It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Republican threatens filibuster if next Supreme Court nominee stands up ‘for the little guy’

page: 1
11

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
rawstory.com...


There is not yet a vacancy on the Supreme Court but the second-ranking Republican in the Senate is already planning a strategy of opposing President Barack Obama's potential nominee.

Jon Kyl (R-Az) told Fox News' Chris Wallace that Republicans are prepared to fight a nominee who might stick up for the little guy, a position he called "overly ideological."


Sticking up for the little guy is "overly ideological"??

This type of rhetoric is just exactly what the democrats need to demonize the GOP.
Most people consider themselves the "little guy" If the GOP wants support and votes they had better start courting the "little guy"..... a third party now has an opportunity to really make an impact this coming nov.

This comment actually enforces that the GOP is a tool of the corporatist, the very thing the Tea party is against and with out the "little guy" the GOP will slide even further into obsolescence.

Expect Kyl to soon tell us that this comment was taken out of context.

Apparently the Republicans think that dissatisfaction with Obama and negative campaigning will be enough to win back the house and senate.
It might, but these types of faux pax are giving butt loads of ammunition to the opposition. Fools!

[edit on 4-4-2010 by whaaa]




posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
In law school I've heard of all sorts of judicial philosophies like originalism. I don't think there is a judicial philosophy that is about sticking up for the little guy.

Of course, if you want to get rid of a judge that sticks up for the little guy, you may want to get rid of Justice Scalia, one of the Conservative Judges on the court. Scalia has sided with criminals and against the government in many cases. Scalia is pro-life, so he sides with "the little guy" in a pregnant woman's belly.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
What about they will oppose his nomination IF HE DOESN'T SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION?

Which SHOULD BE THE ONLY THING THEY STAND FOR.

Those statements by the republicans just show how they are as bad as democrats.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Word on the street is Cass Sunstein on the short list for supreme court nominees.

He's a totally evil man intent on destroying the nation.

I hope they do more than just filibusterer.

www.stopsunstein.com...

thinkexist.com...


“[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. ”

"We ought to ban hunting"

"A legislative effort to regulate broadcasting in the interest of democratic principles should not be seen as an abridgment of the free speech guarantee."

“When you think commerce clause, don't think technical and meaningless. Think in what ways can the elected representatives of the people provide protection against serious harm.”


“In what sense in the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live?… Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public fisc. … There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day …”



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

Holy. This guy is as anti constitution as they make them... him and Sotomayor, you can kiss your second amendment goodbye, on paper, if a case like that ever reach the supreme court...

Sick.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Wonder if this guy is up for reelection in November? If so, I doubt he'll remain in office long enough to impact any appointments. Comments about Sunstein - there's a quote about refreshing the tree of liberty that he probably finds offensive.

gj

Edit spelling

[edit on 5-4-2010 by ganjoa]



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
What about they will oppose his nomination IF HE DOESN'T SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION?

Which SHOULD BE THE ONLY THING THEY STAND FOR.

Those statements by the republicans just show how they are as bad as democrats.


Exactly! People like the OP that only want the next Supreme Court nominee to be "for the little guy", whatever that actually means, rather than a defender of the U.S. Constitution is what is killing this nation.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I would like a centrist appointee. If by "standing up for the little guy" you mean "pro-union", then I agree with Senator Kyl. We don't need anymore of that BS.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Sry, but I watched this interview and you have taken it totally out of context. He listed 3 or 4 things they shouldn't be doing and he's right. Their job is to interpret the law, not defending certain demographics.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
Sry, but I watched this interview and you have taken it totally out of context. He listed 3 or 4 things they shouldn't be doing and he's right. Their job is to interpret the law, not defending certain demographics.


Yup. They do exactly the same things they accuse Fox News of doing to sensationalize a story and push an agenda, rather than report ALL the facts. The left is just as guilty as the right at doing this. That's why we need a truly centrist government without all the crying and whaaas that go along with a partisan government.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
“In what sense in the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live?… Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public fisc. … There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day …”



He's spot on, about this.

Like it or not, the govt needs money to pay for things like police, and a justice system (which pays his salary). Without those things, there would be anarchy, and tyrants would quickly rise up to fill the void left by the governing bodies democratically run, and in charge of keeping peace and safety on the streets, as well as ensure people get a fair shake when they are accused or something, or protected when an individual or group of people wishes to harm that person.

To think that any country can survive without taxes is naive. The only thing we can hope to do is limit the spending of the govt to services that people actually want.. but that is not likely to happen anytime soon.


If you want less taxes, demand less spending.. that goes for things like WARS, republicans. Okay? You can't be for war and then claim to be "small government"

[edit on 4-4-2010 by Kaytagg]



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II

Originally posted by Vitchilo
What about they will oppose his nomination IF HE DOESN'T SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION?

Which SHOULD BE THE ONLY THING THEY STAND FOR.

Those statements by the republicans just show how they are as bad as democrats.


Exactly! People like the OP that only want the next Supreme Court nominee to be "for the little guy", whatever that actually means, rather than a defender of the U.S. Constitution is what is killing this nation.


Well you are cross pollenating separate variables... A person can indeed be for the constitution and for the little guy at the same time, they are independent.

IMO a big problem has been that people in the government seem to be for the "big guy", protecting litigious loopholes and violating the intent of the law. I do not see why law is only applicable to the individual citizen. It seems a fictitious business name grants
entities and the individuals who comprise such complete immunity from many legal concepts we are all held to. Fraud, Usury and "Conspiracy to..." Imagine if such a concept was applied to the FED, lenders, speculators and creditors as of late? Too bad it was not, my only point is this concept should not be a stretch in nation like it currently is.

Like "civilian law", if you don't do the crime, you wont do the time.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


who gives a darn if the repubs filibuster...just put him in with a majority...you know...like the repubs did 21 times during the bush years



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
Their job is to interpret the law, not defending certain demographics.


This is all you need to know about the supreme court. End of story.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Whaaa every time we get to the point where a new supreme justice is nominated, there is always political threats and controversies thrown about. I cannot say im surprised.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
It is totally wrong for any judge to favor one group over another.

If a nominee has a view for standing up for the "little guy" by socking it to the "big guy", then that is wrong. Think wealth redistribution.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by whaaa
 


Whaaa every time we get to the point where a new supreme justice is nominated, there is always political threats and controversies thrown about. I cannot say im surprised.


I know, my main point was Kyl giving the democrats a butt load of ammunition by going against the "little guy" regardless of who gets the SC nomination.

I can see the slogan now...."Kyl declares war on the middle class in favor of his corporate buddies"

In Nov. we will be spinning like a top!



new topics

top topics



 
11

log in

join