Kansas Votes 4-1 To Allow Intelligent Design

[JoeyKnothead]

From Kansas Votes 4-1 To Allow Intelligent Design:

Topic for debate:

Should Kansas have voted to allow Intelligent Design in order to achieve "balance"?

[East of Eden]

I don't see the problem here, every president when given the opportunity to appoint a justice to the supreme court tries to appoint someone close to his own political viewpoint. Are you saying that only conservative judges should be appointed?

Activist judges of whatever philosophy should be disqualified. I would have voted against Ruth Bader Ginsberg, for example, given her past at the ACLU.

The constitution is not changeless nor was it ever intended to be.

Again, the mechanism for that change is amendments or constitutional convention, not judicial fiat.

[Wyvern]

I don't see the problem here, every president when given the opportunity to appoint a justice to the supreme court tries to appoint someone close to his own political viewpoint. Are you saying that only conservative judges should be appointed?

Activist judges of whatever philosophy should be disqualified. I would have voted against Ruth Bader Ginsberg, for example, given her past at the ACLU.

I don't recall where being a member of a legal organization disqualifies someone from government service. To take it from the other side it would be like saying anyone that is a member of the NRA would not be allowed to be a federal judge.

The constitution is not changeless nor was it ever intended to be.

Again, the mechanism for that change is amendments or constitutional convention, not judicial fiat.

Agreed, but you need to remember that the judicial system has a system of checks if a judge makes a bad call, they are human after all and it does happen. When it comes to the law the supreme court is the final word whether a particular law is constitutional or not. This is why Roe v Wade has not been overturned, there is nothing unconstitutional about the decision, you may not agree with it for a number of reasons but there is nothing constitutionally wrong with it.

[East of Eden]

I don't recall where being a member of a legal organization disqualifies someone from government service. To take it from the other side it would be like saying anyone that is a member of the NRA would not be allowed to be a federal judge.

She was far more than a member of the ACLU.

Agreed, but you need to remember that the judicial system has a system of checks if a judge makes a bad call, they are human after all and it does happen. When it comes to the law the supreme court is the final word whether a particular law is constitutional or not. This is why Roe v Wade has not been overturned, there is nothing unconstitutional about the decision, you may not agree with it for a number of reasons but there is nothing constitutionally wrong with it.

Roe v. Wade was a lousy decision, criticized even by Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

"She has criticized the Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973) as terminating a nascent, democratic movement to liberalize abortion laws which might have built a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights."

Wikipedia

[Wyvern]

I don't recall where being a member of a legal organization disqualifies someone from government service. To take it from the other side it would be like saying anyone that is a member of the NRA would not be allowed to be a federal judge.

She was far more than a member of the ACLU.

I still do not recall where being a member of a legal organization disqualifies someone from government service. It seems like you want to make special provisions for who can serve if they happen to be liberal in your eyes. Again to be fair would you disqualify an NRA member from a federal judgeship?

Roe v. Wade was a lousy decision, criticized even by Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

"She has criticized the Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973) as terminating a nascent, democratic movement to liberalize abortion laws which might have built a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights."

That is your opinion but regardless it is the law of the land which has withstood many challenges to it including going to the supreme court. There is nothing unconstitutional about it.

[WinePusher]

I don't recall where being a member of a legal organization disqualifies someone from government service.

Being a member of a liberal organization such as the ACLU (that claims to defend the civil liberties of citizens, but rather advances their own twisted view of the law) should raise many questions about Ginsberg, and her interpretation of the law. Being an ACLU lawyer shows where her ideology lies.

[quote="Wyvern"I still do not recall where being a member of a legal organization disqualifies someone from government service. It seems like you want to make special provisions for who can serve if they happen to be liberal in your eyes. Again to be fair would you disqualify an NRA member from a federal judgeship?[/quote]

I never said that Ginsberg should be disqualified because she was part of the ACLU. It just shows how far left she is. A member of the NRA also shouldn't be disqualified from a judgeship.

That is your opinion but regardless it is the law of the land which has withstood many challenges to it including going to the supreme court. There is nothing unconstitutional about it.

That was actually the opinion of Ginsberg, not EoE. Please tell me where the constitutional right to kill a child is mentioned in the constitution. Is there one, because we certainly have a God given unalienable right to life mentioned.

[Wyvern]

I don't recall where being a member of a legal organization disqualifies someone from government service.

Being a member of a liberal organization such as the ACLU (that claims to defend the civil liberties of citizens, but rather advances their own twisted view of the law) should raise many questions about Ginsberg, and her interpretation of the law. Being an ACLU lawyer shows where her ideology lies.

Replace liberal with conservative and ACLU with NRA and the exact same is true on the right. Just because you don't like liberals doesn't mean that you are correct except in your own head.

I never said that Ginsberg should be disqualified because she was part of the ACLU. It just shows how far left she is. A member of the NRA also shouldn't be disqualified from a judgeship.

No you didn't EoE did. Being a member of the ACLU is an indicator of ones left leanings just like being a member of the NRA is an indicator of ones right leanings. If EoE wants to disqualify someone due to who they associate with then it has to go both ways. I remember something somewhere about americans having the freedom to associate with whom they please, I guess you prefer guilt by association.

That is your opinion but regardless it is the law of the land which has withstood many challenges to it including going to the supreme court. There is nothing unconstitutional about it.

That was actually the opinion of Ginsberg, not EoE. Please tell me where the constitutional right to kill a child is mentioned in the constitution. Is there one, because we certainly have a God given unalienable right to life mentioned.

I was referring to EoE characterizing Roe v Wase as a lousy decision, Ginsberg criticized it on entirely different grounds.

Yep there is a right to life but you need to be alive before you can have a right to be alive.

[East of Eden]

Replace liberal with conservative and ACLU with NRA and the exact same is true on the right. Just because you don't like liberals doesn't mean that you are correct except in your own head.

It's not that I dislike liberals personally Ijust think they're ruining the country.

No you didn't EoE did. Being a member of the ACLU is an indicator of ones left leanings just like being a member of the NRA is an indicator of ones right leanings. If EoE wants to disqualify someone due to who they associate with then it has to go both ways.

To me, the ACLU is a left-wing extremist organization and any lawyer who worked for them at a high level is bound to be a liberal activist judge and should be disqualified.

I remember something somewhere about americans having the freedom to associate with whom they please, I guess you prefer guilt by association.

The left criticizes conservative judicial nominees for their assoications - does that bother you too?

I was referring to EoE characterizing Roe v Wase as a lousy decision, Ginsberg criticized it on entirely different grounds.

She may have supported it's end, but she also thought it was a lousy decision.

Yep there is a right to life but you need to be alive before you can have a right to be alive.

An unborm child is alive, at least until the lousy excuse for a mom kills it. Real moms don't do that.

[chris_brown207]

Replace liberal with conservative and ACLU with NRA and the exact same is true on the right. Just because you don't like liberals doesn't mean that you are correct except in your own head.

It's not that I dislike liberals personally Ijust think they're ruining the country.

No you didn't EoE did. Being a member of the ACLU is an indicator of ones left leanings just like being a member of the NRA is an indicator of ones right leanings. If EoE wants to disqualify someone due to who they associate with then it has to go both ways.

To me, the ACLU is a left-wing extremist organization and any lawyer who worked for them at a high level is bound to be a liberal activist judge and should be disqualified.

I remember something somewhere about americans having the freedom to associate with whom they please, I guess you prefer guilt by association.

The left criticizes conservative judicial nominees for their assoications - does that bother you too?

I was referring to EoE characterizing Roe v Wase as a lousy decision, Ginsberg criticized it on entirely different grounds.

She may have supported it's end, but she also thought it was a lousy decision.

Yep there is a right to life but you need to be alive before you can have a right to be alive.

An unborm child is alive, at least until the lousy excuse for a mom kills it. Real moms don't do that.

Wow... at least you are honest about your feelings.

And you can partially thank the ACLU for the ability to be honest on these forums. They have fought many court battles to allow you the ability to speak your mind without having to fear a legal backlash from major organizations, including representing bloggers who have been sued.

You may not agree with all of their causes, but I guarantee you agree with some...

(P.s. When the Pro-Life crowd stop having abortions then maybe they will more of a "moral high ground" to stand on. I guess that would be similar to anti-homosexual conservative leaders who turn out to be closet gay themselves: Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, Bob Allen, Glen Murphy Jr to name a few).

[Wyvern]

Replace liberal with conservative and ACLU with NRA and the exact same is true on the right. Just because you don't like liberals doesn't mean that you are correct except in your own head.

It's not that I dislike liberals personally Ijust think they're ruining the country.

Of course you do, just as I'm sure that liberals think conservatives are ruining the country, what you don't realize is that both sides are correct.

No you didn't EoE did. Being a member of the ACLU is an indicator of ones left leanings just like being a member of the NRA is an indicator of ones right leanings. If EoE wants to disqualify someone due to who they associate with then it has to go both ways.

To me, the ACLU is a left-wing extremist organization and any lawyer who worked for them at a high level is bound to be a liberal activist judge and should be disqualified.

Again replace ACLU, left-wing and liberal with NRA, right-wing and conservative and the statement is just as valid. If you start disqualifying people based on their associations you are also invalidating the first amendment of the constitution which supreme court judges such as Ginsberg are charged with protecting.

I remember something somewhere about americans having the freedom to associate with whom they please, I guess you prefer guilt by association.

The left criticizes conservative judicial nominees for their assoications - does that bother you too?

Yes it does, but there is a big difference between being criticized for ones associations and automatically disqualified for ones associations. This also illustrates how the extremely partisan branches of both parties are slowly tearing the nation apart and ignoring the constitution in order to "win".

Yep there is a right to life but you need to be alive before you can have a right to be alive.

An unborm child is alive, at least until the lousy excuse for a mom kills it. Real moms don't do that.

At what point is a fetus considered alive? To call the single cell of a newly fertilized egg a child does a disservice to your cause plus if you consider that to be a child then you should be asking god why he aborts so many children before even the mother knows she is pregnant.

[Grumpy]

Wyvern

At what point is a fetus considered alive?

Most people(those not of either extreme)consider a fetus a child when it is capable of survival outside of the womb. The Bible makes a distinction between a fetus in the womb and a child outside of the womb. In modern society the mother's right to decide if she will become a mother is only tempered when the fetus is near viability. The days of men keeping women barefoot, uneducated and pregnant(whether that is that woman's choice are not)are over. As with the right to vote, the right to be in charge of your own body(as a woman)is not up to anyone but the woman herself.

Grumpy