Yeah, it was silly. But I laughed. It’s not going to persuade me of anything, but then, what’s to persuade? That Bush doesn’t support choice? He doesn’t. Civil liberties? Hard to argue he’s a big fan.
Given that it’s probably not supposed to be taken seriously, it doesn’t strike me as worse than the Willie Horton ads or the “RATS” thing. At least the Democrats are showing a pulse and maybe a sense of humor.
This would be funny on SNL, but it’s pretty pathetic if it’s an attempt at political discourse.
My favorite was " Enemy of Working Families". OOOOOOOH! I’m shaking in my boots.
I find it odd that Dems think their point of view is “neutral” wrt Supreme Court Justices but that the GOP’s views are on the fringe. Well guess what? A Republican president with a majority in both houses of Congress is going to appoint judges that reflect that party’s view of how the constitution should be interpreted. Just as Dems would do exactly the same if the tables were turned. Both sides have valid, debateable views and neither one is inherently “evil”.
You know how you get to put your favorite judge in the vacancy? It’s pretty simple. You get someone from your party elected to the presidency.
Yeah, but what if you are opposition actually are inhuman villains? It’s appropriate then.
Unfortunately, in this case, they are talking about real people who we know are human. That kind of breaks your theory.
Another possibility is getting someone from your party appointed president by the Supreme Court. -Makes the whole process a little incestuous, but hey, these are pubbies we’re talkin about 
Do the liberals on the board see this as something new or different? Honest question - does this seem to be a new approach for the Dems?
Because, at least to this rabid right-wing partisan, it just seems like business as usual. “Bush is eee-vil, and we are going to Bork all of his appointees.” Well, no duh.
Sounds like preaching to the choir. I wonder how the centrists on the SDMB would regard it.
Regards,
Shodan
Blech. That was just stupid. They were clearly preaching to the choir with that one.
Incredibly stupid and offensive but not as bad as the “Idiot son of an Asshole” animation. At least this one attempted to interject something akin to political issues.
What would be the appropriate masturbatory term for this stuff anyway?
MeanJoe
The cartoon was stupid and offensive.
They won’t convince anyone with it that doesn’t already hate Bush. It does give ammo to the conservatives however, as it illustrates the use of liberal “scare tactics” that they are often, and rightly accused of.
A knowing smirk and pregnant pause would have been a better comedic choice for Bush’s reply to the “What about a heart?” line.
I’m convinced!!
“Hey! The Democrats are using the same cheap shots we’ve been using! That’s not fair!” :rolleyes: 
Accusing the democrats of using “scare tactics” is a valid complaint, and not a cheap shot at all. That movie was a perfect example.
No, actually. The definition of inhuman:
**in·hu·man
adj.
- a Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel. See Synonyms at cruel.
b. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold. - Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment.
- Not of ordinary human form; monstrous.**
Bush and Company fit definition number one. I see them as lacking in kindness, pity, or compassion. They are “deficient in emotional warmth”.
Actually, it seems that most of Bush’s appointments are to people who reflect his view of how the Bible should interpreted.
He is a textualist on statutes, that’s for certain. His take on the Constitution is, as you point out, quite clearly not textualist. He goes past the plain language and delves into things like the Federalist Papers to explain it. I remember him explaining this in answer to a question from a student when he visited our law school, but I honestly can’t recall exactly what his answer was. In essence, he thinks that the rights established by the Constitution are defined by how people conceived of those rights at the time they were embodied.
Personally, I think it’s a weak argument in regard to some rights, because things like “cruel and unusual punishment” are written in such a subjective way that society’s changing view of what is cruel and unusual ought be at least a factor in deciding such a case. However, I think citing the Federalist Papers in regard to the relationship between the different branches of government, and the limited extent of government power against the people, may be valid. All the statutes on the books in this country exist solely within the framework of a government established by that Constitution, they have no meaning or force at all outside of it.
In the end, he may be a textualist regarding statutes for merely pragmatic reasons, since legislative history is very unreliable. Since every legislator may have their own reasons for voting for a bill, and they may all have different interpretations of what it’s effect will be, and differing rationales for why the statute has been constructed, the words of the bill sponsor on the legislative floor don’t really indicate anything about the legislature’s purpose as a body. Committee notes are notoriously unhelpful as they often lack much content, and would only represent the intentions of a few isolated legislators at an early stage of the bill. The omission or addition of words/phrases in the bill’s history is often used as legislative history, but this indicates very little since the process of compromise has often involved seemingly irrelevant minor alterations to bills.
I’m not really sure what, if anything, you could actually discern from legislative history about a bill that would actually indicate legislative purpose or intent. (IIRC, Scalia does look at the titles of bills however, so this sort of indication of general purpose may be examined under his approach.) OTOH, the Federalist Papers reveal a philosophy of limited government that shaped the framework of the Constitution, the body upon which all statutes rest, from which they derive all their force and meaning. This may be Scalia’s reasoning.
However you look at it, his decisions quite simply do not fit the “conservative” pigeonhole people are putting him into. Supreme Court Justices quite simply are not party politicians, they adhere to legal philosophies, not party platforms.
You missed rjung’s point, Debaser. I believe he was trying to say that the other side of the aisle is equally fond of scare tactics, when it suits theur purposes.
That cleared up, I’d say that the Flash movie was predictable and tiresome. More of the same crap from the Democrats here… while I may agree with the point of the thing, they could have said pretty much the same thing in about 1/4 the time it took to watch this, and they could have tightened up its many weak points. This came from the SNL school of comedy – too long and too much.
I do like spoke’s idea of a good response to the “What about a heart?” line… just a knowing smirk, then fade out. Much better.
Got any examples? Disagreeing with your political views does not constitute being cruel. Bush seems as kind as the next guy to me. Not overly kind, not overly insensitive.
If only the warm, emotional Gore were in office, right?
I’m sort of ambivalent about the cartoon personally. Part of me is glad that the Dems are finally showing a little bit of spine and part of me thinks they could have done so in a better way.
As for the argument about “preaching to the choir”, quite honestly I think it was meant to be that way…i.e., it’s intended audience was those who already agreed with them but who they wanted to mobilize. On the other hand, in these days of the internet, they might have wanted to give more thought about who the intended audience is vs. who their actual audience might be
Well, for one thing there was that woman death row inmate. He mocked her pleas for clemency with an exaggerated “oh, please don’t kill me!”