Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
Whatever happened to good people running positive campaigns?
I voted. AGAINST Groen. FOR Alexander. Is that double voting?
1
Where have you been? Hey, check out Mike!s ads. They may be what you’re looking for. Nice, non-threatening; they don’t say uncomfortable things about who’s financing who. Best not to worry too much about that.
Oh gee lets excoriate Groen over the environment, failed stem cell research and for not being a flaming pro-bort.
yessirree…
Vote for Gerry Alexander, protect pedophiles, baby murderers, criminals and liberals.
You know, I’m getting the feeling that it’s the Republifascists we should really be worried about.
1) Which of the following former U.S. Presidents best represents your political philosophy? John F. Kennedy / Jimmy Carter / Ronald Reagan / George H.W. Bush / William J. Clinton
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
2) Which one of the current/recent Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court most reflects your judicial philosophy? John Paul Stevens / Ruth Bader Ginsburg / Sandra Day O’Connor / William H. Rehnquist / Antonin Scalia.
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
3) “Strict constructionism” has been defined as the view that a constitution’s provisions should be construed according to the plain and ordinary meaning accorded the words found therein at the time of the provisions’ adoption or ratification. The “living constitution” approach has been defined as the view that constitutional provisions should be construed according to what the words mean today or should be interpreted according to currently held values and opinions. Please rate your judicial philosophy on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being strict constructionist, and 10 being living constitutionalist.
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
4) I support a judge’s display of the Ten Commandments in his or her courtroom.
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
5)In In re Parentage of L.B., 155 Wash.2d 679 (2005), the Washington State Supreme Court allowed the homosexual partner of a child’s biological mother to petition for rights as a parent. I believe that In re Parentage of L.B. was correctly decided.
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
6) In the Washington State Supreme Court’s recent decision in Andersen v. King County, published on July 26, 2006, the Court held that Washington State’s Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, is constitutional. I believe that Andersen was correctly decided.
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
7) In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the United States Supreme Court decided that the Texas criminal abortion statutes prohibiting abortions at any stage of pregnancy except to save the life of the mother are unconstitutional. I believe Roe was correctly decided.
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
8) In Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), the United States Supreme Court ruled that prayer over the loudspeakers before a public high school football game in Texas was unconstitutional. I believe Santa Fe was correctly decided.
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
9) In HTK Management, LLC v. Seattle Monorail Project, 155 Wash.2d 612 (2005), the Court held that the Seattle Monorail Project (“SMP”) could condemn a property owner’s entire property, and that the SMP could sell or lease surplus property that it condemned, in the future, for public or private use. I believe that HTK Management was correctly decided.
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
10) In 2005, a majority in the Washington Legislature wanted to raise taxes on cigarettes and liquor but did not have the two-thirds required by Initiative 601, which was passed by voters in 1993. In Washington State Farm Bureau Federation v. Reed, 154 Wash.2d 668 (2005), the Washington State Supreme Court allowed an emergency clause to be attached to a bill that would allow the taxes to be raised by a simple majority vote. I believe that Washington State Farm Bureau Federation was correctly decided.
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
11) Historically, Washington law has said that when a person commits “any” felony (felonies are serious crimes, including assault) during which someone dies, it is second degree murder. In In re Personal Restraint of Andress, 147 Wash.2d 602 (2002), the Washington State Supreme Court held that assault could not lead to a conviction for second degree murder. Hundreds of convicted second degree murderers were thus eligible to seek to have their convictions overturned. In 2003, the Legislature changed the law to specifically include assault. I believe that In re Andress was correctly decided.
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
12) I do not believe that the Washington State Constitution prohibits imposition of the death penalty.
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
I have been a member of the following national, state, or local nonprofit organizations:
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
I have contributed more than $500 to the following national, state, or local nonprofit organizations:
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
I have provided more than 100 hours of volunteer services to the following national, state, or local non-profit organizations:
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
I have been employed by the following national, state, or local nonprofit organizations:
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
The following national, state, or local nonprofit organizations have endorsed me for public office:
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
I have received awards from the following national, state, or local nonprofit organizations:
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
Political committees affiliated with, or leaders in, the following national, state, or local nonprofit organizations have contributed to a campaign committee supporting my candidacy for any public office:
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
I have received awards from the following national, state, or local nonprofit organizations:
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
ASS
Gee, you’re awfuly hard on him. Maybe it got lost in the mail. Did you ask him?
Does Mrs. Grossman look like Mattie Albright? I’m taking bets!
I love this one
” ‘Strict constructionism’ has been defined as…”
“The ‘living constitution’ approach has been defined as…”
I don’t agree with either of the definitions you offered. Who defined them thus? That’s an actual question I’d like you to answer.
The questionnaire left no room for an answer of “This is a bunch of bullshit.” I’ll bet Gerry noticed that.
Well, we know that Proud to be an Ass is a BIAW plant now.
In other news, latest poll on the WA 8 race. Burner up 49-46:
http://www.constituentdynamics.....ndex2.html
And we will see if in Rhode Island wether the Republicans have any sense or will put forward a total wingnut candidate for office. I’m betting on the wingnut candidate.
Does John Craig Herman suck cock, or only takes it up the ass. I’m taking bets.
The rightwing attack on Justice Gerry Alexander shows just how loony the right has become. Alexander is a lifelong Republican, noted for moderation if not conservatism in both lifestyle and politics. He has never been someone to upset the apple cart. Nonetheless, he is facing baseless attacks from the right. Remarkably and ironically, they accuse him of judicial activism. Judicial activism involves making decisions based on whim and personal bias rather than the law. A judicial activist, Justice Alexander is not. John Groen, on the other hand, is being promoted by fringe rightwingers precisely because they expect him to be an activist, a vote for fringe property rights groups regardless of what the law might demand. Groen has done nothing to distinguish himself as a lawyer, and he has no business thinking he has earned a place on our state’s highest court. Aside from an abundance of chutzpah, he would not be running for Supreme Court.
Here’s a nice discussion of some of the problems with defining “strict Construction,” if one is insterested in ACTUALLY defining it.
But hell, we know what it means. It means elect a conservative judge and not a liberal one. ASS, you would admit to that, wouldn’t you? Come on. Step up.
WASHINGTON DC – Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold called on President Bush to refrain from using the phrase “Islamic fascists,” saying it was offensive to Muslims and has nothing to do with global terrorists fighting the United States. “We must avoid using misleading and offensive terms that link Islam with those who subvert this great religion or who distort its teachings to justify terrorist activities,” Feingold said Tuesday . . . [………………………………………………………………………Russ, Are you for real? Only Democrat idiots would believe that.]
Strict contruction is one of those irregular verbs:
I am a strict constructionist.
You follow the original intent of the drafters.
S/He is a judicial activist.
“I don’t belong to an organized political party. I’m a Democrat.” – Will Rogers.
Commentby howcanyoubePROUD — 9/12/06@ 10:42 am
I missed the question where you asked if he was going to quit beating his wife.
Could it be that after reading several obviously inappropriate questions (as they relate to issues that could well come before the court) and several other questions that are just obvious attempts to come up with sound bites for attack ads, he just wadded up this obvious piece of tripe and threw it away?
While you haven’t disclosed the origin of this “questionaire”, my guess is that it was produced by or at the request of the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW). While they are welcome to ask questions of any candidate for any office, they are hardly unbiased in this race.
yes the right wing turds are all for judicial activists as long as those activists are bank rolled by the BIAW!
1) Which of the following former U.S. Presidents best represents your political philosophy? John F. Kennedy / Jimmy Carter / Ronald Reagan / George H.W. Bush / William J. Clinton
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
2) Which one of the current/recent Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court most reflects your judicial philosophy? John Paul Stevens / Ruth Bader Ginsburg / Sandra Day O’Connor / William H. Rehnquist / Antonin Scalia.
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
3) “Strict constructionism” has been defined as the view that a constitution’s provisions should be construed according to the plain and ordinary meaning accorded the words found therein at the time of the provisions’ adoption or ratification. The “living constitution” approach has been defined as the view that constitutional provisions should be construed according to what the words mean today or should be interpreted according to currently held values and opinions. Please rate your judicial philosophy on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being strict constructionist, and 10 being living constitutionalist.
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
I have been a member of the following national, state, or local nonprofit organizations:
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
I have contributed more than $500 to the following national, state, or local nonprofit organizations:
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
I have provided more than 100 hours of volunteer services to the following national, state, or local non-profit organizations:
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
I have been employed by the following national, state, or local nonprofit organizations:
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
The following national, state, or local nonprofit organizations have endorsed me for public office:
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
I have received awards from the following national, state, or local nonprofit organizations:
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
Political committees affiliated with, or leaders in, the following national, state, or local nonprofit organizations have contributed to a campaign committee supporting my candidacy for any public office:
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
I have received awards from the following national, state, or local nonprofit organizations:
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING THAT COULD COME BEFORE THE COURT.
TELL US, DID THE CARTER NITWIT IN DETROIT HAPPEN TO INFORM ANYONE THAT SHE IS/WAS AN ACLU ACTIVIST BEFORE SHE ALLOWED THEM TO COME BEFORE HER AND RULE FOR THEM?
Bullshit on you.
goose/gander kiddies… you always want it both ways.
how convenient.
Washington State Supreme Court Position 8: In a non-partisan primary today, 8/15/06, for Washington State Supreme Court Justice Position 8, incumbent Gerry L. Alexander faces a tough challenge from John Groen, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted exclusively for KING-TV Seattle. Alexander gets 36% of the vote. Groen gets 32%. With a 6 percentage point margin of sampling error, and low voter interest, Alexander’s advantage is not statistically significant. With 32% of likely voters undecided, court seat is up for grabs. The primary winner will be the only name on the ballot in the general election on 11/7/06 and is practically assured of winning the general election.
ProudtobeanAss:
Does the BIAW pay you by the post?
“I don’t belong to an organized political party. I’m a Democrat.” – Will Rogers.
I notice that you conveniently left out questions four through twelve on your reply.
Those would be:
4) I support a judge’s display of the Ten Commandments in his or her courtroom.
5)In In re Parentage of L.B., 155 Wash.2d 679 (2005), the Washington State Supreme Court allowed the homosexual partner of a child’s biological mother to petition for rights as a parent. I believe that In re Parentage of L.B. was correctly decided.
6) In the Washington State Supreme Court’s recent decision in Andersen v. King County, published on July 26, 2006, the Court held that Washington State’s Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, is constitutional. I believe that Andersen was correctly decided.
7) In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the United States Supreme Court decided that the Texas criminal abortion statutes prohibiting abortions at any stage of pregnancy except to save the life of the mother are unconstitutional. I believe Roe was correctly decided.
8) In Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), the United States Supreme Court ruled that prayer over the loudspeakers before a public high school football game in Texas was unconstitutional. I believe Santa Fe was correctly decided.
9) In HTK Management, LLC v. Seattle Monorail Project, 155 Wash.2d 612 (2005), the Court held that the Seattle Monorail Project (“SMP”) could condemn a property owner’s entire property, and that the SMP could sell or lease surplus property that it condemned, in the future, for public or private use. I believe that HTK Management was correctly decided.
10) In 2005, a majority in the Washington Legislature wanted to raise taxes on cigarettes and liquor but did not have the two-thirds required by Initiative 601, which was passed by voters in 1993. In Washington State Farm Bureau Federation v. Reed, 154 Wash.2d 668 (2005), the Washington State Supreme Court allowed an emergency clause to be attached to a bill that would allow the taxes to be raised by a simple majority vote. I believe that Washington State Farm Bureau Federation was correctly decided.
11) Historically, Washington law has said that when a person commits “any” felony (felonies are serious crimes, including assault) during which someone dies, it is second degree murder. In In re Personal Restraint of Andress, 147 Wash.2d 602 (2002), the Washington State Supreme Court held that assault could not lead to a conviction for second degree murder. Hundreds of convicted second degree murderers were thus eligible to seek to have their convictions overturned. In 2003, the Legislature changed the law to specifically include assault. I believe that In re Andress was correctly decided.
12) I do not believe that the Washington State Constitution prohibits imposition of the death penalty.
As I said, I think he took one quick look at that obvious piece of tripe, wadded it up and threw it away. I also note that you still have not identified the originator of this “questionaire”.
Of course, you could also make the point that he has yet to tell us when he quit beating his wife.
Gee I thought you guys all consider SurveyUSA polls, and polling in general, to be useless and biased.
I see a shoe on the other foot.
Excellent comment on 9/11:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/.....rgive-you/
http://blatherwatch.blogs.com/.....in_th.html
PROUDASS
Proud Lefist,
Maybe the reason Alexander is catching hell is that he can’t finish his term and Gregoire would get to appoint his successor…………????
PROUDASS
You are so consistent in blathering about that which you know nothing. Any judicial candidate who would answer the questions you printed would be of very questionable ethics. In Washington, judicial positions are, and should be, nonpartisan. Litigants do not have confidence in a legal system in which they perceive bias. You tell me if you would feel confident about getting a fair shake from a judge who openly proclaimed that his or her political philosophy was most like Bill Clinton’s. If Groen has answered those questions, that would provide further evidence of his lack of judicial competence. Moreover, as John Barelli has so correctly pointed out, a number of the questions you printed could very well end up in front of the court. Naturally, of course, you don’t understand that judges are to evaluate evidence and the applicable law in every case that comes before them, and not to prejudge an outcome. Because you are unfamiliar with the concept of evidence or facts, I can understand how you would overlook the significance of such a concept with regard to its role in jurisprudence. John Groen is not qualified for this state’s Supreme Court.
Who sent the questionnaire out HCYBtbaA?
I ask that for two reasons:
1) This questionnaire does not appear in any other public repository I am aware of.
2) Judges are busy people. If the League of Women Voters sent out a questionnaire like this and Justice Alexander refused to answer the questions, I would be concerned. If I (or you) sent out a questionnaire as a private citizen and Justice Alexander refused to answer the questions, I would think he figured his time was being wasted. I would be disappointed, and think less of him as a person (especially if he didn’t answer ME!), but not as much.
Michael Ware, CNN correspondent, today:
So we have about 140K troops in Iraq. Where will we get 280K more? Anyone? ASS?
The Bush “plan” is a plan for failure. It always was, and he won’t change it for anything. We will have to change it for him.
Hey ASS, do you have Groen’s answers to that questionnaire handy?
I mean, if the war on terror is really a “struggle for civilization” itself, as President Bush claimed last night, why do we have just 130,000 troops in Iraq? Isn’t it important enough?
Mac @ 26
I’ve heard such speculation. Given, however, the Republican confidence that Rossi will be elected governor in 2008 (before Alexander would retire), I would think that Republicans would believe that Rossi would pick Alexander’s successor. Five years is certainly a lifetime in politics. As you seem to be more moderate and thoughtful than most of the rightish posters on this site, take a look at Alexander’s whole judicial record. I consider him to be quite conservative; he is by no means a liberal. Only the BIAW would consider a cautious jurist like Alexander to be liberal. He is, despite his conservative background, highly qualified to sit on the bench. He understands the role of the judiciary in our tripartite governmental system. John Groen does not have any of the qualifications or characteristics that would lead an objective person to believe he should sit on our state’s highest court. Politics should not be the defining qualification for judges. If and when that becomes so, our democracy is in a helluva lot of trouble.
The following national, state, or local nonprofit organizations have endorsed me for public office:
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
Political committees affiliated with, or leaders in, the following national, state, or local nonprofit organizations have contributed to a campaign committee supporting my candidacy for any public office:
Gerry L Alexander refused to respond
“Chief Justice Alexander Gets The Union Vote!”
(June 7, 2006)
Washington Federation of State Employees
Service Employees International Union
The Washington State Labor Council endorsed the re-election campaigns of state Supreme Court Chief Justice Gerry Alexander
At its recent annual convention, the Washington State Labor Council (WSLC), AFL-CIO, announced its endorsement of Chief Justice Gerry Alexander for re-election to the Washington State Supreme Court. The Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO is the state’s largest labor organization
Organization Endorsement links
41st District Democratic Organization
Washington Federation of State Employees, AFL-CIO
Service Employees International Union
Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO
King County Bar Association Endorses Chief Justice
Washington Federation of State Employees, AFL-CIO
Service Employees International Union
Candidates in Judicial Elections
AWB Endorses Alexander, Johnson for Washington State Supreme Court
Other Organization Endorsements
Bellingham Fire Fighters, Local 106
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,Local 1797
Retired Public Employees Council of Washington
Amalgamated Transit Union Legislative Council of Washington State
Constitutional Law PAC
Organization Endorsements
Association of Washington Businesses
Mainstream Republicans of Washington
Washington State Democratic Party
Washington Conservation Voters
Cascade Chapter – Sierra Club
Washington Education Association – PAC
Washington & Alaska Joint Council of Teamsters No. 28
Office and Professional Employees Local Union No. 8
Pierce County Building & Construction Trades Council
Martin Luther King Jr. County Labor Council, AFL-CIO
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 46 – PAC
Thurston Lewis Mason Central Labor Council
Snohomish County Democrats
Yakima County Democratic Party Central Committee
San Juan County Democratic Party
King County Young Democrats
Metropolitan Democratic Club
11th, 18th, 30th, 36th, 37th, 38th, 45th, 47th Legislative District Democrats
Alexander is a lifelong Republican, noted for moderation if not conservatism in both lifestyle and politics. -Commentby proud leftist— 9/12/06@ 10:57 am
JB at 22: Actually, a candidate for a judicial position in Washington State is prohibited by the Cannons of Judicial Responsibility from answering questions 4 ~ 12, because they deal with matters that may come before the court. If he did so, he could find himself subject to disciplinary action.
I know, its kind of a stupid rule, because the candidates can’t answer the questions the voters really want answered. But it is designed to have you focus on the general character and intelligence of the prospective judge, and leave the ultimate decisions dependent upon the actual facts before him or her and judicial precedent.
That’s why I’ve never been in favor of elections for judicial positions. I think they should use the Missouri system instead – an initial appointment, subject to an election on a regular basis which could “recall” the judge.
OK, who woke up ProudofmyBigFatLazyCutAndPasteAss?
This bitch knows nothing, well, she can cut and paste.
Sweethart, babydoll, it is over. You are going to lose. According the Washington Post it just got worse for the president last night after his speech:
“President Bush’s Oval Office speech last night was the culmination of two weeks of efforts to rally the nation behind his policies and presidency by summoning the memory of Sept. 11, 2001. Five years after that indelible day, however, this president’s capacity to move the public is severely diminished.
There were echoes of the language and logic Bush invoked five years ago when he united a stricken nation looking to him for both comfort and leadership. But he was speaking to a different nation last night.
• More politics news
Setbacks in Iraq have soured a majority of Americans on that mission. Falsely optimistic predictions of progress have undermined the administration’s credibility. A majority of Americans question fundamental elements of the president’s argument, including his contention that Iraq is the central front in the campaign against terrorism.
Cumulatively, it leaves decidedly uncertain whether this week’s flood of rhetoric and remembrance can alter Bush’s perilous circumstances — at a critical moment for the future of the Iraq mission and the president’s own domestic standing 56 days before the midterm elections.”
The entire piece can be found here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14777090/
So ProudofYourFatAss, how do you exlain this? How do you justify a president ignoring the will of the people, the people he is supposed to represent? The two thirds majority who believe he is screwing the pooch on Iraq.
Ohhhhh, I forgot. He is ordained by God and besides that, he knows what is best for us.
Time for the Liberal Democrats prayer:
Jesus Lord,
Please, protect me from your followers.
AMEN!
Carl Grossman
Liberal, Democrat and pain in ProudofHerFatAss’s fat ass!
ProudofHerFatAss @ 33:
With that list of endorsements, I have to vote for Gerry.
Thank you.
“Would someone on the right please tell JCH just how much he’s embarrasing your side?” – John Barelli.
I noticed one that you forgot to highlight. Must have been an oversight on your part:
Mainstream Republicans of Washington
Now, if you are trying to make the point that environmentalists, labor leaders, police, firefighters, attorneys and yes, even Democrats prefer a moderate Republican to a far-right bought-and-paid-for employee of the Building Industry Association of Washington, then I will happily agree.
Somewhere, in an earlier post on an entirely different topic, I mentioned that I had met some intelligent Republicans. Being Republican is not, in my opinion, an immediate disqualifier for public office.
Do you have a problem with that position?
Proud to be an Ass:
I have to say I thought it was very suspicious that you didn’t have the time to bold Mainstream Republicans of Washington.
But thanks for making it clear that only far right wingnuts support Groen. Although I can’t imagine that is what your handlers at BIAW wanted.
Fun fact. If you click on the vid twice so that is plays overlapped but 1 sec off, the ad is far more scary and effective.
Oops, More bad news for Mark the Yellowback:
Rising ocean temperatures in key hurricane nurseries are due primarily to increased greenhouse-gas concentrations from human activity, scientists report in a new study.
Using 22 different computer models of the climate system, atmospheric researchers from 10 centers studied sea-surface-temperature (SST) changes recorded between 1906 and 2005. They found that the models showed an 84 percent probability that human-induced factors account for most of the rise in the hurricane-formation regions of the tropical Atlantic and Pacific.
The study, published online Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, adds to the science linking global warming and the increased power of tropical storms.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....ane12.html
“Would someone on the right please tell JCH just how much he’s embarrassing your side?” – John Barelli.
Commentby rhp6033— 9/12/06@ 12:08 pm
I realize that Justice Alexander could not answer those questions, and even if the rules allowed him to answer, ethics should forbid it.
I’m still waiting for Howcanyoubeproud to answer the question about the originator of that “questionnaire”. Could the whole thing be a deliberate piece of trash, designed for no other purpose than to let people post the phrase “Gerry L Alexander refused to respond”?
Of course, Mr. Groen will denounce this obviously unethical bit of campaign trickery. Nobody with the ethics required of a Supreme Court Justice would allow such things to be done in his name. He will be immediately denouncing the perpetrators and insisting that nobody attached to his campaign use this for any purpose except to denounce it.
He will, won’t he? Well? Won’t he?
Groen refused to fill out the KCBA questionaire, so the same thing could be done to him. Have you ever been sanctioned? John Groen refused to answer.
I think the theocrats at Faith and Family sent out judicial questionaires. I bet that is the one ASS is citing to.
I would like to take issue with my friend, John Barelli on one point.
Being Republican, at least for the next three years, is an immediate disqualifier, in my opinion, for public office.
This rats have had at the cheese for too long and it is time for the cat to chase them off for a while, or until they learn some manners.
Carl Grossman
Liberal, Democrat and not as forgiving as John. :o)
MLF @ 43
It’s tough to vote for a Republican, indeed it’s enough to cause gas pains. But, in the Alexander v. Groen matchup, there’s no real option. Alexander at least believes in the rule of law. Groen is a concoction of the far right, who simply has no business on the Supreme Court.
I noticed one that you forgot to highlight. Must have been an oversight on your part: Mainstream Republicans of Washington
-Commentby John Barelli— 9/12/06@ 12:18 pm
I have to say I thought it was very suspicious that you didn’t have the time to bold Mainstream Republicans of Washington. -Commentby JDB— 9/12/06@ 12:23 pm
Uh huh…40 liberal, leftwing and democrap endorsements vs 1 marginally conservative Republican organization.
You got me guys! Yessirree bob! got me a great big republican lie!
Nice try.
PROUDASS
Tell me why John Groen is qualified to be on the Supreme Court. Tell me about how much respect he has within the legal community. List all professional accomplishments that merit our respect. You want him as a judge only because of his political views. That shows an incredible disrespect for the judicial branch of our government, and shows that you do not respect the rule of law. By the way, do you consider the Association of Washington Businesses, which endorsed Alexander, to be a liberal organization? You are so full of shit.
Gerry Aleaxander’s KCBA questionnaire:
http://www.kcba.org/scriptcont.....xander.pdf
Your damned right I want him for his political views!
I apprecialte the “political view” that pedophiles should be help accountable.
I apprecialte the “political view” that criminals belong in JAIL.
I apprecialte the “political view” that peeping perverts shouldn’t be allowed to dance out of a courtroom.
I appreciate the “political view” that the constitution says something specific not something malleable.
Now you be honest that the only reason you support Gerry ias because you appreciate his activism in support of homo-marriage and baby killing.
Of course you can’t admit that.
By the way, do you consider the Association of Washington Businesses, which endorsed Alexander, to be a liberal organization? You are so full of shit. -Commentby proud leftist— 9/12/06@ 1:32 pm
I hanve’t a clue who they are. But ok I’ll give you that one too…
so now we have 39 liberal, leftwing and democrap endorsements vs 2 marginally conservative Republican organizations.
Who’s full of shit?
Proud to be an Ass at 49:
You are.
I apprecialte the “political view” that pedophiles should be help accountable.
So you want a judge that helps pedophiles? Explains alot about you Proud to be an Ass. Beyond that, please show me one decision that Justice Alexander has written that did not hold pedophiles to be accountable.
I apprecialte the “political view” that criminals belong in JAIL.
Again, please show me one decision that Justice Alexander or, hell, lets make it easy, any justice has written against criminals belonging in jail.
I apprecialte the “political view” that peeping perverts shouldn’t be allowed to dance out of a courtroom.
Same question. Or do you appreciate the political point of view that the court should make up new laws instead of the legislature? That is an interesting view of strict construction.
I appreciate the “political view” that the constitution says something specific not something malleable.
Again, same question. Please cite one decision by any justice that says that the constitution doesn’t say something specific and is malleable?
Or did the BIAW not provide you with facts to support your talking points.
Commentby howcanyoubePROUD — 9/12/06@ 1:22 pm
I never called it a lie. I try to be careful with the use of that word, as it means something, and that something is not good.
Now, if you wish to accuse me of being a bit snarky, then I will plead “GUILTY AS CHARGED!! with a big grin on my face. Of course I was being sarcastic. Chill, guy. We disagree here and are each going to try to score points on the other. No reason to get mad about it.
You didn’t go out of your way to find centrist and right wing endorsers for Justice Alexander, but gave me an easy shot by leaving the “Mainstream Republicans” on your list. (Not to worry, I already knew about them, and would have called you on it regardless.)
I will be continuing to ask you what organization sent the questionaire? That seems a perfectly reasonable question, and I have yet to see your answer.
The organization that sent the questionaire that Mr. Groen has apparently refused to answer was the King County Bar Association. You are welcome to question the impartiality of the largest county bar association in the state. (My belief there, I haven’t checked.)
It does allow for some interesting replies to your argument. I especially liked the one:
“Have you ever been disciplined or determined to be in breach of ethics or professional conduct by any court, administrative agency, bar association, disciplinary committee, judicial conduct commission, or other professional group?”
Mr. Groen refused to answer.
Wow. We could have a field day with that one.
PROUDASS
Individuals who are involved in Justice Alexander’s campaign include such prominent Republicans as Dan Evans, John Spellman, and Ralph Munro. Surely, that would indicate how liberal he is, right? With regard to your post at 48, responding would be like nailing Jello to the wall. I am not going to provide you a primer on constitutional law and the function of courts within our democracy. You plainly are beyond educating.
Wow Proud Ass, you have no idea what you are talking about:
Now you be honest that the only reason you support Gerry ias because you appreciate his activism in support of homo-marriage and baby killing.
First of all, Justice Alexander voted against gay marriage. Oops, sucks to be you.
Second, please cite a single oppinion dealing with baby killing handed down by the court? Hell, I’ll make it easy, name a single case on abortion rights handed down in the last 25 years. Since the people of the state of Washington have consistantly voted down any restrictions on abortion for the past 25 years, I will be amaze if you find one.
Oops again, sucks to be you. You should demand the BIAW gives you some talking points that have facts behind them.
Of course, if you do, then you would have to vote for Justice Alexander.
Oops, sucks to be you again.
I have a questionnaire for Proud to be an Ass:
1) How much does the BIAW pay you per post?
2) Are you paid more if you manage not to post anything accurate for a whole day?
3) Why do you support right wing judges legislating from the bench?
4) When did you stop killing babies for fun?
5) Same question, but with puppies?
6) Which politician best represents your political point of view:
a) Joseph Stalin
b) Adolph Hitler
c) Mao Zedong
d) Augusto Pinochet
e) Benito Mussolini
f) George Lincoln Rockwell
g) David Duke
h) All of the above
7) When the Supreme Court handed down Brown v. Board of Education, was it wrong for all those uppity blacks to be happy?
8) When the Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade, was it wrongly decided because it failed to treat women as property?
9) When you are with John Craig Herman, are you a top or a bottom?
10) The Washington State Constitution upholds a right to privacy, why do you disagree with that?
Pursuant to normal Sharansky rules, you have an hour to answer.
Commentby howcanyoubePROUDtobeanASS— 9/12/06@ 1:40 pm
Oh, one additional point. I note that you divided up the Democratic endorsements down to the county and district levels.
Mainstream Republicans also have county-level branches. A friend of mine, Grechen Wilbert, happens to be President of the Pierce County Mainstream Republicans. (We have had some interesting discussions from time to time.)
So, should I chase down the individual endorsements of each of the various county branches of Mainstream Republicans? Do you think I could find more than 39?
@32
He is conservative enough for me, kinda. I really dislike the ruling that let all the murderers go and the ruling about property pisses me off.
My impression of the court is that they support the state – no matter what the state does wrong. I know there have been rulings against the state, but probably not enough for me.
I am very upset over property rights. As an example, I think it’s totally wrong what the Seattle Monorail did to people and their properties. I understand the taking for the public good, but if you don’t use it for the public good, you should then give it back for the exact same amount that you paid for it.
Those property owners that were screwed over by the Monorail guys ended up paying much more for the failed project than their peers in Seattle.
54
Nice post. It’s hard to imagine PROUDASS is a woman. I think she pines for a sex change operation, but can’t afford it. That’s just as well–you can’t change ugly . . .
Commentby sgmmac— 9/12/06@ 2:25 pm
“I am very upset over property rights. As an example, I think it’s totally wrong what the Seattle Monorail did to people and their properties. I understand the taking for the public good, but if you don’t use it for the public good, you should then give it back for the exact same amount that you paid for it.
Most liberals (me included) would agree with you here. Unfortunately, the courts are limited to what the law requires, and are not supposed to make it up as they go along. (I had thought that was a conservative viewpoint as well.)
From my admittedly limited observation, it seems to me that neither side really wants unbiased judges that simply interpret the law to the best of their ability.
I have seen some liberals support judges because they felt that a particular judge would “see beyond the law” and “administer justice”. Such things disturb me. Fortunately (in my opinion) those liberals have been uniformly unsuccessful in naming activist judges to the bench. (In fact, many of the federal judges that the conservatives seem to have problems with were named by conservative Presidents.)
Here we have conservatives trying to do the same thing. They’re looking for an advocate, not a judge. There’s nothing wrong with being an advocate, but not from the judicial bench.
sgmmac:
The Monorail and the courts are not at fault here. The SMP bought at market rates, as required by law. When the had to sell the properties, they sold at marked rates realizing the best return for the tax payer, as required by law.
If you are upset, take it up with the legislature. Even then, I would bet the current law was passed by Republicans. Further, I’m pretty sure it was passed to prevent sweetheart deals with the government.
Or you could take ProudtobeanAss’ view and just elect activist judges that will ignore the law.
“You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.”
— George W. Bush in an interview with CBS News, Washington D.C., Sept. 6, 2006
It is hard to connect things that have nothing to do with each other, isn’t it.
I have a questionnaire for Proud to be an Ass:
1) How much does the BIAW pay you per post?
I ONLY WISH I WAS PAID FOR POSTING, BUT I CONSIDER THE FREE ENTERTAINMENT YOU NUTBURGERS PROVIED AS MY POSITVE REINFORCEMENT TO CONTINUE
2) Are you paid more if you manage not to post anything accurate for a whole day?
I GUESS YOU MISSED THE 4 MONTHS I DIDN’T POST AFTER I LOST MY FATHER IN JANUARY AND SEPTEMER 10 & 11 WHEN I DIDN’T POST BECAUSE THE SAD OCCASION OF THE DATE OF MY MOTHERS DEATH AND THE SAD OCCASION OF THE DEATHS OF 2,996 OF MY FELLOW AMERICANS.
3) Why do you support right wing judges legislating from the bench?
CAN YOU NAME EVEN ONE TIME WHEN I’VE DONE SUCH A THING? NO, OF COURSE NOT… BUT YOU MIGHT WANT TO SAVE YOUR STRAWMAN FOR HALLOWEEN
4) When did you stop killing babies for fun?
SORRY SWEETCHEEKS, I’M A CONSERVATIVE. WE HAVE BABIES. YOU LIFE HATERS ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT KILLING THEM. NICE TRY
5) Same question, but with puppies?
OUR PUPPY TURNED 2 IN JULY. I DO SQUASH BUGS THOUGH…. WHAT KIND ARE YOU?
6) Which politician best represents your political point of view:
a) Joseph Stalin
b) Adolph Hitler
c) Mao Zedong
d) Augusto Pinochet
e) Benito Mussolini
f) George Lincoln Rockwell
g) David Duke
h) All of the above
HOW CUTE. AND WHAT A SURPRISE FROM A FAR LEFT NUTBURGER: A LOADED QUESTION WITH UNBALAMCED ANSWERS. YOU DID HAPPEN TO NOTICE IN THE QUESTION TO BIG CHIEF GERRY THAT THE CHOICES SPANNED POLITICAL IDEOLOGY DIDN’T YOU?
7) When the Supreme Court handed down Brown v. Board of Education, was it wrong for all those uppity blacks to be happy?ONCE AGAIN, I’M A CONSERVATIVE… NOT THE PARTY THAT REFUSED CIVIL RIGHTS (MR GORE) NOT THE PARTY THAT ELEVATES A KLANSMEN WHO SPOUT RACIAL EPITHETS(MR BYRD) AND NOT THE PARTY THAT SORTS CITIZENS LIKE M&Ms. YOU SURE DO PROJECT A LOT.
8) When the Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade, was it wrongly decided because it failed to treat women as property? OH PLEASE. IT WAS WRONGLY DECIDED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE… IT WAS, IS AND SHOULD BE A STATES ISSUE… AND PROBABLY WILL BE AGAIN.
9) When you are with John Craig Herman, are you a top or a bottom?
PROJECTING AGAIN, SWEETCHEEKS? OR MERELY WISHING AND DREAMING? … OF COURSE IT WAS YOU, WASN’T IT THAT SHRIEKED HITLARY IS “SEXY”
10) The Washington State Constitution upholds a right to privacy, why do you disagree with that?
I DON’T. PROJECTING AGAIN?
Pursuant to normal Sharansky rules, you have an hour to answer.
Commentby JDB— 9/12/06@ 2:13 pm
EFFICIENTLY, EFFECTIVELY AND ENTHUSIASTICALLY REBUTTED BY
howcanyoubePROUDtobeanASS
Pursuant to normal Sharansky rules, you have an hour to answer.- Commentby JDB— 9/12/06@ 2:13 pm
EFFICIENTLY, EFFECTIVELY AND ENTHUSIASTICALLY REBUTTED BY
howcanyoubePROUDtobeanASS WITH TIME TO SPARE!
Proud to be an Ass:
And like most conservatives, you proved you have no sense of humor.
Also, do you consider when you do not post for a day that you posted accurate facts? It would seem to be the only time you are factually accurate.
And like most conservatives, you proved you have no sense of humor
Oh, come now. We had our fun with him, and his answers were a fair shot back. Some of them were even funny.
Of course, I’m still waiting to hear which organization sent out the “questionnaire”, and I’m not likely to let up until he answers.
I should also point out that in asking “So, should I chase down the individual endorsements of each of the various county branches of Mainstream Republicans? Do you think I could find more than 39?” I have violated a cardinal rule of snarky posting.
While I may strongly suspect, I really don’t know the answer.
Oh, and here’s the next in the series for Mr. Groen:
Since the date you were first admitted to the Washington State Bar, by plea of guilty (or its equivalent) or by trial, have you ever been convicted of a crime?
Mr. Groen refused to answer
JDB,
I don’t care who passed the law and yes I know it is the law.
Those property owners are tax payers also, who got body slammed twice by the law. They paid their fair share of taxes, they got screwed out of their property, then they got screwed again if they wanted their property back. So, they paid a much higher “fee” for the failed project. If the law required the monorail board to return property they didn’t use for the same price, then the monorail “pain” would be equally spread out.
The monorail issue did go before the court.
John Barelli,
I don’t think I’m looking for an activist.
I actually supported OJ getting off, because of the tainted evidence. I don’t know if the case that went to the Monorail was on the taking of property or taxes, but as I remember it, Alexander was on the wrong side of property rights.
I am pissed off totally about property rights, but I am equally pissed off that my county and city are allowing the chopping of trees at a horrendous pace. We have watering restrictions right now in my city because the city claims we don’t have enough water, but every time I pick up the newspaper, there’s another article about how Lacey is going to allow more building both commercial and private…….
There has to be a logical sane balance somewhere!
Now for the rest of the day I will be imagining peeping perverts dancing out of a courtroom. Thanks.
john Barelli @ 64:
Oh, come now. We had our fun with him
Just FYI, HCYBPtbaA claims to be a female. I’ll take her at her word.
sgmmac:
The case that went to the Supreme Court was on the Monorail’s taxing authority. It was upheld solidly, again because the Monorail was only doing what the legislature allowed.
As to the property issue, how do you address this issue:
The state through eminent domain purchase property in 1910 for a road at market rates. In 2010, it rebuilds the road, freeing up the property. Should it revert back to the original property owner and/or his/her heirs at the 1910 price?
How about this one:
The state buys a bunch of property at market rates. Through state action, the area is developed causing a increase in property values. After five years of development, the state decides that it doesn’t need a segment of the property. Should that revert to the original owner, and should they get the windfall from the taxpayers investment?
Note, in the Monorail situation, the owners are in the same position they would have been if they purchase at market rate. They could turn around and sell immediately and come out in the same position they were in when the property was bought by the Government. Plus they did not have to pay taxes, keep the property maintained, have insurance, or do anything else with the property while it was being held by the Monorail.
Still, if you want to have a bill that gives former owners the right of first purchase, at market rates, for 10 years, and the right of reversion, at sale cost (plus making up all taxes not paid) for two years, I would think that might be a good bill.
But again, this is not the Courts job, this is the legislature’s job. Given the obvious complexities, and the proper fear of corruption, you can see why the law is written as it is. The state buys at market rate, the state sells at market rate. This is good, old fashion, market driven policy.
All right, ProudtobeanAss, I’ll give you credit for truly holding your beliefs. But do you have any facts to back them up.
We’ll start with a simple one. Please state one Supreme Court opinion, be it for the majority or in dissent, that backed babykilling or that pedophiles should not be held accountable.
We’ll deal with dancing peeping perverts next. But you are so sure about these two issues, surely you have some facts to back up your assertions.
About posting #1 in the comments — EXACTLY
Goldy gets on McGavick’s case about CIVILITY and then incites UNCIVIL, nasty and downright rude behavior in return.
PUKE
Peter Vochick
Might I humbly ask that you kindly take your civility and shove it up your conservative ass?
In your road case, the State did what they were authorized to do, buy the land, build the road. No, it shouldn’t revert anywhere because the original reason for the condemnation was fulfilled.
The second one is murkier…… a lot murkier! The state shouldn’t take for “development.” My objection to the monorail is the fact that they didn’t use the property. There also was a case about taking all or part of a property before the court, I think.
Most of the cases with the monorail, were active businesses, weren’t they? So, the property owner lost the land and the business.
sgtmac26 THE BITCH WONT BE THERE
Now for the rest of the day I will be imagining peeping perverts dancing out of a courtroom. Thanks. Commentby Daddy Love— 9/12/06@ 3:53 pm
LOL! You’re quite wlcome!
Just FYI, HCYBPtbaA claims to be a female. I’ll take her at her word. -Commentby jsa on commercial drive— 9/12/06@ 4:11 pm
No I didn’t. I’ve been quite careful not to claim either way… just like I’ve been quite careful not to make November 8 predictions… unlike some here.
So lets look at these two examples, one is the best from your view point, the other the worse.
a) The Government condemns lot x along with a bunch of other properties to build a bridge. Adding the bridge will greatly enhance the value of all the properties that will be serviced by the bridge. In order to build the bridge, though, you must condemn a piece of land for ten years, but at the end of the ten years, you will have no use for the land, and it will be safe for use again. Should the owner get the windfall from the development that was only possible because the land had to be condemned for the ten years?
b) Same case, but the state believes that it needs the land, however during the construction process, the plans are changed freeing up the land and allowing it to be sold and put to beneficial use. Again, the value of the land is greatly enhanced because of the bridge. Should the original owner get the windfall from the development that was only possible because the state condemned the land believing it was necessary for the project?
JDB,
No to the first option and yes to the second option. The state should only condemn the property it needs to develop the bridge. Otherwise, you would have states taking land up to 10 miles on both sides of the bridge………. Property owners benefiting from bridges, roads, & towns happens all the time, that’s why people invest in land.
As to the first case, again my example was that it was necessary to condemn the land during construction. An example, for the new Narrows bridge, they have a one to two acre site where they have built their cement plant (it is much more efficient and cheaper to produce concrete on site than to have suppliers on a job this big). Now, my guess is that this land will be used as a buffer after construction, but if someone wanted to build a restaurant with a terrific view under two beautiful bridge of Titlow and Point Defiance, why should the state not sell off this land when it is done using the land.
You have agreed that if the state uses land for 96 years for a road, then changes the road and frees up the land, it should be able to sell at market rates. Why should it not do so if it uses the land for 10 years to build a bridge? Or three years?
You have to draw lines somewhere. All the Court said in Keilo was that it was up to the legislature to do so. If the people are unhappy with where the line is drawn, they can change it through elections and/or lobbying. If the court had drawn the line, every situation would have to follow it. Keilo recognized that it is best to have the people closest to the situation decide how to draw the line.
“Property owners benefiting from bridges, roads, & towns happens all the time, that’s why people invest in land.”
Commentby sgmmac— 9/12/06@ 9:50 pm
Ah, a subject near and dear to my heart. I concur wholeheartedly.
Actually, a good case could be made for a change to the law. Perhaps something with some reasonable time limit in it, allowing the original owner the opportunity to repurchase condemned property that is no longer needed.
The devil, as they say, would be in the details on this. After all, if the state buys a toxic waste dump because it needs that property for a year or two and then cleans it up and improves it at taxpayer expense, the original owner shouldn’t just “give the money back”.
But this monorail business is a rather unique situation, and has people looking at the laws. That is a good thing.
“Just FYI, HCYBPtbaA claims to be a female. I’ll take her at her word.”
Commentby jsa on commercial drive— 9/12/06@ 4:11 pm
Thanks JSA, and my apologies, Howcanyoubeproud.
Oh, and Howcanyoubeproud, I’m still waiting to hear who sent the questionnair to Justice Alexander.
The King County Bar Association asked Mr. Groen:
“Describe the nature of your current practice/position (including typical types of clients and areas, if any, of specialization).”
Mr. Groen refused to answer
(I wonder when he quit beating his wife?)
JDB,
A better option for all would be for the state, city, or monorail, whoever, to rent the property needed for construction, if they were not intending to keep the property for the original use………
sgmmac:
And usually that is how things are done if possible. However, as in my example, if you have a buisness, and they need to build a concrete plant, or they need the land to stage on, they have to get rid of the buisness. Plus, would you not be, as a buisness owner, in a better position being bought out so you can move to a new location and keep your buisness going, versus being payed rent and not working for a number of years?
Again, both the Washington and the US Supreme Courts have said that those decisions are best left to the peoples representatives. I do not see how that is a bad decision. I also do not see how you can reach any other decision without being a judicial activist.
The people’s reps aren’t doing too well these days. Not in our state or the other Washington either.
Too many of them are beholden to somebody. Both sides like to scream about judicial activism, but both sides are guilty of it.
We wouldn’t have civil rights without judicial activism or the right to privacy……………
As great as the constitution is, it left some minor things out!
sgmmac:
Sorry about taking a bit to reply;
I actually agree with you whole-heartedly. As I said, judicial activism is one of those strange irregular verbs: “I am a strict constructionist, you follow the original intent of the founders, they are judicial activist.”
Words are ambiguous, as you point out, there are gaps and holes that need to be filled. That is what Judges do. You can argue with there reasoning, since no one is perfect.
What makes me upset with the BIAW’s campaign is that they do not argue their case (because they know a strong majority disagree with them), but they attack the other person, not for their reasoning, but as “being against property rights.” Go, read the decisions and see what the basis of the decisions are. At least understand that the Justices in the majority didn’t make everything up out of whole cloth, but followed a line of reasoning that they thought was the most logical after giving it a fair hearing. That is what Judges do.