Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Durkin Tactical Franklin Armory
User Panel

Site Notices
Posted: 1/23/2008 12:14:02 PM EST
... is the selection of JUDGES, who will carry out his (or her... shudder) policies for years after he/she has left office. This is VITALLY important in the decision of who to vote for... because if, say, Hillary gets into the White House, her 'way left-leaning selections will make the Ninth Court in Frisco look positively right-wing!

Remember this when you decide who to vote for.
cmmg
Link Posted: 1/23/2008 12:15:42 PM EST
[#1]
I always thought it was to get BJs from interns. At least that's what I gathered from President Clinton's reign of power.
Link Posted: 1/23/2008 12:16:48 PM EST
[#2]
Link Posted: 1/23/2008 12:17:02 PM EST
[#3]
I disagree. The most important job of the President is Commander in Cheif.

15 years and two successful wars after Bill Clinton pulled out of Somalia and our enemies still think that we're cowards.
Link Posted: 1/23/2008 12:17:52 PM EST
[#4]
Justices are not supposed to carry out a president's policies...
Link Posted: 1/23/2008 12:19:58 PM EST
[#5]
Bangin' the First Lady
Link Posted: 1/23/2008 12:20:40 PM EST
[#6]
IMO, the most important job of the pres is to ensure that the bills passed through congress do not overstep the boundaries laid out in the BOR and Constitution, and that no action of any agency under his command would do the same.
Link Posted: 1/23/2008 12:23:49 PM EST
[#7]

Quoted:
IMO, the most important job of the pres is to ensure that the bills passed through congress do not overstep the boundaries laid out in the BOR and Constitution, and that no action of any agency under his command would do the same.




Seriously, tho.  Its the BJ from interns thing.
Link Posted: 1/23/2008 12:24:10 PM EST
[#8]

Quoted:
Justices are not supposed to carry out a president's policies...




No, but they will usually agree with his philosophy regarding government itself and the issues surrounding it.





-K
Link Posted: 1/23/2008 12:24:51 PM EST
[#9]

Quoted:
Justices are not supposed to carry out a president's policies...


Right.  However, by appointing judges who share the same political philosophies and viewpoints (biases), a president might influence the decisions that a future court might make.

Link Posted: 1/23/2008 12:28:09 PM EST
[#10]
Justices are NOT supposed to be as powerful as they've become.  They are not supposed to carry out ANY Presidents policies.  

In order of power the founding fathers meant the branch of government that was closest to the people, the Congress, to have the most power, then the President, then last,  the furthest removed, the Supreme court.  Activist judges, legislating from the bench, have usurped the power of Congress and forced the President into a subordinate role.

That being said, we're forced to live in the present, and while I'd like to see the Congress and President stand up to activist judges and even work to remove the worst of them, but I see that it's not going to happen anytime soon.  They're there for life, no matter what they do, despite what the FF's intended.

But I ask you, can we trust McCain, Rudy or Mitt to appoint conservative justices?  McCain delights in going against conservatives, Mitt's a liar and has flip flopped enough that I don't know what he really believes in, and Rudy won't keep an oath to his wife, how can we trust him to keep an oath to us?

Huckabee is another flip flopper.  He talks a good story now, but he was doing something else a year ago.
Link Posted: 1/23/2008 12:29:00 PM EST
[#11]
CIC
Link Posted: 1/23/2008 7:24:10 PM EST
[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Justices are not supposed to carry out a president's policies...


Right.  However, by appointing judges who share the same political philosophies and viewpoints (biases), a president might influence the decisions that a future court might make.



What KAR98k said. By appointing judges that reflect his basic philosophy, the President can cause his own influence to extend through two, three or even four more Presidential terms. This was IMO to prevent sudden, radical changes in the fundamental structure of the laws of our country.
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top