Latest Breaking News

sigmasix

(794 posts)

72. pre fox "news" republicans

Sat May 18, 2013, 08:48 AM

May 2013

True Republicans are patriotic and reasonable, hence the honesty from Stevens.

The new republican/fox "news" party is filled with right wing extremists that wish to reverse the outcome of the civil war. The Republican party used to represent American conservative ideology- an ideology that embraced America's history of expanding liberty and expressing a government and society ruled by secular knowledge of right and wrong.
The extremists in control of the GOP are not conservatives and, until relatively recently, they were considered by the republican party to be an embarrassment to conservatives because of thier common origins and economic policies. Stevens is an honorable man and exemplary servant of the people- it will be a long time before the new republican/fox "news" party produces an intelligent, patriotic justice that places country before partisan politics.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

80 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

John Paul Stevens: Bush v. Gore Decision Rationale Was 'Unacceptable' [View all] kpete May 2013 OP

They all come out of the woodwork now after our economy has been ruined AllyCat May 2013 #1

exactly heaven05 May 2013 #17

It sells books and raises speaking engagement fees. xtraxritical May 2013 #25

thanks heaven05 May 2013 #27

Lies have a way of catching up....They want to right this wrong before they meet thei finial Judge.. Tippy May 2013 #26

yep heaven05 May 2013 #28

What are you going on about? Stevens voted AGAINST the decision which put Bush in the White House CreekDog May 2013 #32

yes! heaven05 May 2013 #41

what is your rant about Justice Stevens --is he too liberal for you? CreekDog May 2013 #44

NO heaven05 May 2013 #48

I fully agree gopiscrap May 2013 #56

Don't get all worked up...I now realize I should have named the guilty... Tippy May 2013 #51

That was an interesting comment: sulphurdunn May 2013 #74

You are quite right dotymed May 2013 #19

Her husband has Alzheimer's, which is why she wanted a Republican tblue37 May 2013 #24

In heaven05 May 2013 #43

Bush v. Gore mehrrh May 2013 #31

Wasn't O'Connor's point that the court didn't need to take the case as opposed to the decision? 24601 May 2013 #60

Stevens wrote the original dissent in the case .... markpkessinger May 2013 #35

I know that. Just all of a sudden, the Supremes are coming out and saying it candidly AllyCat May 2013 #68

"They"? Justice Stevens wrote the DISSENT in Bush vs. Gore. Hekate May 2013 #63

I know. Please see #68. Maybe Creekdog will do the same after sending a PM AllyCat May 2013 #69

It's way late to be apoligizing for that huge mistake, doncha think? Harriety May 2013 #2

Remember there were 2 decisions. The first was 7 to 2.Stevens had nothing to do with the 5 to 4 graham4anything May 2013 #5

you do realize he wrote the dissent against the decision, right? magical thyme May 2013 #18

What does Stevens have to apologize for? NYC Liberal May 2013 #23

Stevens has to apologize for that poster's ignorance CreekDog May 2013 #33

Stevens didnt make a mistake. He dissented from the majority and wrote the dissenting opinion. stevenleser May 2013 #76

That's two now. AndyA May 2013 #3

For my lifetime and beyond... Island Deac May 2013 #6

He wrote the dissenting opinion on Bush v Gore - he was never for that decision - so there's only UpInArms May 2013 #16

Yes, I know Stevens wrote the dissent AndyA May 2013 #54

Stevens commented on that at the time. This is nothing new. His dissent said it all. stevenleser May 2013 #75

My observation was that two of the Justices have recently commented on Bush v. Gore AndyA May 2013 #78

If you don't know that Stevens voted against the decision, why are you commenting on it? CreekDog May 2013 #30

I did it just to provoke a response from you AndyA May 2013 #53

you said "that's two now" --well it's only ONE now CreekDog May 2013 #57

Again, YOUR words not mine. AndyA May 2013 #59

Stevens is one of the good ones.If only they stopped after the 7 to 2 to go back to Florida. graham4anything May 2013 #4

Nader was no longer in my book after that. To me he has undone all the good things JackN415 May 2013 #9

I agree with you, except I don't think Roberts will begin siding with the majority. spooky3 May 2013 #11

Mr. Nader was exercising his Constitutional right to run for office. rhett o rick May 2013 #12

You've brilliantly refuted the argument that Nader didn't have the right to run. Jim Lane May 2013 #62

The logic that Ralph Nader is to blame for our current mess is totally absurd. rhett o rick May 2013 #66

Yet another straw man. Jim Lane May 2013 #67

"I don't know of anyone -- any real live person -- who believes that "it's all Nader's fault." " rhett o rick May 2013 #70

you're a democrat? hypergrove May 2013 #22

Unfortunately for all of us, regret iamthebandfanman May 2013 #7

+1 JackN415 May 2013 #10

he voted against the Bush v. Gore decision --don't you know anything? CreekDog May 2013 #29

lmao iamthebandfanman May 2013 #45

"He's come to the realization" !???? BlueStreak May 2013 #8

yes, that writer is throwing his own spin (and ignorance) into that line. spooky3 May 2013 #13

His conscience is bothering him. He was a member of a SCOTUS that overstepped it's rhett o rick May 2013 #14

Why should Stevens' conscience be bothering him? markpkessinger May 2013 #37

That would be a question for him. It sounds like it to me. Maybe he doesnt think he did rhett o rick May 2013 #49

He was a dissenter, so I give him props for that Downtown Hound May 2013 #15

Beyond issuing a very strong dissent.... markpkessinger May 2013 #38

Gone on every news program, every pundit show, every talk show Downtown Hound May 2013 #58

That would have done nothing. The simple answer to that is... stevenleser May 2013 #79

I'm not saying it wouldn't have stood Downtown Hound May 2013 #80

Too fucking little too fucking late!!!!!! liberal N proud May 2013 #20

He strongly wrote and voted against that decision CreekDog May 2013 #34

The guy penned a stinging diessent at the time . . . markpkessinger May 2013 #36

way. way too little, too late. But never too late to put Bush behind bars. olddad56 May 2013 #55

I would say "political". bemildred May 2013 #21

Good lord - Hell Hath No Fury May 2013 #39

For those keeping score, responses in this thread are running 14 False and 17 True CreekDog May 2013 #40

The deficit in reading comprehension around here is embarrassing. RC May 2013 #50

It is just so bloody disheartening, is all I can say Hekate May 2013 #64

I know, sometimes it's like watching Faux news. freshwest May 2013 #65

The responses require a double face palm. In fact, I only wish I had more arms and hands so that... stevenleser May 2013 #77

He's right now and Duval May 2013 #42

Most of us on DU agreed with Stevens way back in 2000. And he is still right. JDPriestly May 2013 #46

He has "come to the realization"? After twelve years of deliberation? Orsino May 2013 #47

You do know that Stevens wrote the *dissenting* opinion in Bush v Gore, don't you? longship May 2013 #52

The words on that dissent sizzled with anger Samantha May 2013 #71

pre fox "news" republicans sigmasix May 2013 #72

the Supreme court should never had ruled in the vote lovuian May 2013 #61

Gee . . ya think? n/t Strelnikov_ May 2013 #73