1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Right, that is a good discussion. When challenged, claim 'you're wrong' without any proof for the claim, or complain about being attacked.

Yea..I hate the term snowflake but it may apply here. The OP makes a false claim, gets challenged on it, can not back up the claim, then cries personal attack. 

 

All Human being bring their own values and perspectives to every situation. To claim that a conservative judge only sees the law and that their background and personal experiences does not influence their evaluation of facts and the subsequent application of the law is just plain stupid and goes against what psychologists know about human nature, 

To claim conservative judges are somehow immune to human nature is just plain stupid reasoning. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, jm91 said:

Yea..I hate the term snowflake but it may apply here. The OP makes a false claim, gets challenged on it, can not back up the claim, then cries personal attack. 

 

All Human being bring their own values and perspectives to every situation. To claim that a conservative judge only sees the law and that their background and personal experiences does not influence their evaluation of facts and the subsequent application of the law is just plain stupid and goes against what psychologists know about human nature, 

To claim conservative judges are somehow immune to human nature is just plain stupid reasoning. 

 

 

And actually, the claims that conservative judges are strict constructionists is also nonsense.

On 11/22/2018 at 9:10 PM, bristolboy said:

And actually, the claims that conservative judges are strict constructionists is also nonsense.

I agree the claim that conservative judges in the USA are strict constructionists is total nonsense. 

I read an interview with one of Justice Scalia's court clerks. Scalia styled himself as a strict constructionist - and the right loved him. He said he went back to the original source documents to understand the original meaning of the text of the constitution. The problem - according to Scalia's law clerk was that Scalia only read or put weight on documents that supported his preconceived ideas - The strict constructionist justice cherry picked history to come up with examples and text that supported his personal views and values and he ignored counter examples. Hmmm..that is the very definition of a conservative activist judge. 

I doubt the OP will respond as the OP probably  can not believe anything but conservative propaganda. 

4 hours ago, jm91 said:

I doubt the OP will respond as the OP probably  can not believe anything but conservative propaganda. 

Got a cite for that article?

 

And its interesting that rather than address the issue, you would prefer to raise the issue of my intellectual bona fides. You will fit in well in the Politics sections. Perhaps you too will spend your time in the wonderful Land of Thailand, awaiting my every post to respond with the usual ad hominems. 

 

 Interesting reading the thread comments and different points of views. 

Edited November 25, 20187 yr by BobTH

An inflammatory post has been removed. 

13 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Got a cite for that article?

 

And its interesting that rather than address the issue, you would prefer to raise the issue of my intellectual bona fides. You will fit in well in the Politics sections. Perhaps you too will spend your time in the wonderful Land of Thailand, awaiting my every post to respond with the usual ad hominems. 

 

Challenging your misstatements is a personal attack? Sadly you may FEEL that way but that might be the problem is too much FEELING and not enough thinking. 

 

The issue is the judge in this case ruled the proper environmental impact studies had not been done. 

Your logic is if you disagree with a ruling it is activism. If you agree it is a principled ruling. That is hardly a firm foundation in principles in which to judge a ruling. 

 

 

17 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Got a cite for that article?

 

I will respond to you the same way you responded to me - look it up and when you educate yourself get back to me and we can have a discussion.

I suggest search Scalia constructionist cherry picking - and you can educate yourself on the errors in your thinking that conservative judges do not engage in activism.

 

It is human nature that we all bring out personal experiences to our decision making.  

It may be in Canada's best interests to pull out of this pipeline project. Let the Koch Bros deal with Venezuela to provide product for their heavy oil Gulf Coast refineries. The safest method to move tar sands oil is in solid form. Canapuxs can be loaded in railroad open top hoppers formerly used for moving coal. These can be shipped to west coast ports and transported to China. Canadians have had it with Trump and his tariffs. From here on out China trade is the way to go. They have already greatly increased buying our soy beans and pork. 

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/commodities/video/cn-s-canapux-pellets-aim-to-take-risks-out-of-crude-by-rail-transport~1546569