An imbalanced former GOP senator shows ignornace of our system for balance of power

Discussion in 'Politics' started by OPTIONAL777, Feb 3, 2011.

  1. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, a potential Republican candidate for president in 2012, would do away with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals if he was elected to the White House, he said Wednesday.

    Speaking to small gathering of Tea Party members in South Carolina, Santorum said he thinks the federal government's judicial branch had obtained too much power.

    From the Myrtle Beach Sun News:

    "The courts were supposed to be the most insignificant branch of the government," he said. Congress has the power and the right to declare what is constitutional or not, he said, and added that since Congress created all of the courts, other than the Supreme Court, it has the power to disband them.

    If such a measure were to be passed and arrive on "President" Santorum's desk, the former senator said, he wouldn't hesitate to sign it.

    "I would sign a bill tomorrow to eliminate the 9th Circuit [Court of Appeals]. That court is rogue. It's a pox on the western part of our country," Santorum said, according to the Sun News.

    The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is the largest circuit, based on the West Coast. It covers suits in the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington and is commonly cited by conservatives as a liberal body, due to its relatively high proportion of Democratic appointees and the frequency with which the Supreme Court overturns its rulings.

    Not everyone agrees with that contention, however. According to a report from The New York Times last year:

    Tom Goldstein, an expert on the Supreme Court, said there was "no evidence of the Ninth Circuit being out of control or of the Supreme Court thinking it is out of control." He said that there were "old-school, Carter-era liberal appointees on that court who are out of step with the current Supreme Court and are quite strong willed." He added that those judges "get a lot of attention from the justices" of a Supreme Court that has itself moved significantly to the right over the years.
  2. It's not a straw man at all. You said that the "GOP Senator shows ignorance." I responded directly to your statement. No straw man involved.

    Democrats show plenty of ignorance, too; as exemplified by Chuck Schumer. And there are more.

    “To leftist intellectuals, it's okay to have a president who thinks he visited 57 states, a vice president who has claimed that Franklin Roosevelt went on television to calm the people after the stock market crash of 1929 (no TV yet, and Hoover was president), and a Speaker of the House who has insisted that we must switch from fossil fuels to natural gas (a fossil fuel). All ignorance, error, and mental dullness can be forgiven as long as one subscribes to the political catechism, ‘The government must control all economic activity.’" Mark Hendrickson

  3. Apparently you need a lesson in what a strawman is.

    A strawman is a distraction away from a point made.

    You did not do anything less.

    Yes, Santorium is wrong.

    What does Schumer being wrong have to do with Santorium being wrong?

    If you can figure that out, perhaps you can make some progress away from strawman thinking...

    The fundamental fallacy is in your attempt to defend by attacking something/someone else.

    Since you can't logically defend Santorium, you take the fallacious strawman approach...

  4. You are an expert at name calling, but weak at defending your own argument.

    Your premise was that Santorum is "ignorant." Your words, not mine. My response is that ignorance is common among politicians irrespective of political party. Therefore, we should not be surprised when politicans of either party speak out of ignorance.

    You can call it a straw man argument until your cows come home, but it is not. It is a direct response to your assertion of Santorum's ignorance.

  5. Name calling?

    I posted a factual article.

    Is Santorum imbalanced? You question that? Is he a former GOP senator? You question that? Did he show his ignorance of our system for balance of power? You question that fact?

    You can deny your strawman arguments till the cows come home, but they remain strawman fallacies.

    Is Santorum ignorant? You question that?

    Does Schumer's ignorance make Santorum not ignorant?

    Nope, and until you understand that, you remain in logically fallacy.

    Is ignorance common among politicians is true, but even bringing that up is irrelevant to Santorum's condition.

    Tell the truth:

    Had I made a first post about Schumer's being wrong, would you have brought up Santorum?

    We both know you would have not...please, study your methods, you will find that they are not effective in logical they are strawman attempts to defend Santorum...if you can be truthful about this.

  6. Name calling? Yes. You try to dismiss every argument as a "straw man" or a "logical fallacy," when it is simply an opposing point of view. Being dismissive of all opposing points of view is an ineffective debating strategy.

  7. Name calling would be something like:

    "You ignorant fool."

    Citing your constant use of logical fallacy doesn't require name calling...

    Please, spend some time trying to understand why introducing a strawman is illogical, especially if your motive is to defend Santorum.

    By the way, you did not truthfully answer my previous question...which is not necessary, but the lack of a truthful answer tells the truth.

    Oh, and I am not dismissing your logical fallacies, many people use them, many people find them effective and fall pray to them, and most people learn them by listening to pundits who use them as their stock and trade.

    Denying that you are using them, really is not helping yourself...assuming of course you want to be a better and more logical thinker.

  8. Lucrum


    #10     Feb 4, 2011