Hitler Hated Communism, Socialist, Homosexuals, and Jews

[jillian]

I'm not familiar with any claim on PETA's part that human and nonhuman animal lives are equal. Nor can that be inferred from the ethical reasoning that forms the foundation of the animal rights movement, which has primarily been supplied by Tom Regan and Peter Singer.

yet you use PETA's "human and non-human animal" rhetoric. That is another aspect of PETA's efforts to make humans and animals the same.

If you don't know of those claims, however, you don't know anything about PETA or Ingrid Newkirk. PETA's entire philosophy is based on "a rat is a fish is a dog is a boy"....

Peter Singer is a liar and a loon. If you read his book "Animal Liberation", you will see that he states that it doesn't matter what lies you tell in furtherance of the cause. Someone who advocates that type of lying has no ethics.

I actually once heard Cleveland Amory (that misogynist creep) say that if he had a child, he would let it die before he alowed a baboon heart to be transplanted into it to save the child's life.....

 

[Agnapostate]

yet you use PETA's "human and non-human animal" rhetoric. That is another aspect of PETA's efforts to make humans and animals the same.

There's a difference between advocating equality of consideration and equality of treatment. PETA's non-speciesist ideology doesn't translate into a failure to consider the typically different capacities and interests of humans and nonhuman animals; it simply considers those different capacities and interests to be the basis for discrimination rather than mere species differences. They likely wouldn't draw an ethical distinction between a human fetus and a nonhuman animal with a similar level of awareness and related capacities, for example, and I think that's an ethically sound stance.

If you don't know of those claims, however, you don't know anything about PETA or Ingrid Newkirk. PETA's entire philosophy is based on "a fish is a dog is a pig is a boy"....

Truthfully, I don't know that much about PETA, but since I'm aware of rightists' propensity to misrepresent facts, I went to peruse their website after AllieBabble started her usual yammering. As far as I can discern, they support the same equality of consideration criteria that Singer does, and don't support equal treatment of humans and other animals. Newkirk's comment is probably based on that.

Peter Singer is a liar and a loon. If you read his book "Animal Liberation", you will see that he states that it doesn't matter what lies you tell in furtherance of the cause. Someone who advocates that type of lying has no ethics.

Since he's a consequentialist and a utilitarian, that could potentially be an ethically consistent position if he expects lies to produce greater good than the truth would. On the subject of Nazis, lying about the location of people the SS was hunting, for example, would produce better consequences than telling the truth.

I actually once heard Cleveland Amory (that misogynist creep) say that if he had a child, he would let it die before he alowed a baboon heart to be transplanted into it to save the child's life.....

I don't see what relevance that has to the more pertinent topic of PETA's ideology, or if that could be ethically justified on the basis of that ideology.

 

[RadiomanATL]

OK Vern, Let's dissect the Nazi Platform:

7. We demand that the State make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own Citizens. If it is not possible to maintain the entire population of the State, then foreign nationals (non-Citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.



Aren't the zombified persecuting Our Mexican Alien Friends; Aren't the Know Nothings demanding that aliens be excluded from Obama's Hellcare. Didn't President Hoover expatriate Hispanics of Mexican Descent even if they were US Citizens?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?



.

Had to go all the way back to Hoover?

Lets just nip this in the bud here.

Just because certain parts of Hitler's, the Nazi,'s Stalin's, the Communist's (fill in the blank with your favorite hated regime in history) platform happens to be pretty analogous to certain parts of a modern American political party's platform does not mean that the modern American political party is comparable to all that those regimes stood for. If the Nazi's declared that water is indeed wet, does that then make it evil that H2O tends to actually be a bit moist? If the Nazi's wanted a strong military, does wanting a strong military make one a Nazi? If the communists did not want religion in the government, does that make wanting a non-religious government communistic?

It's intellectually dishonest. And those that purvey this view are either a) knowingly intellectually dishonest themselves b) trolls or c) just plain stupid.

Multiple choice. Take yer pick.

I see, so the fact that the US has a huge welfare/warfare state apparatus is a mere coinkidink ?


.

Post went over your level of comprehension, and you went with option C, huh?

 

[Contumacious]

Had to go all the way back to Hoover?

Lets just nip this in the bud here.

Just because certain parts of Hitler's, the Nazi,'s Stalin's, the Communist's (fill in the blank with your favorite hated regime in history) platform happens to be pretty analogous to certain parts of a modern American political party's platform does not mean that the modern American political party is comparable to all that those regimes stood for. If the Nazi's declared that water is indeed wet, does that then make it evil that H2O tends to actually be a bit moist? If the Nazi's wanted a strong military, does wanting a strong military make one a Nazi? If the communists did not want religion in the government, does that make wanting a non-religious government communistic?

It's intellectually dishonest. And those that purvey this view are either a) knowingly intellectually dishonest themselves b) trolls or c) just plain stupid.

Multiple choice. Take yer pick.

I see, so the fact that the US has a huge welfare/warfare state apparatus is a mere coinkidink ?


.

Post went over your level of comprehension, and you went with option C, huh?

Actually , it was you who chose option C.

Had you bothered to do some research before posting you would have found out that the SCOTUS declared FDR's welfare state programs UNCONSTITUTIONAL, see for example:
United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936).

Madman FDR subsequently tried to abolish the SCOTUS. In order to avoid a constitutional crisis ' the Supreme Court eventually caved in and approved the massive fascistic welfare state regulations.


Hitler and Franklin Roosevelt

In fact, there is a remarkable similarity between the economic policies that Hitler implemented and those that Franklin Roosevelt enacted. Keep in mind, first of all, that the German National Socialists were strong believers in Social Security, which Roosevelt introduced to the United States as part of his New Deal. Keep in mind also that the Nazis were strong believers in such other socialist schemes as public (i.e., government) schooling and national health care. In fact, my hunch is that very few Americans realize that Social Security, public schooling, Medicare, and Medicaid have their ideological roots in German socialism.


.

 

[Agnapostate]

I've already explained the fallacious nature of describing capitalist state programs as "socialist" in nature and you've not replied. Try again.

 

[Polk]

Madman FDR subsequently tried to abolish the SCOTUS.

He did no such thing.

 

[Contumacious]

Madman FDR subsequently tried to abolish the SCOTUS.

He did no such thing.

March 9, 1937

We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution and not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men.

In forty-five out of the forty-eight States of the Union, Judges are chosen not for life but for a period of years. In many States Judges must retire at the age of seventy. Congress has provided financial security by offering life pensions at full pay for Federal Judges on all Courts who are willing to retire at seventy. In the case of Supreme Court Justices, that pension is $20,000 a year. But all Federal Judges, once appointed, can, if they choose, hold office for life, no matter how old they may get to be.

What is my proposal? It is simply this: whenever a Judge or Justice of any Federal Court has reached the age of seventy and does not avail himself of the opportunity to retire on a pension, a new member shall be appointed by the President then in office, with the approval, as required by the Constitution, of the Senate of the United States.

That plan has two chief purposes. By bringing into the judicial system a steady and continuing stream of new and younger blood, I hope, first, to make the administration of all Federal justice speedier and, therefore, less costly; secondly, to bring to the decision of social and economic problems younger men who have had personal experience and contact with modern facts and circumstances under which average men have to live and work. This plan will save our national Constitution from hardening of the judicial arteries. The number of Judges to be appointed would depend wholly on the decision of present Judges now over seventy, or those who would subsequently reach the age of seventy.

Like all lawyers, like all Americans, I regret the necessity of this controversy. But the welfare of the United States, and indeed of the Constitution itself, is what we all must think about first. Our difficulty with the Court today rises not from the Court as an institution but from human beings within it. But we cannot yield our constitutional destiny to the personal judgement of a few men who, being fearful of the future, would deny us the necessary means of dealing with the present.

Franklin "The Scumbag" Roosevelt

 

[jillian]

There's a difference between advocating equality of consideration and equality of treatment. PETA's non-speciesist ideology doesn't translate into a failure to consider the typically different capacities and interests of humans and nonhuman animals; it simply considers those different capacities and interests to be the basis for discrimination rather than mere species differences. They likely wouldn't draw an ethical distinction between a human fetus and a nonhuman animal with a similar level of awareness and related capacities, for example, and I think that's an ethically sound stance.

In effect, PETA DOES advocate equality of treatment if they advocate equality of consideration. I'm not sure how you separate the two

I'm afraid I also don't believe one can "discriminate against" animals.

Your paradigm, and PETA's, is faulty... and not worth addressing. If you don't see a difference between humans and animals, regardless of ability, then there's not a lot to discuss.

BTW, that's not to say that there aren't animals who have intellectua capacities which are extraordinary. But nature exists as a hierarchy. There is a food chain. And if a human being is sick, then I have no problem with using animals to find a cure. (Though I don't see any reason to use them for cosmetics research)

Truthfully, I don't know that much about PETA, but since I'm aware of rightists' propensity to misrepresent facts, I went to peruse their website after AllieBabble started her usual yammering. As far as I can discern, they support the same equality of consideration criteria that Singer does, and don't support equal treatment of humans and other animals. Newkirk's comment is probably based on that.

Newkirk's response is based on what she believes.... which is that all life forms are equal.

Since he's a consequentialist and a utilitarian, that could potentially be an ethically consistent position if he expects lies to produce greater good than the truth would. On the subject of Nazis, lying about the location of people the SS was hunting, for example, would produce better consequences than telling the truth.

Except that isn't what he's talking about. Terrible analogy, actually.

What Singer meant and means is "by all means necessary"... he advocates lying about the conditions in which the animals live. he advocates lying about PETA's true agenda. I find those types of lies unacceptable. Same as I find the anti-choicers' lies about D&E unacceptable.

I don't see what relevance that has to the more pertinent topic of PETA's ideology, or if that could be ethically justified on the basis of that ideology.

oh,... perhaps I didn't mention...he was speaking at an "animal rights" rally... one of PETA's..... he was one of their "celebrity spokespersons".

That's its relevance to to the topic of PETA's ideology.

 

[rightwinger]

Madman FDR subsequently tried to abolish the SCOTUS.

He did no such thing.

March 9, 1937

We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution and not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men.

In forty-five out of the forty-eight States of the Union, Judges are chosen not for life but for a period of years. In many States Judges must retire at the age of seventy. Congress has provided financial security by offering life pensions at full pay for Federal Judges on all Courts who are willing to retire at seventy. In the case of Supreme Court Justices, that pension is $20,000 a year. But all Federal Judges, once appointed, can, if they choose, hold office for life, no matter how old they may get to be.

What is my proposal? It is simply this: whenever a Judge or Justice of any Federal Court has reached the age of seventy and does not avail himself of the opportunity to retire on a pension, a new member shall be appointed by the President then in office, with the approval, as required by the Constitution, of the Senate of the United States.

That plan has two chief purposes. By bringing into the judicial system a steady and continuing stream of new and younger blood, I hope, first, to make the administration of all Federal justice speedier and, therefore, less costly; secondly, to bring to the decision of social and economic problems younger men who have had personal experience and contact with modern facts and circumstances under which average men have to live and work. This plan will save our national Constitution from hardening of the judicial arteries. The number of Judges to be appointed would depend wholly on the decision of present Judges now over seventy, or those who would subsequently reach the age of seventy.

Like all lawyers, like all Americans, I regret the necessity of this controversy. But the welfare of the United States, and indeed of the Constitution itself, is what we all must think about first. Our difficulty with the Court today rises not from the Court as an institution but from human beings within it. But we cannot yield our constitutional destiny to the personal judgement of a few men who, being fearful of the future, would deny us the necessary means of dealing with the present.

Franklin "The Scumbag" Roosevelt

How, in your mind, does advocating a retirement age equal "abolishing the Supreme Court"???

 

[Zoomie1980]

In fact, he went after them before he started exterminating Jews. So, who hates communism, socialism, and homosexuals more, democrats, or republicans. Here is an excerpt from a book, you know, a good, historical account, rather than a right-wing idiot paid to mislead you, so you can get all irritated about something that isn't even true, and look like a dummy.

Begin excerpt:

Perhaps to emphasize this anti-capitalist focus, and to align itself with similar groups in Austria and Czechoslovakia, the party changed its name in February 1920 to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party; hostile commentators soon abbreviated this to the word ‘Nazi”, just as the enemies of the Social Democrats had abbreviated the name of that party earlier on to ‘Sozi’. Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of or an outgrowth from, Socialism. True, as some have pointed out, its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital. Famously, too, anti-Semitism was once declared to be ‘the socialism of fools’. But from the very beginning Hitler declared himself implacably opposed to Social Democracy and, initially to a much smaller extent, Communism: after all, the ‘November traitors’ who had signed the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles were not Communists at all, but the Social Democrats and their allies.
The ‘National Socialists’ wanted to unite the two political camps of the left and right into which, they argued, the Jews had manipulated the German nation. The basis for this was to be the idea of race. This was light years removed from the class-based ideology of socialism. Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism, borrowing much of its rhetoric in the process, from its self-image as a movement rather than a party, to its much-vaunted contempt for bourgeois convention and conservative timidity. The idea of ‘party’, suggested allegiance to parliamentary democracy, working steadily within a settled democratic polity. In speeches and propagandas however, Hitler and his followers preferred on the whole to talk of ‘National Socialist movement’, just as the Social Democrats had talked of “workers’ movement” or, come to that, the feminists of the ‘women’s movement’ and the apostles of prewar teenage rebellion of ‘youth movement’. The term not only suggested dynamism and unceasing forward motion, it also more than hinted at an ultimate goal, an absolute object to work towards that was grander and more final than the endless compromises of conventional politics. By presenting itself as a ‘movement’, National Socialism, like the labor movement, advertised is opposition to conventional politics and is intention to subvert and ultimately overthrow the system within which it was initially forced to work.

By replacing class with race, and the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the leader, Nazism reversed the usual terms of socialist ideology. The synthesis of right and left was neatly symbolized in the Party’s official flag, personally chosen by Hitler in the mid-1920’s: the field was bright red, the color of socialism, with the swastika, the emblem of racist nationalism, outlined in black in the middle of a white circle at the centre of the flag, so that the whole ensemble made a combination of black, white, and red, the colors of the official flag of the Bismarckian rejection of the Weimar Republic and all it stood for; but by changing the design and adding the swastika, a symbol already used by a variety of far-right racist movements and Free Corps units in the postwar period, the Nazis also announced that what they wanted to replace it with was a new, Pan-German racial state, not the old Wilhelmine status quo.

The Coming of the Third Reich, by Richard J. Evans pp. 173-74

I might just add, there was a entirely different party, called the Socialist Party, in Germany. Nazis were "National Socialists." They were nationalist, country first above all things, you must believe my ideas, or watch what you say, we'll torture you, kind of people. They were Fascists, not Socialists, and Fascism is that endpoint of the spectrum when Republicans keep on moving to the right, as they did during the Bush years.

I would say I'm surprised that people can be so uninformed, but with FOX, Limbaugh, and the host of other misinformation sites out there, I understand it perfectly. They are willing to fine a quick flash of Janet Jackson's nipple, but they allow corporate media to flood the airwaves with lies, and misinformation, without penalty. No wonder?

The reporting, editorial, and managerial staff of Fox News is 52% registered DEMOCRAT.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I see, so the fact that the US has a huge welfare/warfare state apparatus is a mere coinkidink ?


.

Post went over your level of comprehension, and you went with option C, huh?

Actually , it was you who chose option C.

Had you bothered to do some research before posting you would have found out that the SCOTUS declared FDR's welfare state programs UNCONSTITUTIONAL, see for example:
United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936).

Madman FDR subsequently tried to abolish the SCOTUS. In order to avoid a constitutional crisis ' the Supreme Court eventually caved in and approved the massive fascistic welfare state regulations.


Hitler and Franklin Roosevelt

In fact, there is a remarkable similarity between the economic policies that Hitler implemented and those that Franklin Roosevelt enacted. Keep in mind, first of all, that the German National Socialists were strong believers in Social Security, which Roosevelt introduced to the United States as part of his New Deal. Keep in mind also that the Nazis were strong believers in such other socialist schemes as public (i.e., government) schooling and national health care. In fact, my hunch is that very few Americans realize that Social Security, public schooling, Medicare, and Medicaid have their ideological roots in German socialism.


.

Still stuck on C, huh? Your post has absolutely zero to do with what I posted. So you instead you decide to divert, project and obfuscate to cover your inadequacies.

Unsurprisingly I must add.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Madman FDR subsequently tried to abolish the SCOTUS.

He did no such thing.

March 9, 1937

We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution and not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men.

In forty-five out of the forty-eight States of the Union, Judges are chosen not for life but for a period of years. In many States Judges must retire at the age of seventy. Congress has provided financial security by offering life pensions at full pay for Federal Judges on all Courts who are willing to retire at seventy. In the case of Supreme Court Justices, that pension is $20,000 a year. But all Federal Judges, once appointed, can, if they choose, hold office for life, no matter how old they may get to be.

What is my proposal? It is simply this: whenever a Judge or Justice of any Federal Court has reached the age of seventy and does not avail himself of the opportunity to retire on a pension, a new member shall be appointed by the President then in office, with the approval, as required by the Constitution, of the Senate of the United States.

That plan has two chief purposes. By bringing into the judicial system a steady and continuing stream of new and younger blood, I hope, first, to make the administration of all Federal justice speedier and, therefore, less costly; secondly, to bring to the decision of social and economic problems younger men who have had personal experience and contact with modern facts and circumstances under which average men have to live and work. This plan will save our national Constitution from hardening of the judicial arteries. The number of Judges to be appointed would depend wholly on the decision of present Judges now over seventy, or those who would subsequently reach the age of seventy.

Like all lawyers, like all Americans, I regret the necessity of this controversy. But the welfare of the United States, and indeed of the Constitution itself, is what we all must think about first. Our difficulty with the Court today rises not from the Court as an institution but from human beings within it. But we cannot yield our constitutional destiny to the personal judgement of a few men who, being fearful of the future, would deny us the necessary means of dealing with the present.

Franklin "The Scumbag" Roosevelt

So you admit Polk was right?

I mean, everything you just posted didn't support your position and all...

 

[RadiomanATL]

He did no such thing.

March 9, 1937

We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution and not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men.

In forty-five out of the forty-eight States of the Union, Judges are chosen not for life but for a period of years. In many States Judges must retire at the age of seventy. Congress has provided financial security by offering life pensions at full pay for Federal Judges on all Courts who are willing to retire at seventy. In the case of Supreme Court Justices, that pension is $20,000 a year. But all Federal Judges, once appointed, can, if they choose, hold office for life, no matter how old they may get to be.

What is my proposal? It is simply this: whenever a Judge or Justice of any Federal Court has reached the age of seventy and does not avail himself of the opportunity to retire on a pension, a new member shall be appointed by the President then in office, with the approval, as required by the Constitution, of the Senate of the United States.

That plan has two chief purposes. By bringing into the judicial system a steady and continuing stream of new and younger blood, I hope, first, to make the administration of all Federal justice speedier and, therefore, less costly; secondly, to bring to the decision of social and economic problems younger men who have had personal experience and contact with modern facts and circumstances under which average men have to live and work. This plan will save our national Constitution from hardening of the judicial arteries. The number of Judges to be appointed would depend wholly on the decision of present Judges now over seventy, or those who would subsequently reach the age of seventy.

Like all lawyers, like all Americans, I regret the necessity of this controversy. But the welfare of the United States, and indeed of the Constitution itself, is what we all must think about first. Our difficulty with the Court today rises not from the Court as an institution but from human beings within it. But we cannot yield our constitutional destiny to the personal judgement of a few men who, being fearful of the future, would deny us the necessary means of dealing with the present.

Franklin "The Scumbag" Roosevelt

How, in your mind, does advocating a retirement age equal "abolishing the Supreme Court"???

It doesn't.

But try telling that to a lunatic who has blinders on.

 

[Contumacious]

He did no such thing.

March 9, 1937

We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution and not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men.

In forty-five out of the forty-eight States of the Union, Judges are chosen not for life but for a period of years. In many States Judges must retire at the age of seventy. Congress has provided financial security by offering life pensions at full pay for Federal Judges on all Courts who are willing to retire at seventy. In the case of Supreme Court Justices, that pension is $20,000 a year. But all Federal Judges, once appointed, can, if they choose, hold office for life, no matter how old they may get to be.

What is my proposal? It is simply this: whenever a Judge or Justice of any Federal Court has reached the age of seventy and does not avail himself of the opportunity to retire on a pension, a new member shall be appointed by the President then in office, with the approval, as required by the Constitution, of the Senate of the United States.

That plan has two chief purposes. By bringing into the judicial system a steady and continuing stream of new and younger blood, I hope, first, to make the administration of all Federal justice speedier and, therefore, less costly; secondly, to bring to the decision of social and economic problems younger men who have had personal experience and contact with modern facts and circumstances under which average men have to live and work. This plan will save our national Constitution from hardening of the judicial arteries. The number of Judges to be appointed would depend wholly on the decision of present Judges now over seventy, or those who would subsequently reach the age of seventy.

Like all lawyers, like all Americans, I regret the necessity of this controversy. But the welfare of the United States, and indeed of the Constitution itself, is what we all must think about first. Our difficulty with the Court today rises not from the Court as an institution but from human beings within it. But we cannot yield our constitutional destiny to the personal judgement of a few men who, being fearful of the future, would deny us the necessary means of dealing with the present.

Franklin "The Scumbag" Roosevelt

How, in your mind, does advocating a retirement age equal "abolishing the Supreme Court"???

His decision to Pack The Court - and effectively abolishing the Court as an institution - came after the the Court was declaring his FASCISTIC programs UN-FUCKING-CONSTITUTIONAL.


So are you fucking telling me that if the Supreme Court declares Obama's Hellcare unconstitutional that he has a right to nominate 5 avowed fascists to the court. That he has a right to nominate a Judge every year until he gets a super majority. Bull fucking shit. No he does not.

He does not have a right to a SCOTUS which complements his political views, No Sir .


.

 

[RadiomanATL]

His decision to Pack The Court - and effectively abolishing the Court as an institution -

.

One does not equal the other.

But HEY!!, thanks for playing. Consolation prize off to the right now....

 

[rightwinger]

March 9, 1937

We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution and not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men.

In forty-five out of the forty-eight States of the Union, Judges are chosen not for life but for a period of years. In many States Judges must retire at the age of seventy. Congress has provided financial security by offering life pensions at full pay for Federal Judges on all Courts who are willing to retire at seventy. In the case of Supreme Court Justices, that pension is $20,000 a year. But all Federal Judges, once appointed, can, if they choose, hold office for life, no matter how old they may get to be.

What is my proposal? It is simply this: whenever a Judge or Justice of any Federal Court has reached the age of seventy and does not avail himself of the opportunity to retire on a pension, a new member shall be appointed by the President then in office, with the approval, as required by the Constitution, of the Senate of the United States.

That plan has two chief purposes. By bringing into the judicial system a steady and continuing stream of new and younger blood, I hope, first, to make the administration of all Federal justice speedier and, therefore, less costly; secondly, to bring to the decision of social and economic problems younger men who have had personal experience and contact with modern facts and circumstances under which average men have to live and work. This plan will save our national Constitution from hardening of the judicial arteries. The number of Judges to be appointed would depend wholly on the decision of present Judges now over seventy, or those who would subsequently reach the age of seventy.

Like all lawyers, like all Americans, I regret the necessity of this controversy. But the welfare of the United States, and indeed of the Constitution itself, is what we all must think about first. Our difficulty with the Court today rises not from the Court as an institution but from human beings within it. But we cannot yield our constitutional destiny to the personal judgement of a few men who, being fearful of the future, would deny us the necessary means of dealing with the present.

Franklin "The Scumbag" Roosevelt

How, in your mind, does advocating a retirement age equal "abolishing the Supreme Court"???

His decision to Pack The Court - and effectively abolishing the Court as an institution - came after the the Court was declaring his FASCISTIC programs UN-FUCKING-CONSTITUTIONAL.


So are you fucking telling me that if the Supreme Court declares Obama's Hellcare unconstitutional that he has a right to nominate 5 avowed fascists to the court. That he has a right to nominate a Judge every year until he gets a super majority. Bull fucking shit. No he does not.

He does not have a right to a SCOTUS which complements his political views, No Sir .


.

wow!
Quite a leap in logic

But I guess thats what you do

 

[jillian]

His decision to Pack The Court - and effectively abolishing the Court as an institution -

.

One does not equal the other.

But HEY!!, thanks for playing. Consolation prize off to the right now....

He also never did pack the Court. So i'm not certain how a threat could "abolish" the court anyway.

 

[RadiomanATL]

His decision to Pack The Court - and effectively abolishing the Court as an institution -

.

One does not equal the other.

But HEY!!, thanks for playing. Consolation prize off to the right now....

He also never did pack the Court. So i'm not certain how a threat could "abolish" the court anyway.

I'm giving the benefit of the doubt. That he made the "decision" to pack the court even if he was never to able to actually do so.

 

[jillian]

I'm giving the benefit of the doubt. That he made the "decision" to pack the court even if he was never to able to actually do so.

I guess I'm just finding it really difficult to follow C's argument...

 

[Contumacious]

His decision to Pack The Court - and effectively abolishing the Court as an institution -

.

One does not equal the other.

But HEY!!, thanks for playing. Consolation prize off to the right now....

Only because you are his intellectual heir - who the fuck is going to take the Court seriously once it is shown that the court is nothing more than an extension of the President's cabinet.


BTW, you are still a dumb ass extraordinaire.


.