So-called “mainstream” Republicans should have no doubts about the absolute control the far religious right now holds in their party. After caving to right wing pressure and forcing Harriet Miers to withdraw her nomination, President Bush has quickly come back with the nominee they wanted all along, Judge Samuel Alito.
President Bush today named appeals court Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court. Alito, 55, serves on the Philadelphia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where his record on abortion rights and church-state issues has been widely applauded by conservatives and criticized by liberals.
Alito, appointed to the appeals court in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush, has been a regular for years on the White House’s short list for the high court. He was also among those proposed by conservative intellectuals as an alternative to Harriet Miers, the White House counsel who withdrew as the nominee last week.
Some Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), have threatened to oppose Alito, however. Immediately after the announcement, the liberal activist organization People for the American Way announced the launch of a “massive national effort” to prevent Alito’s confirmation.
This is a judge who is clearly on the record against abortion, most notoriously for having written a dissenting opinion supporting a Pennsylvania law that would have required women to notify their husbands before obtaining an abortion. His opinion was directly rebuffed by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who he would replace.
The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court, which upheld the appeals court decision, disagreed with Alito and used the case to reaffirm its support for Roe v. Wade , the 1973 decision legalizing abortion.
On the spousal notification provision, O’Connor wrote for the court that it did indeed constitute an obstacle. The “spousal notification requirement is . . . likely to prevent a significant number of women from obtaining an abortion,” she wrote.
“It does not merely make abortions a little more difficult or expensive to obtain; for many women, it will impose a substantial obstacle. We must not blind ourselves to the fact that the significant number of women who fear for their safety and the safety of their children are likely to be deterred from procuring an abortion as surely as if the Commonwealth had outlawed abortion in all cases,” she said.
Plus, it “embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common law status of married women, but repugnant to our present understanding of marriage and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution. Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry, ” she said.
“The Constitution protects all individuals, male or female, married or unmarried, from the abuse of governmental power, even where that power is employed for the supposed benefit of a member of the individual’s family.”
We’ll learn more about Alito in the coming days, but what we know now isn’t promising. We cannot allow the religious right to pack the bench with justices that would permit the nation to slide down a path towards The Handmaiden’s Tale. The President serves all Americans, not just those extremists who control his party, and he has an obligation to appoint justices who are not only qualified, but who reflect the beliefs and philosophies of the American people. If the Bush administration insists on playing a winner takes all game with the Supreme Court, then Democrats should adopt the same adversarial attitude.
If Alito proves unacceptable, the Democrats must filibuster.
All I want is a someone who’s gonna follow the Constitution and interpret law. No other agenda is needed, be it left or right.
The President serves all Americans, not just those extremists who control his party, and he has an obligation to appoint justices who are not only qualified, but who reflect the beliefs and philosophies of the American people. If the Bush administration insists on playing a winner takes all game with the Supreme Court, then Democrats should adopt the same adversarial attitude.
This is the most disappointing aspect of this selection. The president had a chance to appoint someone who was in the mainstream of judicial opinion, but still conservative. He chose not to do that.
Harriet Miers was rejected by wingnuts as not conservative enough. The Democrats and the rest of the majority of the American public should adopt a similar stance to Judge Alito. He’s simply too activist and too far outside the mainstream to be allowed onto the Supreme Court.
Every citizen should have a machine gun, and the police should strip-search 10-year-old girls. These are basic American values, and we need judges who will uphold them. Yay Scalito!
There is perhaps too great a focus on Roe v Wade. Sure its important, but it is only a part of the hard right “movement conservative” ideology. For every socially conservative viewpoint Alito holds, he probably is just as excited to strike down countless labor laws, enviromental laws, domestic violence laws, rights of the accused, and (this one is biggest) any constraint on big business passed since the Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt.
@ 3
Hey… This is one liberal who would LOVE to have a machine gun…
Oh, and the whole “up or down vote” horseshit goes out the window after the GOoPers didn’t give Harriet Miers such courtesy.
Last week the lefties said Miers was unqualified and a bit too much of an evangelical. The right agreed on the qualifications aspect and Bush made the right decision. Now Alito in nominated and the left is mad that he is very Roberts-like in that he is ultra-qualified, and that opposition will necessarily be ideological. This will blow up in their face and the lefties know it, as they are on the record many times that being concervative is not what they oppose. Also, this knocks Libby and Rove off the radar, which really dents the lefties.
Bush refused my call for Fitzgerald for SCOTUS last week, but has redeemed himself this week.
I can hear the bubbling cauldrons on the left – good luck.
Belltowner-6 Oh, and the whole “up or down vote” horseshit goes out the window after the GOoPers didn’t give Harriet Miers such courtesy.
Not at all. Miers was pulled because it was becomming obvious that she (and Bush) would be embarrassed in the hearings. She was not qualified and even the lefties said so.
All the new outpouring of sympathy for Miers on the left is perhaps the best reason to oppose her. Thanks for confirming that.
are the lefties never happy?
let’s face it…that was a rhetorical question…the obvious answer is “no….unless there is a democrat in the white house”. their standard answer for everything….as read on the anti war signs.
did any of you ever think that bush nominated miers just to let the left freak out[far right ,far left…same idiots]…which it did…and now they will just look like a bunch of whiney nay-sayers to everything.
if the tassled loafer fits….wear it.
remember the “evil genious” karl rove is still loose….heh heh heh.
oh and goldy…..when you wrote “then Democrats should adopt the same adversarial attitude.” i just about fell out of my chair laughing.
yeah…that would be a HUGE change for them ,right?
and filibuster? isn’t that all they do? but keep giving them advice…..i’m just SURE they are listening to you…….
MEDIA/DNC NICKNAME ‘SCALITO’ SEEN AS ETHNICALLY INSENSITIVE
Mon Oct 31 2005 08:42:57 ET
Before Judge Samuel Alito was even officially announced as President Bush’s next Supreme Court nominee, he met a wave of racial discrimination from numerous corners of the mainstream media and the Democrat Party. Because of Judge Alito’s conservative and Italian-American background he is often been compared to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and has been nicknamed by the mainstream media “Scalito.”
This morning, on CNN’s AMERICAN MORNING host Soledad O’Brien said, “we’ve heard the nickname ‘Scalito’…. which is of course combining the Scalia, Justice Scalia and Alito. Let’s talk a little bit about their similarities.”
On CBS’EARLY SHOW host Harry Smith claimed: “[Our next guest] will be on to talk about Alito, who some people are calling ‘Scalito’ because of his close resemblance to Antonin Scalia at least ideologically.”
Meanwhile, the Democratic National Committee sent out talking points this morning titled: “Judge ‘Scalito’ Has Long History Of States Rights, Anti-Civil Rights, And Anti-Immigrant Rulings.” More from the DNC’s anti-Italian American talkers: “Alito is often referred to as ‘Judge Scalito’ because of his adherence to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s right-wing judicial philosophy.”
One outraged Republican strategist claimed, “If Alito were a liberal there would be no way Democrats and Washington’s media elite would use such a ethnically insensitive nickname. Italian-Americans should not have to face these types of derogatory racial slurs in 21st century America.”
Developing…
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9.htm
Would David Goldstein appreciate an ethnically insensitive nickname for himself?
richard…no he wouldn’t. but that won’t stop him from mud-slinging.
as my italian step mother said about the comments….”why don’t they just call him a WOP? because that’s what they are doing…….”
but you know [tongue planted firmly in cheek now] if you are a looney leftie it’s okay to be anti-semitic, and a racist….in fact almost cool if you wear a palestinian scarf too. it’s all about “the look”…….LOL.
If “Scalito” is “racist”, then I guess by that standard, the 8 years of “Billary” must mean the Republican party is strictly anti-female, right?
I see this going to a filibuster, with the GOP going to the nuclear option. One thing the GOP needs to remember is if they change the rules, they have set a precedent. One of these days, the democrats will have the White House and Senate, and I don’t want to hear any outrage from the right when the majority rolls over the GOP in the same manner.
I also don’t think over-ruling Roe v. Wade is going to help the GOP at all. The majority of the country is pro-choice and socially to the left of Bush and the conservatives. If social issues become the focus of the next elections, the democrats win.
I’m getting closer to moving out of this fucked up country. They ya go guys, you’ve got your right wing fuck face court. Have fun with it… Thanks for making america a peice of shit.
Fuck you.
Bye herb – remember what they say about doorknobs and ASSES!
Wayne – the democrats regularly rolled over the republicans when they were in power. The repubs got very comfortable in their role as backbenchers, and even today often act like they are in the minority. The constitution doesn’t say anything about filibusters, nor does it say that it takes 60 votes to get a judge onto the Supreme Court.
I agree about R v W. I suspect that if it is overturned as poorly written, the states will pass their own abortion laws that will largely put into place what currently exists. But, it will be messy and take way too much time and energy away from substantive issues.
Herbalizer
“I’m getting closer to moving out of this fucked up country. ”
Good, leave you scumbag.
And herb, you may want to remember… “I” before “E”, except after “C”!… I think that may serve you better in the future than your limited colorful vocabulary in your new country of choice!
aexia@13……billary???? where in the hell did you get that? funny, as a member in good standing of the vast rightwing conspiracy why did i never hear that?
and herbalizer….you guys are always promising to move…..but you never do.don’t get everyone’s hopes up for naught.
and look…if you would leave your home country because you don’t like a judge on the supreme court…….you aren’t really interested in your country very much are you?
as ann lamott’s dad said “100 years….all new people in 100 years”
think about it.
Welcome back Christmas! … I wonder, do the fruitcake fringies and the Asinine Carping Lunatics Unhinged (ACLU) consider your name unPC?
At this point moment I personally don’t know enough about Judge Alito to have an informed opinion whether or not a filibuster would be in order for the Democrats. But, I will say this, if he is an extreme right wing judicial activist, then the Democrats might as well filibuster him and force the Republicans into pulling the nuclear option.
Thank you, Trent Lott for the moniker “nuclear option.” The term is going to stick and it has a purely negative connotation to it. While the Democrats will surely get a black eye in the event the nuclear option is used, they will have shown a stern backbone in standing up for the rights of the majority of the American population that voted them into office. Yes, the 44 Democratic senators represent more Americans than the 55 Republicans senators.
This will work to the Democrats favor come Nov ’06 & ’08 for the following reasons:
If the Republicans don’t deliver on their promise to pull the trigger on the nuclear option they will look weak in the eyes of their base. A paper tiger saber rattling, so to speak.
If they do pull the nuclear option to satisfy the extreme right wing base, they will be perceived as too radical changing the rules that have satisfactorily governed the US Senate for more than 200 years. The tactical blunder of the Republicans has been a fight to polarize the voters into (R) or (D). In this scenario they lose the battle for the vast majority of voters in the center, who truly make up ‘mainstream’ America.
Couple that with the CIA leak casting doubt on the honesty and integrity of the White Houses and exposing a CIA NOC and a CIA front company. How this intertwines with the reasons for going to war in Iraq. Providing credence to the implications of fixing intelligence to go to war falsely in Iraq as the Downing Street Memo suggests. The failed policy in the prosecution of the war in Iraq. The failure to bring down Al Qaeda after 4 full years of military action, as compared to our efforts in WWII bringing down Germany and Japan at the same time but we can find one 6′ 4″ Arab in a cave. The out of control pork barrel spending by the Republicans in the House and the Senate and the fact that this president has yet to use his VETO pen even once makes him as equally culpable. The cronyism in his administration that led to FEMA’s inept response in the Katrina disaster and Harriet Meirs nomination. A deficit that is spiraling OUT OF CONTROL. Fuel prices that have gouged us at the pump, Americans will remember getting gouged by the Enron energy price manipulation. Tom DeLay’s arrest, Bill Frist being investigated, Karl Rove possibly being implicated and Ari Fleischer cooperating with Fitzpatrick.
There so much more that I know I’m missing, but the point is, if the Democrats stand up in the Senate now, it will pay dividends in 2006 & 2008.
In the end, if their efforts do not reap any rewards at the ballot box, then so what? They weren’t going to take back control anyways, but at least they took a stand. But, all indications show that filibustering Judge Alito will only have a short term negative effect for the Democrats — maybe. And, most likely will provide long term benefits. If not, then there’s nothing lost by trying.
Janet @ 17: “The constitution doesn’t say anything about filibusters….”
Oh, please. Take that argument back to 1st year law class where it belongs. The Constitution does clearly SAY the Senate can make its rules, and these are the rules the body has adopted.
Though I must say, your transparent imitation of jane gault is pretty obvious.
PS: The Constitution doesn’t “say” a lot of things, cf. “corporations”. Take it from there, legal genius.
HowCanYouBePROUDtobeAnASS@21…………oh you betcha they do. and that’s why i chose it. heh heh heh. that and something every single nutty thoughtless leftie has totally missed.they are so fixated on hammering christianity [thanks to the marching orders from moveon.moron and the ACLU] they ASSUME that i chose the name because i am a christian[ which i am not] not because of what the character the christmas ghost did in dicken’s novel.
see how blinding to any actual thought lock-step makes a person?
and i think PC is the real enemy of democracy.
thanks for the welcome back. i have been reading the posts and it just seemed like goldy needed a [friendly] boot planted in his ass……..LOL.
After I leave I hope you cock suckers can increase your military spending a bit more. 500 billion just isn’t enough, especially when you don’t need to pay for national health care. Why not just use 80 or 90% of the budget. Just think how safe you’ll be.
It will be nice living in a country that gives a fuck about its citizens.
Oh yea, and don’t forget to pass some more anti-gay laws. Land of the free, home of the bigots.
America….. We the people, for the people, by the corporations.
Fuck America.
There were only two reasons worth voting for Bush last year. 1) Was to make sure that we did more than pay lip service to the 35 year threat of growing Islamic Extremism. And 2) to make sure that the Supreme Court was moved back towards a constitutional reading instead of judicial activism. Check and Check.
I’m actually for abortion, but Roe v Wade was bad law. The court essentially decided that it says in the Constituion that a women can have an abortion, which it does not. Anyone who wants to argue for abortion should do so on the basis of a woman’s right to her own body and not by trying to reinterpret the meaning of the Constitution.
This is an issue though in which Goldstein can really shine by opening his big mouth and blabbing as much as possible. The more Democrats rage against Alito, the more they will insulate themselves from moderate Americans who see more and more that the only thing that can make true extreme MoveOn.org style Democrats happy is progressivism, socialism and a Democrat lined activist Supreme Court.
Fire up the temper tantrum Goldstein, here is your chance to further marginalize your party.
Prediction – the dems will NOT filibuster and Alito will be confirmed by about the same margin as Roberts.
ChristmasGhost:
Off topic, but since you made a comment about racism @ 12, I’ll bring up the fact that you opted not to answer my question regarding Ken Melhman apologizing to the NAACP for the RNC’s role as a national party platform to deliberately use race as a divisive issue known as the Republican Southern Strategy.
So if the Democrats were so culpable, as you claimed, why did the RNC apologize for them?
One other question. Why did you resort to name calling by calling me a sock puppet instead of meeting my intellectual challenge? You could have easily thwarted me by providing honest intellectual debate, but you opted to resign yourself to name calling. Why is that?
Interesting how so many people from the right accuse the left of being incapable of intellectual debate and resort to name calling only to do so themselves in the very next breath.
Hmmmm. . .what did your run out of first: ideas, facts, or original thought?
Fuck you, right wing assholes…we’re goin’ to the matresses!
Goldy,
By titling this “Scalito” are you suggesting 2 italians is too much? Would I be ok slurring Breyer or Ginsburg by suggesting 2 jews is too much?
herbalizer @25…………
well well well…..out of the hate america closet at last?
at least you’re now being honest.
name one anti gay law ……and i don’t mean from 50 years ago. i mean one that has passed recently. i dare you…..there aren’t any.
and your comment “Fuck America.”….be sure to read the fine print on your new country of choice….they might not let you say things like that about them after you have lived there all of 5 seconds and have discovered all their hidden “issues”.LOL.
Oh…so THIS guy HAS a record…
He’s anti-family…anti-worker…anti-privacy…and pro-corprate interests…pro-discrimination…Souds like a classic righty kinda guy.
A REAL human being. A REAL mensch. Gotta love it.
ChristmasGhost @ 24
It’s funny how you attack the very organization, the ACLU, that protects your right to use ChristmasGhost as a moniker. The point of law is your 1st amendment right.
Ironically, the same point of law is the the reason government officials can’t publicly advocate for a particular religion.
@ 30
Name one anti-christian law that was passed recently. I dare you to name that law.
There aren’t any.
And, Herbalizers “Fuck America” comment, while I strongly disagree with it, I would protect his right to say it, so too, would the ACLU. The very organization you’d want to abolish if you could get your way.
the Senate can make its rules, and these are the rules the body has adopted.
It is unclear whether the Senate rules regarding filibuster apply to any vote, or only to votes on legislation. The argument is that since the senate has the constitutional duty of advise and consent, they would be shirking their duty if a vote is not allowed.
By picking a Justice pleasing to the religious right, Bush has completed the castration of the Republican Party. The party of dickless dipshits can now freely pursue its policies of stifling freedom and privacy and of perpetuating fear without concern for judicial interference. It’s amazing how everytime Bush is presented with an opportunity to bridge the partisan chasm that separates this nation, to do the right thing, he fails. What a little man he is.
GBS-22
A filibuster is unlikely as the dems will not be able to rally enough support from the “middle”. And not having a filibuster will do for the dem base what you say the nuclear option would do to the right.
Like with Roberts, the far left will have trouble getting any traction to filibuster Alito. Give it a try and we can perhaps compare notes in a few weeks.
If the Pukes change the Senate rules to override a Democratic filibuster, we’ll do it to them when we’re back in power. What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.
Bush has set the apocalypse in motion. He’s a bicycle ridin’ empty headed dweeb who couldn’t score a job swinging a hammer if the inheritance laws from Teddy Roosevelt’s era were ever enforced. This isn’t about abortion. It’s about setting citizens against each other while Bush and his ilk rob us all blind.
Let’s stick to our game plan and impeach the bastard. If the Supreme Court passes a law that 50% of the people are against, there’d be no way to enforce it. It would highlight their true weakness. We’re not the same youths that can be derailed by shooting a few of us like at Kent State.
proud leftist-35 ‘It’s amazing how everytime Bush is presented with an opportunity to bridge the partisan chasm that separates this nation, to do the right thing, he fails.’
What a laugh. If Bush nominated someone exactly like Ginsburg the left would still hate him and continue to spew vile.
“The Left…offers an appeal to moral virtue: It’s better to pay more in taxes and to share the burdens as a community. It’s kinder, gentler, more compassionate, more equitable. Unfortunately, as recent European election results demonstrate, nothing makes a citizen more selfish than socially equitable communitarianism: Once a fellow’s enjoying the fruits of government health care and all the rest, he couldn’t give a hoot about the broader societal interest; he’s got his, and if it’s going to bankrupt the state a generation hence, well, as long as they can keep the checks coming till he’s dead, it’s fine by him. ‘Social democracy’ is, in that sense, explicitly anti-social.” —Mark Steyn
herby… if you need a J O B… you could always relocate to New Orleans!
GBS @27……..i’m glad you brought that up. i did answer you but either it was lost in ‘translation’ or i didn’t press ‘say it’.
so i’ll answer now.
okay first off…”intellectual challenge”? you mean the one where you told me that i wasn’t qualified to play in your game….that one?
anyhoo….i have no idea why ken mehlman apolgized to the NAACP. i didn’t realize he had done something awful to them.i personally think the NAACP should apologize to everyone else for their total lack of leadership and morals.it’s about as valid an organization as the ACLU or the UN.
look….apologizing for something that our ancestors did[or did not do…mine didn’t] a really long time ago is stupid window dressing. no matter which party it comes from. it should be all about what is happening right now.
things have changed so much for the better. now it’s just up to the people to get their acts together. anyone can do or become anything they want in this country. they just have to work for it.
it’s pretty easy for us to look back in time over our shoulders and judge what happened as good or bad. it’s called hindsight.i think what really counts is did we change things? are those things still happening? there will always be stupid bigots….of every color.no race or party has the market cornered on “stupid”.
and sock puppet is a pretty mild “name” to be called compared to what usually goes on here….don’t you think? i mean really…..we all know goldy has alot of alter egos….consider it flattery.
Alito’s family and Bubba:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news.....-717v.html
Notice where Clinton’s hand is, as well as the look on Alito’s daughter’s face.
Who says we cannot all get along?
GBS @32……..
WHOA…..are you kidding when you said “It’s funny how you attack the very organization, the ACLU, that protects your right to use ChristmasGhost as a moniker. The point of law is your 1st amendment right.”
are you really this dim? the CONSTITUTION protects my rights….not some looney fringe group that named itself the ACLU and then claimed to be for all of us…..when really they are more interested in protecting the rights of people that have already taken away everyone else’s [see criminals here] or NAMBLA.
WOW….you really can’t be this delusional can you?
When the Democrats threaten to filibuster, make them actually filibuster this time. None of this BS filibuster-lite with breaks and going home at night. Make the obstructionists show their true colors and “take it to the diaper”.
@43
you can tell the censorists (IE cg) are really struggling when NAMBLA comes up.
It always amazes me how little you bastards actually have to add…
(PS, Its probably because I don’t get the ‘top secret instructions’ from the hate-machine, but Scalito always meant more to me that he was a clone of scalia opinionwise ((which he apparently is)), and nothing to do about ethnicity)
I think its funny that the party of racism has figured out that they can get the left on the defensive by yelling “Racist!” It works because we actually care about not offending people and doing right. To you, its just another tool. Seems to me to be another classic illustration of the difference between the left and the right.
re me@45:
just to make it clear, before you can twist the words;
The right uses accusations of racism (and other things) as a tool to score ‘points’ and ‘win’.
The left actually cares about things like racism and protecting rights and controlling government.
just to make it clear,-Comment by windie— 10/31/05 @ 12:29 pm
If only you would! That the heck are you blabbering about?
Oh, you care… well gosh, hasn’t that solved so many problems!
“The Left…offers an appeal to moral virtue: It’s better to pay more in taxes and to share the burdens as a community. It’s kinder, gentler, more compassionate, more equitable. Unfortunately, as recent European election results demonstrate, nothing makes a citizen more selfish than socially equitable communitarianism: Once a fellow’s enjoying the fruits of government health care and all the rest, he couldn’t give a hoot about the broader societal interest; he’s got his, and if it’s going to bankrupt the state a generation hence, well, as long as they can keep the checks coming till he’s dead, it’s fine by him. ‘Social democracy’ is, in that sense, explicitly anti-social.” —Mark Steyn
I’ll make it even easier for you, ASS
We want to Do Right.
You want to keep (or gain) power no matter what while lining your own pockets
Racism (and accusations of racism, ironically) is just one of the many tools you use to achieve your goals.
As to your quote, I could find something witty that someone has said about the right, too… if it mattered at all, or if anyone cared.
Its telling though…
Think up your own arguments, moron.
America is number one!
Biggest and best military in the world!!!!
And list goes on…. Just can think of any more number ones.
Oh wait, Number one in ignorant red neck, shit eating, evangelical Christian scum.
Makes me want to fucking puke.
You can “want to do right” you can “care” till the cows come home… but the problem is you NEVER ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING EXCEPT TALK.
And really, be careful trotting out your little racism card, sweetcheeks – it WILL come back to bit you in the ASS.
Oh wait, Number one in ignorant red neck, shit eating, evangelical Christian scum.
Makes me want to fucking puke. -Comment by herbalizer— 10/31/05 @ 12:44 pm
Oh I get it: “You are all scum, I hate you, vote for my party”.
Right.
Way to influence folks to your point of view, sweetcheeks.
ASS@51
Thats what we call a “Lie”.
But you’re very comfortable with ’em, I know…
As to the racism card… whatever. You guys started it this time… “Scalito is racist!” …that ring a bell?
Actually I just thought of something. Maybe it isn’t a cynical ploy. I need to remember we’re dealing with the lunatic fringe of the republican party here… a group where a) a good number of people think of almost everything largely in terms of ‘race’ and b) where there still might be anti-italian prejudice. In the left on the west coast (at least in my circles) theres not that much awareness of either. So to cut you some slack, that could be why you thought ‘Scalito’ was racist, and I didn’t.
It may not be a better reason, but at least its less cynical.
A Brilliant Conservative. Picked at exactly the Right Time! No More Legislating from the Supreme court bench! Yeeeee Haaaaawwwwwwwwww
@54
hehe that made me smile ;)
good joke!
Right Wing Extremist Wing?
The Miers nomination was not recalled because of the extreme right wing Christian.
I didn’t know anyone who liked the choice of Miers.
You kiddies have fun playing amongst yourself… We grown up are off to contribute to the robust Bush ecomony… btw – noticed how much Wall Street didn’t care about the big, bad Scooter Libby and seems to LOOOOOOVE Justice Alito?…
With about 6 minutes to go in the trading day:
Dow 10,465.04 +62.27 (+0.60%)
Nasdaq 2,122.29 +32.41 (+1.55%)
S&P 500 1,209.16 +10.75 (+0.90%)
NYSE Volume 2,296,523,000
Nasdaq Volume 1,730,915,000
@57
what a surprise…
Make a fool out of someone like ProudASS, and they duck and run. Ah, well…
I guess its no surprise to anyone that a rightie troll on here is a moral coward.
Back to Aexia’s invocation of “Billary”, which the ghost of Christmas-wingnut pretended not to comprehend. Try this Google search.
Even with a whole lot of misspelled references to “biliary” and foreign language references removed, there are over 40,000 insulting anti-female entries.
windie……the left USES the race card [as they did welfare] to CONTROL people. when you can control them you can tell them how to vote. it’s the ultimate racism, after all, what are they really saying with all this “let us think for you-you aren’t capable” crap? when you can tell them how to vote you can stay in power. don’t think anyone [ especially not the liberal politicians] believes for a moment that the left is all warm and fuzzy and caring. HAH! who brought us the WTO riots, keying of cars, tire slashing, bomb throwing……….hmmmmmmm?
after all we GOPers were all in a country club counting our money….remember?
and you really need to get the whole concept that disagreeing with you does not make one a ‘troll’. you are starting to sound a bit dim…..
N in Seattle……why don’t you tell me [a woman] just how the term billary [although i must hang out with a classier crowd than you because i never heard it] is anti woman.this i have to hear.
when i first read it here my first thought was it was a pointed remark at hillary because she was always trying to act like she was elected president. period. not because she was a woman. what a silly stretch that is.
i suppose you believe that there is a “glass ceiling” too, right?
Notice that most of the filth (and irrationality) is in the posts from LEFTISTS? Amusing, isn’t it?
ChristmasGhost:
Could you clarify something in your answer for me, I don’t want to assume what you meant.
@ 41 you wrote:
“first off…”intellectual challenge”? you mean the one where you told me that i wasn’t qualified to play in your game….that one?
anyhoo….i have no idea why ken mehlman apolgized to the NAACP. i didn’t realize he had done something awful to them.i personally think the NAACP should apologize to everyone else for their total lack of leadership and morals.it’s about as valid an organization as the ACLU or the UN.
look….apologizing for something that our ancestors did[or did not do…mine didn’t] a really long time ago is stupid window dressing.”
When you say “apologizing for something that our ancestors did,” specifically, what do you mean by ancestors did?
Thanks,
GBS
when i first read it here my first thought was it was a pointed remark at hillary because she was always trying to act like she was elected president. period. not because she was a woman. what a silly stretch that is.
Good. Now, can you connect the dots to the criticism that “Scalito is racist”? Kind of seems like a “silly stretch” doesn’t it?
@ 57
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
The Bush Economy?!?! That’s a laugh. You’ve got to be a real kool-aid-aholic to buy that one.
Wiping the tears of laughter from my eyes.
Here’s some stats for you since you like numbers.
Jan. 22, 2001, Bush presidency Day 1, Dow closes at 10,578
Today, Oct. 31, 2005 Day 1,764 of Bush presidency Dow at 10,440.
Do you want me to do the math on the (gain/loss)? No wonder Bush was harping about the paltry 2% return on Social Security, he was looking at the Clinton economy where 2% would be paltry. One, brief look at the Bush economy, 2% looks like a great rate of return, doesn’t it?
It’s the economy, stupid.
@ 57
You ask any investment banker if they’d rather have the Clinton economy of the 90’s, or the Bush economy of recent.
Any investment banker that tells you the latter over the former, well, just be sure they’re not investing your money.
Any basic economy student knows that the President has very little to do with economic tides…
I think the left would only see an appointee that is left of center as ‘being in the mainstream’..
“Scalito” is a reference to Alito being similar to Scalia. So I don’t see how that can be considered racist. Anti-hard right conservative judical activist perhaps, but not racist.
@ 69
I will partially agree with you that a president isn’t the do all to end all when it comes to the ebb an flow of the economy, is to believe that that government has no control of inflation, recession, the cost of borrowing money, etc. To believe that is to believe those factors have no impact on the economy as a whole, which is foolish thinking.
@ 70
Didn’t Roberts get confirmed? Does that mean he’s left of center?
C’mon!! Be reasonable.
ChristmasGhost @ 45
OK, OK, not to split hairs here, but, the Constitution does not protect your rights, it grants them to you. Organizations like the ACLU make sure your rights are protected from people who may try to take, or legislate them away from you.
That’s why the ACLU has taken a position against certain provisions of the Patriot Act. It takes away, through legislation one of your civil liberties. Can you identify that particular civil liberty that is potentially being impeded against, and why?
http://www.horsesass.org/index.php?p=1119
Comment by HowCanYouBePROUDtobeAnASS — 10/28/05 @ 6:09 pm
“It will be fruitcake fringie apoplexy!”
I think we are seeing your prediction come true. And so close to Fitzmas, too!
GBS @ 74
But we don’t have unlimited rights and civil liberties.
It is interesting the fights the ACLU takes on and it is their choice of fights that angers conservatives the most. How can you defend NAMBLA??!!
WAS MIERS NOMINATION A SHAM?
Just wondering how a Machievelli like Rove would handle a Supreme Court nomination … if I were Rove, I’d tell a loyal office lackey like, um, Harriet Miers:
“OK, Harriet, here’s the drill. We’re gonna nominate you for the Supreme Court, but you’re not gonna get on the Supreme Court. Your job is to pave the way for so-and-so, who will overturn Roe v. Wade. Our conservative pals will make a row over your credentials on our cue; then, on my signal, you will withdraw. This will knock the Democrats off balance and make it easier to get the real nominee through the Senate.”
Soooo … I wonder what Harriet’s compensation will be? A lesser federal judgeship? Magistrate, maybe? Or bankruptcy judge? Hmmm …
rgurat602, you are going to the matress? Oh mattress! You gonna do some screwing to make some babies? But, but, but you abort them before full term!!!!
Remember, 4 Million donks have been aborted between 1973 and 2000. Just think of all those donkocratic voters who may have erected Al Gore? Keep aborting!!!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
@76
How can you defend the Nazis?
But how can you NOT defend free speech — if you’re an American who believes in the Constitution, that is?
Mark, if you didn’t have your head so far up your ass you can’t tell a sewer pipe from your own rectum, you’d know that what the ACLU is defending is free speech, not what NAMBLA or the Nazis stand for or advocate.
And, for your information, NAMBLA engages in lobbying for the legalization of man-boy sex — they do NOT advocate breaking existing laws. They have the right to work the political system for the laws they want, just as you do.
And guess what, I don’t what your fucking laws, either — but I wouldn’t have any problem with the ACLU defending your right to spew your tripe and push your fascist agenda.
@69
Any basic economics student (not “economy student”) SHOULD know that deficits = inflation. Any basic economics student that doesn’t know that shouldn’t get a passing grade.
GBS-68 ‘You ask any investment banker if they’d rather have the Clinton economy of the 90’s, or the Bush economy of recent.’
Do not fail to add in whether they would prefer to have the 9-11 attack and subsequent impact on the airlines and the rest of the economy. And we must also consider that the economy went into recession in 2000. Oh, and do not forget to factor in the two wars and associated cost in lives and dollars. Who would not prefer the economy of the 90’s?
If Bush had not pushed through the tax cuts the economy would still be in recession, and the tax receipts would not have been increasing steadily since 2003.
59
You? Ass? A “grown up?”
I’m sure you know what’s coming next … to wit:
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
HEE HOO HAW HA HAR DE HAR HAR HEE HEE HAW HOO HAR HA HA HA HEE HAR HAW HUH HOO HAW HAW HA HEE HAR HA HA HO HO HEE HAR YUCK HAW HAR HOO HA CHUCKLE HAR HAR HO HA HUH SNICKER HOO HAR HA HAW HA HAR HOO HEE HEE HAR HAR HA HA HAW HAR HAR HEE HOO HAR HA HUH HOO HAW HEE HAR HO HO HE HAR HAW HEE HEE HO HO HA HA HOO HAR HA HA
HE HE HE HE HE HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HE HE HE HE HAW HAW HA HAR HEE HOO HA HOOBOY HAR HA HEE HE HE HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HE HE HE HA HA HO HO HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HE HA HA HA HE HE HE HE HO HO HE HE HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAR HAR HAR HAR HAW HAW HO HOO HEE HA HA HA HAR HAR HAR HAR HA AHA HA HA HO HA HAR HAR HEE HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HAR HAR HAW HA HEE HAR HAR HAR HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
Thanks for the laugh, I needed that.
Roger Rabbit-78 ‘..NAMBLA engages in lobbying for the legalization of man-boy sex..’
Now there are some role models. I have always been curious why the lefties do not vilify NAMBLA while they are advocating for their constitutional rights.
Roger Rabbit-79 ‘Any basic economics student (not “economy student”) SHOULD know that deficits = inflation.
Not only is that simplistic, it is wrong. Reagan gets trashed for ever-increasing deficits in the 80’s, and what did inflation do during that time? Ask Carter what it was in 1980 and then compare to 1988. And where has inflation been the last 4 years as the deficit has again been climbing.
What school did you go to…public?
Rupert Wabbet, actually your side seems to support Nambla thru the ACLU! Isn’t that guilt by HorsesASSociation?
North American Moon Bat Love Association!
Question for Rick and Dr E – If a mainstream moderate reasonable member of the Judiciary Committee, say, Senator Kennedy or Senator Schumer, were to ask the Judge Alito during confirmation hearings if he would construe Article 6 of the Constitution to mean that we need to get the permission of france to defend ourselves, would you then label Judge Alito as “extreme” and therefore unfit to sit on the bench?
You seemed to make this case pretty strongly in yesterday’s open thread. I just want to make sure I understand.
@83
Because its irrelevant? The BASIC tenet of free speech advocacy is ‘defend your right to say something, regardless of what I think about it.’
As I said before, NAMBLA is a great stalking horse for you righties. “OH LOOK, GAY PEDOPHILES!” Its a good way to vilify people by association.
On the other hand, I have to think about who we’re dealing with. Its not exactly people known for their great ability to make fine distinctions (“You’re with us, or against us!”)
Notice to moonbats – This is why we fought so hard to get GWB reelected. This is what it all comes down to. I hope President Bush is saying “Bring ’em On.” It’s time the country had a good hard long discussion about the role of the court, and to take away the libs last tool to destroy Murkan culture.
Once this is over, you guys will have no way to further your destructive agenda. We hold the legislative branch. We hold the executive branch. (Note, Her Highness will get her head handed to her in ’08.) The moonbat activists on the court will be in a powerless minority.
You guys are DUN. Put the fork in. DUN.
reading 88,
I’m firmly convinced that MTR’s whole schtick is satire. Theres no way someone can say crap like that seriously.
So bravo, sir! You took me in quite well!
windie-87 ‘Because its irrelevant?’
How about in general? Where are the priorities when Pat Roberts is vilified but not NAMBLA? Are their goals and lobbying efforts not considered to be promoting child abuse?
Call it a red herring if you want. The left has an enormous problem with many social issues that middle America turns against. When choosing to overlook policies and groups to criticize relatively mainstream righties, there is an implicit approval transmitted. In fact, I even remember some here at HA criticizing the righties for not speaking out against Robertson when he talked about the US killing Chavez.
mtr
Your question would be unnecessary under the UN Charter, which recognizes the right of member states to act militarily in self-defense. Self-defense, however, does not include unprovoked or pre-emptive strikes; the only justification for a pre-emptive strike would be an the presence of an imminent threat. Iraq would not, under any legal standard I know of, have posed an imminent threat to the US: it did not have armed forces poised on the US borders, a navy steaming towrd the US, or the like.
“and to take away the libs last tool to destroy Murkan culture.”
Maybe you could explain to us what your view of American culture is — or at least its most salient points — that you feel to be under threat by the Democrats/Liberals/”Left” (etc.).
@90
They would support the right of Pat Roberts to say what he says (like the rights of those pesky nazis). Thats why its irrelevant.
Puddybud,
What time did you set up for Carlson’s show on Nov 7th?!?!?
I need to schedule my day, it’s a work day, Bro!
These huge deficiets ae good for us, to finance the operation, we must sell lots of bonds to China, are we sellng the country to foreign interests? No this promotes economic interdependance, the first step in achieving the “one world” and we will have George Wubya to thank, no more wars, just one big global country, a political Nirvana, you damn liberals never did that well. And idiots like Roger Wabbit, locally, have helped paved the way, thanx to Roger too
yearight on the economy.
Don’t respond to my threads anymore please. You don’t have a clue and waste not only my time but everyone else’s.
For starters, the recession you’re speaking of, was the shortest and shallowest recession in modern times. It corrected itself BEFORE Bush’s tax cuts went into effect. One of the leading contributors to the recession was the tinkering of the energy grid in California by Enron, Duke Energy and other power suppliers.
When you mess with California’s economy you can tilt the entire national economy. Interesting how every time Bush got elected we got ripped of by either electric companies or gasoline companies, isn’t it?
Look at the job growth for Clinton — 22 million. How many new net jobs has Bush’s tax cuts generated.
The 9-11 attacks were devastating to the economy, no doubt, but the market factored that in fairly quickly and rebounded with in months, not years.
The ensuing faltering of the economy came AFTER Bush’s tax cuts went into effect. Like all ill-advised tax cuts there is the initial “sugar rush” then it fades. The Dow has been flat for 1 year now. That NEVER happened under Clinton.
Now that you’ve got you mini Econ 101 history, don’t bother me again. You’re an idiot talking point parrot with no correct answers, intellectual pursuits or original thoughts.
@ 76
I would be happy to respond to your NAMBALA question when you can define it a little bit better.
It is about time Bush used some of his political capital. He won by 4 million for crist sakes.
GBS see the long windbag David Irons thread header from Goldsims. I posted the email I sent to John Carlson.
GBS: You don’t know about Nambla? Now that is an epistemological quandry if I ever saw one!
Heh heh.
Dr E @ 92
I’ll just list some here in no particular order. I won’t give full explanation, but just a short description. We can debate them later if you like:
1) The left attempts to redefine the second amendement to take away constitutionally protected rights of gun ownership.
2) Right here at home, the court tried to silence only the conservative commentary on 912 in clear violation of the first amendment.
3) Environmentalism is mostly an attempt to destroy free markets. Most of the “science” behind it is absolute crap.
4) Progressive taxation at confiscatory rates combined with the welfare state is simply “grouchoandharpoism” on a smaller scale than most libs would really like to do.
5) The left seeks to destroy the family through the welfare state (replacing the role of the man), and by its strong agenda for gay “rights”.
6) Special privilege in the name of diversity is an attempt to destroy the role of merit in everything it touches. It is also extremely sexist and racist.
7) You think guilty criminals should live, and innocent babies should die. That’s just plain evil on its face.
8) You war protestors refuse to understand that peace comes from confronting evil and destroying it. It does not come from trying to understand your enemy’s point of view.
There’s more, but this is probably enough for now. Have at it. Both barrels. I can’t wait.
Hey Wabbit – Didja see oil is below $60. How bout that. You moonbats didn’t have to outlaw SUVs. You didn’t have to force corporations to implement 4 day workweeks. You didn’t have to implement Maria’s price controls. None of it. The invisible hand fixed the problem without you having to leave your hutch.
Ain’t free markets great?
Michael @ 35: “It is unclear whether the Senate rules regarding filibuster apply to any vote, or only to votes on legislation. The argument is that since the senate has the constitutional duty of advise and consent, they would be shirking their duty if a vote is not allowed.”
Wrong, but don’t let that stop you. Obviously, as a high probability, you are an “originalist”, and you are entitled to put words in the mouths of the Founders. In other words, the argument you say “is” doesn’t really exist at all. It is a figment of your fervored imagination.
@83
I advocate for your constitutional rights, too. And wonder why you don’t. Before they come for you and haul you off to their torture chambers. You see, fascists don’t stop at persecuting their enemies; they eat their own, too.
Oh, and another thing…what about all the Clintion nominations that did not get past Orrin Hatch? No “up or down votes there”, eh?
Damn, I forgot, you were too busy moving the goal posts to notice.
I thought it might be instructive to take a look back to Judge Alito’s first confirmation – in April of 1990. He was confirmed by unanimous consent – reported favorably from the Democrat-controlled Judiciary Committee by none other than Joe Biden.
Better yet – nineteen currently serving Senate Democrats were part of that unanimous consent.
Christopher Dodd
Joseph Lieberman
Joseph Biden
Daniel Inouye
Tom Harkin
Paul Sarbanes
Barbara Mikulski
Edward Kennedy
John Kerry
Carl Levin
Max Baucus
Harry Reid
Frank Lautenberg
Jeff Bingaman
Kent Conrad
Patrick Leahy
Robert Byrd
Jay Rockefeller
Herbert Kohl
For those keeping track – that’s almost half the current Democratic caucus in the senate.
Dr E – Addendum to my post @ 101
9) Left trying to destroy American health care system through socialized medicine ala Hillary.
10) The complete feminization of family law that enslaves men and destroys their lives and their children’s lives.
Given that Dubya caved to the would-be Taliban base of his party by appointing a right wing crank, the Democrats sure the hell better listen to the base of their party! Simply put, now that push has come to shove if the Dems can’t find the backbone it takes to stand up and be counted then they are simply not worth supporting. As far as I’m concerned, it’s time to call the Republicans bluff by letting them unleash their fucking nuclear option. In doing so they’ll not only pay an immediate price with the voting public, but they’ll pay an even greater price down the road when the day comes when it’s a Democratic President making those court nominations.
@107
Yeah, I agree — make them put this cluck on the Court the hard way — then cut their hearts out when their turn comes to be on the getting end.
Rooselk – You ASSume that a donkocrat will be elected. But wait, you have Hilary. Remember if you think the “wing-nuts” are here now, just wait until those silent majority womens appear and blast her sorry ass back the Chappiqua.
You fringie fruitcakes are nuttier than earlier imagined if you think the Dimwits will filibuster this nominee.
There are lib senators up for re-election in red, RED, RED states… then you can tally up the senators from sttes with already angry Italians…
Sorry nutburgers, your senators are more interested in retaining the perks of their seats than making you fruitcake fringies happy.
Dr. E @ 91
I hope you’re not saying that the Left is all about the UN. The Left is also ALL for closed-shop states to pay back their union financiers. And closed shops are a violation of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Okay, here are some preliminary thoughts. I’m sure I could be more thorough if I had more time, but maybe it’ll get the ball rolling for others to comment.
1) The left attempts to redefine the second amendement to take away constitutionally protected rights of gun ownership.
As far as I’m aware, the courts have not definitively decided exactly what the Second Amendment protects, beyond framing the matter as a states’ rights issue. So, I don’t exactly see how liberals can redefine that which has yet to be clearly defined (states’ rights issues notwithstanding).
2) Right here at home, the court tried to silence only the conservative commentary on 912 in clear violation of the first amendment.
My recollection of this matter is not whether the hosts had the right to say what they did — that was not under dispute, but rather to what extent the airtime devoted to I-912 was advocacy and therefore something for which the radio station should have been paid. This is not some sort of bizarre liberal conspiracy, but rather a fair application of FCC guidelines (which, as some of you may recall, contained an Equal Time clause that grandpa Reagan did away with in the 1980s) which establish a differentiation between content and advertising, and that the judge deemed the content to constitute advocacy (advertising), rather than discussion (content). As such, it appears to have to do with state campaign laws rather than the First Amendment.
3) Environmentalism is mostly an attempt to destroy free markets. Most of the “science” behind it is absolute crap.
Environmentalism proceeds, for the most part, from a simple concept: that the commons are the possession of the public, and are not be appropriated for private use without public consent. Polluters appropriate the commons for their own use, leaving the public no choice but to receive the unwanted byproducts of their production. Arsenic in your water is still arsenic, and the high levels of mercury found in freshwater fish in many parts of the country is still mercury; these know no societal boundaries and contaminate humans without regard to their political affiliation. EPA regulations that do not appreciably limit the infringement on the commons seem, at least to me, to put corporate interests before those of the public. Does a “free” market tolerate pollution, encourage it, or excoriate it? Or is it immaterial? I’m not an economist — those letters after my name come from a different discipline entirely — so I’m willing to be educated.
4) Progressive taxation at confiscatory rates combined with the welfare state is simply “grouchoandharpoism” on a smaller scale than most libs would really like to do.
I’m having a bit of trouble deciphering what you’re trying to argue here.
5) The left seeks to destroy the family through the welfare state (replacing the role of the man), and by its strong agenda for gay “rights”.
I personally don’t see any incongruence between having a “traditional” family (see below) and supporting gay rights, since I’ve seen no reliable evidence that one damages the other. That said, I’m not sure I can really argue your point as it stands, since it assumes two things: 1) that the concept of “the family” is immutable (and also not defined here), and; 2) that the motivation behind social entitlements and gay rights advocacy is the actual destruction of this immutable concept. I’ll reserve argument on the first matter until you offer a definition for what constitutes a family — this is particularly important, as I’m sure you’re aware, in gay rights arguments, so it is germane. As for the second, the honus is on you to prove that the perceived motivation is in fact true, since you’re asserting it is.
6) Special privilege in the name of diversity is an attempt to destroy the role of merit in everything it touches. It is also extremely sexist and racist.
Similar comment to above: prove the malicious intent. I’d rather reframe the argument thus: can merit and diversity coexist? I see it happen all the time.
7) You think guilty criminals should live, and innocent babies should die. That’s just plain evil on its face.
First of all, you’re generalizing: there isn’t consensus among Democrats (or liberals, for that matter) on either the death penalty or on abortion (which I presume you mean by saying “innocent babies”). i also don’t follow the leap forward to imputing evil to those who oppose the death penalty but support the woman’s right to choose.
8) You war protestors refuse to understand that peace comes from confronting evil and destroying it. It does not come from trying to understand your enemy’s point of view.
I believe it was Sun Tzu who said that to know your enemy, you must become your enemy. You know the quote: “keep your friends close and your enemies closer.” To understand your enemy’s point of view is to understand their motivation; in such knowledge is the means to defeat the enemy. Lack of such knowlege would bring, at best stalemate. I can’t speak for all liberals, of course, but I think that many of us do want to understand the motivations of our adversary, and see a gross recklessness in the disinterest of these motivations on behalf of the current administration. So, I’d rather ask the following: do you want to defeat this enemy? If so, does ignorance of their actual motivation (not jejeune talking points like “they hate our freedoms”) constitute a strategy for success?
9) Left trying to destroy American health care system through socialized medicine ala Hillary.
The argument, as I understand it, is that a single-payer system would destroy our current (highly inefficient) private healthcare system. Why would it be impossible for the two systems to coexist? They do in most Western European countries that offer a single-payer system.
10) The complete feminization of family law that enslaves men and destroys their lives and their children’s lives.
I really don’t understand what you’re talking about here… are you talking about divorce?
111
The question was about the legality under international law of an act of aggression, not about “closed shop” states.
Dr E. I will only answer one point #9. Their single payer health system elevates the gas tax to ~$3 a gallon and their income tax to the 50% range. I have friends in Sweeeeden, whom pay 62% taxes B4 they get their salary. I don’t think medicine is worth that in taxes.
I used Sweden as a rather extreme case. That 62% your friends are paying goes to more than just the health care system. They’re also supporting a system of national universities that is tuition-free, cost-free preschools, etc. I believe it’s what they refer to as the concept of “tryghed”.
The standard right wing tactics are to either take a liberal position and recharacterize it into a distant caricature of itself or to quote from some far left nutbags like PETA (Note that nutbags exist on the far fringes of both wings, such as David Duke and Ann Coulter on the right and anarchists from Eugene Oregon on the left). Having set up their strawman, they then proceed to knock it down.
So Mark the Redneck sets up ten absurd strawmen and proceeds to knock them down with a self-satisfied smirk.
@103 Wrong, but don’t let that stop you.
Oh, you say so, I guess it is settled then. Do you have a source?
WAYNE, your argument almost works except all the left wingnuts are anarchists. Our side doesn’t destroy property. Remember, Tim McVeigh was one of your side wingnuts.
115
Dr E -just curious. Doest that 62% cover housing for every citizen and food as well? If it does then that is not a bad deal.
McVeigh was not a lefty, he was a militia type hardcore rightwinger. Why did he blow up the federal building in OK City? Same with Eric Rudolph. The wingnuts on your side don’t destroy property, they kill people.
120
Not so fast. I thought there was some evidence that he was involed with Islmofacist terrorist organizations. We all know that people who coddle, sympathise or back terrorists are lefties.
Boy are you wrong.
1. Christians have a belief in Right and Wrong. Democrats its only sex.
2. The right believes that the constitution is the base document. According to the constitution if it is not listed it is a state issue. For over a century the states rights have erroded as the Federal power grows. Do you think the people in Washington DC on the other side of the country can say what can and can not be taught in schools. And remember the first century of schools taught reading from the Bible. It was not unconstitutional in the 1800’s.
3. Current court cases are looking at international law to determine their rulings. Show me in the COnstitution where Laws written in other countries trump the US constitution. Remember if it is not in the constitution as a right or a law then it can be determined by individual states. But once the Supreme Court rules what is accepted by one state must be accepted by all states.
What laws could that mean. San Francisco was to lower the age of consent for sex to 14 years of age. Should that be accepted across the country?
or Look at how Cuba treats its AIDS victims. Maybe that law should be required in the USA.
What about the laws of Arab world that all must bow to ALLAH. SHould that become law. If they dont they are third class citizens or Slaves (Yes Slavery is alive and well in the Arab World)
Or Look at Northern Africa. The Arabs are killing Christians in the name of ALLAH. BUt You must agree that that is a perfectly good law to kill all us right wingers. Right.
The constitution is a great document corrupted by the powers to be to increase their power. What I care about is Constitutional Judges that read the document and do not add changes or opinions just because they believe something else is correct. States rights were put in to prevent the Federal Government from controlling everything. That was the biggest fear of the Founding Fathers. They did not want a king or dictator. These days 7 judges can determine the fate of this country. What do you prefer a Judge who makes laws and changes to society through the bench or a Judge that reads that the States have rights too and need to take responsiblity for what they are suppose to do for its citizens. That Laws need to be made at the State level and if you want to change the COnstitution there is a way to add things to the Constitution. Look at all the Amendments added so far. If your arguement can not pass muster in most of the States does it make it right to force it every state because one State says it is OK?
124
Amen brother. I like this Alito nomination. He isn’t as conservative as I would like but he will do.
re 59: And Wall Street is in debt to Japan and Red China for a tidy bundle. Can’t wait ’til they demand it in EUROS! No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Lets look at mark the redneck for a minute.
10) The complete feminization of family law that enslaves men and destroys their lives and their children’s lives.
I think that speaks for itself… in volumes.
That stuff about Islamofascist terrorists was and is total bullcrap from Larry Klayman and similar nutjobs.
There you go with strawmen again. Essentially you are saying that because liberals take the principle “innocent until proven guilty” seriously, and recognize that sometimes terrorists are driven to unacceptable actions by legitimate grievances, we support terrorists. And righties only coddle, sympathize or back righteous freedom fighters like the contras, Planned Parenthood bombers and Saddam (back when Reagan hoped he would provide a counterweight to Iran).
re 127: You’re right! He’s a deadbeat dad who’s been defeated by a woman. Typical Republican!
David Afinrud! You need sex therapy bad!!!! You are one sick motherfucker! I would have said “cocksucker”, but I don’t want to cause a suicide.
David at 124: You said “Christians have a belief in right and wrong.” You should have said “(Right-wing) Christians have a belief (that they are) right and (anyone who disagrees with them is) wrong.
Also, your interpretation of the Constitution is wrong. The Constitution created a more robust federal government because the founders had recognized that the Articles of Confederation, which provided for a weak federal government and powerful state governments, was not working. The founders were also very concerned with protecting the rights of the minority from the whims of the majority.
Rufus: I’m glad someone on this board knows a little about McVeigh. Most bats are totally ignorant.
So Wayne: Is the Constitution a fixed document or a living breathing ever changing one? Careful how you answer that!!! Also Wayne explain the Magna Carta for all of us “dummies” here! Careful again, you may need to Google that!
Who in the hell is Ezkémo, an just what are you babbling about? Deadbeat dads, they impregnate donk girls who have abortions, killing potential donk voters who would have been in the donk pool. Come on Ezkémo, you have to step to the plate to bat!
David A: You know the ACLU and their moonbat support for stupid laws; why not just go all the way to lower the consent age to 12 like it is in the Netherlands? Then more donks can be conceived, but most will be aborted donks again!
121
Not as far as I know.
Funny PuddyButt, but you seem to be the only one that knows about/or is interested in your NAMBLA!!! Is it true you are a card carrying member of said group? Must be so, you know it inside and out. LMAO@PUDBUTT
David,
Your laundry list of grievances does not constitute a logical argument. You’ve largely frame your discussion within the context of Christianity, which I suppose is fine, so long as you are not suggesting that the United States is a Christian nation. It isn’t. There are Christians living in this nation, but the nation itself is secular, or at least is supposed to be. If you believe in the Constitution of the United States being the paramount law of the land, then how would you explain the First Amendment?
I further think that you’ve misunderstood previous discussions of international law. These aren’t laws “written in some other country” that trump the US Constitution. You might want to go back and review what others have posted on the subject in other threads recently.
Puddybud,
I am aware of the organization NAMBLA, my apologies if I conveyed that I wasn’t aware of them.
My intent is to have Mark @ 74 clarify what he means when he asks how I can “defend” NAMBALA.”
GBS @ 136
GBS supports ACLU. ACLU defends NAMBLA. Ergo…
You ever notice how mainstream Republicans will immediately denounce and call for the arrest of Far Right whackjobs (clinic bombers, etc.), but Democrats namby-pamby dance around their radical wing of eco-terr0r1sts, NAMBLA, etc.
Unless, of course, you want to immediately call for the arrest of anyone who spikes trees or burns down the UW Horticulture lab? Do you denounce NAMBLA? EarthFirst?
GBS @ 136
The post is in Filter Land
Mark @ 137
I’ll check back from time to time to answer your question.
Thanks,
GBS
Two years ago I moved to Washington after my retirement from the Army because I saw the handwriting on the wall after Bush was appointed President in 2000. A blind man could have spotted it in a minute, if they had bothered to look.
In 2004 and again in 2005, the Dominionist in Congress attempted to pass the ‘Constitution Restoration Act of 2005’. Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable:
`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity’s, officer’s, or agent’s acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.’.
Real cute, no? Suppose the law eventually passes. Suppose in one of my Southern States, they pass a law that says homosexuality is a crime punishable by life imprisonment or death, and a local Judges interpretation of the Bible says this is the sovereign source of law. A Clone of Judge Roy Moore sits on the State Supreme Court and decides this is cool. The Supremes, with newly elected Judgy Wudgy ‘Scalito’ decides that executing gays is just peachy keen Constitutional, based on the CRA.
Far fetched? Maybe? But when the majority rest of the Country turns into a religious Theocracy, your old Sarge will sit behind the boarders of Washington for his remaining 50 years (G-d willing) and watch it all with disinterest. Let the Religious Fascist have the fracking middle. Stay the hell away from the West (Left) Coast. And if my Republican brothers have a problem with this, move to Jesus-land.
You may not like my ideas of what this country will be in the future. But as the present Supreme Court in its last session it was looking at foriegn laws that made their point. The constitution was not listed. The constitution is a great document but has been torn apart by activist Judges. It all started when the Senators got elected instead of Selected by the Legislature in each State. Instead of one elected body by the people to support the people and One group selected by the states to protect states rights it became what it is today. How many votes can I buy today or whose Back to I have to scratch to get more money for my next election. The House and Senate pay a lot of attention to special interests. Democrats to Unions and Republicans to Big Business. Very rarely do you get a good conservative to stay conservative once the money and scratch your back if you scratch my back mentality steps in. Most of the time once you are elected you will be reelected even some of the worse members of Congress get reelected. Until you commit a crime or kill someone.
It was the court system that worked with Democrats to block all nominees to thier court until a selected group of judges heard certain cases. Interesting that never makes the news. Federal judges and Democrats work together to ensure rulings are made the way they want them to be made. Remember it was individual desires not Law nor the Constitution.
You may think I have sick ideas but I want to make people think of all the laws in the world. Think of the millions that have died in the last 40 years by dictators, Communists and Socialist governments. Many of you are proud of Vietnam. I am not proud of the fact that politically we did not stand by our allies because it started the road for hundreds of thousands of people to be killed. Yet I have heard the defense that they where helping America so they deserve to die. The Hate America or blame America for everything is wrong. Look at all the people who suffer and die because of thier rulers moving Millions and millions of dollars from aid programs to private bank accounts.
Case in Point how did Arafat become a billionaire ruling Palestine area. He took the money designated for aid to the palestinian people for his own use and his cronies use. How much of your tax payer dollars ended up in those bank accounts.
Look at North Africa where thousands die every week from one dictator or another. And the Thriving slave trade that takes place even today. Or do you close your eyes to what really happens in the world because you hate America too much.
Socialism is a failed experiment. Democracy if tried by honest men and elected fairly will speak for the people. Honest elections are not possible everywhere even in the US that concept is in question.
From what I read Alito will be a good member of the Supreme Court. I have not seen any evidence that he will look into international law to make his rulings. That is my greatest fear. Because internation law depends on what country you want to look at. Hillary Clinton Praised the Cubian and Canadian health care system. Both have fatal flaws. Cuba procedure for treating people with aids most Americans will disagree with. Or Canada’s lack of equipement to figure out what is wrong. Waiting lists to get catscans. Or Heart Surgery waiting list for monthes if not years. Odds are you die before you number comes up. One way to cut expenses right.
I want people to think because if you dont look at everything that is happening eventually you will be at the end of the court rulings because the judges are becoming beholding to Politicians and when that happens we no longer have an independent Court system that will correct bad law that will remove individual rights one by one for the greater good. Like the Supreme court this summer saying City government can take your property if they can give it to someone else to make something that will provide more tax revenue. Will your house be next or Your apartment building. Or maybe your place of work. All of the can be lost if the city thinks they have a better way to use those places.
Chimp the Head Monkey Pa-Troll of Animal Hind Parts: Me, a card carrying member of NAMBLA? Shirley you jest. Donks support the ACLU. THe ACLU supports NAMBLA. Therefore Donks support NAMBLA. Is that simple enough for that small simian brain your large cranial orifice contains?
Hey Goldy, do you support this?
http://www.newsmax.com/archive.....shtml?et=y
What is your definition of acceptable. The judge must coordinate with the democratic party to make laws from the Bench.
Alito would fail. He believes that rulings should be based on US Law and the Constitution. That is contrary to the the liberals on the Supreme Court that have to go overseas to find laws to fit what they want this country to be like. Presently the Supreme court has taken away one constitution right protection of private property. So a city can steal someones property because the second person will produce more tax revenue. IS that right. Remember they can take Homes, Parks, Businesses maybe even shoreline property because a developer can make more money for the city. Is that right? I dont believe it is the right thing to do. But that is the direction the court is going. And it will continue chipping away at rights as long as you go outside the US to find support for your rulings. That is the type of judge I do not want on the bench. As per my previous post some of you thought was sick. It was written to express what it could look like if the judicial branch writes legislation from the bench. Mass Supreme Court has done so on the Gay Marriage bill. They did not like the first bill nor the second bill. It had to be the way they wanted it or else. More like a group of dictators instead of reviewing the laws written by the legislature that was supported by the people. CLinton nominated some of the people that go to laws outside the US. So basically I guess the Democrats want the same laws as the EU, Cuba, Canada, how about North Korea. Because Clinton made that treaty with the help of Carter to give the North Koreans a chance to make Nuclear weapons. North Korea is our friend right. Well we are one of the few places they can hit with their nuclear weapons on the West Coast.
Everything depends on how you look at the constitution. If a judge uses international law or law in another country they like I do not call them a good choice to the Supreme Court. Think about it. A supreme court justice must use US Law and the US Constitution as it is written not as he or she wishes it was written. When individuals start changing things because they want it to change a certain way and it is not in the constitution who is really responsible for the laws. Thats right it is a State issue. But these days because of changes in the structure of everything people want to make it a federal issue. The federal government is not perfect. They can not do what everyone wants them to do. But they do listen to Special Interests over the people. Because Special interests fill thier reelection coffers both parties are guilty different special interests for each group. Those same special interests want to block people from the Supreme Court that they do not agree with. They want only their voices heard. They do not care what the law says. So what kind of Judge is a good judge for the Supreme Court. A judge that reads the laws or makes new laws?
Donkocratic Special Interests, the nutburgers and fruitcake moonbats of the left of the left. Did you see Eleanor Smeal on TV last night? She would not answer questions about supporting any judge who may disagree with her on abortion. Talk about litmus tests? The litmus paper is really red now with the lefties. Lefties: litmus tested use racist comments to denigrate your opponents and then claim “Oh it’s just our way of expressing our views” horsecrap. Horsecrap – that which flows from the mind of Goldy to the pixels of HA.
David, David, David…
Let me just ask one rhetorical question: is the current Supreme Court not already a conservative court? Who appointed those justices sitting on the Supreme Court, anyway? (Okay, that’s more than one rhetorical question.)
The suggestion that the Supreme Court is too liberal is to me a lot of hot air. It indicates to me that either the justices are more reasonable arbiters of law than current Republicans would like, or that the Republican party has moved farther to the right in the past 20 years (probably both). You might not like the fact that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of eminent domain — heck, I don’t like it either — but it wasn’t a liberal court that did this, was it?
Marky Mark @ 137
OHHH KAAY
The reason I asked for clarification is that I suspected you’d be so simplistic in your reasoning.
Thanks, but no thanks in your offer for debate.
Suffice to say that I do not support the molestation of children but do support thier right to free speech no matter how opposed I am to it.
As for your domestic terrorist that bomb medical clinics, no your side does not denounce them, they make excuses for them.
OK, run along and do something within your intellectual capacity like listeing to more of your boy band music. The adults are trying to talk.