Pat Robertson is a dick

Undertoad · 05-02-2005, 04:50 PM

Daily News link

Federal judges are a more serious threat to America than Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorists, the Rev. Pat Robertson claimed yesterday.

"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," Robertson said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

"I think we have controlled Al Qaeda," the 700 Club host said, but warned of "erosion at home" and said judges were creating a "tyranny of oligarchy."

Confronted by Stephanopoulos on his claims that an out-of-control liberal judiciary is the worst threat America has faced in 400 years - worse than Nazi Germany, Japan and the Civil War - Robertson didn't back down.

"Yes, I really believe that," he said. "I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together."

vsp · 05-02-2005, 05:17 PM

The fact that people have been known to send this man _money_ depresses me like little else.

Happy Monkey · 05-02-2005, 05:23 PM

More Pat.

Quote:

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Robertson — who founded the Christian Coalition — also said he would be wary of appointing Muslims to top positions in the U.S. government, including judgeships.
...
"They have said in the Koran there's a war against all the infidels," he said. "Do you want somebody like that sitting as a judge? I wouldn't."

Video

Beestie · 05-02-2005, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vsp

The fact that people have been known to send this man _money_ depresses me like little else.

How else are they gonna get to heaven? Duh!

smoothmoniker · 05-02-2005, 07:23 PM

Let me be the first to say that most of us who are evangelicals view people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell the same way that most environmentalists view Peta and ELF. He's an embarassment, and does not speak for us.

The fact that we hold some beliefs in common doesn't make us any more sympathetic to his views, his politics, or his public rants.

xoxoxoBruce · 05-02-2005, 08:24 PM

He must be speaking for somebody because he's making a good living doing it. I just don't know any of them...or if I do they won't admit it.

warch · 05-03-2005, 04:37 PM

He speaks for my grandma. She also loves poor misunderstood Rush.

mrnoodle · 05-03-2005, 04:47 PM

don't dismiss the message out of hand, just because the messenger is unsavory. Ward Churchill is an ass, but buried under his anti-US diatribe is the very real fact that we have pissed alot of people off. Likewise, once you get past the Pat Robertson wording, there's an argument to be made that an activist judiciary will eventually destroy (or make irrelevant) the theism inherent in the founding documents. Some people might think that's a good thing, and be able to make a convincing argument for it -- just don't pretend it isn't happening.

Undertoad · 05-03-2005, 05:09 PM

From the swing voter POV,

There's no such thing as an "activist judiciary" - it's just judges making decisions that some people don't like. This has always happened, and is simply how the system plays itself out.

Some elements of social change show up in different places at different times, that's all. Look at civil rights in the last century where sometimes it was the judiciary to the rescue. They were not "activists" because they came out on the right side of history, or at least the winning side.

If you don't like how an issue has come out, you can turn it into a legislative one... if you have the will of the people that should not be a problem, and the issue's urgency in the public eye will mirror the legislative urgency. If the majority of the people think an issue is really a capital-P Problem, the legislature will RUSH to address it. Ham-handedly, even.

Happy Monkey · 05-03-2005, 05:13 PM

Let's grant that theism (or perhaps deism) is inherent in the founding documents. Saying that judges can make that irrelevant implies that it has some relevance to begin with. What is the relevance, and what is the practical result of that relevance? Should political office be limited to deists? Should laws be written to endorse deism?

I posit that there is no relevance, and mention of creators is incidental rather than inherent in the documents, and that this choice was deliberate on the authors' part.

mrnoodle · 05-03-2005, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

There's no such thing as an "activist judiciary"

Any judge who rules on a case in a manner that supersedes the letter of the law he/she is supposed to use as a tenet is an activist judge. Changes to law are to be made by the legislative branch, no matter how inconvenient or unfair that might seem at the time. The 9th circuit court of appeals is an activist court.

Quote:

If you don't like how an issue has come out, you can turn it into a legislative one... if you have the will of the people that should not be a problem, and the issue's urgency in the public eye will mirror the legislative urgency. If the majority of the people think an issue is really a capital-P Problem, the legislature will RUSH to address it. Ham-handedly, even.

If only the non-existent activist judiciary had the same view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Let's grant that theism (or perhaps deism) is inherent in the founding documents. Saying that judges can make that irrelevant implies that it has some relevance to begin with. What is the relevance, and what is the practical result of that relevance? Should political office be limited to deists? Should laws be written to endorse deism?

I posit that there is no relevance, and mention of creators is incidental rather than inherent in the documents, and that this choice was deliberate on the authors' part.

Should political office be limited to deists? I'm new to the word, but I think that's a non sequiter.

You'd have a hard time proving your point, I think. I think that it's obvious that the FFs were against state-run religion, but it's equally clear that the concept of God/Providence was the linchpin of everything they were trying to do. Just because God isn't de rigeur at the moment doesn't mean you can retroactively apply today's cultural whims to what's already happened.

And at any rate, Pat Robertson holding a view that opposes yours doesn't make him a dick. He's a dick, but that's not why.

Happy Monkey · 05-03-2005, 05:54 PM

What is the practical result of the relevance then, if it's not related to religious tests in government?

Happy Monkey · 05-03-2005, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

You'd have a hard time proving your point, I think. I think that it's obvious that the FFs were against state-run religion, but it's equally clear that the concept of God/Providence was the linchpin of everything they were trying to do.

Not really.

Quote:

Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God. The omission was too obvious to have been anything but deliberate, in spite of Alexander Hamilton's flippant responses when asked about it: According to one account, he said that the new nation was not in need of "foreign aid"; according to another, he simply said "we forgot." But as Hamilton's biographer Ron Chernow points out, Hamilton never forgot anything important.

Not mentioning God in the Constitution was deliberate and meaningful.

Happy Monkey · 05-03-2005, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Should political office be limited to deists? I'm new to the word, but I think that's a non sequiter.

It's a rather important word when discussing the religious views of the authors of the Constitution...

Undertoad · 05-03-2005, 06:08 PM

But every decision has some backing in law. It wouldn't get to the 9th circuit level if there weren't some lack of clarity in the law.

And judges always write the practical law of the land, in the end. Somebody has to be the final arbiter and that arbiter can push the system as far as they want to in just about every case.

Every ninth-circuit decision could be reviewed by the Supremes. Every decision could be followed by a clarifying legislative attack. It's just how the system works.

05-02-2005, 04:50 PM	#1
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Pat Robertson is a dick Daily News link Federal judges are a more serious threat to America than Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorists, the Rev. Pat Robertson claimed yesterday. "Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," Robertson said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." "I think we have controlled Al Qaeda," the 700 Club host said, but warned of "erosion at home" and said judges were creating a "tyranny of oligarchy." Confronted by Stephanopoulos on his claims that an out-of-control liberal judiciary is the worst threat America has faced in 400 years - worse than Nazi Germany, Japan and the Civil War - Robertson didn't back down. "Yes, I really believe that," he said. "I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together."

05-02-2005, 07:23 PM	#5
smoothmoniker to live and die in LA Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 2,090	Let me be the first to say that most of us who are evangelicals view people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell the same way that most environmentalists view Peta and ELF. He's an embarassment, and does not speak for us. The fact that we hold some beliefs in common doesn't make us any more sympathetic to his views, his politics, or his public rants. __________________ to live and die in LA

05-02-2005, 08:24 PM	#6
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	He must be speaking for somebody because he's making a good living doing it. I just don't know any of them...or if I do they won't admit it. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

05-03-2005, 04:47 PM	#8
mrnoodle bent Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: under the weather Posts: 2,656	don't dismiss the message out of hand, just because the messenger is unsavory. Ward Churchill is an ass, but buried under his anti-US diatribe is the very real fact that we have pissed alot of people off. Likewise, once you get past the Pat Robertson wording, there's an argument to be made that an activist judiciary will eventually destroy (or make irrelevant) the theism inherent in the founding documents. Some people might think that's a good thing, and be able to make a convincing argument for it -- just don't pretend it isn't happening. __________________ Sìn a nall na cuaranan sin. -- Cha mhór is fheairrde thu iad, tha iad coltach ri cat air a dhathadh

05-03-2005, 05:13 PM	#10
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	Let's grant that theism (or perhaps deism) is inherent in the founding documents. Saying that judges can make that irrelevant implies that it has some relevance to begin with. What is the relevance, and what is the practical result of that relevance? Should political office be limited to deists? Should laws be written to endorse deism? I posit that there is no relevance, and mention of creators is incidental rather than inherent in the documents, and that this choice was deliberate on the authors' part. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

05-02-2005, 05:17 PM	#2
vsp Syndrome of a Down Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: West Chester Posts: 1,367	The fact that people have been known to send this man _money_ depresses me like little else.

05-03-2005, 04:37 PM	#7
warch lurkin old school Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,796	He speaks for my grandma. She also loves poor misunderstood Rush.

05-03-2005, 05:09 PM	#9
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	From the swing voter POV, There's no such thing as an "activist judiciary" - it's just judges making decisions that some people don't like. This has always happened, and is simply how the system plays itself out. Some elements of social change show up in different places at different times, that's all. Look at civil rights in the last century where sometimes it was the judiciary to the rescue. They were not "activists" because they came out on the right side of history, or at least the winning side. If you don't like how an issue has come out, you can turn it into a legislative one... if you have the will of the people that should not be a problem, and the issue's urgency in the public eye will mirror the legislative urgency. If the majority of the people think an issue is really a capital-P Problem, the legislature will RUSH to address it. Ham-handedly, even.

05-03-2005, 05:54 PM	#12
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	What is the practical result of the relevance then, if it's not related to religious tests in government? __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

05-03-2005, 06:08 PM	#15
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	But every decision has some backing in law. It wouldn't get to the 9th circuit level if there weren't some lack of clarity in the law. And judges always write the practical law of the land, in the end. Somebody has to be the final arbiter and that arbiter can push the system as far as they want to in just about every case. Every ninth-circuit decision could be reviewed by the Supremes. Every decision could be followed by a clarifying legislative attack. It's just how the system works.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)