Bush Picks Judge Samuel Alito for Supreme Court

You did miss a few Joe. We'd better note the rest in case it is important to the fellow's equanimity. Though perhaps there's not much to be done thataway.

Dong_Slapper
I Piss In Your General Direction
slippery lightstick
Boy-Brazil-Is-Big

0 Replies

And who are you? An attorney who bills 2,000 hours a year and makes over $250,000 a year, but still has time to post on this venue?

Where did you get your Law Degree from, Jer from Chicoo, Nova?

When you can post a stronger resume, come back to discuss things with people who can bury you with their knowledge about law.

Or did you go to John Marshall? another refuge for ambulance chasers.

0 Replies

You should jump on the Harper>Chrisse>Nikki bandwagon Joe.

0 Replies

I don't think Joe from Chicago reads poetry or he would know:

"So don't despise the little things Which happen daily round us. For some of them may chance take wings To startle and astound us. TRACE BACK THE GREATEST DEED--IT SPRINGS FROM TRIFLES WHICH NO POET SINGS."

0 Replies

Drawing the line in the sand

By Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), majority leader of the U.S. Senate
Published November 9, 2005

Last week's absurd, unwarranted and disingenuous call for a closed session of the United States Senate sent me a clear message: Many Democrats have decided to mock the Senate's rules in the name of partisan advantage. For more than three years, the Democrats have abused Senate rules to impede the judicial nomination process. To do this, they used a technique called the filibuster--a refusal to end debate and vote.

I am concerned that they may use the filibuster to block President Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito Jr., of the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Court of Appeals, to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Don't get me wrong: The Senate is not a rubber stamp. All senators should take a careful look at Alito's record, contemplate it, debate it, and finally, use that information and their judgment to vote on his nomination. As a body, the Senate needs to debate and deliberate but, ultimately, it exists to vote. If Alito has enough votes for approval, he should take his place on the bench. If he does not, the president will have to find another nominee. It's that simple. The filibuster has no place in the judicial nominating process.

When considering legislation, it's true that the filibuster has great value in protecting the minority party's rights. Starting during the last Congress, however, Democrats threw 214 years of Senate tradition out the window and used filibusters to stop the Senate from voting on 10 judicial nominees. The minority party subjected five others to filibuster threats and four nominees ultimately withdrew their names from consideration.

Because of the Democrats' interference, the Senate could not do its duty. I'm willing to consider any reasonable proposal on debate: If the Democrats believe that each senator should have a full hour to speak uninterrupted about Alito's nomination, I am open to the idea. But I will not negotiate about the Senate's constitutional duty to vote on the president's judicial nominees.

In the recent past, it has taken 60 votes to shut off debate and end a filibuster. The rules governing filibusters have changed a number of times, and the Constitution gives the Senate a clear right to modify them by simple majority vote. While serving as majority leader in the 1970s and 1980s, my Democratic colleague Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) altered Senate precedent with support from a simple majority of senators on four occasions in order to alter Senate procedures and end filibusters. Republicans disliked his use of this "constitutional option," but we know that he stood on firm ground.

If members of the Democratic minority persist in blocking a vote on Alito's nomination, the Senate will have no choice but to do what. Byrd did: exercise its constitutional rights and bring Alito's nomination up for a vote.

I hope that the Senate will conduct Alito's confirmation process with customary courtesy and civility. The process should move toward a January vote in an orderly manner. But if the Democratic minority chooses to obstruct the confirmation process, abuse Senate rules and violate the Constitution, I will not hesitate to put the constitutional option before my colleagues.

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

Debra Law- I am afraid you must forgive me. I am not as skilled in argument as lawyers like you and Joe from Chicago.

I must forgive you for avoiding all questions with respect to the relevance of any of your posts? You should just admit that nothing you have said is relevant to the topic of diversity vs. homogeneity on the nation's highest court.

Quote:

I will do the best I can, with your forebearance. I appreciate your patience.

l. Joe from Chicago appeared to be "upset" that 5/9th of the Supreme Court would be staffed with Justices who are Roman Catholic

Your number one premise is wrong. Joe was not upset with the religious background of our Supreme Court justices. With the addition of Alito on the Supreme Court, Joe merely observed the lack of diversity and noted the similar religious background of five of the nine justices as a factor among several factors (also noted) contributing to the homogeneous membership.

Quote:

2. I provided quotes from an article that showed that the only Judges whose religious backgrounds are ever referenced are Roman Catholic.

Reference to one article does not establish a fact. If you conduct a search, you will find numerous references the various religious backgrounds of justices. In recent history, you will find references to Harriet Miers' religious affiliation with the Valley View Christian Church which is a Protestant congregation. Therefore, your assertion is false. But even if your assertion was true, it would have no relevance whatsoever to the observed homogeneous composition of the Court.

Quote:

3. I attempted to show, with quotes from Dr. Tom Sowell, that the number of people from a group who is engaged in a particular enterprise is irrelevant. Sowell makes it clear that expertise and ability is NOT EVENLY DISTRIBUTED IN A SOCIETY AND THAT, YES, THERE ARE SOME GROUPS, WHO, BECAUSE OF CULTURAL FACTORS WILL EXHIBIT GREATER EXPERTISE AND ABILITY.

You have completely missed the point and completely misunderstand the concept of relevance. If we are discussing the homogeneous membership of the nation's highest court, then homogeneity is indeed relevant.

If you are arguing that Roman-Catholic judges (due to "cultural factors" or whatever) exhibit greater expertise and ability and simply OUTCLASS all other non-Roman-Catholic judges as an explanation for their dominant numbers on the Supreme Court, then perhaps your argument would be relevant to the discussion and open to attack. Instead, however, you argue that the religious background of the justices is of no relevance whatsoever (e.g., your "so what" comments) and that makes your discussion of Sowell quotes absolutely unintelligible and ridiculous.

Quote:

4. The comparision of African-Americans and Asians is pertinent because Political Correctness appears to imply that there must be a proportional appointment of persons to key positions.

You constructed a strawman argument and then made outrageous statements that denigrate an entire race of people culminating in your proclamation that Asian minorities OUTCLASS African-Americans in all scholastic endeavors and that no amount of money thrown at the education of African-Americans will ever cure the disparity in scholastic ability. You talk about black people as if they are ghetto trash and undeserving of appointment to any key positions in education, business, or government.

I disagree with your outrageous, racist statements. But again, your racist statements have no relevance to the lack of diversity and the homogeneous membership of the Supreme Court. Your racist statement about Asians outclassing African-Americans does not explain why the Supreme Court is largely comprised of persons who are white, male, eastern, catholic, and professionally insulated or whether the LACK OF DIVERSITY on the Court is something that should be a matter of concern to the nation.

Quote:

Supreme Court?

Why, according to strict quota representation, there should be 50% women, NO JEWS( 5% does not give them a leg to stand on), One African-American, One Hispanic, and(I know this will soothe Joe from Chicago)Only two Roman Catholics.

This is why Joe from Chicago's 5/9th statement is so absurd. We do not( it is hoped) operate on a strict quota system for our important positions in society. . . .

[unverified recitations to SAT scores, et al., snipped.]

Again, your references to quotas and SAT scores are not relevant. Joe did NOT suggest that the membership on the Court should be strictly proportioned to represent the country's population. He merely observed the LACK OF DIVERSITY and the homogeneous composition of the Court.

Joe's observations about the homogeneous composition of the Court are not absurd. Unless you are arguing that Roman-Catholics have far greater legal expertise and intellectual abilities than Non-Roman Catholics due to their cultural (or religious) backgrounds and that somehow explains their dominant numbers on the Court, everything you have said is unintelligible and completely irrelevant to the topic of diversity on the Court.

Here's the issue: Should we be concerned about the LACK OF DIVERSITY on our nation's highest court?

If and when you ever respond to Joe's actual observations (rather than pounding your unintelligible strawman arguments that have no relevance whatsoever to the issue), then we might be able to make some sense out of your otherwise unintelligible posts.

0 Replies

Mortkat, re your name changes is that just a thing with you personally or do you get banned often?

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

And who are you? An attorney who bills 2,000 hours a year and makes over $250,000 a year, but still has time to post on this venue?

Where did you get your Law Degree from, Jer from Chicoo, Nova?

When you can post a stronger resume, come back to discuss things with people who can bury you with their knowledge about law.

Or did you go to John Marshall? another refuge for ambulance chasers.

You are insulting. If you can't attack the message, then you attack the messenger. You are stating, if Joe was a professional of any worth whatsoever, he wouldn't waste his time on A2K. Accordingly, are we to assume that all persons who spend time engaging in discussions on A2K are of questionable intellect and worth? If so, where are all those A2K members who have the ability to bury Joe with their knowledge about the law? According to you, if they were worth anything, they wouldn't be posting here. I guess that leaves YOU in your own category of unintelligent, unworthy people who have nothing better to do than post on A2K.

0 Replies

I wish you guys would spread your disdain to those on your own side equally. It seems rather hypocritical when you say things like "You are insulting. If you can't attack the message, then you attack the messenger." here, yet ignore those on your side that do the same...

I have yet to see any posts from either Debra_Law OR dyslexia condeming Setanta, Nikki (formerly Chrissee, formerly Harper), or any other of the regular people that fall into the "category of unintelligent, unworthy people who have nothing better to do than post on A2K."

Please spread your sludge evenly is all I ask.

0 Replies

McGentrix:

I didn't realize that this discussion forum was divided into "sides." In case it escaped your attention, I responded to Mortkat's attack on Joe's professional character for taking time to post on this forum.

I participate on this "Able2Know" discussion forum in order to learn from the knowledge of others and to share my knowledge. Exposure to a diverse range of viewpoints is a beneficial experience. No one here should be professionally or personally attacked for taking the time to participate in the discussions on this board.

According to Mortkat's attack, if only persons of questionable professional or personal intelligence and worth spend time on this forum, where does that leave Mortkat? And why do you defend Mortkat as someone on your "side?"

0 Replies

Debra Law is so brilliant that I can hardly keep up with her arguments. But I will try.

First of all, she accuses me of racism.

I hope that the fair lady knows what racism is.

Racism--the doctrine that INHERENT differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement.

The last time I referenced Margaret Mead or Franz Boas, I could find no evidence that "Culture"( the characteristic I used to differentiate Blacks and Asians) is an INHERENT difference.

I am continually running into people who, when they are faced with an argument, reply--What is your evidence> What statistics do you have?

Debra Law blithely ignores the HARD DATA I gave which shows that the Average Asian who takes the SAT scores much higher than the average Black.

Is this racism?

Don't be ridiculous.

Now, if I run a firm and I am interviewing engineers and AM NOT CONSTRAINED BY IDIOTIC RULES FROM THE 'DIVERSITY' CROWD, you can bet I will hire those people who scored the highest and have the best resumes.

Debra Law is, I assume, a lawyer.

If she is, she went to law school. If she was in law school, her law school had a law review. Law Review in law school is akin to Phi Beta Kappa in undergraduate school, according to some commentators. Only the best make Law Review.

The law schools with which I am familiar have had very few Black participants. Harvard and Yale do not have law reviews which are 13% staffed by Blacks. Why 13%? Why that is the percentage of blacks in the USA.

Why don't they have more blacks on Law Review?

Don't they care about diversity?

Let's look at the large law firms. The top hundred in the US if you will.

How many of the partners in these firms are African-American? 13%? No way!!! But don't these firms care about DIVERSITY?

The firms care about ability!!!!!!!

The garbage about my attack on the "messenger" came only after Joe from Chicago, who I am more and more convinced must come from the fourth tier of law schools, engaged me on a personal level.

But, despite all of this, the erudite and learned Debra Law tells me that I have not addressed the issue of "diversity vs. homogeneity"

I am not convinced that "Diversity" is a desideratum if it is a diversity that does not place ability and qualifications first.

If diversity is indeed necessary for moral and political purity, then I am very much afraid that if we examine religious backgrounds and attempt to insure that the possessors of positions in our Republic are placed with regard to a religious background quota, we will have to shake up the entire judicial system in the United States,

Why? We obviously do not have diversity since Jews are very highly 'OVERSUBSCRIBED" in judicial positions.

Why how could that have come about? Sixty or seventy years ago, Jews were almost shut out of the Ivy League.

Because the Jews, with their stupendous and enriching culture, and their love for Education and a strong drive for excellence, showed their brilliance and worked their way up to many judicial positions.

BUT WHAT ABOUT DIVERSITY????

So Joe from Chicago did not, as Debra Law said, say that membership on the court should be structured strictly proportioned with regard to the country's population but that he merely was concerned with DIVERSITY.

All well and good. But I do not know what diversity means. How is it defined--Specifically. When is a group considered to be "diverse"

I view my favorite team, The Chicago Bulls and find they are not "diverse"--Of course not. That team and most sports teams insist on one predominant characteristic--ABILITY.

Now, if there is an African-American Jurist who is as brilliant as Judge Roberts( I doubt it) I am sure that the next president, probably Ms. Clinton, will appoint him or her.

But that won't happen in the big law firms. It won't happen in the Mayo Clinics of the world. It won't occur in the sports teams. It wont show up among the scientists in the USA.

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

And who are you?

I'm someone who, in all the time I've been a member of A2K (2+ years), has managed to maintain a single identity -- which is more than you can say.

Mortkat wrote:

An attorney who bills 2,000 hours a year and makes over $250,000 a year, but still has time to post on this venue?

As I've told you before, Mortogato, for you I make the time.

Mortkat wrote:

Where did you get your Law Degree from, Jer from Chicoo, Nova?

I told you when you were still Italgato. Can't you retain information when you shift identities?

Mortkat wrote:

When you can post a stronger resume, come back to discuss things with people who can bury you with their knowledge about law.

And who might those people be?

0 Replies

BBB
One thing factual is that cultures valuing education have smarter children and greater achievements. If you want to improve the status of cultures, you must persuade them to value education and provide access to it. Parental participation and support of education is vital to achieving such goals.

BBB

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I wish you guys would spread your disdain to those on your own side equally. It seems rather hypocritical when you say things like "You are insulting. If you can't attack the message, then you attack the messenger." here, yet ignore those on your side that do the same...

I have yet to see any posts from either Debra_Law OR dyslexia condeming Setanta, Nikki (formerly Chrissee, formerly Harper), or any other of the regular people that fall into the "category of unintelligent, unworthy people who have nothing better to do than post on A2K."

Please spread your sludge evenly is all I ask.

You're a fine one to be lecturing others on fairness and consistency, McG.

0 Replies

Whereever you went to school, it's a sure bet you are not in one of the 100 top law firms, Joe from Chicago. As such, your legal advice will go from $25.00 to $30,00 an hour, after you tip the ambulance driver.

Why don't you try to address the substance of my posts instead of being personal. Are you afraid I will best you in the argument?

0 Replies

Bumble Bee Boogie makes some excellent points. He says that if you want to improve the status of cultures you must persuade them to value education and to provide access to it.

Let's take the second half of that statement first. Provide access to it( Education). Cultures(African-American as an example DO HAVE ACCESS TO EDUCATION. Universities and Colleges practically prostrate themselves for any African-American who scores above the 25th percentile of the SAT and has a high GPA.

The first half of that statement is the problem. You must persuade them to value education. No one had to persuade the Jews of the early 20th century to value education. There was no persuasion needed for Asians either, but the general culture of African-Americans is a "victim" culture and a culture which, at least in the ghetto, views study and learning as detrimental to a viable black life style. Bill Cosby has decried the ghetto youths who marginalize fellow students who study and accuse them of "acting white."

They must PERSUADE THEMSELVES TO VALUE EDUCATION BY DROPPING THE RIDICULOUS 'VICTIM' STATUS AND COMING TO THE REALIZATION THAT NO LARGE LAW FIRM WILL EMPLOY SOMEONE WITH DREAD LOCKS.

0 Replies

Upon further reflection on Debra Law's plea for Diversity, she may have a point. There are some organizations which can work for diversity but they do not. I was very surprised a few years ago to discover that among the group AT HARVARD IN THE GRADUATING CLASS THAT RECEIVED PHI BETA KAPPA HONORS( there were 106 of them out of roughly 1600 graduates, or about 10% of the class) THERE WERE NO AFRICAN AMERICANS--NONE--

How could Harvard be so disdainful of Diversity? It couldn't be because you were unable to be elected to Phi Beta Kappa unless you had Summa or High Magna Cum Laude Honors, could it?

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

According to Mortkat's attack, if only persons of questionable professional or personal intelligence and worth spend time on this forum, where does that leave Mortkat?

... and why would he be interested debating with people of such questionable character?

Debra_Law wrote:

And why do you defend Mortkat as someone on your "side?"

I am on the opposite side of you (and Joe) much more often than not, and I agree with you on this one. A bore I agree with is still a bore. (Not that I agree with Morkat either, except on his assessment of Richard Posner.)

0 Replies

You have excellent taste, Thomas. I am afraid that some people excoriate Richard Posner because he does not agree with their leftist extremism. Everyone in the legal world agrees that he is a legal genius even though they may disagree with him philosophically.

You may have noticed, Thomas, that many of the responses I received did not address the substance of the argument but rather were personal. I have found that when people cannot rebut an argument they descend to personal attacks.

Debra Law bleats on and on about Diversity. I have never seen a persuasive argument which shows the need for diversity. As some one once pointed out, diversity means "more of their own group". There are no "fundamentalist" law professors at the better law schools. The Debra Laws of the world would never really press for the kind of diversity that would include people like that on a law faculty.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Mortkat wrote:
Debra Law- I am afraid you must forgive me. I am not as skilled in argument as lawyers like you and Joe from Chicago.

I must forgive you for avoiding all questions with respect to the relevance of any of your posts? You should just admit that nothing you have said is relevant to the topic of diversity vs. homogeneity on the nation's highest court.

Quote:
I will do the best I can, with your forebearance. I appreciate your patience.

l. Joe from Chicago appeared to be "upset" that 5/9th of the Supreme Court would be staffed with Justices who are Roman Catholic

Your number one premise is wrong. Joe was not upset with the religious background of our Supreme Court justices. With the addition of Alito on the Supreme Court, Joe merely observed the lack of diversity and noted the similar religious background of five of the nine justices as a factor among several factors (also noted) contributing to the homogeneous membership.

Quote:
2. I provided quotes from an article that showed that the only Judges whose religious backgrounds are ever referenced are Roman Catholic.

Reference to one article does not establish a fact. If you conduct a search, you will find numerous references the various religious backgrounds of justices. In recent history, you will find references to Harriet Miers' religious affiliation with the Valley View Christian Church which is a Protestant congregation. Therefore, your assertion is false. But even if your assertion was true, it would have no relevance whatsoever to the observed homogeneous composition of the Court.

Quote:
3. I attempted to show, with quotes from Dr. Tom Sowell, that the number of people from a group who is engaged in a particular enterprise is irrelevant. Sowell makes it clear that expertise and ability is NOT EVENLY DISTRIBUTED IN A SOCIETY AND THAT, YES, THERE ARE SOME GROUPS, WHO, BECAUSE OF CULTURAL FACTORS WILL EXHIBIT GREATER EXPERTISE AND ABILITY.

You have completely missed the point and completely misunderstand the concept of relevance. If we are discussing the homogeneous membership of the nation's highest court, then homogeneity is indeed relevant.

If you are arguing that Roman-Catholic judges (due to "cultural factors" or whatever) exhibit greater expertise and ability and simply OUTCLASS all other non-Roman-Catholic judges as an explanation for their dominant numbers on the Supreme Court, then perhaps your argument would be relevant to the discussion and open to attack. Instead, however, you argue that the religious background of the justices is of no relevance whatsoever (e.g., your "so what" comments) and that makes your discussion of Sowell quotes absolutely unintelligible and ridiculous.

Quote:
4. The comparision of African-Americans and Asians is pertinent because Political Correctness appears to imply that there must be a proportional appointment of persons to key positions.

You constructed a strawman argument and then made outrageous statements that denigrate an entire race of people culminating in your proclamation that Asian minorities OUTCLASS African-Americans in all scholastic endeavors and that no amount of money thrown at the education of African-Americans will ever cure the disparity in scholastic ability. You talk about black people as if they are ghetto trash and undeserving of appointment to any key positions in education, business, or government.

I disagree with your outrageous, racist statements. But again, your racist statements have no relevance to the lack of diversity and the homogeneous membership of the Supreme Court. Your racist statement about Asians outclassing African-Americans does not explain why the Supreme Court is largely comprised of persons who are white, male, eastern, catholic, and professionally insulated or whether the LACK OF DIVERSITY on the Court is something that should be a matter of concern to the nation.

Quote:
Supreme Court?

Why, according to strict quota representation, there should be 50% women, NO JEWS( 5% does not give them a leg to stand on), One African-American, One Hispanic, and(I know this will soothe Joe from Chicago)Only two Roman Catholics.

This is why Joe from Chicago's 5/9th statement is so absurd. We do not( it is hoped) operate on a strict quota system for our important positions in society. . . .

[unverified recitations to SAT scores, et al., snipped.]

Again, your references to quotas and SAT scores are not relevant. Joe did NOT suggest that the membership on the Court should be strictly proportioned to represent the country's population. He merely observed the LACK OF DIVERSITY and the homogeneous composition of the Court.

Joe's observations about the homogeneous composition of the Court are not absurd. Unless you are arguing that Roman-Catholics have far greater legal expertise and intellectual abilities than Non-Roman Catholics due to their cultural (or religious) backgrounds and that somehow explains their dominant numbers on the Court, everything you have said is unintelligible and completely irrelevant to the topic of diversity on the Court.

Here's the issue: Should we be concerned about the LACK OF DIVERSITY on our nation's highest court?

If and when you ever respond to Joe's actual observations (rather than pounding your unintelligible strawman arguments that have no relevance whatsoever to the issue), then we might be able to make some sense out of your otherwise unintelligible posts.

Mortkat: Despite your less than stellar defense of yourself as a non-racist while you continue to denigrate an entire race of people, you have not responded to the issues of relevancy set forth above. I give you an "F" on your understanding of relevancy and deny you admission to law review. If we apply your reasoning to comprehend your failure in this academic endeavor, it's probably because you're black.

0 Replies

Bush Picks Judge Samuel Alito for Supreme Court

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know