Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (388558)	6/4/2008 6:10:23 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573713

It is this way. The president is supposed to make those appointments with the advice and consent of the Senate. Note, the Senate is not a rubber stamp. Once again, trying to change the subject. Nobody is talking about the Senate rubber stamping a nomination. Nobody is talking about advice and consent, and nobody is opposed to it. The question is whether one agrees with the Obama position of judicial activism. Do you believe that Supreme Court justices should abide by stare decisis and the intent of the framers, or do you believe they should have the flexibility to step outside the boundaries of current law and create new law on their own? It is a simple question, and one that Obama answered clearly: He supports judicial activism. The most competent nominee in our lifetimes was refused without cause by Obama, other than he didn't have Obama's ideology. The framers NEVER intended THAT as "advice and consent". Never. But you guys consistently are all about the framers intent until it comes time put your money where your mouth is, and as in all other areas, the political power play wins out.