An open question for President Bush...

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

...and his supporters.

In the light of today's Massachusetts Supreme Court rule on homosexual marriages NOW is it time for a constitutional ammendment defining marriage?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

In today's America, the Constitution doesn't even matter anymore because we do not follow the Constitution, only the Judges' political interpretation of it.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Bro. Curtis]

You are quite correct. We are at the mercy of how the courts interpret our laws.

But 3 out of the 4 judges who ruled on this were Bush appointees. If I am wrong, please correct me.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

As far as I know, W's appointees for any court have all been blocked from even being voted on by the Dems to this point.

Are you talking about Bush Sr.?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Perhaps. I don't know where I heard it, but I've been in front of this all day.

 

[KenH]

I would think the Massachusetts Supreme Court judges would be either appointed by the governor of Massachusetts or elected by the voters.

 

[rsr]

Seven of the nine members are appointees of Republicans: Nixon (1), Ford (1), Reagan (3) and Bush Sr. (2).

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

So the Governor doesn't appoint the Justices of the Massechussetts Supreme Court?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by rsr:
Seven of the nine members are appointees of Republicans: Nixon (1), Ford (1), Reagan (3) and Bush Sr. (2).

I think you are confusing the Massachusetts Supreme Court that made this ruling with the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

[KenH]

The liberal Republican Party has three options now:

1) Really try to get a marriage amendment passed in 2004 in both houses of Congress that they control and send it to the States and really work to get the 38 States needed to ratify it.

2) Use a lot of rhetoric about how awful the ruling is but not really try to push a marriage amendment through Congress in 2004 in order to keep it as an issue in the 2004 campaign so the conservative Christians will be deceived into voting for the Republicans based on the idea that the Republicans will really do something about this in 2005 even if they fail to do something about it in 2004 when they control both houses of Congress(I know, I know, they need bigger Republican majorities, or more conservative Republican majorities, or more conservative bigger Republican majorities - blah, blah, blah).

3) Do nothing to not offend the rising tide of homosexual support that the liberal Republican Party has been courting.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
As far as I know, W's appointees for any court have all been blocked from even being voted on by the Dems to this point.

I believe the tally is four blocked, one hundred sixty-eight passed out of one hundred seventy-two total.

Pretty far from "all been blocked".

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

168, huh? Quite impressive considering the war and all, all in 3 years. HMMMMMMMM. Perhaps you could cite your source there. Would you possibly name just 10 of those 168 you say have passed. It sure hasn't made the news.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Daisy]

Yes, it is impressive, better than Reagan even. Waay better than Clinton did (60 nominees blocked, but I'm not sure over how many years).

Sources:
</font>

• http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1068651190108</font>
• http://www.msnbc.com/news/992320.asp?0bl=-0</font>
• http://www.senate.gov/~leahy/press/200311/111403.html</font>
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34028-2003Nov12?language=printer</font>
• http://charleston.net/stories/110703/wor_07judge.shtml</font>
• http://www.berkshireeagle.com/Stories/0,1413,101~6267~1768339,00.html</font>
• http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/12/politics/main583147.shtml</font>
• http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2001784417_judges06.html</font>
• http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/7741680p-8681020c.html</font>

Some of the later (11-15-03) stories put the tally at 6 blocked, 168 passed out of 174.

Names:

Metropolitan News-Enterprise
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
By identical votes of 89-0, senators backed the nominations of Glen E. Conrad to be a district judge for the Western District of Virginia and Henry F. Floyd to be a district judge for the District of South Carolina.

Last week, the Senate approved the nomination of Birmingham attorney R. David Proctor to a seat in the Northern District of Alabama, and confirmed four nominees from the Southern District of New York—state Supreme Court Justice Sandra Feuerstein and attorneys Richard J. Holwell, Stephen C. Robinson, and P. Kevin Castel.

All of the confirmations were unanimous.

Ok, there's seven from a single news source. You can look up the rest yourself.

Or, since you're convinced that "all been blocked", perhaps you can name 10 of them. Or even 7.

from the CBS source listed above

With the blocking of Kuhl and Brown, Democrats will have stopped six Bush nominees: Owen, Brown, Kuhl, Mississippi judge Charles Pickering, Alabama Attorney General William Pryor and Hispanic lawyer Miguel Estrada.

Can you name one more? HMMMMMMMM?

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Bill Pryor, the Alabama Attorney General who threw Roy Moore out for refusing to promise not to mention God, is one of Bush's appointees who is held up.

If Bush gets his way, Pryor will be on a federal bench. Then he can rule against God on the Federal level.

It's interesting to me that Bush supporters always want to talk about judgeship appointments. It's because it's about the only thing left on which Bush cannot be easily proven a liberal. Sadly, some of them must realize that with time, his appointments will also turn out to be destructive, but for now they are willing to use it as an argument to defend "their man".

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by Christ4Kildare:
...and his supporters.

In the light of today's Massachusetts Supreme Court rule on homosexual marriages NOW is it time for a constitutional ammendment defining marriage?

Back to the question, please

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Christ4Kildare:
is it time for a constitutional ammendment defining marriage?

ABSOLUTELY!

 

[Daisy]

The Feds should mind their own bees' wax.

Leave the constitution be!

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Daisy:
The Feds should mind their own bees' wax.

Leave the constitution be!

If the U.S. Supreme Court would mind its own bees's wax, we could let the U.S. Constitution be. Otherwise, no dice.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The Bill of Rights should not have been needed, but it was. I hate tapmering with the constitution, but something has to be done to stop the tyranny of the judiciary.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

The problem is that I am not sure that changing the Constitution would solve the problem since the Courts do not follow the Constitution. They merely interpret the Constitution through their own political filter. I think it is quite clear to most of us that the Constitution can be twisted enough to make it say whatever the judge of the day wants it to say. If we want to stop the foolishness, we must change the judges.

Joseph Botwinick