http://youtu.be/HUODkd9_8-E
he is a trophy hunter and has a full bodied mounted kodiak brown bear in his washington office. what a dickhead!
OMG!!! :roll:
Nothings more scary than having Obama try to be the leader of this country.
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, personal beliefs, or even representative government. The issue is very simple: people who don't believe in xyz are not qualified to be on the committee representing & making decisions for the country about xyz.
I respect his right to voice his opinion which it seems some here do not.
Do I agree with his words, no.
He believes that men of science are lying with a clear motive.
This is true in that science and religion has been at odds since forever.
For me science and God come together in Evolution.
Who doesn't respect his right to voice his opinion? This thread was asking how people like him him can gain positions of power and influence, not claiming he has no right to free speech.
Once again you're just trying to change the subject as it suits you.
He believes that men of science are lying with a clear motive.
This is true in that science and religion has been at odds since forever.
So, because science and religion have generally always been at odds, this means that men of science are liars, and that, therefore, this congressman was telling the truth and should be defended?
I'm thinking those angered don't believe in a hell anyways ...
nor do the men of science he is directing his words to ... yes?
If you call someone a motherfucking son of a bitch, would you expect them not to take offence on the grounds that your words shouldn't be taken literally, in that; of course they don't fuck their own mothers, and of course their mothers aren't members of the canine family?
Therefore, in your alternate universe, is it perfectly acceptable to throw such insults at people, along with calling someone a liar who's views originate from the pits of hell?
who cares what this guy believes ?..it's what you believe that matters to you right ? life goes on.
The people who he represents from his position of power should care what he believes. But maybe because he happens to be a Republican you don't care what his beliefs are.
Godfather, if a Republican was running for Governor of your state and he believed that women are lizards, Muslims should be hung from trees, and Ted Nugent should be made Secretary of State, would you not care about what he believes, and vote for him anyway?
Sure, he sits on committee that you think is nonsensical. So, when you create committees for whatever you're doing, you want folks that all think the same way? It seems having folks from different background would be the best way to foster innovation.
Nobody said the committee he sits on is nonsensical. We were saying that his wacky notions about the World are nonsensical, which they are, if you adhere to a rational view of things, as opposed to basing your view of the World on a literal reading of the writings of a 2000 year old Middle Eastern cult.
His views would in no way foster innovation. His views have nothing to do with reality, or with expanding scientific understanding, which I presume is what the 'House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology' was created for.
I don't like this characterization that science & religion are at odds. I know no Christian over the age of twelve (before they're fully able to understand the complexities of the world) who doesn't believe in science.
The funny thing about religion is that everyone else's plans are wacko except for "yours."
Ask a Christian about the Muslim view of 40 virgins in paradise--they'll likely laugh and call it ridiculous; but, their version of heaven is okay.
Ask a Jew about what they think of Scientology--they'll likely call it a strange cult. I guess that means that Scientology simply needs to be around for another 2,000 years to be considered legitimate..........
"the human mind is extremely susceptible to hallucination."
FYI, here's the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology:
The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has jurisdiction over all energy research, development, and demonstration, and projects therefor, and all federally owned or operated non-military energy laboratories; astronautical research and development, including resources, personnel, equipment, and facilities; civil aviation research and development; environmental research and development; marine research; commercial application of energy technology; National Institute of Standards and Technology, standardization of weights and measures and the metric system; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National Science Foundation; National Weather Service; outer space, including exploration and control thereof; science scholarships; scientific research, development, and demonstration, and projects therefor. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology shall review and study on a continuing basis laws, programs, and Government activities relating to non-military research and development.
And this guy is also the Chairman on the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. Here's description of its jurisdiction:
The Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight has general and special investigative authority on all matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Republicans' new 'judicial activism': a coup d'etat of state supreme courts
America's independent and impartial judiciary is under threat from a rightwing attempt to pack courts with partisan placemen
Diane Roberts
guardian.co.uk, Monday 8 October 2012
Roy Moore thinks he's been called to put God back where God belongs: in the classroom, in the bedroom and in the courtroom. Moore is a former chief justice of the Alabama supreme court, first elected in 1999. He holds that Jesus is good, taxes are bad, abortion is really bad and the state should use its power to punish homosexuality, which he called a "criminal lifestyle".
Moore was booted off the court in 2003, falling foul of the constitutional prohibition against government-endorsed religion. As chief justice, he'd parked a two-ton Ten Commandments stone monument in the doorway to the state judicial building and refused to move it.
Now, Moore's back, lamenting what he sees as our catastrophic moral decline, warning that secularism, gay marriage and the teaching of evolution will inevitably lead to sharia law – and trying to get reinstated. Since Alabama is both rock-hard Republican and churchier-than-thou, Moore has a real shot at getting elected again.
Win or lose, he is Exhibit A in a growing trend of politicisation of the American judiciary.
Allowing party hacks and legal toffs to appoint judges is a lousy idea. Allowing citizens to vote them into – or out of – office is an even lousier idea. Most Americans have only the haziest understanding of due process and can't even name their state supreme court justices. But throw party politics and a ton of money into judicial races, and they become as unsavoury as your average name-calling, scandal-mongering, shit-slinging congressional campaign.
If you believe that the judicial branch of government should be as apolitical as possible in this fallen world, having judges raise hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions, of dollars from people who may appear before them one day in order that they can run 30-second spots begging for votes, leaves a still worse taste.
The United States supreme court dumped a gallon of arsenic into the stew with its Citizens United decision, ruling that corporations and unions can give unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns. Retired US supreme court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who opposed Citizens United, says:
"If you're a litigant appearing before a judge, it makes sense to invest in that judge's campaign. No states can possibly benefit from having that much money injected into a political judicial campaign. The appearance of bias is high, and it destroys any credibility in the courts."
Nevertheless, across the country – in Montana, West Virginia, Illinois, Texas, Oregon – state judicial races attract fat checks from those who want to buy a court. In Iowa, Republicans are spending big to unseat Justice David Wiggins. In 2009, the Iowa supreme court ruled that same-sex marriage is legal in a unanimous vote. Conservatives had a fit of the vapours, then vowed revenge.
Two years ago, a failed gubernatorial candidate called Bob Vander Plaats helped unseat Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Associate Justices Michael Streit and David Baker. Now, Vander Plaats is at it again, bringing reinforcements in Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and culture warrior former Senator Rick Santorum. They're touring Iowa on a bus, urging people to vote against Wiggins and, since the Iowa caucuses are the first step on the road to the White House, getting a jump on the 2016 campaign.
The Republicans' biggest target this year is the Florida supreme court – specifically, Justices Peggy Quince, R Fred Lewis and Barbara Pariente, who must win a majority of votes to keep their seats. Lewis and Pariente were appointed by Lawton Chiles, Florida's last Democratic governor; Quince, one of two African Americans on the seven-member court, was chosen jointly by Chiles and incoming Republican Governor Jeb Bush. She and Pariente are the court's only women.
For the first time ever, the Republican party of Florida (RPOF), aided by their Tea Party shock troops, is mounting a concerted campaign against specific justices. RPOF pretends this is some grassroots effort, an outburst of populist anger at a bunch of out-of-touch liberal judges. But the power (and the money) behind the effort comes from an outfit called Americans for Prosperity, funded by the Koch brothers.
The play here is to create three shiny new vacancies on Florida's highest court, which would be filled by Tea Party poster boy Governor Rick Scott. This is a rightwing wet dream: a forelock-tugging, corporation-loving, quiescent court, which would ignore inconveniences such as the Clean Water Act and the 14th Amendment, and never get in the way of the free market.
"Merit retention" of judges is supposed to be a mechanism for citizens to rid the courts of the incompetent and the unethical. No one accuses Quince, Lewis and Pariente of incompetence or unethical practices. The best Republicans can do is call them "judicial activists", a meaningless phrase they throw at any jurist who rules against them. The great Brown v Board of Education decision in 1954, the one which declared segregation unconstitutional – that's judicial activism. Handing the presidency to George W Bush on the dodgiest of legal theories in Bush v Gore is high-minded and statesman-like.
Republican disdain for Florida's court goes back to the 2000 presidential recount imbroglio, when the justices refused to allow certification of Florida's dubious election results. In the dozen years since, the court has been the only institution standing against attacks on unions, public education and public employees. The court has stopped Republican governors and the Republican-controlled legislature from trying to curtail women's reproductive rights and knock down that metaphorical, but necessary wall separating church and state. Most recently, the court slapped down Gov Scott's attempt to take power over all state agencies, and rejected Republicans' pet 2010 initiative that would have let Floridians refuse to buy health insurance no matter what federal law may say.
Republicans won't admit they're trying to saw off one of our government's three branches; they prefer to run television ads attacking Quince, Pariente and Lewis for their "extremism" and accusing them of being soft on crime. The latter charge refers to the court's 5-2 decision in 2003 granting Joe Elton Nixon, a confessed murderer, a new trial because his defense had been incompetent. Nixon was never going to be freed from prison and there was no question of his guilt. But that pesky old US constitution (the one conservatives swear they love, but seem not to have ever read) guarantees all citizens a fair trial – not just the nice people. Yet, to hear the Republicans squeal about it, you'd think that the Florida supreme court had declared Nixon innocent, popped open a bottle of champagne and given him a ride to the nearest Hooters.
All this happened nine years ago. Six years ago, when Pariente, Quince and Lewis were last up for retention, there was nary a peep out of the GOP. But that was before the Republican party lost what was left of its marbles and began muttering to itself about Kenyan socialists, black helicopters and UN invasion forces.
In the meantime, our liberties are threatened as the rule of law is weakened by grubby politics, and our justice system grows increasingly partisan.
Sometimes I wonder: Do people not understand the concept of laws? Do they not understand that laws restrict our actions and govern our lives? Do they not understand that OTHER people make these laws by which we must live? Other people who have their own personal beliefs - and who use these beliefs to inform the laws. And do they not understand that even more OTHER people use their own beliefs & perspectives & opinions to decide which people will make the laws? Otherwise, how can they not understand that the personal beliefs of other people directly control OUR lives? :?
http://youtu.be/HUODkd9_8-E
he is a trophy hunter and has a full bodied mounted kodiak brown bear in his washington office. what a dickhead!
OMG!!! :roll:
Nothings more scary than having Obama try to be the leader of this country.
Really? you see nothing wrong with what this guy has been saying, like I'm really asking here, I want to know your opinion. (we can do the whole Obama boogy man thing in another thread)
who cares what this guy believes ?..it's what you believe that matters to you right ? life goes on.
The people who he represents from his position of power should care what he believes. But maybe because he happens to be a Republican you don't care what his beliefs are.
Godfather, if a Republican was running for Governor of your state and he believed that women are lizards, Muslims should be hung from trees, and Ted Nugent should be made Secretary of State, would you not care about what he believes, and vote for him anyway?
good morning Byrnzie, this is about the congresman and the trophy hunting he does right ?
if it's the wrong video please forgive me but if it is I don't see anything really scary about hin at all,like I have said before I don't aprove of trophy hunting but long as it's legal it's not my place to tell the guy he can't.
but if that's the worst of his sins then I don't see a problem with him..long as that's all he is pushing.
I respect his right to voice his opinion which it seems some here do not.
Do I agree with his words, no.
He believes that men of science are lying with a clear motive.
This is true in that science and religion has been at odds since forever.
For me science and God come together in Evolution.
Who doesn't respect his right to voice his opinion? This thread was asking how people like him him can gain positions of power and influence, not claiming he has no right to free speech.
Once again you're just trying to change the subject as it suits you.
How the fuck are these people in power. I'm in utter, utter shock. I'd be fucking embarrassed if this horses ass represented me, but I'm sure some of you will make excuses for him.
Actually it is about him representing the people of his district. They voted him in
that's the way our system works, maybe not yours
I don't have a problem with his beliefs nor with the voters who supported him.
As far as the committee that is kissing some ass somewhere in the system maybe ??
or maybe somebody thought he was qualified.
I respect his right to voice his opinion which it seems some here do not.
Do I agree with his words, no.
He believes that men of science are lying with a clear motive.
This is true in that science and religion has been at odds since forever.
For me science and God come together in Evolution.
Who doesn't respect his right to voice his opinion? This thread was asking how people like him him can gain positions of power and influence, not claiming he has no right to free speech.
Once again you're just trying to change the subject as it suits you.
How the fuck are these people in power. I'm in utter, utter shock. I'd be fucking embarrassed if this horses ass represented me, but I'm sure some of you will make excuses for him.
Actually it is about him representing the people of his district. They voted him in
that's the way our system works, maybe not yours
I don't have a problem with his beliefs nor with the voters who supported him.
As far as the committee that is kissing some ass somewhere in the system maybe ??
or maybe somebody thought he was qualified.
Do you not know anything about Ireland? Don't believe everything you hear about Europe. Sheesh, I can't believe I'm having the conversation. :fp:
'...along with many others who viewed the video, the well-known science educator Bill Nye heaped scorn on Broun, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
"Since the economic future of the United States depends on our tradition of technological innovation, Representative Broun's views are not in the national interest," Nye told The Huffington Post in an email. "For example, the Earth is simply not 9,000 years old," he continued, contradicting a remark made by Broun later in the video. "He is, by any measure, unqualified to make decisions about science, space, and technology."
'...along with many others who viewed the video, the well-known science educator Bill Nye heaped scorn on Broun, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
"Since the economic future of the United States depends on our tradition of technological innovation, Representative Broun's views are not in the national interest," Nye told The Huffington Post in an email. "For example, the Earth is simply not 9,000 years old," he continued, contradicting a remark made by Broun later in the video. "He is, by any measure, unqualified to make decisions about science, space, and technology."
He believes that men of science are lying with a clear motive.
This is true in that science and religion has been at odds since forever.
So, because science and religion have generally always been at odds, this means that men of science are liars, and that, therefore, this congressman was telling the truth and should be defended?
Can you please elaborate on this point? Thanks.
Do you think men of science are liars?
Do you think this congressman believes men of science are liars with a clear motive?
Do you think he has the right to speak his opinion?
Do you have the right to speak yours?
Are we hearing others being called liars a lot lately
Did I say umpteen times I did not agree with his opinion?
Is that not easy to understand?
Can you not comprehend defending a persons right to say
what they believe?
Do you not believe in right of the voters to vote in whom they think is
a good representative?
One who represents their views though not the most popular?
Who doesn't respect his right to voice his opinion? This thread was asking how people like him him can gain positions of power and influence, not claiming he has no right to free speech.
Once again you're just trying to change the subject as it suits you.
How the fuck are these people in power. I'm in utter, utter shock. I'd be fucking embarrassed if this horses ass represented me, but I'm sure some of you will make excuses for him.
Actually it is about him representing the people of his district. They voted him in
that's the way our system works, maybe not yours
I don't have a problem with his beliefs nor with the voters who supported him.
As far as the committee that is kissing some ass somewhere in the system maybe ??
or maybe somebody thought he was qualified.
Do you not know anything about Ireland? Don't believe everything you hear about Europe. Sheesh, I can't believe I'm having the conversation. :fp:
Sure, he sits on committee that you think is nonsensical. So, when you create committees for whatever you're doing, you want folks that all think the same way? It seems having folks from different background would be the best way to foster innovation.
Nobody said the committee he sits on is nonsensical. We were saying that his wacky notions about the World are nonsensical, which they are, if you adhere to a rational view of things, as opposed to basing your view of the World on a literal reading of the writings of a 2000 year old Middle Eastern cult.
His views would in no way foster innovation. His views have nothing to do with reality, or with expanding scientific understanding, which I presume is what the 'House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology' was created for.
Poorly written on my part. Meant other's belief that his views make his standing on the committee nonsensical. Not the committee itself is nonsensical (though, like most government things it probably is. That just wasn't the point I was trying to say in this instance).
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I'm thinking those angered don't believe in a hell anyways ...
nor do the men of science he is directing his words to ... yes?
If you call someone a motherfucking son of a bitch, would you expect them not to take offence on the grounds that your words shouldn't be taken literally, in that; of course they don't fuck their own mothers, and of course their mothers aren't members of the canine family?
Therefore, in your alternate universe, is it perfectly acceptable to throw such insults at people, along with calling someone a liar who's views originate from the pits of hell?
Sounds like something you have said
Do you believe in hell?
This the most ironic part of this story, makes me laugh truly.
The liar thing is tossed about freely based on opinion, polls, beliefs etc...
nothing like the nasty words you just posted there.
Again this man believes science is lying and that science has a motive to do so.
Do you believe that?
Do some people believe that?
Do they have the right?
Do they have a right to vote for others who represent their views and express them?
This is just another bashing thread from those so offended .... ha!
they are bashing right back. Something they seem to be pretty good at,
better than the bible side for sure.
If that wasn't so sad it would be funny stuff
The funny thing about religion is that everyone else's plans are wacko except for "yours."
Ask a Christian about the Muslim view of 40 virgins in paradise--they'll likely laugh and call it ridiculous; but, their version of heaven is okay.
Ask a Jew about what they think of Scientology--they'll likely call it a strange cult. I guess that means that Scientology simply needs to be around for another 2,000 years to be considered legitimate..........
"the human mind is extremely susceptible to hallucination."
the jist behind this I agree with. Let people have their beliefs ...
if the Democrats can continually claim the Repubicans are liars
then this man can do the same
He believes that men of science are lying with a clear motive.
This is true in that science and religion has been at odds since forever.
So, because science and religion have generally always been at odds, this means that men of science are liars, and that, therefore, this congressman was telling the truth and should be defended?
Can you please elaborate on this point? Thanks.
Do you think men of science are liars?
Do you think this congressman believes men of science are liars with a clear motive?
Do you think he has the right to speak his opinion?
Do you have the right to speak yours?
Are we hearing others being called liars a lot lately
Did I say umpteen times I did not agree with his opinion?
Is that not easy to understand?
Can you not comprehend defending a persons right to say
what they believe?
Do you not believe in right of the voters to vote in whom they think is
a good representative?
One who represents their views though not the most popular?
that should keep you busy for awhile :P
I'll answer just two of your questions as the rest of them are completely nonsensical and irrelevant.
1. Do I think he has the right to speak his opinion? Yes, I do, as I said previously in this thread. Did you miss that post?
2. Do I believe in the right of the voters to vote in whom they think is a good representative? Yes, I do. But were not talking merely about the fact that he's a congressman. The discussion here is regarding his fitness to be on the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
The liar thing is tossed about freely based on opinion, polls, beliefs etc...
nothing like the nasty words you just posted there.
'The liar thing'?
This is what he said: "All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell."
So now you're going to pretend that the above is a common statement and something that's 'tossed about freely' on a regular basis?
Seriously, do you really believe that, or are your constant efforts to change the subject and make shit up simply a result of your desperation to come out on top in this 'debate'?
Again this man believes science is lying and that science has a motive to do so.
Do you believe that?
Do I believe that? Do I believe that scientists are lying when they say that the World is 4.54 billion years old? No, I don't believe that they're lying. Why would I?
Comments
he is a trophy hunter and has a full bodied mounted kodiak brown bear in his washington office. what a dickhead!
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
OMG!!! :roll:
Nothings more scary than having Obama try to be the leader of this country.
How were you able to survive the last 4 years of tyrannical socialism?
Godfather.
ooop's this one.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FUWyxmW ... re=related
Who doesn't respect his right to voice his opinion? This thread was asking how people like him him can gain positions of power and influence, not claiming he has no right to free speech.
Once again you're just trying to change the subject as it suits you.
So, because science and religion have generally always been at odds, this means that men of science are liars, and that, therefore, this congressman was telling the truth and should be defended?
Can you please elaborate on this point? Thanks.
You didn't straighten anything out. You simply changed the subject of this thread.
If you call someone a motherfucking son of a bitch, would you expect them not to take offence on the grounds that your words shouldn't be taken literally, in that; of course they don't fuck their own mothers, and of course their mothers aren't members of the canine family?
Therefore, in your alternate universe, is it perfectly acceptable to throw such insults at people, along with calling someone a liar who's views originate from the pits of hell?
The people who he represents from his position of power should care what he believes. But maybe because he happens to be a Republican you don't care what his beliefs are.
Godfather, if a Republican was running for Governor of your state and he believed that women are lizards, Muslims should be hung from trees, and Ted Nugent should be made Secretary of State, would you not care about what he believes, and vote for him anyway?
Nobody said the committee he sits on is nonsensical. We were saying that his wacky notions about the World are nonsensical, which they are, if you adhere to a rational view of things, as opposed to basing your view of the World on a literal reading of the writings of a 2000 year old Middle Eastern cult.
His views would in no way foster innovation. His views have nothing to do with reality, or with expanding scientific understanding, which I presume is what the 'House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology' was created for.
Ask a Christian about the Muslim view of 40 virgins in paradise--they'll likely laugh and call it ridiculous; but, their version of heaven is okay.
Ask a Jew about what they think of Scientology--they'll likely call it a strange cult. I guess that means that Scientology simply needs to be around for another 2,000 years to be considered legitimate..........
"the human mind is extremely susceptible to hallucination."
And this guy is also the Chairman on the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. Here's description of its jurisdiction:
Yep, who cares what people, whose decisions can directly impact on our lives, believe?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... eme-courts
Republicans' new 'judicial activism': a coup d'etat of state supreme courts
America's independent and impartial judiciary is under threat from a rightwing attempt to pack courts with partisan placemen
Diane Roberts
guardian.co.uk, Monday 8 October 2012
Roy Moore thinks he's been called to put God back where God belongs: in the classroom, in the bedroom and in the courtroom. Moore is a former chief justice of the Alabama supreme court, first elected in 1999. He holds that Jesus is good, taxes are bad, abortion is really bad and the state should use its power to punish homosexuality, which he called a "criminal lifestyle".
Moore was booted off the court in 2003, falling foul of the constitutional prohibition against government-endorsed religion. As chief justice, he'd parked a two-ton Ten Commandments stone monument in the doorway to the state judicial building and refused to move it.
Now, Moore's back, lamenting what he sees as our catastrophic moral decline, warning that secularism, gay marriage and the teaching of evolution will inevitably lead to sharia law – and trying to get reinstated. Since Alabama is both rock-hard Republican and churchier-than-thou, Moore has a real shot at getting elected again.
Win or lose, he is Exhibit A in a growing trend of politicisation of the American judiciary.
Allowing party hacks and legal toffs to appoint judges is a lousy idea. Allowing citizens to vote them into – or out of – office is an even lousier idea. Most Americans have only the haziest understanding of due process and can't even name their state supreme court justices. But throw party politics and a ton of money into judicial races, and they become as unsavoury as your average name-calling, scandal-mongering, shit-slinging congressional campaign.
If you believe that the judicial branch of government should be as apolitical as possible in this fallen world, having judges raise hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions, of dollars from people who may appear before them one day in order that they can run 30-second spots begging for votes, leaves a still worse taste.
The United States supreme court dumped a gallon of arsenic into the stew with its Citizens United decision, ruling that corporations and unions can give unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns. Retired US supreme court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who opposed Citizens United, says:
"If you're a litigant appearing before a judge, it makes sense to invest in that judge's campaign. No states can possibly benefit from having that much money injected into a political judicial campaign. The appearance of bias is high, and it destroys any credibility in the courts."
Nevertheless, across the country – in Montana, West Virginia, Illinois, Texas, Oregon – state judicial races attract fat checks from those who want to buy a court. In Iowa, Republicans are spending big to unseat Justice David Wiggins. In 2009, the Iowa supreme court ruled that same-sex marriage is legal in a unanimous vote. Conservatives had a fit of the vapours, then vowed revenge.
Two years ago, a failed gubernatorial candidate called Bob Vander Plaats helped unseat Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Associate Justices Michael Streit and David Baker. Now, Vander Plaats is at it again, bringing reinforcements in Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and culture warrior former Senator Rick Santorum. They're touring Iowa on a bus, urging people to vote against Wiggins and, since the Iowa caucuses are the first step on the road to the White House, getting a jump on the 2016 campaign.
The Republicans' biggest target this year is the Florida supreme court – specifically, Justices Peggy Quince, R Fred Lewis and Barbara Pariente, who must win a majority of votes to keep their seats. Lewis and Pariente were appointed by Lawton Chiles, Florida's last Democratic governor; Quince, one of two African Americans on the seven-member court, was chosen jointly by Chiles and incoming Republican Governor Jeb Bush. She and Pariente are the court's only women.
For the first time ever, the Republican party of Florida (RPOF), aided by their Tea Party shock troops, is mounting a concerted campaign against specific justices. RPOF pretends this is some grassroots effort, an outburst of populist anger at a bunch of out-of-touch liberal judges. But the power (and the money) behind the effort comes from an outfit called Americans for Prosperity, funded by the Koch brothers.
The play here is to create three shiny new vacancies on Florida's highest court, which would be filled by Tea Party poster boy Governor Rick Scott. This is a rightwing wet dream: a forelock-tugging, corporation-loving, quiescent court, which would ignore inconveniences such as the Clean Water Act and the 14th Amendment, and never get in the way of the free market.
"Merit retention" of judges is supposed to be a mechanism for citizens to rid the courts of the incompetent and the unethical. No one accuses Quince, Lewis and Pariente of incompetence or unethical practices. The best Republicans can do is call them "judicial activists", a meaningless phrase they throw at any jurist who rules against them. The great Brown v Board of Education decision in 1954, the one which declared segregation unconstitutional – that's judicial activism. Handing the presidency to George W Bush on the dodgiest of legal theories in Bush v Gore is high-minded and statesman-like.
Republican disdain for Florida's court goes back to the 2000 presidential recount imbroglio, when the justices refused to allow certification of Florida's dubious election results. In the dozen years since, the court has been the only institution standing against attacks on unions, public education and public employees. The court has stopped Republican governors and the Republican-controlled legislature from trying to curtail women's reproductive rights and knock down that metaphorical, but necessary wall separating church and state. Most recently, the court slapped down Gov Scott's attempt to take power over all state agencies, and rejected Republicans' pet 2010 initiative that would have let Floridians refuse to buy health insurance no matter what federal law may say.
Republicans won't admit they're trying to saw off one of our government's three branches; they prefer to run television ads attacking Quince, Pariente and Lewis for their "extremism" and accusing them of being soft on crime. The latter charge refers to the court's 5-2 decision in 2003 granting Joe Elton Nixon, a confessed murderer, a new trial because his defense had been incompetent. Nixon was never going to be freed from prison and there was no question of his guilt. But that pesky old US constitution (the one conservatives swear they love, but seem not to have ever read) guarantees all citizens a fair trial – not just the nice people. Yet, to hear the Republicans squeal about it, you'd think that the Florida supreme court had declared Nixon innocent, popped open a bottle of champagne and given him a ride to the nearest Hooters.
All this happened nine years ago. Six years ago, when Pariente, Quince and Lewis were last up for retention, there was nary a peep out of the GOP. But that was before the Republican party lost what was left of its marbles and began muttering to itself about Kenyan socialists, black helicopters and UN invasion forces.
In the meantime, our liberties are threatened as the rule of law is weakened by grubby politics, and our justice system grows increasingly partisan.
Really? you see nothing wrong with what this guy has been saying, like I'm really asking here, I want to know your opinion. (we can do the whole Obama boogy man thing in another thread)
good morning Byrnzie, this is about the congresman and the trophy hunting he does right ?
if it's the wrong video please forgive me but if it is I don't see anything really scary about hin at all,like I have said before I don't aprove of trophy hunting but long as it's legal it's not my place to tell the guy he can't.
but if that's the worst of his sins then I don't see a problem with him..long as that's all he is pushing.
Godfather.
Actually it is about him representing the people of his district. They voted him in
that's the way our system works, maybe not yours
I don't have a problem with his beliefs nor with the voters who supported him.
As far as the committee that is kissing some ass somewhere in the system maybe ??
or maybe somebody thought he was qualified.
Do you not know anything about Ireland? Don't believe everything you hear about Europe. Sheesh, I can't believe I'm having the conversation. :fp:
'...along with many others who viewed the video, the well-known science educator Bill Nye heaped scorn on Broun, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
"Since the economic future of the United States depends on our tradition of technological innovation, Representative Broun's views are not in the national interest," Nye told The Huffington Post in an email. "For example, the Earth is simply not 9,000 years old," he continued, contradicting a remark made by Broun later in the video. "He is, by any measure, unqualified to make decisions about science, space, and technology."
Finally, some common sense seems to be prevailing
Do you think men of science are liars?
Do you think this congressman believes men of science are liars with a clear motive?
Do you think he has the right to speak his opinion?
Do you have the right to speak yours?
Are we hearing others being called liars a lot lately
Did I say umpteen times I did not agree with his opinion?
Is that not easy to understand?
Can you not comprehend defending a persons right to say
what they believe?
Do you not believe in right of the voters to vote in whom they think is
a good representative?
One who represents their views though not the most popular?
that should keep you busy for awhile :P
please do us both a favor then and don't have it
Poorly written on my part. Meant other's belief that his views make his standing on the committee nonsensical. Not the committee itself is nonsensical (though, like most government things it probably is. That just wasn't the point I was trying to say in this instance).
Do you believe in hell?
This the most ironic part of this story, makes me laugh truly.
The liar thing is tossed about freely based on opinion, polls, beliefs etc...
nothing like the nasty words you just posted there.
Again this man believes science is lying and that science has a motive to do so.
Do you believe that?
Do some people believe that?
Do they have the right?
Do they have a right to vote for others who represent their views and express them?
This is just another bashing thread from those so offended .... ha!
they are bashing right back. Something they seem to be pretty good at,
better than the bible side for sure.
If that wasn't so sad it would be funny stuff
if the Democrats can continually claim the Repubicans are liars
then this man can do the same
sorry couldn't resist
it's almost over
I'll answer just two of your questions as the rest of them are completely nonsensical and irrelevant.
1. Do I think he has the right to speak his opinion? Yes, I do, as I said previously in this thread. Did you miss that post?
2. Do I believe in the right of the voters to vote in whom they think is a good representative? Yes, I do. But were not talking merely about the fact that he's a congressman. The discussion here is regarding his fitness to be on the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
'The liar thing'?
This is what he said: "All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell."
So now you're going to pretend that the above is a common statement and something that's 'tossed about freely' on a regular basis?
Seriously, do you really believe that, or are your constant efforts to change the subject and make shit up simply a result of your desperation to come out on top in this 'debate'?
Do I believe that? Do I believe that scientists are lying when they say that the World is 4.54 billion years old? No, I don't believe that they're lying. Why would I?
Are you referring here to the election, or to the fact that you'll more than likely succeeded in getting this thread locked like so many others?
Anyway, I'm done with this thread. I can see where it's heading.