Pat Robertson Says Judges Worse Than Al Qaeda

[opebo]

No, I support appointing judges that actually follow the Constitution and laws of this country.

And coincidentally leave the way open for legislative implementation of your theocratic agenda.

[angus]

well, it's obvious that one would want a billion dollars as well, but does that justify robbing a bank?  No.  why?  because the greater good of the society is ill-served by promulgating such notions.  Look, I'm not the altruistic sort, but I do recognize that there must be some basic, fundamental trust in the government, or else we fall apart.  You talk about pushing one's agenda.  Well, look where that got Reagan and his cohorts.  Some of the most "liberal" justices on the bench (the "missed shot" to which you referred).  My point is greater than that, though, which is to say that, no only is it potentially damaging to your own agenda to try to predict how a justice would vote in a million given hypotheticals (and part should be obvious to all by now), but also damaging to society as a whole.  We end up pointless bickering, using up time that would be better used by the senate in many other ways.  And I'm convinced this is not an ancient, established way of doing it.  It has no historic or moral defense.  It is demeaning to the process, and I have no doubt that it will become the norm.  It's not too late to stop this nonsense, if we wake up right now.  These children don't know better, and I'm sure they cannot imagine a time when the US senate unanimously confirmed Scalia, for example.  Their little minds will immediately race to the question:  but was every senator a right wing nut back then?  And we'll have our own generation to blame for that shallowness of thought.

[Citizen James]

In a way, it could be argued that Pat Robertson is a bigger threat to our nation and way of life than Al Queda since he has influence over many people and holds some leverage in Washington and is hostile to American ideals.

As for Bush's judges, as I recall he's gotten 200 out of 210 approved, which is a larger percentage than Clinton got due to various republican filibusters.

[TeePee4Prez]

No, I support appointing judges that actually follow the Constitution and laws of this country.

.....  Interpreted the way you want it as do I.  See Republicans won't admit it.

[The Duke]

I cringed when I read this.  Sometimes judicial decisions make me mad, but no Judge will ever make me as angry as sad as I was on 9/11.  That's a fact.

This won't get 1/20th the coverage Ward Churchill got, and both said similarly horrific statements.

No.  Ward Churchill said the victims of 9/11 deserved to die.  That's a lot worse.

Funny how this  bashing of "activist" judges doesn't seem to extend to the 5 that appointed George Bush President.

" you."

-Senator Supersoulty, 2005

No, I support appointing judges that actually follow the Constitution and laws of this country.

In the form those laws appeared in 1796.

[angus]

I cringed when I read this.  Sometimes judicial decisions make me mad, but no Judge will ever make me as angry as sad as I was on 9/11.  That's a fact.

This won't get 1/20th the coverage Ward Churchill got, and both said similarly horrific statements.

No.  Ward Churchill said the victims of 9/11 deserved to die.  That's a lot worse.

Funny how this  bashing of "activist" judges doesn't seem to extend to the 5 that appointed George Bush President.

"f**ck you."

-Senator Supersoulty, 2005

No, I support appointing judges that actually follow the Constitution and laws of this country.

In the form those laws appeared in 1796.

you're on a roll today, my man.

when did you become a French sympathizer of the democrats, by the way?

[The Duke]

I cringed when I read this.  Sometimes judicial decisions make me mad, but no Judge will ever make me as angry as sad as I was on 9/11.  That's a fact.

This won't get 1/20th the coverage Ward Churchill got, and both said similarly horrific statements.

No.  Ward Churchill said the victims of 9/11 deserved to die.  That's a lot worse.

Funny how this  bashing of "activist" judges doesn't seem to extend to the 5 that appointed George Bush President.

"f**ck you."

-Senator Supersoulty, 2005

No, I support appointing judges that actually follow the Constitution and laws of this country.

In the form those laws appeared in 1796.

you're on a roll today, my man.

when did you become a French sympathizer of the democrats, by the way?

Its finals week, and by tradition, during finals, I change my avatar to a place I'd like to vacation.  I'd like to go to the South of France someday.  Maybe Paris, but I won't be spending too much time there.  I'd say they'd kick the crap out of a guy like me, but we all know they couldn't beat up a day old kitten.

Its Democrat because its funny to think of me of all people with a Democratic avatar from France.

Enjoy Jacques Ford while it lasts, Califonria blue returns on Saturday.

[Lunar]

The judges aren't killing anyone.  I don't see how anyone can stand by Robertson's interpretation.  I guess one could argue that the exclusionary rule has allowed for a few murderers to go free and murder again, but that only barely qualifies as judicial activism and comes from strict interpretation of the Constitution rather than loose.  I'm unsure how changing the point of legislation (as critics of the judiciary claim) is a threat to America.

Someone please justify to me how federal judges are a worse threat to America than the Civil War (threatening to rip the country in half) or the Axis powers during WW2 (killing millions of our citizens and threatening our territory).

Opebo might be right that Al Quaeda doesn't pose THAT much of a military threat.  But they certainly present an ideological and diplomatic threat to America.