-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
Scott Brown's Victory!
Started by 2win
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Furthermore, I hold Bush accountable because, according to Richard Posner, a judge who sits on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and William Landes, a law professor at the University of Chicago,
4 of the 5 most conservative judges to EVER sit on the supreme court are currently seated. 2 of the 4 were Bush jr's appointees.
So Bush alone is responsible for appointing 2 of the 5 most conservative supreme court justices in US history. That's quite a record.
So WHAT? Who told you liberal judges are better than conservatives?
It is just your humble opinion, no more, no less - along with the party lines ))))
Eta may be making a broader point, but for me this ruling is upsetting because it gives people with money the chance to influence politics even more than they already do. It's not about Democrat vs. Republican or conservatives vs. liberals. It's about the fact that the Rupert Murdochs, Bill Gates, George Soros, and Warren Buffets of the world will be able to buy as much airtime as they want to push their opinions.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Paid political advertising on television should be banned entirely.
I am not talking about this particular ruling but a stance as it is - why does a label conservative mean that a person with those views is vicious? Maybe it is the opposite?
👍
I like it. I had been thinking that we could prohibit all campaign contributions and just give each candidate X dollars to use in their campaign. Local, state, and national elections would all get different amounts obviously, but the candidates could only spend that amount and no more. Further, no other corporation or person could run any other political ads. Guess the FEC would have to regulation what constituted "political."
I think we'd need to get some constitutional amendments through to do that, but there it is.
Thu persun responsubul four the missspellt wurd haz bean sact.
😕
You're missing several points.
1. It's not about conservative or liberal being good or bad. If you follow the thread closely, it's about how the judicial philosophies play out in supreme court rulings.
2. Historically, conservative judges tend to side with corporate interests, while liberal judges tend to advance social agenda (gay rights for instance). One notable exception is Roe vs. Wade which was passed under a moderately conservative supreme court.
3. Following history also, you'll find that when you appoint not only ultra conservative but activist ultra-conservative judges to the supreme court, a very loose interpretation of the law can be expected. The same is applicable to the appointment of activist ultra-liberal judges (which we have none of on the supreme bench at the moment, but we do have in local courts). The point is that when you appoint extremes of judicial philosophy, you are likely to sell the populace short with landmark rulings such as this.
I am not talking about this particular ruling but a stance as it is - why does a label conservative mean that a person with those views is vicious? Maybe it is the opposite?
If you follow the history of supreme court rulings, it is not.
Yeah, to be honest I don't really know how I'd reconcile the whole freedom of speech bit with banning television ads.
But it's painfully clear that political ads on TV do nothing to inform the electorate and only reduce the level of discourse to petty but memorable 15 second negative sound bites. They're harmful to everything democracy should be.
Televised debates are another disaster. They're so limited in format and content that what we get are a bunch of 90 second prepared statements with zero actual debate between candidates. It's a sad state of affairs when candidates will refuse to "debate" at all unless they can dictate every facet of the "debate."
Who wouldn't want to vote for this?
Scottie ain't the only hottie.
WARNING: You might want to avoid this video if you're at work! Risque scenes included.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLvwc3W_KwM[/YOUTUBE]
Curious indeed!
And daughters:
"Most of my practice is Medicare, Medicaid and uninsured. "
Dude - wake up!
Get a decent job, make some money, enjoy life...
You can PM your CV and I'll try to help you. You gonna change your views after you'll have a decent practice. If this is your choice - to treat uninsured,
why don't you join a charity and work for free?
And daughters:
Better than:
http://ingridspeak.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/precious.jpg
or
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/2008/03/31/obama_family.jpg
What I see are two beautiful women and their father. What do you see?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
couldn't agree more
👍
👍
btw 2win, that second image was friggin' funny!
couldn't agree more
👍
That's a great family too!
lawlzor2!
It is just your opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
OPINION.
Not the truth. Even if that opinion coincides with the one of some media.
However, I couldn't agree more with this:
3. Following history also, you'll find that when you appoint activist ultra-conservative judges to the supreme court, a very loose interpretation of the law can be expected. The same is applicable to the appointment of activist ultra-liberal judges.
😀
Last edited:
This point is debatable. Americans do want our system improved. That doesn't necessarily translate to socialized medicine.
But what IS clear is that most Amercians do NOT support the current bills that have passed in the house and senate. And they do NOT support the dirty politics that went into creating those bills. Our "representatives" have been arrogant enough to disregard the fact that their constituents do not like the bills and are determined to pass them anyway.
They have forgotten that THEY work for US. That is the message of MA- no person or party is entitled to keep their job if the forget this simple fact.
so much for Scott Brown saving us from another disastrous handout-driven bill! 👎
Scott Brown did not save us with THIS bill. He stands in the way of OTHER bills. That's the key here.
That's the silver lining.
OScott Brown did not save us with THIS bill. He stands in the way of OTHER bills. That's the key here.riginally Posted by Eta Carinae
so much for Scott Brown saving us from another disastrous handout-driven bill! 👎
That's the silver lining.
For us (MDs etc) THIS bill would be the ONE that counts, though.
Eta - yesterday the Constitution of the USA was abolished....
Well, Obama mentioned that this was his first step into Universal Healthcare.... so Brown now stands in his way by not allowing purely Democratic bills to pass the senate and making Mr. Obama's socialistic agenda a reality.
unless the senate invokes 'reconciliation'.
