Bush Picks Judge Samuel Alito for Supreme Court

Debra_Law wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

In fact, Senators Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden have some significant exposure of their own on the racial sensitivity front, given the fact that both their families owned homes that were restricted by "racial covenants" from being sold to blacks, Jews or other minorities.

Ted Kennedy is not the nominee seeking confirmation to sit on the highest court in our nation. If he was ever a nominee, you can be assured that Ted Kennedy would be subjected to the highest scrutiny by our elected representatives (from both parties) in the Senate . . . and most likely by the hundreds of thousands of people throughout this nation who would undoubtedly contact their senators to OBJECT to his confirmation.


This essential and grueling process to determine who shall be granted a life-time appointment to the Supreme Court is NOT a matter of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." On the contrary, this is the most important matter that the Senate can ever undertake: To determine if the NOMINEE is someone we can trust to hold the fate of nearly 300 million Americans in his hands.

So that makes it ok for Joe Biden and Kennedy to have these racist clauses in their property deeds,and its ok for Kennedy to belong to a group as racist as the owls are?

Then they have the nerve to suggest that Judge Alito is racist.
Thats like the pot calling the kettle black,isnt it?

And why are you defending Kennedy and Biden?
I will admit,it is true that Kennedy has already decided the fate of one person,HE KILLED HER,and he has the nerve to talk about ethics.

mysteryman wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

In fact, Senators Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden have some significant exposure of their own on the racial sensitivity front, given the fact that both their families owned homes that were restricted by "racial covenants" from being sold to blacks, Jews or other minorities.

Ted Kennedy is not the nominee seeking confirmation to sit on the highest court in our nation. If he was ever a nominee, you can be assured that Ted Kennedy would be subjected to the highest scrutiny by our elected representatives (from both parties) in the Senate . . . and most likely by the hundreds of thousands of people throughout this nation who would undoubtedly contact their senators to OBJECT to his confirmation.


This essential and grueling process to determine who shall be granted a life-time appointment to the Supreme Court is NOT a matter of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." On the contrary, this is the most important matter that the Senate can ever undertake: To determine if the NOMINEE is someone we can trust to hold the fate of nearly 300 million Americans in his hands.

So that makes it ok for Joe Biden and Kennedy to have these racist clauses in their property deeds,and its ok for Kennedy to belong to a group as racist as the owls are?

Then they have the nerve to suggest that Judge Alito is racist.
Thats like the pot calling the kettle black,isnt it?

And why are you defending Kennedy and Biden?
I will admit,it is true that Kennedy has already decided the fate of one person,HE KILLED HER,and he has the nerve to talk about ethics.

I am not defending anyone. Go back and read what I actually wrote and if you desire to respond, please respond to what I actually wrote.

Nobody is saying it's ok. But aren't you always saying that if the voters don't like it, they can remove them in the next election? It appears it would be so in this case. They are elected officials with limited terms in office. I suggest you get the word out to their constituents when they are up for re-election and see if they care.

What I am saying is that with their backgrounds,them even attempting to question anyone about ethics or their expressing outrage that anyone MIGHT be a closet racist is rather hypocritical.

If the voters in their respective districts want to elect racists,thats their right,but neither Kennedy or Biden have any room to criticize or attack anyone for their possibly racist views,at least not till they admit their own racist views.

georgeob1 wrote:

What I wrote is fact. I was merely correcting the hyperbole in the previous post.

The court is indeed the final arbiter of the Constitution. The hidden issue here is the desire of some to see certain issues such as abortion, which are not explicitly addressed in the constitution, treated as though they are determoned by it through the fairly tortured logic of an earlier, unfortunate decision of the court, instead of the elected legislature where (in my view) the decision belongs.

The Constitution SPECIFICALLY and EXPLICITLY proclaims the purpose of the Constitution is to SECURE the blessings of liberty for the people and that the listing of some rights RETAINED by the people SHALL NOT be construed to deny or disparage other rights RETAINED by the people.

The Constitution protects ALL LIBERTY, great and small, against governmental denials or disparagements.

Accordingly, when someone uses the argument that some right is not explicitly addressed in the constitution, he/she is doing so as an excuse to deny or disparage that right.

The legislative branch of the government was not delegated authority to deny or disparage rights in the absence of a compelling government interest. The naked desire of some people to impose their morals on others is not a compelling government interest.

Then it seems to me that since there is nothing in the Constitution telling me I CANT do something,then I CAN do that something.
So,doesnt any criminal law violate the constitution?
If I decide that I want to drive 130 mph down the freeway,then the law cant tell me I cant.
After all,the constitution doesnt say I cant,so therefore that means I can?

Then it seems to me that since there is nothing in the Constitution telling me I CANT do something,then I CAN do that something.

So,doesnt any criminal law violate the constitution?

If I decide that I want to drive 130 mph down the freeway,then the law cant tell me I cant.
After all,the constitution doesnt say I cant,so therefore that means I can?

thomas

But the political aspects are terribly interesting too. The campaign waged by the administration and those who support Alito has been really masterful. The goal was/is to set Alito up in the public's mind such that any aggressive attack on him would be perceived as evil doers attacking apple pie.

There is, of course, absolutely no legal relevance in the facts of family or even in whether he is a 'nice man'. The wife's tears may or may not have been a tacky pre-planned trick but that is precisely how the episode functioned, "How COULD those nasty Democrats DO such a thing!?" - and the PR boys in this administration are often brilliant at creating such scenes. Pro-administration pundits were launched like precisely guided missles to every major TV news show before, during and we'll see them for a while yet.
.

But the political aspects are terribly interesting too. The campaign waged by the administration and those who support Alito has been really masterful. The goal was/is to set Alito up in the public's mind such that any aggressive attack on him would be perceived as evil doers attacking apple pie. There is, of course, absolutely no legal relevance in the facts of family or even in whether he is a 'nice man'. The wife's tears may or may not have been a tacky pre-planned trick but that is precisely how the episode functioned, "How COULD those nasty Democrats DO such a thing!?" - and the PR boys in this administration are often brilliant at creating such scenes.

blatham wrote:

But the political aspects are terribly interesting too. The campaign waged by the administration and those who support Alito has been really masterful. The goal was/is to set Alito up in the public's mind such that any aggressive attack on him would be perceived as evil doers attacking apple pie. There is, of course, absolutely no legal relevance in the facts of family or even in whether he is a 'nice man'. The wife's tears may or may not have been a tacky pre-planned trick but that is precisely how the episode functioned, "How COULD those nasty Democrats DO such a thing!?" - and the PR boys in this administration are often brilliant at creating such scenes.

It's the job of PR guys to be brilliant. And in spite of having read The Republican Noise Machine, I see little reason to believe that any of the major political parties in America is more masterful at this than the other. I'm sure Robert Bork looking evil with his scrubby red beard was a factor why Ted Kennedy's smear stuck with public opinion. ("In Robert Bork's America, women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rouge police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids. School children could not be taught evolution...")

That said, I think we can agree it was a bad idea to introduce TVs into those senate hearings. Neither Robert Bork's beard nor Mrs. Alito's tears should have any effect on the confirmation.

That said, I think we can agree it was a bad idea to introduce TVs into those senate hearings. Neither Robert Bork's beard nor Mrs. Alito's tears should have any effect on the confirmation.

Thomas wrote:

That said, I think we can agree it was a bad idea to introduce TVs into those senate hearings. Neither Robert Bork's beard nor Mrs. Alito's tears should have any effect on the confirmation.

What goes around comes around. You've underestimated American people. At least some of us. So only intellectual news organizations are capable of interpreting for us what goes on behind closed doors? Thats a joke for sure. I would much rather see and hear the actual people talk than some relatively uninformed, madeup, CNN or CBS "newsperson give their spin on it, which we know is slanted. At least we can see real people for ourselves. If news organizations only reported actual facts, I might be more inclined to agree with you. We've seen that does not seem to work here in America where the news organizations do not accurately report the news. I could cite one important example about these hearings.