Pages

Jump to bottom

9 comments

1 Obdicut  Sun, Jan 2, 2011 4:48:54am

I do get annoyed from people on the 'liberal' end of the spectrum who criticize John Roberts as if he's part of the mainstream GOP idiocy. I disagree with his judicial philosophy, very strongly in some areas. But he's a principled man, enormously qualified, and he wants government to actually work.

There is becoming a clear division these days between the remaining conservatives whose philosophy towards government is that it needs to be fixed and the best way to do that is the application of conservative principles, and the 'conservatives' who appear to think government is permanently broken and its only purpose is to support corporations. Roberts is very much one of the first group, and their point of view, while I disagree with it, is a legitimate and honorable one.

And he is proving this by unprecedentedly slapping around the obstructionism in the Senate over judicial confirmations.

2 Curt  Sun, Jan 2, 2011 5:45:14am

Gore your ox, gore my ox... like it's jut "Republican obstructionists." Nope....and what made me go looking if recalling how Ted Kennedy was the one to make this a major issue of the 60 votes for just about everything...over Bush's recommended judges. Yes, I know, some ox going is more equal than other ox goring....read history, Solomon said, and is so very on target "There is nothing new under the sun."

Now guess what, thanks to the unintended consequences of that fateful clash, that actually stretched the rules, for political "point making" by a minority party? Yes, the 51 votes moves legislation along is but a memory of less troubled times, now the politicians constructed a weapon to manipulate the process.

It's about time we told all the politicians that they need to handle the business of the country for the "general welfare" (It's Constitutional, BTW), and not just to gain political favor, nor to line their own nests with the accouterments of privileged power.

I think you'd agree that would solve many problems.

3 laZardo  Sun, Jan 2, 2011 6:00:13am

re: #1 Obdicut

There is becoming a clear division these days between the remaining conservatives whose philosophy towards government is that it needs to be fixed and the best way to do that is the application of conservative principles, and the 'conservatives' who appear to think government is permanently broken and its only purpose is to support corporations. Roberts is very much one of the first group, and their point of view, while I disagree with it, is a legitimate and honorable one.

Then why did he rule in favor of Citizens United?

4 Obdicut  Sun, Jan 2, 2011 6:22:30am

re: #2 Curt

You seem to be going to great lengths to ignore that Chief Justice Roberts, a staunch conservative, is unprecedentedly pointing out the obstructionism in the Senate.

The strawman argument that you propose-- that I or Roberts are somehow claiming obstructionism is new-- is rather lame. What I'm pointing out, and what Roberts is pointing out, is that this obstructionism is interfering with the business of politics. I slammed 'liberals' when they objected to Roberts' appointment, given how amazingly qualified the man is to be on the Supreme Court. Now I'm slamming the GOP for their obstructionism of judges. And yet somehow you think that I'm only complaining because my ox is being gored.

Leaps to assumptions lead to mud on the face.

It's about time we told all the politicians that they need to handle the business of the country for the "general welfare" (It's Constitutional, BTW), and not just to gain political favor, nor to line their own nests with the accouterments of privileged power.

I think you'd agree that would solve many problems.

I agree that that's a nice puffy soundbite with no substance to it whatsoever. But it sure sounds great.

5 Obdicut  Sun, Jan 2, 2011 6:23:57am

re: #3 laZardo

Then why did he rule in favor of Citizens United?

Because he honestly believes in a very 'liberal' version of free speech, including money as speech. I disagree with him strongly over this. However, his stance on it is not a craven one in favor of corporations as corporations; his stance really is based in free speech arguments.

6 Curt  Sun, Jan 2, 2011 9:57:49am

re: #4 Obdicut

You seem to be going to great lengths to ignore that Chief Justice Roberts, a staunch conservative, is unprecedentedly pointing out the obstructionism in the Senate.

I'm going to no lengths. Your title of your submitted link states a view. I responded.


The strawman argument that you propose-- that I or Roberts are somehow claiming obstructionism is new-- is rather lame. What I'm pointing out, and what Roberts is pointing out, is that this obstructionism is interfering with the business of politics.

In this particular case, it may well have been instructive to indicate the issue of seating judges is now an issue that has spanned the years in the name of politics. That was my point, to counter framing of just this moment in the course of this li=ong term issues, which, as i pointed out, has a history of working on both sides of the aisle. What's wrong with moderating a discussion with that sort of balance?


Leaps to assumptions lead to mud on the face.


I provided a link, you provided a post. Who's assumptions?


I agree that that's a nice puffy soundbite with no substance to it whatsoever. But it sure sounds great.


I don't feel addressing an issue that needs to be addressed as a sounbite. I assume you indicate my call, in very short form, about being "bi-partisan" in solving a lingering, dysfunctional problem is merely me being jingoistic? I thought we were supposed to be willing to work together to get things done.....

7 Obdicut  Sun, Jan 2, 2011 10:12:20am

re: #6 Curt

I'm going to no lengths. Your title of your submitted link states a view. I responded.

And you're ignoring that Robert's use of this message to achieve this goal is unprecedented.

In this particular case, it may well have been instructive to indicate the issue of seating judges is now an issue that has spanned the years in the name of politics.

Can you stop using such passive tone of voice, please? Just say what you mean.

The issue of seating judges has always been a political thing. It's absolutely true. What I am not alleging, as I made very, very clear in my last statement, is that politics and judges is a new thing, but that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court using the year-end report to blast obstructionism is a new thing.


What's wrong with moderating a discussion with that sort of balance?

Well, the bad effects of worshipping the Magical Balance Fairy is indulging in this bizarre notion that 'both sides' are equally bad, always. It is an absolute given that the same behavior is engaged in by all participants in the political arena; the difference is the scale. At this point, the scale of GOP obstructionism is so massive that the highly, highly conservative Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is castigating them for it.


I provided a link, you provided a post. Who's assumptions?

Your assumption-- which you are continuing to perpetuate-- is that I'm claiming obstructionism is entirely a new thing.

I don't feel addressing an issue that needs to be addressed as a sounbite.

You didn't address it. You just said something that sounds great, but contains no actual functional details whatsoever. Telling all the politicians-- what does that mean? How would that work? Why reduce it to 'all politicians', instead of acknowledging the obvious truth that some politicians are far, far, far, far more corrupt and self-serving than others?

I assume you indicate my call, in very short form, about being "bi-partisan" in solving a lingering, dysfunctional problem is merely me being jingoistic?

I don't think you know what jingoistic means; there's no way that your statement could be jingoistic. I just think it's a simplistic slogan that means nothing.

I thought we were supposed to be willing to work together to get things done...

Yep. So as soon as you have something that might actually work, let me know. Espousing meaningless slogans of calling on all politicians to rise above themselves isn't going to cut it.

8 Aceofwhat?  Sun, Jan 2, 2011 5:30:44pm

re: #1 Obdicut

I do get annoyed from people on the 'liberal' end of the spectrum who criticize John Roberts as if he's part of the mainstream GOP idiocy. I disagree with his judicial philosophy, very strongly in some areas. But he's a principled man, enormously qualified, and he wants government to actually work.

There is becoming a clear division these days between the remaining conservatives whose philosophy towards government is that it needs to be fixed and the best way to do that is the application of conservative principles, and the 'conservatives' who appear to think government is permanently broken and its only purpose is to support corporations. Roberts is very much one of the first group, and their point of view, while I disagree with it, is a legitimate and honorable one.

And he is proving this by unprecedentedly slapping around the obstructionism in the Senate over judicial confirmations.

nicely written. i was going to make a page out of the same article, but thought i should check first to make sure that someone hadn't already put it up.

9 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Jan 2, 2011 5:32:25pm

re: #7 Obdicut

I want to thank you for your words on this issue, Obdi. You and I don't agree on some issues of constitutional interpretation. But you argue your point well, and you call the actions of the players in this matter down the middle honest. Great stuff to read.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
A Closer Look at the Eastman State Bar DecisionTaking a few minutes away from work things to read through the Eastman decision. As I'm sure many of you know, Eastman was my law school con law professor. I knew him pretty well because I was also running in ...
KGxvi
1 hour ago
Views: 66 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 1