HOLY CRAP!!! Rehnquist Dead

[TroyF]

I always wonder why people feel the need to worry about "respect" in a situation like this. You can give condolences and be upset about a death while having an understanding or curiousity about how that death will impact things.

If a superstar athlete dies tomorrow, mixed in with the shock and sadness will be the thoughts of how it will impact his team. (not only mentally, but who his replacement will be, how that will impact their schedule, etc.) Openly wondering those things doesn't mean you are a heartless fool.

In this case, especially, I see nothing wrong with people discussing the ramifications of this death. (although, like Buc, I see little reason for shock in this. We knew it was happening anyway. The timing and reasons are surprising, but we knew this was going to occur)

[Franklinnoble]

We all got it coming. And we knew Rehnquist had cancer, so there's no shock here.

I don't know why the liberals are crying about this. Clinton nominated two justices - what's the big deal? Personally, I don't really think anything is going to happen as a result of any of this. The courts will continue to litigate away our democratic processes and freedoms until we put a stop to it anyway. Bush could get the two most conservative justices he wants out there, and it won't make a lick of difference. You guys will still get to kill unborn babies, you'll still get to evict God from every imaginable facet of public life, and you'll probably still get to marry someone of your own gender at some point. Nothing the federal government does is going to bar your continued moral decay. Carry on. Nothing to see here.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

You guys will still get to kill unborn babies, you'll still get to evict God from every imaginable facet of public life, and you'll probably still get to marry someone of your own gender at some point.

Ah, that's good. The sooner the conservatives come to this realization, the better . Then they just give up like good little boys.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Ah, that's good. The sooner the conservatives come to this realization, the better . Then they just give up like good little boys.

Perhaps I'm just trying to lull you into a false sense of security...

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

We all got it coming. And we knew Rehnquist had cancer, so there's no shock here.

I don't know why the liberals are crying about this. Clinton nominated two justices - what's the big deal? Personally, I don't really think anything is going to happen as a result of any of this. The courts will continue to litigate away our democratic processes and freedoms until we put a stop to it anyway. Bush could get the two most conservative justices he wants out there, and it won't make a lick of difference. You guys will still get to kill unborn babies, you'll still get to evict God from every imaginable facet of public life, and you'll probably still get to marry someone of your own gender at some point. Nothing the federal government does is going to bar your continued moral decay. Carry on. Nothing to see here.

Have you been completely oblivious to the wrong that has been done while conservatives have been in power? There's little that can be done to prevent y'all from ending us. The "moral decay," as you put it, is prevalent on both sides. At least we're honest about ours. Y'all will pretend to be surprised by yours until the endgame, when everyone loses.

[ISiddiqui]

Perhaps I'm just trying to lull you into a false sense of security...

The march of progress always continues .

[NoMyths]

Besides: your side wants Power more than ours does. Which is why you'll get it. And be heirs to the ruin that it eventually, and inevitably, brings.

[DaddyTorgo]

yeah I've gotta bow out of this thread now. i had forgotten why i avoided the political threads particularly on this board. I don't want to have my opinions on what people post in other threads colored by what they post in political threads, because I can't simply isolate the one from the other. If I see someone posting something in here that's offensive to me it'll immediately devalue everything else they have to say in other threads, even if it's threads about say FOF tactical advice, or relationship advice. And that may be silly, but that's just me. So yeah.

*bows out*

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

And that may be silly, but that's just me. So yeah.

IMO, not silly, and it's not just you.

Of course, we probably devalue different people, but that doesn't invalidate the principle

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

IMO, not silly, and it's not just you.

Of course, we probably devalue different people, but that doesn't invalidate the principle

good to see that there's at least some agreement across the aisle Jon. Course I should have figured you'd feel that way.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Have you been completely oblivious to the wrong that has been done while conservatives have been in power? There's little that can be done to prevent y'all from ending us. The "moral decay," as you put it, is prevalent on both sides. At least we're honest about ours. Y'all will pretend to be surprised by yours until the endgame, when everyone loses.

I won't dispute that point - moral decay is everywhere. But I think it's the duty of Christian conservatives to "fight the good fight" (2Ti 4:7), even while we understand that the whole world is wicked, and will continue to be so until Christ's return. (1Jo 5:18).

I would rejoice if Roe V. Wade were overturned, and I would love to see liberal organizations like the ACLU put as much value on innocent unborn life as they do on convicted death row inmates. I just don't realistically expect it to happen in my lifetime.

[NoMyths]

Christian conservatives. That's pretty funny.

Like I said, at least the best of us are honest with ourselves.

[NoMyths]

I should also probably point out that by "us," I'm pretty specifically referring to me. Can't seem to find much in the way of commonality with any of the organized groups 'n such.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Christian conservatives. That's pretty funny.

Like I said, at least the best of us are honest with ourselves.

Right. Bill Clinton was so honest about his extramarital affair, his pot smoking, and his draft-dodging.

You're honest about what you can get away with. The rest of your dirt you try to cover up. There's no shame in that - it's human nature.

I am really not trying to come across "holier than thou." I am saved by the grace of God, nothing else. My nature is as wretched and sinful as anyone, and I struggle mightily on a daily basis to be obedient to God.

I think, at best, a pair of conservative judges on the Supreme Court could only slow things down a bit. But it won't stop. The world is bound to come to an end sooner or later. Our mandate is to save as many souls before that happens.

If I die today, I am 100% certain of my salvation. Would you like to have that kind of security?

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Didn't Pat Robertson pray for this?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in563247.shtml

Two down, one to go...

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Right. Bill Clinton was so honest about his extramarital affair, his pot smoking, and his draft-dodging.

You're honest about what you can get away with. The rest of your dirt you try to cover up. There's no shame in that - it's human nature.

I am really not trying to come across "holier than thou." I am saved by the grace of God, nothing else. My nature is as wretched and sinful as anyone, and I struggle mightily on a daily basis to be obedient to God.

I think, at best, a pair of conservative judges on the Supreme Court could only slow things down a bit. But it won't stop. The world is bound to come to an end sooner or later. Our mandate is to save as many souls before that happens.

If I die today, I am 100% certain of my salvation. Would you like to have that kind of security?

Why in God's name are you bringing up Clinton's blowjob again? Is this going to be the kneejerk thing for the next fifty years? Hell, I supported the impeachment, as well as the result.

I'm honest about not trying to get away with anything. I'd kill myself before faking it, and it'd be nice if I could count on the rest of you to do the same.

Saved by the grace of God? You need to revisit the scripture, and forget your pride. And perhaps I even say this as an entity that's meant to help you towards that salvation of which you seem sure.

If you died today, your salvation wouldn't be assured. Nor would mine. It's a lifetime thing, Frank. The only thing I'm 100% sure of is that life is pain, and that there has to be a reason for it. So I continue to try to force people towards the best of their natures, rather than the worst. Including myself.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Saved by the grace of God? You need to revisit the scripture, and forget your pride. And perhaps I even say this as an entity that's meant to help you towards that salvation of which you seem sure.

If you died today, your salvation wouldn't be assured. Nor would mine. It's a lifetime thing, Frank. The only thing I'm 100% sure of is that life is pain, and that there has to be a reason for it. So I continue to try to force people towards the best of their natures, rather than the worst. Including myself.

I read the Bible daily. I can assure you that it is quite clear on the issue of salvation by grace. I'm really not sure where you're coming from, but if you really want me to, I would be happy to quote a page or two worth of verses for you to read on the subject.

You might also want to do some research on your own. There's free Bible software at http://www.e-sword.net/ Download it, and do a search on the word "grace" in the new testament.

[NoMyths]

I am very familiar with the Bible. I am trying to reach you entirely in friendship. Don't trust in infallibility.

It's all I'll say about this. But remember: it's a lifetime thing. You're not supposed to have it figured out yet, in part for your family.

[Chubby]

unborn life? what a great oxymoron...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

If you died today, your salvation wouldn't be assured. Nor would mine. It's a lifetime thing, Frank

I'd rather not get drawn into debate, but I must point out that nothing could be further from the truth.

[Flasch186]

i loved the Pat Robertson comment that got brushed under the rug....SHHHHH, no one saw it, continue on without addressing one of the pillars of the radical right's obvious immoral backbone.

I guess you could say I call your Clinton and raise you a Robertson and DeLay (who whined and whined about Schiavo while playing the other side of that coin with his own family member). Ive still got chips left so I'll play if you want.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

it won't alter the balance. but it means that instead of an old-style conservative for a few more years we get 30+ years of some "new-age" conservative. And new-age versus old-style conservatism are two totally different things.

not that I wasn't expecting it to happen during this term, hell we all were. it's just not a situation i'm happy seeing.

clarification: i'm definately a liberal, but i don't "mind" old-style small-government and personal rights conservatives on my supreme court. what i do mind is new-age "extremist" conservatives who will try to legislate from the right-wing while on the bench. And for that matter I don't particularly enjoy left-wing liberals legislating from the bench either. At least when the left-wing legislates from the bench though they TEND to err on the side of being overly protective versus being discriminatory towards a minority.

Interesting how liberals who have always pooh-poohed conservatives complaining about judges and justices who legislate from the bench as kooks and conspiracy theorists are suddenly very worried about a possible right-leaning court legislating from the bench.

To me, its just another piece of evidence that our judiciary is totally out of control and doing things it was never intended to do.

[Glengoyne]

Sorry to hear about Rehnquist, although I think most figured that this was coming. I believe he did much for his country, and much for the Supreme Court. As others have said RIP.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Wasn't Rogers chastized by Gonzales when they were both on the court? Or am I thinking of someone else?

Hey Keep your Moveon.org propoganda straight. That was Priscilla Owen. Well in truth it wasn't, but that was what the story was. In truth he was criticizing another judge on the panel who had written a separate dissent.




Edit: had to come back and add the smiley, cause I thought I may have been a bit harsh. The Smiley fixes all.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

i loved the Pat Robertson comment that got brushed under the rug....SHHHHH, no one saw it, continue on without addressing one of the pillars of the radical right's obvious immoral backbone.

immoral by what standard? If Machiavelli were around today, he would probably be pumping his fist saying, "yes, it's about time you religious people starting saying things that are practical."

I find it amusing for groups that routinely bitch about "others forcing their morality (read - religion) down my throat," can suddenly turn and complain about ANYTHING based on a perception of morality.

Regarding Robertson's comment: as a Christian, I found the statement completely off the wall and unjustified. Perhaps it's time for Pat to reread the Bible he claims to represent.

[CamEdwards]

You know, Rehnquist died because George W. Bush doesn't care about old people.

BTW, I'd be shocked if Gonzalez were the nominee to replace Rehnquist. I look for Gonzalez to be a replacement for Ginsburg if/when she steps down.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Christian conservatives

I really wish that term hadn't been coined. For me, it is the poisoned punch of the Republican party. No offense to you Franklin. I'm a fellow believer, and I'm not trying to disparage you or anyone else. I'm just not a big fan of religion dictating politics.

Originally Posted by Chubby

unborn life? what a great oxymoron...

You should try and have more intellectual integrity. It really should be obvious to both sides of that debate. Life begins neither at conception, nor at birth. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. It is one of those darned grey areas.

My prediction is that this will lead to a mild threadjacking, and then someone will remind everyone to get back to honoring or at least debating Rehnquist.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by BigJohn&TheLions

Didn't Pat Robertson pray for this?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in563247.shtml

Two down, one to go...

Yes, he did. So god gives O'Connor's husband cancer and kills Rehnquist. Uh, yay god?

[CamEdwards]

ok, if we're going to start trotting out Pat Robertson as someone indicative of the thinking of all conservatives, can we do the same with Randi Rhodes of Air America for the liberals? I think they have the same size audience these days.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

You should try and have more intellectual integrity. It really should be obvious to both sides of that debate. Life begins neither at conception, nor at birth. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. It is one of those darned grey areas.

May I implore you to read the following piece by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan on this "darned grey area" subject. It's rather long, but very thoughtful, based on sound science, and has 100x's more "intellectual integrity" than one normally finds when discussing this debate.

http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

ok, if we're going to start trotting out Pat Robertson as someone indicative of the thinking of all conservatives, can we do the same with Randi Rhodes of Air America for the liberals? I think they have the same size audience these days.

Not trotting Robertson as anyone other than someone indicative of the thinking of Pat Robertson.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

I would love to see liberal organizations like the ACLU put as much value on innocent unborn life as they do on convicted death row inmates.

And would love to see conservative organizations put as much value on all other human life as they do on zygotes and brain dead people.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

immoral by what standard? If Machiavelli were around today, he would probably be pumping his fist saying, "yes, it's about time you religious people starting saying things that are practical."

I find it amusing for groups that routinely bitch about "others forcing their morality (read - religion) down my throat," can suddenly turn and complain about ANYTHING based on a perception of morality.

Regarding Robertson's comment: as a Christian, I found the statement completely off the wall and unjustified. Perhaps it's time for Pat to reread the Bible he claims to represent.

I am simply an enemy of hypcorisy and will pound it into the ground no matter where it comes from. Ill take a KKK guy in white anyday over the KKK guy in a suit and tie....at least the guy in white I can keep an eye on and when he acts up I can take care of it appropriately since I know his backbone....The David Duke type can slither about without me knowing and strike when Im not paying attention.

[Buccaneer]

It is my fundamental belief that the federal govt has gathered too much power, not only in itself but in their hold over the states as well. The SC, unfortunately, went along with much of it. In my simplistic opinion, much of what Congress have done the 40 years should be stricken down by the Court. I look for judges that are strict Constitutionalists, not liberal or conservative in their rulings.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Chubby

unborn life? what a great oxymoron...

Um yeah. You might want to rethink that. I can assure you the child I'm carrying is very much alive.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

May I implore you to read the following piece by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan on this "darned grey area" subject. It's rather long, but very thoughtful, based on sound science, and has 100x's more "intellectual integrity" than one normally finds when discussing this debate.

http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

I believe life does indeed begin at conception. As for the late Mr. Sagan, I've read a great many of his books. Ironically, it was his book Cosmos that convinced me of the existence of God. To me, he is a tragic figure. A brilliant atheist who couldn't see the forest for the trees.

[capsicum]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Um yeah. You might want to rethink that. I can assure you the child I'm carrying is very much alive.

I very much agree!

All 3 of my babies were alive and growing from the moment of conception....dont know of to many lifeless things that "grow."

[terpkristin]

The title of this thread is exactly what I thought when I heard. I only heard at around 1230 p.m. today (Sunday) because I'd just gotten up.

My second thought was the four-letter expletive starting with the letter f that was so neatly already typed out here.

/tk

[ISiddiqui]

Not to totally get involved in the debate, but for those who think life begins at conception, if the mother engages in some physical activity that results in a miscarrage, should the mother be charged with manslaughter?

If not, why not?

[Airhog]

Its one thing to knowingly end life. Its another thing to accidently, or unknowningly end life. How many miscarriages result from a mother that doesnt even know she is pregnant? Any how many miscarriages are the result of definate negligence after the mother knows she is pregnant.

If a mother knowinly attempts to end the life of her child through negligence, or other such means, then yes, she should be punished by the law...

[capsicum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Not to totally get involved in the debate, but for those who think life begins at conception, if the mother engages in some physical activity that results in a miscarrage, should the mother be charged with manslaughter?

If not, why not?

If the women is purposefully & knowingly engaging in an act that ends the life of the baby then yes...she should face charges.

I havent heard of to many ACCIDENTAL abortions out there.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Not to totally get involved in the debate, but for those who think life begins at conception, if the mother engages in some physical activity that results in a miscarrage, should the mother be charged with manslaughter?

If not, why not?

I don't believe life begins at conception, but that's an excellent question.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by capsicum

If the women is purposefully & knowingly engaging in an act that ends the life of the baby then yes...she should face charges.

I havent heard of to many ACCIDENTAL abortions out there.

That wasn't the question, but nice try. There is this thing called involuntary manslaughter. What if the potential mother was a little bit reckless (perhaps engage in some physical activity, like playing sports at a cookout) and did someting that ended up in a miscarriage. Should she be charged with a crime?

If the zygote is life, with the rights to life, liberty, and property, etc, etc, then doing such a thing should be a involuntary manslaughter, no?

[sterlingice]

I don't know why the media would irresponsibly and report to us nonstop about how these confirmation battles are almost solely about abortion.

*shakes head and walks away* "Idiots. There's more to life than one decision, especially Roe v Wade..."

SI

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

May I implore you to read the following piece by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan on this "darned grey area" subject. It's rather long, but very thoughtful, based on sound science, and has 100x's more "intellectual integrity" than one normally finds when discussing this debate.

http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

I'll give it a read. I doubt it will have much impact though. This is something I've done some fairly decent thinking on. I'm not saying I've applied the accumen of Sagan or Druyan, but I've run the issue through my mental wringer a time or two.


That said. I think the chances of Roe v Wade being overturned in my lifetime are about the same as me reaching low earth orbit. Furthermore I don't think that is a bad thing.

[st.cronin]

A question for pro-choicers to consider: If a woman on death row turned out to be pregnant, should her execution be postponed til her child is born?

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

A question for pro-choicers to consider: If a woman on death row turned out to be pregnant, should her execution be postponed til her child is born?

actually, first order of business should be to find out who knocked her up, since she would have been in custody for some time to reach death row.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

If the zygote is life, with the rights to life, liberty, and property, etc, etc, then doing such a thing should be a involuntary manslaughter, no?

What you're talking about (I think) would be akin to the charges that exist in some states to cover vehicular homicide charges for unborn babies killed in car crashes & such - different circumstances but same basic principle. And I think charges like you're talking about do exist in some states, although I believe they're usually prosecuted against 3rd parties moreso than against the (prospective) mother.

But I'm staunchly & adamantly in favor of legal abortion, so I'm probably the wrong guy to even get involved in this thread. Basically just adding there I believe there is at least some statutes like you're talking about on the books in some states already (same kind of laws that allow crack mothers to be charged for using while pregnant).

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

We all got it coming. And we knew Rehnquist had cancer, so there's no shock here.

I don't know why the liberals are crying about this. Clinton nominated two justices - what's the big deal? Personally, I don't really think anything is going to happen as a result of any of this. The courts will continue to litigate away our democratic processes and freedoms until we put a stop to it anyway. Bush could get the two most conservative justices he wants out there, and it won't make a lick of difference. You guys will still get to kill unborn babies, you'll still get to evict God from every imaginable facet of public life, and you'll probably still get to marry someone of your own gender at some point. Nothing the federal government does is going to bar your continued moral decay. Carry on. Nothing to see here.

If what we've seen from you and capsicum is moral righteousness, I for one hope fervently for decay. I think religous nuts who consign science to the dustbin are a great sign of righteousness, or nuts who think their religous beliefs should become the barometer of all policy.

In essence, I'm going to echo Glengoyle here- Christian Conservatives have ruined the individualist, libertarian leaning Rockefeller Republican party - and its a shame. One may well point that this is where the Republican party had to go to be electable, which raises another debate in itself.

[Swaggs]

From a historical standpoint, a potentially interesting event may happen.

Judge Roberts may get nominated to become the Chief Justice, as well as "just" a Supreme Court justice, so that there will only need to be two confirmations made, rather than the two replacements and a new Chief. Anyone know if that has ever happened before?

I wonder how the sitting Justices would react to that. It makes sense, but most judges have fairly sizeable egos and it could be a tough pill to swallow for some of them (in private).