Lindsey Graham: I voted for Kagan because of Golden Rule

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

What Lindsey Graham is admitting to here is EXACTLY why we have corrupt politicians. Lindsey seems to think that the ‘others’ that the Golden Rule is referring to is Obama. But he’s absolutely wrong! He’s forgotten all about the American people. In this context, his constituency, the American people, would be the ‘others’ that he should be worried about. But instead he is trying to scratch Obama’s back in hopes that Obama will scratch his back! CORRUPTOCRATS!



Wake up South Carolina and KICK this guy out of office!

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

28 thoughts on “Lindsey Graham: I voted for Kagan because of Golden Rule

  1. The fact is, I don't know what their intentions were. I know what some of them wrote. I also know not to trust the writings of politicians, as do you. (I direct your attention to the topic of this very thread.) The difference is, I don't assume them to be have been any more sincere then, than our current crop is now.

    Much of what the Founders' writings that we quote were to other people whom they were trying to persuade for or against something. Why give that any more creedence than a letter this year from Lindsey Graham, or Chuck Grassley, or Scott Brown?

    You misinterpret… I don't have any remorse or aversion to the nation's founding. I have to acknowledge the flaws that were left in, and the way the Founders treated non-whites. I recognize they were a product of their times, and that if they had tried to outlaw slavery in 1787, probably the 4 southern states wouldn't have ratified, and that means Virginia would probably not have been a part.

    The fact is that many of the states, in their ratifications, proposed further amendments… meaning, they weren't 100% happy with the document they were ratifying either, and wanted much of it changed at the earliest opportunity. But they thought it was a good enough start, obviously. And so do I. But I think of it as only a start, and the Progressive movement as part of the further process, just as their proposed amendments might have been seen as the Progressive movement of their day.

    A large part of those proposed changes are contained in the Bill Of Rights, but there's plenty that weren't. But do you hurl at them the same epithets you hurl at me? Do you call them liars, because they ratified the document, and then proposed myriad changes?

    And when I said what was done was less meaningful than what was intended… I was imagining it from an outside point of view… not mine. Happens in medicine all the time… a doctor intends to cure a patient, and for reasons the doctor was unaware of, such as an undiagnosed weakness or an allergy… the patient dies, or nearly does. Someone feeds a wild animal, hoping to do it a kindness or even to tame it… and in fact only cures it of its fear of humans and encourages it to raid people's homes. A man teaches his kids self-defense skills… and they use that to bully the others in the school. A man starts a fire in his home to warm his family… but fails to properly tend it, and burns down the home…

    Then, there's the preacher who convinces people about salvation after they're dead… and all he really wants to do is control their lives, even after he's dead. The doctor who prescribes chemo for a cancer patient when he knows that cancer doesn't respond to it… because he doesn't want the patient to look for other less mainstream cures, like holistics, or Laetrile.

    Sackett, you know this stuff happens. I'm saying that especially in judging someone, the intention is often far more important and telling about the man than the result.

  2. “What he does or doesn't do, I think, is less meaningful than what he intended.”

    …if you truly believed that:

    1. You would be utterly destitute and living under a bridge… or dead (and from what I've gathered in your spews, you have done ~THANK GOD~ fairly well, financially, over the course of your taking up space here. If you truly DO believe that, then… can I borrow $250,000.00? I have EVERY INTENTION of paying it back).

    …actually, no. Don't loan me anything.

    2. You would have NEVER stated the things you did in your very next post (the one that starts with “Actually…”. The clear declarations of disgust, remorse and aversion to this nation's FOUNDING, and FOUNDING FATHERS that gush from you as high and punctually as anything from 'Old Faithful'… do NOT come from a mind that earnestly holds that what people “does (did) or doesn't (didn't) do is less meaningful than what he (they) intended.”).

    …unless you are utterly BIGOT-ious about who, and who CANNOT be treated with such 'velvet gloves' of 'forebearant ~yes, I know, NEW WORD ALERT~ Tolerance'.

    So much of what you so fervently and assiduously reel off is reminiscent of the young Hindu priest that preached that “nothing in this world is any more 'real' than you make it, or believe it to be.”

    …worked pretty well, until two young men from a village he was 'preaching' to held him fast, and another grabbed a steaming full kettle of tea water ~ and began the motion of pouring its 'non-REAL' contents into HIS lap.

    Funny, it was the priest who instantly 'converted'.

    In other words, you flat out LIED, Don. You don't believe that, not for a minute.

  3. What he is? A man… is only a man. Nothing more.

    What he does or doesn't do, I think, is less meaningful than what he intended. Plans can fail, or worse, backfire.

    I have no idea what kind of man you are, or what you intended. But Jesus preached love and peace. He didn't preach anything about tax revolts, and his advice was to the people, on how they could better conduct their personal lives, not about what lawmakers should or should not demand of the public.

  4. Actually, you did hit a nerve. I thought your attack and the comparison to group of terrorists who tried to sicken or perhaps kill thousands of people to affect the outcome of a local election was far over the top, and I would never use such a comparison, unless against someone who advocated similar tactics. Even the mean-spiritedness of those advocating repeal of the 14th amendment, thus taking the American-born children of immigrants out of our election picture, wouldn't move me to such a statement.

    And actually, I insist on doing pretty much all of my own thinking, and often vehemently disagree with those on the left side of the road, and even with those in the center of it; but I suspect that you don't do all yours. You parrot the groupthink of the current-day Conservative extremists. I need only point to this thread we're on. Graham said he was following the “Golden Rule.” I take that to mean, giving the nominee the benefit of the doubt, which is no more than he asks his constituents to give him. The first comment, by Scoop, paints this as “corrupt.” The next vilifies him as a RINO and asks if he's in bed with Pelosi… (who, of course, has nothing to do with approving Supreme Court nominees). What about his past votes, that you approved of? He voted against Health Care Reform, no Republican did. He voted against Wall Street reform. Surely, if he was going to be corrupt, he'd have voted Yea on those two?

    While I love this country as it is now and as it has been for the last several decades, and I say this, having had unlike most Americans, the experience of living as an economically advantaged civilian in a couple of other countries. I choose to live here, and indeed, made my own conscious decision to return when I reached adulthood. My parents didn't follow me until years later.

    One thing you're right about… Because I make my own decisions, I have to recognize the flaws this nation had at its beginning, and I can't say I approve of those. The religious and racial bigotry and prejudice, including the fact that slavery was legally permitted, for example. I can't say I loved that, but it took nearly a century to just to get rid of the slavery, and then it only happened by fighting a war in which a half-million of our men died. I can't love that so many of us were willing to go out and kill white people to protect their “right” to enslave black people.

    The way we treated the Indians, was shameful… I can't love our Founders, or the nation they created, for that. I do my own thinking… when I see something our Founders were doing that was wrong… I'll stand up and say that it was wrong.

    This doesn't take away from the good that they did. As I say… they were men, not saints. And not just men… they were politicians, and everything that word means now… it meant then.

    Just like, as a Jew, if I believe Israel does something wrong, I will speak out publicly against it, including writing letters to the editor of my local paper, some of which have been published. If I believe they did something wrong in antiquity, I'll say so. If in reading the bible, I think it's wrong, I'll say so. If I think the actions done by the patriarchs, and even those reportedly done by God Almighty, are wrong.. I'll say so. Conversely, if I think the Devil did something right, or is getting a “bad rap”… I'll say so.

  5. “Actually Madison's quote disproves your assertion that the founders intended the federal government to have authority out side that given to them in the constitution or to be above the States”

    For proof of this, don't take the quote of one man.. take the actions of their Congresses. The A&S Acts… which you seem to insist that the later repeal and attempt to make amends, somehow means these brilliant men didn't understand when they enacted it, that it violated the Constitution. Such as the Charter of the First Bank, in 1790. They couldn't get that into the Constitution itself, because while the merchants who made up the legislatures of the northern states understood the need… the northern states were circulating dozens of foreign currencies, and all kinds of scrip issued by various states and banks, in a chaos of slow communication, where the someone receiving currency for a sale really had little idea what it might be worth… the southern states legislators were mostly plantation owners, who only dealt with a few major customers and vendors, didn't need a central bank and were suspicious of one run mostly by the north. But nothing in the Constitutional powers authorized Congress to charter a national bank, however the government could do that with only a simple majority in the House and Senate. They didn't need three fourths of the legislatures onboard.

    The Louisiana Purchase from France, likewise. Many were against it. It was only a few years after the XYZ affair that had nearly put us at war with France, and now it was proposed that we pay them millions of dollars we didn't have, and owe them the rest? For land we didn't really need? What did the Constitution say about acquiring more land? It addressed only the acquisition by capture, right? The purchase certainly wasn't providing for the national defense, as some contended. it was doubling the acreage we had to defend, while depleting the resources with which to defend it. So that leaves “providing for the general welfare,” a conveniently vague “blanket” clause, which would also cover the creation of those national Banks, and pretty much anything else Congress does for the benefit of the people… including the EPA, the NTSB, NLRB, FNMA, HUD, and everything else classified under the Progressive agenda.

  6. …and as for what I “call” myself, it's what a man IS and DOES that defines him. Not what he 'advertises'.

    The King knows my name, and owns my otherwise worthless hide-n-soul.

    …that's enough for me.

  7. “I have never advocated physically attacking anyone…”

    You and I both know I didn't hit a 'nerve', Don… you've proven many times to not have any. But at 50+ years old (according to your own post, some time back), surely you've at least seen the mental exercise (if not attempting it yourself) of “transformative comparison” ~sometimes referred to as “ALLEGORY”~

    I can (and will, freely and LOUDLY) support the veracity of the fact that YOU have never “advocated physically attacking anyone!”.

    But you have an easily-referenced and VAST history of coming in amongst the honest intellectual, historical and heart-felt buffet of shared thought here… and pouring the bile of 'snippet' “fact”, huff'd-n-puff'd 'counterpoint' (you don't even do your own thinking…) and purposely poisoned “empathy” for even the self-proclaimed enemies of this Republic, its people and its founding.

    …and you damn sure don't do it because anyone (from AMERICA'S side) hired you to 'improve' the food for thought around here.

    Don, you do NOT come to this site, or engage ANY of us in 'communication' because of ANY affinity for the same love of country (as it was founded), the Constitution (and our rage at its rape and dismemberment)… or to even serve as a 'missionary' of what you consider some 'better way'.

    You do so for the sole purpose of poisoning points, positions and statements of clarification (based on FACT, HISTORY… AND CONTEXT). And you do so in the sick hopes of wreaking havoc in the digestive system of ANY uninformed American citizen's MIND.

    Aye, Don… you don't advocate physical violence. I will strongly concur with that.

    What you attempt to do (you're not very good at it… but you are persistent) is FAR MORE INSIDIOUS. You work to sicken and weaken ANY man's resolve to stand for this Republic, its History, and its vastly Honorable Actions throughout that history (two or three farting old hens do not a 'POISON FARM!!!” make. In other words, those individuals and instances where people FROM this great nation did things deserving of arrest, conviction and even death… do not make the over 1 billion souls who have proudly called this nation “home” and served to make her ever stronger and better… “evil” or “bad”).

    If you are FOR this nation, AS IT WAS FOUNDED… then stop dumping your garbage all over EVERY thought and statement that's for it (shall I remind you of the over 20 occassions even I have brought fuller context, actual facts ~ as opposed to your sometimes absolute 'mis-statements' ~ …and you simply crawl back into the gutter and wait “for a more opportune time” to post more BS).

    If you are NOT, which you aren't… then drop this thankfully rare POSE of being 'shocked' and 'offended', and this current false “literalism” about my post.

    …if you're bound and determined to poop in the deep end of the pool, you damn-sure better know how to SWIM.

    CM Sackett

  8. Actually Madison's quote disproves your assertion that the founders intended the federal government to have authority out side that given to them in the constitution or to be above the States read the line slowly so you comprehend what Madison is saying here,”So far as the disposition of each towards the other may be influenced by these causes, the State governments must clearly have the advantage”. As to the link on voting rights read the first line carefully, it refers to “American Colonists” key word being colonists. If you bothered to read further you will find voting rights were in flux after the revolution and evolving rapidly. As to the Senate you really need to do a little more reading on intent because you are wandering about throwing out assertions with nothing to substantiate your opinions and misinterpretations. Our congress was loosely modeled on England's Parliament in form,two houses one upper one lower,but instead of Lords and Commons, the States and the People to represent the interests of those entities. Did the founders have to wrangle to get the constitution ratified of course they did just what do you suppose they were doing during the constitutional conventions? Do yourself a favor and spend more time reading and comprehending what the founders wrote and not opinions and outright deliberate misinterpretation that you find on those progressive web sites.

  9. Sacket,
    I think you are WAAAAAAAAAAY out of line here. I have never advocated physically attacking anyone! How can you say I'm “nothing more than a bunch of bio-terrorists!” Where did that come from?

    And you call yourself a Christian?

    Well… I can see why you oppose Graham following the Golden Rule….. You apparently have no use for it either. You need say no more.

  10. Ken,
    It makes no difference to the argument that the Sedition Act was repealed and preparations paid, and Jefferson pardoned them… my point was that the act was passed in the first place, and voted for by many of the same men who had passed the 1st amendment. The other ways they went beyond the “enumerated powers” included the Louisiana Purchase and the chartering of the 1st Bank of the United States, and the 2nd. Nothing in the constitution could have been construed to give them the power to charter a bank, or to buy more land (especially when most of the land they already had was unsettled wilderness.)

    Thanks for the links… I don't see how the first link does anything more than confirm what I said.

    As to your quote of Madison: “”It has been already proved that the members of the federal will be more dependent on the members of the State governments, than the latter will be on the former. It has appeared also, that the prepossessions of the people, on whom both will depend, will be more on the side of the State governments, than of the federal government. So far as the disposition of each towards the other may be influenced by these causes, the State governments must clearly have the advantage. “

    This only confirms what I said, that giving the state legislators the ability to handpick who they would send to the Senate was a device to get them to ratify the constitution, by allowing them to send someone who would be accountable to them. If nobody in the Federal government was to be accountable to the state legislature… why should the state legislature ratify such an arrangement? Madison's statement in the paper was designed to persuade his legislature to ratify it, right?

  11. “And I disagree with your statement that “Under the Republic that we were given the most powerful government would be the Local Government,the one closest to the people,followed by the State Government and lastly the Federal Government with its limited,enumerated powers granted to it by the States.” You can disagree all you like it does not change the facts.
    “As to their being limited to just the enumerated powers… Let's dispense with that myth. I've already named a number of instances where the Founders themselves exceeded those. ” You have provided I believe 3 or 4 and repeatedly brought up the alien and sedition act of 1798 which were repealed and reparations paid; http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milest
    As to your statements on voting rights you ought to do more research other than talking points,here try a little light reading on it you may find it enlightening; http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action

    You should read the following carefully as Madison lays it out he clearly states that power flows from the people (Local) to the State then to the Federal levels.
    “It has been already proved that the members of the federal will be more dependent on the members of the State governments, than the latter will be on the former. It has appeared also, that the prepossessions of the people, on whom both will depend, will be more on the side of the State governments, than of the federal government. So far as the disposition of each towards the other may be influenced by these causes, the State governments must clearly have the advantage. But in a distinct and very important point of view, the advantage will lie on the same side. The prepossessions, which the members themselves will carry into the federal government, will generally be favorable to the States; whilst it will rarely happen, that the members of the State governments will carry into the public councils a bias in favor of the general government. A local spirit will infallibly prevail much more in the members of Congress, than a national spirit will prevail in the legislatures of the particular States.” James Madison Federalist 46
    In closing I will once again refer you to a quote from Joseph Story,”In the first place,then,every word employed in the constitution is to be expounded in its PLAIN,OBVIOUS,and COMMON SENSE,unless the context furnishes some ground to control,qualify,or enlarge it”. That said once again I give you the closing paragraph of Section 8 (the enumerated powers) Article 1 of the RATIFIED US Constitution;”To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Before you make a foolish “aha” statement about this piece of it “all other Powers” consider the rest of the line ” vested by this Constitution” that means if it ain't in there, it ain't there. Oh, before I forget here is the reason for the emphasis on ratified, ratified – formally approved and invested with legal authority. So much for “myths”.

  12. She was under oath, right? That means required to answer the question as asked. The one asking the question was quite aware of the difference between agreeing with a ruling, and accepting it. He chose to ask about the latter.

    What she said, was that she would not prejudge any case that came before her, and I don't see any evidence that she did. I do see a suggestion that you would consider it your obligation to prejudge all such cases, and you think she should too, providing she can prejudge them and reach the same conclusion you would.

    And just as I accept there is a limit to the right to free speech …and as a writer, it is exceedingly difficult for me to acknowledge that, but I must… e.g., there must be orderly decorum in a court of law, and fraudulent claims must not be protected in commerce, nor should slander and libel be protected in social interactions… to say nothing of the time-worn shout of “FIRE” in a crowded theater.

    I think there must be a limit to the right of the people to peaceably assemble… not in such a way as use thousands of private vehicles and people to cut off a part of the city, or block emergency vehicles, or intimidate anyone, or endanger public safety.

    I think there does need to be a limit to the right to bear arms… I don't support citizens having the right to own RPG-launchers or bazookas, and I don't think they need a .50 cal, or a potato-digger either. In the frontier west, which was the quintessential bastion of individual freedoms, especially regarding gun ownership… sheriffs in many towns routinely banned anyone but lawmen from carrying firearms, open or concealed…. and they'd whack you on the head and confiscate yours if you disagreed.

  13. Ken,
    When I said they were no more than local politicians, I was actually referring to the legislators. The fact that they lived to see the founding of our nation, and participated in it, doesn't raise them to any higher level than that. “Gerrymandering” was a term named for Elbridge Gerry. They didn't think of voting as a right, more as a privilege granted to those who owned property… unless there was some reason to deny them that privilege… such as, they embraced a religion frowned upon by the majority of the legislature.

    And I disagree with your statement that “Under the Republic that we were given the most powerful government would be the Local Government,the one closest to the people,followed by the State Government and lastly the Federal Government with its limited,enumerated powers granted to it by the States.”

    The most powerful appeared to be the State legislatures, who could pass laws that would trump any local township's… because it was the legislatures who decided who could and could not vote in the first place, and I don't think even their courts could overrule them, in the early days. Not if the state's constitution didn't limit them.

    I try not to sneer, but I don't trust ANY politician. Those who agree with me, or with you, or with anybody… are usually just doing so to get those votes.

    In the 50 years after the Civil War, there were 9 cases of bribery actually brought before the Senate. The legislatures weren't the ones fighting it. There were also about 45 deadlocks, in 20 states. From 1865 to 1895, I'm not sure there were any treaties ratified, although there were plenty important ones negotiated, especially regarding Cuba and Costa Rica. The Senate almost couldn't ratify the treaty ending the Spanish-American War.

    As for where I got the notion I closed with.. “”Why would they ever choose to ratify the creation of a Federal government in which they were to have no say whatever?” Your answer was that “The people always have a say in who represents them at the Federal level even under the original format of the senate,after all where were these men chosen from? “

    I was referring to the various legislatures as cohesive, decision-making bodies. They would ratify the constitution, since they could see the Federal government could pass no law, nor ratify any treaty, or appoint any major official, without the consent of the majority of the Senate, whose members from their state would be handpicked by them… the State legislature. But they had no experience of this kind of government to draw upon. So if the House members were chosen by the Voters (not by the people, mind you… by the voters, i.e., property owners, who were at the time a distinct minority of the people!) and the Senators were also chosen by the Voters… then what input does the lowly State legislature have in the doings of the Federal government? And who could restrain the Federal government? (Remember, there was at the time, no recognized power of judicial review.)

    What I was saying, is that under the original format of the Senate, the legislators.. the ones being called upon to ratify the constitution… had a say. The voters only had a say in who would be members of the House. People who did not own property, may have had no say whatever. People who did own property, but were part of an excluded class… such as Jews, married women, or Catholics.. had no say whatever, and there was no compunction against “taxation without representation” for them. It's not a matter of who they were chosen from… but who they were chosen by.

    That's why I say they were men, not saints. They were politicians, fallible and subject to the same weaknesses of politicians today.

    As to their being limited to just the enumerated powers… Let's dispense with that myth. I've already named a number of instances where the Founders themselves exceeded those.

  14. Is Senator Graham sleeping with Nancy? She is talking about “the word” now he is talking about “the golden rule”. Senator, JUST have the balls to say you cut a deal and don't give a fat rats butt about the future of this Nation. The Court will rule and rule and rule and make your job as an elected representative of SC. and this Republic irrelevant. Senator after your defeat maybe you and Elaina can call out for Chinese one Christmas day as you watch the tide change from Hilton Head. Everytime the RNC calls for money, I tell them, NOT ONE PENNY! they ask why? I tell them, if I thought one penny of my money would be distributed to Senator Graham and the RINO's, I would lose sleep.

    I am generous with my donations to individual Candidates (Democrats, Republicans and Independents) NO MONEY TO PAC'S or the DNC nor GOP.

    Maybe BHO will nominate himself to the Court after Ginsberg retires, that way he will finish the transformation of this Nation into the New World Order.

    See you all on 8/28

  15. Easy Ken,

    He has no conscience… or clue. He gets his talking points from other blogs, and not his own convictions.

    Don is nothing more than a commusocimaolenprogressive RAJNEESHEE (the 1984 bio-terror attack in Oregon, where those gutless curs 'tested' out a much larger plan of harm and mayhem. They would go to restaurants and take ziplocks out of their pockets… look around, and pour this 'brown salsa'… rife with salmonella over the salad, or into the dressings. Over 700 people were poisoned, including a newborn infant… born 2 days after his mother became deathly ill).

    …on second thought Ken, KEEP THE LIGHT ON HIM (he hates facts).

    Sackett

  16. Here is one South Carolinian and Christian who is TICKED OFF at this dork who justifies evil with Scripture. We've already kicked one RINO out (Bob Inglis)… we can do it again!

  17. First of all Don, Sen.Graham is from South Carolina not Alabama. The intent for the Senate was to represent the interests of the “Sovereign States”,as the founders referred to them,which is why they were to be appointed by the State Legislatures. The House of Representatives to represent the people of the perspective states.
    “You may not like what I say, but realistically, they were, in each state, no more than a bunch of local politicians… men, not saints!”, That was the point of it Don, that they were “local politicians” appointed by the legislators that had been chosen by the people of the particular state. Under the Republic that we were given the most powerful government would be the Local Government,the one closest to the people,followed by the State Government and lastly the Federal Government with its limited,enumerated powers granted to it by the States. You know Don it almost sounds like you're sneering at “local” politicians, just where do you suppose those we elect come from,they're certainly not just pumped out of some government birthing facility. Those people start out as “local” politicians. Yes I know about the history of corruption of government, the 17th amendment certainly hasn't decreased it if anything it's made it worse. At this point I really don't have an issue with a “crippled” congress it may just slow down the spending. The amount of bribery cases coming before the senate at that time tells me that they were actively fighting against the corruption,instead of today's congress where corrupt officials get a finger shaken at them and are allowed to continue on their merry way when they should be in prison. I really don't know where you got the notion that you close with,”Why would they ever choose to ratify the creation of a Federal government in which they were to have no say whatever?” The people always have a say in who represents them at the Federal level even under the original format of the senate,after all where were these men chosen from? They were chosen from the state legislature, a body whose members were elected by the people. As to liking or not liking what you say, I'm actually more interested in countering your misinterpretations and enlightening you to the fallacies of the progressive movement. Have a good night Don.

  18. seriously, dude?

    she knew full well the intent of the question and she flat out lied. paint it with any brush you wish, but the truth will glow from underneath.

  19. I don't think she lied. If you're talking about her statement in the confirmation hearing that she “accepted” the court's ruling in Heller, think you misinterpreted her meaning.

    She was asked if she accepted it, and she said she did. As the appellate judge she was at the time, she had to accept the decision of the higher court, right?

    She was not asked if she agreed with it. That is a very different thing. So her dissent in the recent case… is not inconsistent with her testimony, because now she's a Supreme Court justice, and she doesn't have to meekly “accept” such decisions now. She can dissent, and her dissenting opinion carries as much weight as the opinions she dissents from.

  20. i don't know about the “integrity” part of that statement you just made.

    was it “integrity” that made Sotomayor lie about 2nd Amendment rights during the confirmation process? dear God in heaven! the very first 2nd Amendment case that comes her way and she squats over the Constitution and administers a defecation of epic proportions.

    imagine John Candy after an all-you-can-eat at the Sizzler! THAT'S what she dumped on Article II.

    “If you feed someone $hit long enough while telling them it's peanut butter, sooner or later they'll start to believe it!”

  21. Easy enough… A No vote should be cast against someone who does not possess the basic qualifications, or intelligence, or integrity. Kagan appears to have all 3, as did Sotomayor, and as did Alito and Roberts.

  22. rs I'm not too tech savy and not sure how this works but I feel I need to say something about the ad supporting Mark Kirk from Illinois. I am in Illinois and because of no other choice will most likely be voting for him (I just chocked) – ONLY – ONLY – ONLY because there is no other choice and Illinois once again has nothing to pick from. So don't be surprised or upset or expect much once he is in office I believe he is another Linsey Graham. Many discussions have taken placve with local TP's and many, many feel the same, but again we have no other choice since his opponent is worse (maybe I should say the same just under the Democrat party).

  23. What makes you think the AL legislature wouldn't have chosen him anyway? Do you know the kind of chaos that was going on when choosing Senators was just left up to a bunch of other politicians… who were themselves dependent upon the railroad Robber Barons and such for their campaign funds? Do you know how many bribery cases actually came before the Senate in those years? Do you know how many unfilled seats there were in the Senate between the civil war and 1912… simply because the various legislatures were deadlocked, and there was often no way to force them to make a decision?

    I think the Founders erred in their original decision of how to choose a Senator… but they may have had no choice, if it was itself, as I suspect, probably just a sop to the state legislatures to get them to ratify the constitution.

    You may not like what I say, but realistically, they were, in each state, no more than a bunch of local politicians… men, not saints! They were only human, like officeholders today are only human, with many of the same concerns, such as holding onto power. Why would they ever choose to ratify the creation of a Federal government in which they were to have no say whatever?

  24. so….. i guess you should just approve everybody, right? i mean, by this logic, how could you vote against anyone?

    this guy ain't got NO freakin' balls whatsoever. he is the epitome of a RINO, and a professional politician who doesn't understand that he is not some sort of rock star but an elected official assigned with a DUTY of upholding and PROTECTING the Constitution and representing those who elected him.

    part of protecting the Constitution, i think, would be not voting for someone who holds it in contempt and who was nominated by someone who not only holds it in contempt and wishes to abolish it, but who is also circumventing it at every opportunity.

Comments are closed.