BlueJazz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-12-05 04:57 PM
Original message |
| Robert's statement about "Umpires" shows me that he needs a ... |
|
...prep course in Logic.
(For those who don't know what I'm talking about: Soon-to-be judge
Roberts said today that "I'll just be an umpire, like in Baseball..I don't make the rules"
Ah..Mr Roberts, you talking Apples and Oranges here.
An umpire has fairly well set-in-concrete rules when it comes to baseball. There isn't any "Well, that's strike three but we'll call it Two" or "even though you didn't tag home plate, we'll let you score anyway"...in short, Pal..it's really not open for interpretation.
There are not any "Rules" regarding Abortion, a Woman's right to choose, Many, many race issues, sexual orientation, Environmental issues and of couse..(Add your Own)...
My point is that the person who sits on the highest court DOES "Make the Rules"
|
| texpatriot2004
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-12-05 04:59 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Mon Sep-12-05 04:59 PM by texpatriot2004
|
| TexasBushwhacker
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-12-05 05:01 PM
Response to Original message |
| 2. Good grief, another idiot! |
|
Edited on Mon Sep-12-05 05:01 PM by TexasBushwhacker
If there is ANYTHING one can count on in this world, it's that constitutional law IS subject to interpretation. That's why SCOTUS exists. Geez!
|
| chimpymustgo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-12-05 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
| 3. This SCOTUS says you can pick your own team/manager whatever. |
| lectrobyte
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-12-05 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
| 6. What did you expect from * ? |
| mzteris
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-12-05 05:03 PM
Response to Original message |
| 4. well of course not, silly |
|
***"Rules" regarding Abortion, a Woman's right to choose, Many, many race issues, sexual orientation, Environmental issues and of couse..(Add your Own)...***
So that means, you don't get any of those!
|
| democracyindanger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-12-05 05:04 PM
Response to Original message |
| 5. dkos post on the umpires thing |
|
The conclusion is the same as yours, but the basis is different...
It is an interesting analogy Judge Roberts draws. And it seems to me to be an excellent argument for why Judge Roberts must answer the questions put to him by the Senate. As any baseball fan knows, umpires are not uniform in the delineation of the strike zone. Some are "hitters" umpires. Some are "pitchers" umpires. Some call the high strike. Some call the outside pitch.
And when it comes to the Supreme Court of the United States, it is important that we know what Judge Roberts' "strike zone" is. His record, the part that was not concealed by the Bush Administration, gives many of us pause regarding Judge Roberts' "strike zone." His stated antipathy for the right to privacy, for voting rights measures, for discrimination remedies, etc., demands followup. What does your "rulebook" say about these things Judge Roberts?
|
| BlueJazz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-12-05 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
| 8. Yes..What you say is true..That why I said... |
|
"fairly well" set in....
Many baseball rules, or should I say most baseball rules ARE set in stone and therefore not open for interpretation.
|
| undergroundpanther
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-12-05 05:11 PM
Response to Original message |
| 7. EVERYTHING is a GAME to these people |
|
Zero Sum, Winner take all...Of course being a justice is being an umpire ..Only to A GAME PLAYER lying shithead control freak like him.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts)     |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 10:13 PM
Response to Original message |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
