JTT- You may indeed be correct, but would you be so good as to give evidence to rebut each one of the facts that I laid out on Judge Ginsburg.
I am heartily sorry but I simply cannot accept-"Facts swept away in a tangent of truth" when I haven't seen the alleged "tangent of truth".
Please forgive my skepticism and, please rebut each one of my facts( WITH EVIDENCE, IF YOU PLEASE)
JTT- You may indeed be correct, but would you be so good as to give evidence to rebut each one of the facts that I laid out on Judge Ginsburg.
I am heartily sorry but I simply cannot accept-"Facts swept away in a tangent of truth" when I haven't seen the alleged "tangent of truth".
Please forgive my skepticism and, please rebut each one of my facts( WITH EVIDENCE, IF YOU PLEASE)
How about clicking the "reply" button once, so we don't have to endure your numerous idiotic repetitions?
Oh, I am so sorry, dear lady. I profusely apologize. I would not in any way wish to upset a Vietnam Nurse.
We really haven't shown our respect as fully as we should have.
What ingrates we must all be.
BernardR wrote:Oh, I am so sorry, dear lady. I profusely apologize. I would not in any way wish to upset a Vietnam Nurse.
We really haven't shown our respect as fully as we should have.
What ingrates we must all be.
So, Mr Possum R Fartbubbles, your aunt is a Lesbian? Really quite interesting, are you also Hispanic?
Vietnamnurse wrote:How about clicking the "reply" button once, so we don't have to endure your numerous idiotic repetitions?
Actually, to be fair, A2k is glitching a lot today...there are double posts aplenty.
You are being fair, Deb...didn't realize there was a problem. On one thread he posted the same one four times and I was just "niggling" him! Oh, well.....
parados wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:BernardR wrote:Okie- You may be aware that Ginsburg's last job before joining the USSC was as the chief counsel for the ACLU.
The ironic parallel to that would be if the Senate lefties( Kennedy, Biden, Reid, Lahey,) would allow a past president of the Federalist Society to be considered!!!
Absolutely, but try and make this point hit home with our Liberal friends.
It seems you guys forget the fact that Roberts was listed as a member of the Federalist Society Leadership Council. Yet he became Chief Justice. Oh, the irony indeed.
You'll note that Bernard questioned Democratic reaction to a nominated justice being a "president" of the Federalist Soceity and not simply a member. Clearly, Justice Ginzberg was far more than simply a member of the ACLU. Your notion of irony is off kilter.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:parados wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:BernardR wrote:Okie- You may be aware that Ginsburg's last job before joining the USSC was as the chief counsel for the ACLU.
The ironic parallel to that would be if the Senate lefties( Kennedy, Biden, Reid, Lahey,) would allow a past president of the Federalist Society to be considered!!!
Absolutely, but try and make this point hit home with our Liberal friends.
It seems you guys forget the fact that Roberts was listed as a member of the Federalist Society Leadership Council. Yet he became Chief Justice. Oh, the irony indeed.
You'll note that Bernard questioned Democratic reaction to a nominated justice being a "president" of the Federalist Soceity and not simply a member. Clearly, Justice Ginzberg was far more than simply a member of the ACLU. Your notion of irony is off kilter.
You must admit that a member of the Federalist society
leadership council is far more than simply a member of the Federalist society.
Your notion of what constitutes a "simple member" is off kilter.
Parados, surely you would admit the Democrats have been much more antagonistic toward Republican's Supreme Court nominees in the last 20 years or so? Do you remember how the term, "borked," came into being? Do you remember the ridiculous charges against Clarence Thomas by Anita Hill and the organized campaign to prevent Thomas from reaching the court? Things do not often get uglier than if a Democrat or even fellow liberals that are black see a black conservative succeeding. They gang up on that person big time. It gets ugly. I think Bush I simply picked Souter to avoid a fight. The Democrats had their researchers out there beating the bushes for any little thing they could find on Roberts and Alito, but simply could not muster anything, which in itself is a testament to their apparent excellent character. They didn't want to confirm either one, and no good reasons to vote against either one, but more than usual still did. No comparison to how the extremist, Ginsberg, sailed throught without a hitch. If anybody should have been booted, she should have.
Okie. I don't think Mr. Parados knows very much about what has happened in the Judiciary Committee on the Supreme Court.
Here are the facts:
Rhenquist Nomination--9 members of the committee- 3 Republicans and 6 Democrats
Nominated 8-1 by committee--Senate voted 68-26
JP STEVENS-
Nominated 9-0 by Committee--Senate voted 98-0
Sandra Day O'Connor
Nominated 9-0 by Committee--Senate voted 99-0
Antonin Scalia
Nominated 9-0 by Committee- Senate voted 98-0
Robert Bork
Rejected 4-2 by Committee- Senate voted 58-42 to Reject
Anthony Kennedy
Voted 5-0 by Committee- Senate voted 97-0
David Souter
Voted 90-9 by Committee- Senate voted 90-9
Clarence Thomas
Rejected 4-3 by Committee- Senate voted to override rejection 52-48
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Voted 9-0 by Committee- Senate voted 93-3
Stephen Breyer
Voted 9-0 by Committee- Senate voted 96-3
Roberts
Voted 13-5 by Committee- Senate voted 78-22
Alito
Voted 10-8 by Committee- Senate voted 58-42
It is clear, Okie, that since Rhenquist, the Democrats have not given the President the courtesy of nominating his choice( as he has a right to choose) without ferociously fighting against the president's choices mainly in the later years, while the Republicans have gone along with the President's choices.
Note the Republican President's choices that were strongly opposed---
(ONE EVEN REJECTED)
Rhenquist, Thomas, Roberts, Alito---One, Bork, was Rejected.
Now, which nominees nominated by a Democratic President were
strongly opposed??? NOT GINSBERG OR BREYER!!!!!!!!
If Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes President in 2008 and the Republicans still control the Senate, what will the Republican controlled Judiciary Committee do to Hillary's Supreme Court Nominations?
I am sure they will not be as politically rabid and uncontrolled as the Mad Dogs, Kennedy, Biden and Lahey!!!
Bernard, from my observation of politics over the past 40 + years, I think the Democrats have increasingly decided that the judiciary is their ace in the hole for social change. The judiciary is no longer seen by them as simply strict interpreters of the law and the constitution, but a branch of government that can now believe the constitution is a "living and breathing" document. They have said as much, and therefore lawmakers don't have to be an equal branch of government, but instead the judiciary can overrule and reinterpret legislation by the legislative branch and actions taken by the executive branch based on convoluted, lengthy, and extrapolated opinions that result in weird and twisted policies that are obviously wrong and have no basis in the constitution whatsoever. The court is no longer seen as people that strictly interpret the law according to what the constitution says in an explicit way, but instead what they want it to say or imagine it says based on their particular political views.
Therefore for the Democrats, the judiciary branch becomes an invaluable tool for advancement of their liberal policies and social changes. Laws no longer need be tightly anchored to the constitution, but new policies can be heading off in all directions via twisted and convoluted interpretations of the constitution by liberal judges. Therefore, new appointments to the court become every bit as important, perhaps moreso to them as presidential and congressional elections.
In a perfect world where the Supreme Court does its job perfectly, and if the justices were totally honest men, it should make no difference what particular political beliefs they would have. Proof that the Democrats no longer believe this is what they desire, they do not wish to vote for honest, strict constitutionalists, but they prefer the liberal idealogues on the court.
And of course, when we talk about rabid partisan politics denying President Bush his rightful choice of superbly qualified nominees to the Supreme Court, let us not forget the illustrious Harriet Meiers, whose nomination was sunk by rabid political attacks by....Republicans.
okie wrote:
In a perfect world where the Supreme Court does its job perfectly, and if the justices were totally honest men, it should make no difference what particular political beliefs they would have.
In your perfect world, women have no place, and especially female judges can be neglected, it seems.
Walter Hinteler wrote:okie wrote:
In a perfect world where the Supreme Court does its job perfectly, and if the justices were totally honest men, it should make no difference what particular political beliefs they would have.
In your perfect world, women have no place, and especially female judges can be neglected, it seems.
Walter, some of the greatest men in history were women. Point being, my statement was a small mistake, but not really, as women can also take their rightful place in the history of "mankind." Margaret Thatcher happens to be one of those greats, in my opinion.
okie wrote: Margaret Thatcher happens to be one of those greats, in my opinion.
Hmm, depending on the sources, she might have been beaten by Lord Callaghan as worst PM of the last 200 years.
Its far too early to assess how "good/bad" a Prime Minister Thatcher was. There's still far too much emotion all along the political spectrum. Conservatives rate her very high, and she's rated very low by those at the other end of the political universe. It certainly appears that both she and President Reagan were effective in turning their economies around and bringing the Cold War to an end. One may wonder if Great Britain is better off today than it was before Thatcher? At the end of the Great War, the old British class system was pretty much over turned. People like Churchill were out of favor. When the going got tough, Britain was fortunate to have Churchill and the Conservatives on hand to manage the War. Once Hitler was gone, the British dumped the Conservatives and put Winnie back out to pasture, and the Socialists damn near ruined the country. Some would go so far to say they did ruin the country, but that's just partisan overkill.
Walter Hinteler wrote:okie wrote: Margaret Thatcher happens to be one of those greats, in my opinion.
Hmm, depending on the sources, she might have been beaten by Lord Callaghan as worst PM of the last 200 years.
What do you have against women Prime Ministers, Walter?
Hmm?
Nothing at all, per se.
What made you think such?
