WWTBAM Bored

Do you think Rush had any influence on the voting in Texas. In case you were in the dark, Rush had urged his Republican / conservative listenership in Texas to vote for Hillary and keep her in the race. He felt (as do others) that Obama has pretty much been given a pass with the media up to now and the only one who would "bloody him up" would be her.

And, what a snoozefest acceptance speech from "Michelin Man" McCain. Even though I don't support him, it sure would have been nice to hear him try to convince me that he is the man for the job.

Is Texas an open primary? If not, I can't see Democrats doing what he said. They wouldn't even KNOW what he said...

minimetoo26 wrote:Is Texas an open primary? If not, I can't see Democrats doing what he said. They wouldn't even KNOW what he said...

Texas is an open primary, but I really don't think very many dittoheads crossed party lines. Hillary has a huge following in South Texas that prolly made the difference.

Rexer25 wrote:

minimetoo26 wrote:Is Texas an open primary? If not, I can't see Democrats doing what he said. They wouldn't even KNOW what he said...

Texas is an open primary, but I really don't think very many dittoheads crossed party lines. Hillary has a huge following in South Texas that prolly made the difference.

She was the landslide winner in the coal mining part of this state. They just love her in WV, too.

She was pretty much expected to win Texas, even without Rush's "help."

Do you think Rush had any influence on the voting in Texas.

I think Rush was probably under the influence....

It should be noted that even though Hillary won the popular vote in Texas, Barack still came up with more of its delegates (99-94).

ne1410s wrote:

Do you think Rush had any influence on the voting in Texas.

I think Rush was probably under the influence....

He's not on the oxycontin again, is he?

minimetoo26 wrote:Is Texas an open primary? If not, I can't see Democrats doing what he said. They wouldn't even KNOW what he said...

Yes, Texas has an open primary. I know of a number of Republicans who were planning to vote for Hillary. I also know a number of Republicans who were NOT going to vote for Hillary because they wanted her to have no chance at the white house.

I'm a semi-independant, though I don't think I've ever voted for a Republican for prez. I have often voted in the Republican primary because of the judicial races. I don't really have a strong feeling for either of the Democrats running for prez, but am likely going to vote Dem in the fall, mostly because Republicans keep putting people on the Supreme Court that I think are bad justices. Presidents come and go, but those darned Supremes stay at the court for a long time.

Yesterday, I voted in the Republican primary because of the district attorney's race and one of the judge races. The Republican establishment was supporting Pat Lykos for DA, and she in my opinion is completely and utterly not qualified for that position. She has never been a prosecutor or a defense attorney, she was completely bat-poop crazy as a judge, and she is someone who is an unpleasant person to both the prosecutors and defense bar. She was such a bad judge that no one wanted to hire her as a visiting judge. She always got awful rankings as a judge from the local bar. She got the support of the Republican establishment because she is a party stooge.

Fortunately, there is a runoff between her and Kelly Siegler, and Lykos will likely get stomped.

CNN spoke to this, without mentioning Rush, last night.

Republicans and independents who voted in the Texas Democratic primary gave most of their votes to Hillary, but there were not enough of those voters to make a difference.

Bixby17 wrote:
I don't really have a strong feeling for either of the Democrats running for prez, but am likely going to vote Dem in the fall, mostly because Republicans keep putting people on the Supreme Court that I think are bad justices. Presidents come and go, but those darned Supremes stay at the court for a long time.

I gather, then, that you don't like Roberts or Alito?

nitrah55 wrote:CNN spoke to this, without mentioning Rush, last night.

Republicans and independents who voted in the Texas Democratic primary gave most of their votes to Hillary, but there were not enough of those voters to make a difference.

It's hard to say just how many of these were people voting in the Democratic primary because they felt the Dem candidate or candidates were closer to their views than McCain and how many of them were trying to vote for the person they thought easiest to beat.

I do think Obama has until now gotten the benefit of a lot of "Democrats for a day," and I think that in some of these small midwest and mountain states that accounted for some of his majorities, but no one knows for sure.

nitrah55 wrote:CNN spoke to this, without mentioning Rush, last night.

Republicans and independents who voted in the Texas Democratic primary gave most of their votes to Hillary, but there were not enough of those voters to make a difference.

That is interesting.

Sir_Galahad wrote:

Bixby17 wrote:
I don't really have a strong feeling for either of the Democrats running for prez, but am likely going to vote Dem in the fall, mostly because Republicans keep putting people on the Supreme Court that I think are bad justices. Presidents come and go, but those darned Supremes stay at the court for a long time.

I gather, then, that you don't like Roberts or Alito?

Nope. Not really.

Nor Thomas or Scalia.

I understand there are people who may have the opposite view as me on this, but the way I figure it Republican or Democrat in the WH there's not much of a difference. They all spend our money like my daughter spends kinzcash and then hopes mommy can help her get more of it. Republicans give lip service to states rights but give the states tons of unfunded mandates but of things that are their pet projects. They say they are about privacy, but then figure out all sorts of ways to get in your business either based on security or morality concerns.

Blah.

So, if whoever is going to be elected prez is going to screw stuff up anyway, at least I'd prefer one that wouldn't go out of his or her way to nominate folks on the Supreme Court who I don't care for.

silverscreenselect wrote:

nitrah55 wrote:CNN spoke to this, without mentioning Rush, last night.

Republicans and independents who voted in the Texas Democratic primary gave most of their votes to Hillary, but there were not enough of those voters to make a difference.

It's hard to say just how many of these were people voting in the Democratic primary because they felt the Dem candidate or candidates were closer to their views than McCain and how many of them were trying to vote for the person they thought easiest to beat.

I do think Obama has until now gotten the benefit of a lot of "Democrats for a day," and I think that in some of these small midwest and mountain states that accounted for some of his majorities, but no one knows for sure.

I think that a lot of people voted in the Democratic primary in Texas because they wanted to actually have a vote in a primary that made a difference.

Usually by the time the primaries come to Texas, the nominees are already set. We don't really get a say.

I know that was the disappointing part for me of voting in the Republican primary.

Bixby17 wrote: I gather, then, that you don't like Roberts or Alito?

Nope. Not really.

Nor Thomas or Scalia.

I understand there are people who may have the opposite view as me on this, but the way I figure it Republican or Democrat in the WH there's not much of a difference. They all spend our money like my daughter spends kinzcash and then hopes mommy can help her get more of it. [/quote]

This is true. But, isn't it good to have on the panel some that would vote more on the conservative side should something come down the pike that might actually make a difference?

And this is one reason why I have no dog in this year's hunt. Regardless of what some feel, I feel all three dogs in this year's hunt have more in common that they have differences.

So, if whoever is going to be elected prez is going to screw stuff up anyway...

That's a sad thing to feel, true as it is.

But, isn't it good to have on the panel some that would vote more on the conservative side should something come down the pike that might actually make a difference?

Given that I tend to be conservative on fiscal issues and rather libertarian on issues of liberty, personal freedom and social issues, I think the answer to that is no. I like when the courts are a check on the tyranny of the majority as a general rule.

Though in the big scheme of things, I'm not a big fan of "conservative" or "liberal" judges. Ones that tend to be activist either way. I think the recent Republican appointees tend to be a little too political. Or have their own quirky views of Constitional law that they are absolutely unpredictable because of their lack of regard of precedent and squirrely ways they come to their decisions.

So in sum, for me, the recent Republican appointees to the court have tended to write sillier stuff than the Dems appointed to the Supremes. So my vote tends to go to the peoples I think tend to appoint less silly peoples to the Supremes.

Of course, for those who have a more activist conservative agenda, I could see them taking the opposite approach.

silverscreenselect wrote: I do think Obama has until now gotten the benefit of a lot of "Democrats for a day," and I think that in some of these small midwest and mountain states that accounted for some of his majorities, but no one knows for sure.

That may be true in other states, but in Colorado, it was not. Either that, or a lot of folkses were planning way ahead to be a "Dem for a day," since you had to be affiliated by Dec. 5 to participate in the Feb. 5 caucuses. I spoke to a roomful of people in late January at a non-partisan forum who were disappointed and vocal about not being able to participate. I told them to contact their legislators or get out there circulating petitions and get it on the ballot again.

Sir_Galahad wrote:Do you think Rush had any influence on the voting in Texas.

Yes. He did.

I went to our precinct caucus last night. Small, rural, largely Republican precinct. We had 23 for Clinton and 7 for Obama. Two of the Obama people (a married couple) were Hillary-haters who will vote Republican. About half of the Hillary supporters were, too.

The two who were there for Obama would have been there anyway. The others might have been there anyway, too, but I doubt it. And, of those, they probably would have voted for Obama (like those two Hillary-haters on Obama's side.

All of them had to vote in the Democratic Primary (and prove it) to participate.

It wasn't just Rush who was urging this, though. Other talk-show guys did, too.

Bixby17 wrote:I don't really have a strong feeling for either of the Democrats running for prez, but am likely going to vote Dem in the fall, mostly because Republicans keep putting people on the Supreme Court that I think are bad justices. Presidents come and go, but those darned Supremes stay at the court for a long time.

Yeah, Alito and Roberts are just HORRIBLE! And that Scalia! Spare me.

ne1410s wrote:

Do you think Rush had any influence on the voting in Texas.

I think Rush was probably under the influence....

REC!

He made CNN today after more of his usual blather. I'd find the exact quote or a link or something, but I suspect he said the things he said just to get press - and I don't want to contribute. Well...any more than I just did!

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

Bixby17 wrote:I don't really have a strong feeling for either of the Democrats running for prez, but am likely going to vote Dem in the fall, mostly because Republicans keep putting people on the Supreme Court that I think are bad justices. Presidents come and go, but those darned Supremes stay at the court for a long time.

Yeah, Alito and Roberts are just HORRIBLE! And that Scalia! Spare me.

Well of course you feel that way.

You like justices who give lip service to strict construction and being against judicial activism.... unless of course it suits their political views (and yours).

There are all sorts of judges that have the qualifications to be a judge academically and judicially who still adhere to fringe ways of adjudicating cases. Scalia is exhibit A of a fringe jurist.

Notably, you didn't defend Scalia's buddy Thomas. Scalia writes off-the-wall opinions, but Thomas' can be downright goofy.

You prove my point. If you tend to trust judges appointed by Republicans, then vote Republican. If you tend to trust judges appointed by Democrats, well then vote Democrat.

Oh, and it might be nice to have someone in the WH who won't fill the Justice Department with a bunch of unqualified stooges who went to freaking Regent University Law School. Nothing like giving government jobs to people who are completely unqualified for them.

Bixby17 wrote:Oh, and it might be nice to have someone in the WH who won't fill the Justice Department with a bunch of unqualified stooges who went to freaking Regent University Law School. Nothing like giving government jobs to people who are completely unqualified for them.

I reject your premise that Scalia (or Roberts or Alito) is an activist jurist. In fact, Scalia is the polar opposite.

And your snide comment about Regent Law School tells me where some of your prejudice lies.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

Bixby17 wrote:Oh, and it might be nice to have someone in the WH who won't fill the Justice Department with a bunch of unqualified stooges who went to freaking Regent University Law School. Nothing like giving government jobs to people who are completely unqualified for them.

I reject your premise that Scalia (or Roberts or Alito) is an activist jurist. In fact, Scalia is the polar opposite.

And your snide comment about Regent Law School tells me where some of your prejudice lies.

If they ignore or disregard all precedent that doesn't serve their needs, well then, yeah, they are activists on the conservative side. There is no point arguing this. You believe that there are only activists for liberal causes because you don't see the conservative activism. I disagree.

And, I think there is little debate that Regent Law School is a freaking joke. It is a bottom quartile, dregs of a law school that I have no respect for at all, and because of it, I have no respect for their graduates. It didn't get accredited until the 90s, but boy howdy, GWB needed to make sure their grads were going to all parts of the government.

That George Bush's cronies populated the government with a bunch of law students who wouldn't be able to find gainful work elsewhere, yeah, I have a prejudice against my tax dollars paying people from podunk fourth rate crap law schools to do government work that could be done by people who are much better qualified, though probably less connected.

It is not a religious prejudice, by the way. I do think that there are plenty of religious-affiliated law schools that are great, that have high standards and a rich tradition of graduating top notch legal graduates and aren't complete freaking jokes like Regent.

I am proud to be a Christian, but that doesn't mean that I have to be happy when the people from Pat Robertson School of Law, I mean Regent University are doing stupid stuff in government.

Government service used to be where the best and the brightest went, and now I guess it is where the people who can't get jobs anywhere else can go just because they share the same religion as the bossman, and he is a self-loathing Yalie.

Bixby17 wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

Bixby17 wrote:Oh, and it might be nice to have someone in the WH who won't fill the Justice Department with a bunch of unqualified stooges who went to freaking Regent University Law School. Nothing like giving government jobs to people who are completely unqualified for them.

I reject your premise that Scalia (or Roberts or Alito) is an activist jurist. In fact, Scalia is the polar opposite.

And your snide comment about Regent Law School tells me where some of your prejudice lies.

If they ignore or disregard all precedent that doesn't serve their needs, well then, yeah, they are activists on the conservative side. There is no point arguing this.

Well, I think that there might be a point "arguing" it. Rather than simply making a blanket statement, maybe you should provide some cites for your statement. In other words, you could make a legal argument as to how no precedent was followed in the cited decisions (rather than simply that the Court followed precedent with which you disagree.)