Vs. Overturn) has become more important for the Supreme Court than the original Constitution.
Another issue with the Clintons on the Supreme Court: I suspect both have dreams of getting back into the White House. Old dreams die hard.
"You do NOT want to see the point of view of the legislator in deciding whether or not a law is constitutional. "
In general, this is true. What worries me more, though, is the way that the Supreme Court seems to be a political field. Judges are added not on their ability to fairly judge law, but whether or not their beliefs align with the current President and his party and (if his party controls Congress, like happened during those awful Bush years) Congress. Roe Vs. Wade (or Keep Vs. Overturn) has become more important for the Supreme Court than the original Constitution.
~sudsshane
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,250
Specter..
Good job PA Democrats! Good Riddance to Specter!
Now, let's just hope Florida will do the same to our useless, Newly Independent, Gov.Charlie Crist. Viva Marco Rubio!
Good job PA Democrats! Good Riddance to Specter!
Now, let's just hope Florida will do the same to our useless, Newly Independent, Gov.Charlie Crist. Viva Marco Rubio!
andrewinorlando
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,392
What exactly did Arlen Specter concede...that he really is a first class asshole???
Age
One of the most interesting factoids to come out of current research on the aging brain is the increase in a few abilities with age, paralleled of course, with other declining abilities.
Two areas of cognitive ability which improve markedly are the ability to analyze a nebulous set of circumstances and correctly discern a proper pattern. This may be why the most accurate diagnosticians are doctors in their 60's - experience, yes, but also the ability to "judge" relationships actually does improve with age.
The second area is the ability to see consequences. This, too, improves over time, but hits a peak in the late 50's and remains strong until senescence.
Of course, given that the most liberal judges on the court are (or soon will be) the oldest, I am biased.
Personally, I don't think it matters overmuch what background a Supreme has as long as they are aware that their duty is to the Constitution and not to the conservative Christians and their agenda to destroy the middle class, return women to second class status and keep gays and transgender sub-human. The last several Republican picks were a disaster. Anybody who thinks letting foreign corporations influence American elections is a good thing is an idiot. That is what "conservative" judges like Roberts decide. And Thomas is the Republican gift which just keeps on giving. Remind me again, please, why any gay votes Republican?
We need strict Constitutionalists. Their age isn't all that relevant, but I do note that the two Supremes generally recognized as being heads above the others intellectually are Antonin Scalia and John Paul Stevens.
One of the most interesting factoids to come out of current research on the aging brain is the increase in a few abilities with age, paralleled of course, with other declining abilities.
Two areas of cognitive ability which improve markedly are the ability to analyze a nebulous set of circumstances and correctly discern a proper pattern. This may be why the most accurate diagnosticians are doctors in their 60's - experience, yes, but also the ability to "judge" relationships actually does improve with age.
The second area is the ability to see consequences. This, too, improves over time, but hits a peak in the late 50's and remains strong until senescence.
Of course, given that the most liberal judges on the court are (or soon will be) the oldest, I am biased.
Personally, I don't think it matters overmuch what background a Supreme has as long as they are aware that their duty is to the Constitution and not to the conservative Christians and their agenda to destroy the middle class, return women to second class status and keep gays and transgender sub-human. The last several Republican picks were a disaster. Anybody who thinks letting foreign corporations influence American elections is a good thing is an idiot. That is what "conservative" judges like Roberts decide. And Thomas is the Republican gift which just keeps on giving. Remind me again, please, why any gay votes Republican?
We need strict Constitutionalists. Their age isn't all that relevant, but I do note that the two Supremes generally recognized as being heads above the others intellectually are Antonin Scalia and John Paul Stevens.
randycmaynard
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 655
Just thoughts............
Age aside, I don't think the founding fathers of this country ever anticipated or considered the idea of career politicians. Term limiting the House and Senate I think had the idea that the "house" (both chambers) would be cleaned from time to time and I think they would be horrified to see the mess things are in now and would be very critical if not outright condemn the career politican idea - doesn't work very well for a Republic which is what they founded.
Being here in Tennessee my two Senators and my Representataive are Republican and, generally speaking, do OK for me as I tend to come down a bit more on the conservative side of things however, that being said, I've had some issues with one of them and their voting/support of some things and I wrote him and told him I had no problem seeing him gone if he wasn't going to, again generally speaking, listen to the people here in the state and I would have no problem voting against him and the same can be said for my Rep on the House side - indeed just about all of them have been there too long as it is. I do have to tip the hat to my Rep for having the b@lls to vote against the terror war - one of very, very few republicans who did..... he didn't see that as the answer and thought it was far, far to expensive to do so and has been very vocal about it locally and has stood his gound against the critics yet has not has any problems with getting re-elected and that, I think, is because people respect him - he will make the hard decisions when it's not the popular thing to do.
Yes, we need to clean house on both sides of the aisle and if that happens one has to wonder how Mr.Obama would handle things then especially if he ended up loosing his majorities in both the Senate and House or if a bunch of newbies were put in that kept his majority but didn't necessarily go along with things like the current crop does. Interesting what might happen this fall...... we shall see.
Back to the orginal part of this response - no, I don't think that things as they are now in government, especially the federal part, are anything like what the founders had in mind.
Age aside, I don't think the founding fathers of this country ever anticipated or considered the idea of career politicians. Term limiting the House and Senate I think had the idea that the "house" (both chambers) would be cleaned from time to time and I think they would be horrified to see the mess things are in now and would be very critical if not outright condemn the career politican idea - doesn't work very well for a Republic which is what they founded.
Being here in Tennessee my two Senators and my Representataive are Republican and, generally speaking, do OK for me as I tend to come down a bit more on the conservative side of things however, that being said, I've had some issues with one of them and their voting/support of some things and I wrote him and told him I had no problem seeing him gone if he wasn't going to, again generally speaking, listen to the people here in the state and I would have no problem voting against him and the same can be said for my Rep on the House side - indeed just about all of them have been there too long as it is. I do have to tip the hat to my Rep for having the b@lls to vote against the terror war - one of very, very few republicans who did..... he didn't see that as the answer and thought it was far, far to expensive to do so and has been very vocal about it locally and has stood his gound against the critics yet has not has any problems with getting re-elected and that, I think, is because people respect him - he will make the hard decisions when it's not the popular thing to do.
Yes, we need to clean house on both sides of the aisle and if that happens one has to wonder how Mr.Obama would handle things then especially if he ended up loosing his majorities in both the Senate and House or if a bunch of newbies were put in that kept his majority but didn't necessarily go along with things like the current crop does. Interesting what might happen this fall...... we shall see.
Back to the orginal part of this response - no, I don't think that things as they are now in government, especially the federal part, are anything like what the founders had in mind.
