Senate Democrats: Keeping the powder dry since 1980.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 12, 2006 09:15 AMSenate Democrats: Rolling over and wetting themselves since 1980.
Posted by at January 12, 2006 09:32 AMGood call... I'd never voted party line Dem until this past year. Boy do they need some new blood. I envision a midwest-empowered party that holds the coasts together. There needs to be party leadership. Not a bunch of peaople, each smarter than the next.
Posted by Josh at January 12, 2006 09:33 AMThe Alito Hearings are no more reality than the reality shows. The posturing partison Senators have again become fodder for John Stewert and Steven Colbert. Our side should have raised signifigant doubts about executive power over and over again. Forget abortion, forget the Concerned Alumni of Princeton group and forget the Princeton hat tricks Senator Biden. Hours and hours of traditional media time has been wasted by the Dem Senators who could have been messaging for 06' and 08' under the guise of the farcical hearing for a Supreme Cout nominee. I agree, the Dems not only punted, they deserve a red card and have once again kicked themselves out of the game.
Posted by paulie at January 12, 2006 09:39 AMWhat is it with Dem senators with the first name Joe? Biden and Lieberman what a pair. Just when Lieberman seems to be growin his balls back with a filibuster, Biden undercuts the whole process.
Shameful. These are guys who obviously are tired of their day jobs and need replacement.
Posted by patience at January 12, 2006 09:42 AMOTH - Feingold is a God.
He has done a helluvajob, IMO.
Schumer is asking right now about many cases.
I agree that they should have been far more organized, I am dissapointed that they have not attacked the records that the educated seem to be privy to.
I receive daily many, many list-serve arguments as to why he is unacceptable. WTF don't the staffers of these Senators receive those?
The press is playing that the Dems "have already made up their minds" when it has in fact been the opposite. Any moron can clearly see that the Repukes have "made up their minds" and have done everything possible to show what an angel that this Alito is.
When I hear the callers on the SPAN they are so ignorant, because they are judging the Senators for asking tough questions rather than judging the judge for his record. This is a problem with the majority of the American psyche; not the Senators.
With the deepest respect, Steve, because you are so much more informed on any political issues than I - but I still see it as a problem with the ignorance of Americans than it is with the Senators.
The Americans who support this guy think that just because the prez nominated him, he automatically has the right to be confirmed. They simply do not understand that it is the role and the responsibility of the Senate to truly determine this judge's philosophy and get an idea if he is just one more minion of Bu$hCo. No matter how the Dems approach these hearings, they will be demonized because of their preconceived ideas that "if Bush says so, it must be true."
Posted by Anjha at January 12, 2006 09:43 AMI disagree with you that too much time was spent on the Princeton issue, but agree completely that it has been at least somewhat mishandled. I believe that it ties into the question of the documents that have not been produced, the notion that there is something there that they don't want anyone to know about, the lack of disclosure, and ultimately that perennial overarching republican quality--dishonesty and lying. If this had only to do with his days at Princeton, this issue would be mostly irrelevant; it could be easily be explained away as youthful indiscretion.
The significance here is that he later noted his membership in this group in circumstances where he either felt that he could freely indicate holding views that he in fact subscribed to; or, that he did not subscribe to them, but felt it would be helpful for him to claim that he did. In other words, to lie when an advantage could be gained by doing so. And then to lie again aother twenty years down the pike when he claims that he just has no recollection.
But generally I couldn't agree more with the thrust of your comment. There is no coordination, there is no determination. It is all pretty much scattershot, a going through the motions, with no objective having been set other than to show up and ask a few questions, and show off a bit.
Posted by lostoption at January 12, 2006 09:53 AMOn the mark, Steve!
I shouldn’t be surprised, but I thought the Dems would show more fight and unity. Initially, the Dems pretended as if they had a plan. It seemed as though they were methodically building a coherent case -- albeit with way too much deference -- on ScAlito's judicial philosophy and jurisprudence towards women, minorities, abortion, unchecked presidential power, corporations and so on. As the week wore on, however, it became apparent that the Dems were on an incoherent fishing expedition for a 20th century "gotcha" moment.
Despite the plethora of evidence undermining ScAlito's credibility and claims of neutrality, the Dems didn’t close the deal and seal his fate.
Overall, the Dem’s closing performance thus far has been weak and disgraceful. All it took was a sycophantic media and a country bumpkin from South Carolina saying "boo" to make Bomgardner cry and a number of Dems to cower into the fetal position.
Posted by fafnir at January 12, 2006 09:55 AMI envision a midwest-empowered party that holds the coasts together. There needs to be party leadership. Not a bunch of peaople, each smarter than the next.
Feingold/Obama - that the midwest contingent. I vacillate on this for absurd reasons:
Feingold is single! This country will not elect a twice divorced Jew from Wisconsin! I'd volunteer to be his next wife, but I think I'd be too much of a political liability, even though I wear a tiara well.
Obama's only been in Congress for a year - he needs time to develop (and get his voting record straightened out) but if he stays in the Senate he's doomed because this country likes to elect Presidents who were Governors not Senators. Obama doesn't want to be Governor of Illinois, and I'd hate to see him wasted that way, because if there's a dead-end job in Illinois, it's Governor.
Feingold and Obama are intelligent and articulate, and I expect great things of them but can they rise to the occasion if called upon? Can the Dems wait beyond 2008? What will this country be like in 2012 if we get another neo-con in the WH in 2008? But I digress.
Posted by ann at January 12, 2006 10:19 AMThis is why I say to give up on the dems. The dems are dead. The GOP killed this country and the dems just watched. Time to fight them both. Have some guts and integrity and stop supporting either party. Fight like Cindy Sheehan is fighting. Don't waste your time with these dem/gop scum.
Posted by jj at January 12, 2006 10:20 AMI have come to expect nothing but failure from this DC crowd. It will be shocking if Alito ISN'T confirmed.
I am often reminded of some DC Dem "insider" last year posting on Democratic Underground and his infamous "political judo" theory. He argued that letting Kerry roll over and remain silent, not returning fire, while the Swift Boat Morons blasted away was a sure way to win. Somehow, retreating and NOT fighting was a winning strategy??!!
What a load of BS. And we told him. But I'm sure he's still "consulting" or whatever the Hell he did.
Pathetic.
Posted by Bob at January 12, 2006 10:33 AMI hear Kennedy make a big issue over the Concerned Alumni of Princeton from three decades ago, a typical Democratic mistake of focusing on something that a nominee can swat away somewhat easily as Alito did, instead of focusing on what the guy has actually written in his opinions, especially the ones that have been overturned by more reasonable and qualified jurists above him.
Was Alito even a member of CAP? Lying on a federal job application is an offense. Pretending to be a bigot to curry favor might be worse than true bigotry.
Posted by ahem at January 12, 2006 10:34 AMSorry to deliver a dose of reality but Roberts and Alito were as good as confirmed on November 3, 2004.
Just thinking about that day brings back the feeling of dread that I felt when I accepted the fact that George Bush would be president for another 4 years.
Posted by snark at January 12, 2006 10:38 AMFeingold is single! This country will not elect a twice divorced Jew from Wisconsin! I'd volunteer to be his next wife, but I think I'd be too much of a political liability, even though I wear a tiara well. posted by Ann
************
Shit, I'd even convert to Judaism. (and I'm just a heathen Pagan at the moment)
Feingold is the greatest fighter for America that I have seen, except maybe Boxer - but no one takes Boxer seriously, because too many people still do not value women.
What is it - a token six women in the Senate.
The ratio of women to men in Congress is disgusting (I think that I have that fact somewhere...) Anyway, off topic.
******************
Was Alito even a member of CAP? Lying on a federal job application is an offense. Pretending to be a bigot to curry favor might be worse than true bigotry.
Posted by ahem at January 12, 2006 10:34 AM
***********
Actually, Biden asked him that - saying that the only reason that he could figure that Alito put this on the job app was to impress the Reagan admin. Therefore inferring that he just pretended to be a biggot to fit in with all the other biggots.
What in God's name did you want George Bush to do, appoint a liberal or moderate.
I know you would have loved it. But did you really think someone that was elected while playing to a conservative base. would then appoint Teddy Kennedy to the Supreme Court?
Keep on whining, it sounds good to my ears....
Of course, I'll start whining soon enough if the Republicans don't do something definitive about the Abramhoff matter....and then you can laugh, and laugh again, sort of like you did when Rover/Cheney were indicted for outing a Covert CIA agent. . . no wait, that never happened now did it?
like you did when Rover/Cheney were indicted for outing a Covert CIA agent. . . no wait, that never happened now did it?
Posted by carpediem at January 12, 2006 10:54 AM
********
Oh, but it will - it most definately will.
Quite correct, Steve. I couldn't agree more.
Often times I hear bloggers complain about the power of the current GOP is due to their decades of work done both in Congress and in the media. While this is certainly true, the other half of the equation is often overlooked:
The hapless Dems. currently running the show.
They have demonstrated time and again to be behind the 8 ball on so many occasions, seemingly one step behind the Republicans on message and appearance.
If Dems. want to have a true fight back to power, they have to know HOW to fight. Assholes like Biden who do nothing but listen to himself talk for his run-up to the '08 election do us no good whatsoever. Everytime the guy opens his mouth I want to tear my fucking hair out.
That's just one example, of course there are others. The only reassurance I've seen is Bush-lite indicating that a filibuster is definitely on the table:
"Representatives from DFA groups around the state went to Hartford with Jim Dean yesterday to meet with Senator Lieberman. We went in prepared to talk about a number of topics: the war (and the Senator's attitude toward it), the Alito nomination, the Patriot Act, and Senator Lieberman's uncomfortable closeness with the current administration.
. . . Vicki Usher and Carol (from Marilyn Mackay's group - sorry I don't remember your last name, Carol!) brought up the Alito nomination, and we all were pleasantly surprised with Senator Lieberman said that a filibuster was on the table for him - hopefully he'll stick to his guns!"
http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=212
Take it for what it's worth, but I think it's just wishful thinking that a filibuster will likely happen (as well as Lieberman holding to it).
Posted by MisterOpus1 at January 12, 2006 11:02 AMEven scarier is that this Dream Team is likely going to be the one responsible for the upcoming hearings on Nero Jr.'s violation of FISA.
It's hard to conclude they had a unified prosecution strategy, as Steve demonstrates. And this was AFTER they failed to establish that Roberts was even a conservative, let alone a radical.
They may very well care, they just can't execute. Our republic needed a lot more than having one's heart in the right place this time.
Alito was permitted to act as though, after 15 years as a judge, he had never thought about which competeing Establishment clause test he favors, what the basis of his opinion was in 1985 that Roe was wrongly decided, or how in virtually all close questions he always seems to come down on the "Right" side of a question.
Hell, I don't think he was even asked to explain his constitutional "method" of analysis, for Christ's sake!! If I missed this perhaps someone could tell me what he said.
Why couldn't he have been asked at least to explain THE METHOD by which he would identify the existence or nonexistence of individual rights not specifically mentioned in the text?
I imagine the upcoming groups of law professors who have analyzed Alito's opinions will get as much coverage as those who did the same with Roberts: none.
Posted by euzoius at January 12, 2006 11:15 AMJust this once carpe, I'm going to recognize you.
What bush should have done, but which bush would never ever do, would have been to nominate a woman of integrity who believes in the Constitution of the United States as the Supreme Being of this Land. She could be conservative, so long as she were honest and concerned with truth and justice.
As opposed to alito who is concerned with alito, who is enamored of the executive branch knob, who is not concerned with truth and justice and the Constitution, as evidenced by his support of this bogus unitary theory of empire, er, the executive branch, his feckless job applications, his lies regarding recusal, and other points already documented.
In short, an actual by definition conservative fucking American of any gender would be alright, although it should have been a woman, but bushco doesn't know what that would look like, nor care.
Posted by Duckman GR at January 12, 2006 11:53 AMThe Dems are more about themselves and face time for the most part then about really questioning. If they didn't spend so much ego-massaging time speechifying, maybe they could ask enough questions and follow-ups to actually get a response.
Posted by at January 12, 2006 12:07 PMWhat in God's name did you want George Bush to do, appoint a liberal or moderate.
I know you would have loved it. But did you really think someone that was elected while playing to a conservative base. would then appoint Teddy Kennedy to the Supreme Court?
Keep on whining, it sounds good to my ears....
Of course, I'll start whining soon enough if the Republicans don't do something definitive about the Abramhoff matter....and then you can laugh, and laugh again, sort of like you did when Rover/Cheney were indicted for outing a Covert CIA agent. . . no wait, that never happened now did it?
Posted by carpediem at January 12, 2006 10:54 AM
*****
I hate you with the fire of a million suns.
I hope we meet someday.
Posted by God Of War at January 12, 2006 12:25 PMI can't listen to a lick of the hearings because the amount of ass kissing by the republicans is truly sickening. That, and their constant tongue-in-cheek flattery of "ideal justice O'Connor" this and that is purely a mockery of a respectable and tremendously intelligent woman who has served this country with all her being.
I disagree that Dems need to "attack"...they need to be willing to give Alito enough rope to hang himself, and then watch him do it. Anon is right, they are all entirely too bent on being heard themselves. I'd much rather have Dems lead the witness, repeat back to him all the Republican talking points, and have him confirm them. Quit asking over-the-top liberal questions so you can appear liberal -- instead, ask more outrageously right-wing questions than the Republicans, and do it with a straight face. Smile and nod, and help Alito tie the knots in the rope. Then step back and let your colleagues and the MSM open that drop door!
Oh, and my guess for '08 Dem ticket is Mark Warner/Harry Reid. It gets the south and west, and combines a youngish face from outside the beltway and a greybeard from a swing state. Fairly charismatic, and eminently electable. No, they aren't very far left, but let's face it, candidates who are outspokenly much further to the left would never make it.
Posted by Kaleefornian at January 12, 2006 12:38 PMThese Democrats on the Judicial Committee--and almost all of them in Congress--are simply, as Steve said, fucking morons.
They cannot learn, they cannot execute, they cannot percieve a threat, they cannot do anything except lose.
Thank God I have not been able to watch any of the hearings. From what I can tell they are an indescribably awful clown show of lying, obfuscation, sycophancy, and incompetence.
Feinstein has been nothing but a total disgrace for five years. I mean absolutely horrifyingly bad.
We keep expecting these assholes to improve, but they never do. The Democrats are losers and morons, but how would one describe a person who keeps expecting them to actually perform?
That's me, Charlie going for that foorbal from Lucy again. How disgraceful it all is.
Posted by paradox at January 12, 2006 01:01 PMIs it possible with what we know now about NSA domestic spying that the "win at all costs" Republicans have the goods on the Dems and the traditional media?
I will not accept that all of the Democratic representatives in Congress are disorganized morons.
And the traditional media personnel are doing whatever their Republican bosses tell them because they need shelter, food and clothing just like the rest of us.
Stop being outraged and resign yourself to the fact that the US will shortly be Iraq west.
Posted by Millicent E. Counts at January 12, 2006 01:12 PMGod, Steve, I couldn't have said it better myself ! Yes, we have only one organized political party and it is a crimimnal enterprise and has been since at least 1968!
At my age, 55, I honestly don't care anymore. If most of the American people don't care, why should I ? I will be dead and gone in 20 years max anyway ! I do enjoy the show while I'm here, though. Better than those TV shows like West Wing. Nothing will happen here in this country until we are in a very dire economic situation-either a deep recession or a depression. After all, look what it took to break the back of the same type of big business and GOP rule some 85 years ago. Now you can color me cynical, but I have seen this show before and I see no end in sight. One has to be realistic. The Dems will not take the House or Senate this fall and Bush's next project will be the bombing of Iran nuclear facilities. It may get done by the US' proxy, Israel, but it will be done.
Aside of wanting to bitch slap Kennedy for taking this Princeton to such high levels only to have his teeth kicked in by Specter, could someone please send a nice swift kick to Biden's nutsack?
He is the epitomy of what's wrong with today's Washington Democratic good ol' boys who don't get shit done but looooooove listening to themselves grandstand.
I'm fucking sick of them all. The issues that are important to the Democrats are being completely missed. I haven't seen them together and on message since the fight against Bush's social security fiasco.
Is it maybe too much to ask Reid to give them all a swift kick in the nuts?
Posted by MisterOpus1 at January 12, 2006 01:17 PMDear Duckman, Great name btw:
You mean a women with integrity, sort of like Janice Rogers Brown, yep, I would have loved her, but your liberal brethren refused to allow her at all. Maybe Bush will get the balls to appoint her next time.
As to you GOW,
Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? Making veiled if not direct threats to me over this silly little discussion board says alot about you and those that apparently hold your beliefs very dear. But to actually make these types of threats. . . . Actually, I'm just shocked.
If I were the webmaster, I'd block your IP so fast that it would make your head spin. Freedom of Speech is one thing, but threats are not protected speech.
Then again, I'm not shocked. I've seen your kind protesting and marching with so much hate and venom that you actually help repulse so many that might consider listening to you openly. So keep it up GOW, your anger helps my side. Its helped my side everytime its been tried.
At least you didn't use the F*#k word again, thats shows some improvement.
Posted by carpediem at January 12, 2006 01:17 PMAlito is a totalitarian who always favors the state over the individual. He is a fundamentalist in the worse sense. Get ready to lose your right to privacy and many other rights that we previously had. Alito would have been a perfect judge for the old communist politiburo.
Posted by Ga6thDem at January 12, 2006 01:21 PMbzzzzzzt, wrong, try again!
Posted by Duckman GR at January 12, 2006 01:30 PMIf I were the webmaster, I'd block your IP so fast that it would make your head spin. Freedom of Speech is one thing, but threats are not protected speech.
I agree with you about the threats. There really is no place for them here. However, I'm loath to cut someone off from commenting. It's not a free speech issue. This is not a public place. We comment here at the pleasure of our hosts. If you feel that strongly about GOW's threats address your concerns to Mr. Soto. Personally, I can handle a little offensive language in the interest of keeping this forum open to any who wish to participate. Disregard what you don't like. I no longer read anything that ROOF, Cybersarge or Peter post. Just skip right over it. They might be free to post it. Doesn't mean I've got to read it. But that's just me.
Posted by snark at January 12, 2006 01:33 PMCarpe writes:
"You mean a women with integrity, sort of like Janice Rogers Brown, yep, I would have loved her"
Why am I not surprised? Justice Brown's complete disdain for anything that has the government involvement with has, almost always in dissent from the rest of her colleagues whom had this to say of her:
""imposing ... [a] personal theory of political economy on the people of a democratic state"; asserting "such an activist role for the courts"; "quarrel[ing]... not with our holding in this case, but with this court's previous decision ... and, even more fundamentally, with the Legislature itself"; and "permit[ting] a court ... to reweigh the policy choices that underlay a legislative or quasi-legislative classification or to reevaluate the efficacy of the legislative measure."
Not only that, but she also has a blatant disregard for precedent:
"(w)e cannot simply cloak ourselves in the doctrine of stare decisis."
She has also shown great disdain for those whistleblowers who rightfully out illegal actions of their workplace, dissenting from gov't protections on retialiatory actions by the businesses against whistleblowers.
She also feels the Supreme Court was incorrect in making vicious speech-based racial harrassment under federal anti-discrimination statutes.
Let alone her hatred for any New Deal policies. I realize that Social Security is so dang eeeevil and all. I guess if I were a bit twisted in my logic, I would want to turn back the clock and let capitalism reign free of any regulations like we did just prior to the stock market crash and Great Depression. Things sure were swell back then with something like over 70% of the elderly living in poverty? Not to mention the greed that begats more greed that ultimately led to one of our countries worst downfalls ever.
I believe in a capitalistic democracy, mind you, but certainly not an unregulated one like she apparently does.
Are we so surprised that she received a "not qualified" rating by the California Judicial Commission when she was nominated to the CA SC, or when a healthy number of ABA's panel gave her a "not qualified" mark to serve on D.C.'s circuit?
Not only is her judicial philosophy outside the mainstream, but she apparently seems to be one of the biggest judicial activists that you so often coin as a "liberal" judge trait.
I beg to differ, sir.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at January 12, 2006 01:39 PMIt remains to be seen how the Judiciary Committee votes on Alito. My guess is, the final votes will come down along party lines -- with Repukes voting "Yes" and Democrats voting "No."
Scalia, now 75 years old, can retire knowing the agenda of the radical right will still be represented on the SCOTUS.
The drift to the far right in the USA continues and they take no hostages.
.
You mean a women with integrity, sort of like Janice Rogers Brown, yep, I would have loved her, but your liberal brethren refused to allow her at all. Maybe Bush will get the balls to appoint her next time.
If I recall correctly, Brown was considered back when Bushie appoint his bud, Harriet. But supposedly, Brown declined because of the "vitrolic" confirmation process. Or at least that was the stated reason from the Bush camp.
Posted by ann at January 12, 2006 02:09 PMCarpe,
You can kiss my ass. What your kind is doing to this nation is wretched abuse of the worst kind.
Posted by God Of War at January 12, 2006 02:19 PMWhen you finally begin to understand that the Democratic and Republican 'leadership' both represent two sides of the same coin, then perhaps you will also begin to understand that at their base, they are all proponents of Statism. To statists, the rights of the individual are subservient to the State, Society, 'The Common Good', etc.
In such a political system, the individual is relegated to the role of sacrificial victim, with no inherent rights except the 'right' to be utilized in service of the State or whatever group happens to be in power. It is a system of pressure group warfare, with one gang fighting the others over the right to rule.
To believe that it's only a matter of removing the 'wrong' people and replacing them with the 'right' ones, is to ignore the nature of the problem and does not even begin to address it.
I agree with Biden. These proceedings haven't done a thing, everyone's mind was already made up before they even started. Save everyone's time and effort and just call for a vote on the nominees.
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 02:42 PMSteve, well said as are many of the posts above this.
Can someone reasonable, (that definitely excludes you carpeKoolaid- lawyer extraodinaire), tell me just what do the current crop of democrats stand for and just what principles they'll fight for using all available legal legislative tools? Because the longer I pay attention, watch, and listen, the more I realize I have no clue. (And I have been only paying really close attention since late 2002 just prior to the Iraq War Resolution vote).
The first news headline I saw online after a long day at work was...."Alito appears headed for confirmation", sigh..steamrolled again. Just be sorry what you wish for Republicons...it just might come true and come back to haunt you.
Posted by emal at January 12, 2006 02:50 PMDid someone say "up or down vote"?
That's not a solution.
Posted by dorita at January 12, 2006 02:50 PMDear GOW: Thank you for sharing your thoughts in a more civil manner.
Dear Mister Opus, Where did you come from? Gees, I may have overlooked you of late, and my apologizes, I can only say that I must admit your posts are much more sophisticated than those that merely tell me to STFU.
I'm appreciative of your comments on Brown, but I'll admit that I"ve not gone into any deep database to support my position. Its been a long while since I even read anything about her save that she was extremely libertarian and anybody who would find a way to decriminalize drugs, limit the government's role in emminent domain and push personal responsibility, can't be all that bad.
So when Breyer is hit by a bus load of NOW protesters on the way to DC to protest another attempt to overturn Roe, and they nominate Brown to succeed him, then I'll be there, reviewing in depth her opinions....
But hey, she's black and a women, what other qualificiations do the politically correct need?
You're wrong when you imply that Feinstein and Biden don't care. I'm sure they do.
They just lack the rudimentary f'ing skills to do anything about it. I'm so sick of my party being run by a bunch of impotent blowhards who can never aim for the jugular.
Posted by Jocko at January 12, 2006 03:08 PMDems are gonna filibuster, you heard it here first. All this whining and groaning is a total waste of time and storage.
"May your only son work as a towel boy in a Turkish bath-house."
Posted by CarnacTheMagnificent at January 12, 2006 03:16 PMAiming for the jugular won't ever be a successful strategy for the dems. We need a platform, we need to present our ideas to voters. People don't like negative campaigning. We cannot win only taking shots at the repubs. That's how the repubs keep winning, they have their own ideas and they make their case to the people. We could win if we'd do the same.
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 03:25 PMThanks for a very valuable post Steve.
To be brutal, a young assist law prof from UC, who clerked for Ginsburg, Goodwin Liu, is putting the senators to shame (a panel before the senators, just finishing up).
Very very sorry to say that the DC Democrats have utterly failed. Past Tense, OVER.
I am not a Democrat anymore, left after the Kerry mess (he never stood up): I won't share in the shame of a party that likes being weak.
Posted by Marisacat at January 12, 2006 03:37 PMAvaroo: I actually agree with you wholeheartedly on that.
Carpe Diem: Edith Clement would have been a better choice than either Alito or Rogers Brown, if a conservative woman or one with compassion and a brain is what you are looking for.
Marisacat: I suspect that the panelists in critique of Alito will do a far better job than the Senate Democrats could ever do.
These are the days that make me want to dust off my proposal on the shelf from a couple of years ago to create a new Liberal Party.
Just got finished gazing at Bob Schiffers yoda-like mug as he told me it was over, nada, kaputt, flames baby. Then I hear Joementuem claim a fillisbuster is on the table.
So I guess its not over till its over.
Posted by SnarkyShark at January 12, 2006 04:01 PMThis was from the best of the web, a daily take from James Taranto.
Attacking Alito is like eating Chinese food: An hour later, you're angry again.
This all helps illuminate how last May's filibuster compromise has turned out to be extremely beneficial for the Republicans. As a practical matter, it ensures that the Democrats cannot filibuster Alito's nomination, because doing so would require at least three of the seven compromising Democrats to violate the agreement and at least six of the seven compromising Republicans to abjure the nuclear option nonetheless.
But by averting the nuclear option, the compromise kept open the option of a filibuster in theory. The Democrats, however, must act as if the possibility is more than theoretical, because to do otherwise would be to admit that they suffered a total defeat back in May. (The seven compromising Democrats have a slightly different incentive: As long as they keep alive the notion that a filibuster is a real possibility, they get to pretend to be power brokers.)
The Angry Left, believing that the Democrats actually could stop Alito's nomination through a filibuster, increases the pressure on Kennedy, Biden, et al., prompting them to behave like jerks, revealing their extremism and obnoxiousness to all the voters of America. We liked the filibuster compromise from the start, but even we didn't imagine it would be this good.
Carpediem=I hated the compromise, I would have preferred the nuclear option and forced their hand as to an up or down vote, but alas, maybe Taranto is right, maybe the seven republicans snookered those more intelligent, better educated and more commpassionate democrats.
Posted by carpediem at January 12, 2006 04:33 PMThese are the days that make me want to dust off my proposal on the shelf from a couple of years ago to create a new Liberal Party.
Posted by Steve Soto at January 12, 2006 03:55 PM
What have we got to lose? We're already a one party state!
Posted by pessimist at January 12, 2006 05:14 PMOne would hope that the dems, finding nothing horrible in Alito, would be smart enough not to bring on the nuclear option from the repubs. Frist is dying to do it, hopefully the dems won't be stupid enough to give him the chance. The dems can't sell Alito to the public, as a candidate for a filibuster. Remember, pick your battles. And never pick one that you know going in that you can't win.
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 05:32 PMIt's the lies.
I don't necessarily disagree with a lot of what the GOP used to stand for. In fact, I used to vote for them. Hell, my grandfather was a state GOP CHAIRMAN.
The GOP stands for nothing but power these days, and its a corruptive, abuse power at that. What have they done with their power? Let's take an inventory:
Bastardized the electoral system.
Alienated the rest of the world.
Shoved fringe extremist policies down our throats.
Pissed on the Constiution, and lied about doing it until caught...at which point they declared their intention to keep doing it.
Blasted the mother of all holes through the budget.
Made us China's economic bitch.
Fucked over the middle class.
All the while lying about it.
Posted by God Of War at January 12, 2006 05:34 PMCarpe writes:
"But hey, she's black and a women, what other qualificiations do the politically correct need?"
Hehe, I guess nothing more for the politically correct crowd. But a record of respecting both the Constitution AND stare decisis would be much more appreciable to me I guess.
As to where I've come from, oh I've been around here before for some time, but I post quite infrequently. It's really on my school schedule, which right now I'm on a break (though I am trying to study for my Comps. coming up in March). So in about a week or so you'll have the pleasure of seeing less of me when I go back to the grindstone I guess.
Cheers.
P.S. - I'm also from Kansas, so I'm quite aware of my Senators actions (Roberts and Brownback) as well as most of my House Reps. (my guy is Dennis Moore, D-KS).
Posted by MisterOpus1 at January 12, 2006 05:42 PMOne would hope that the dems, finding nothing horrible in Alito, would be smart enough not to bring on the nuclear option from the repubs.
If one were a GOP stooge, that would be true.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 12, 2006 05:42 PM"If one were a GOP stooge, that would be true."
and we have our first lemming jumping off the cliff.....
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 05:56 PMI would agree with your Steve, I have watched Alito’s hearings up to now on C-span, but about your plan that Democrats getting a room and debunk the mistakes! Is not a reality! Remember the Downing Street Memos, with Cindy Sheean, last year? That was held in the basement! Because the Neocons would not allowed the hearing on the subject and they plan 23 laws to vote the same day the hearing was held in the basement of our Capitol! That was the first time in the congress History that the 23 laws were ever issued on that hearing, as the average is 1 to 3 a week!!!!!!!!!!
It was asked why they did not try to get a room and bring it up to the people of this country, the answer was that they did it but no news media was interest except C-span, Democracy Now and Jon Stewart, the answer was that the corporate Medias do not care and does not show up. They try but no one show up.
Do you remember when the fat repug Sensenbrenner shut the microphone because he said this hearing is over, left probably because he did not like what was said!
The 3 Stooges on Alito’s hearing awards goes to Tom Coburn, John Cornyn and Jeff Session. What a waste of money to have Senator like this group. They Drooled all over Alito, not one spent their time to asked question. Session is the worst as be always have to tell he was a “PROSECUTOR”. Every time the man was suppose to asked questions, drooled are you the best one and I was a blablabla….. Is that the money can buy as Senators???????If you want to be a YES MAN, joint the circus.
Anjha; Yes,I agree with you on the C-Span callers are ignorant masses and do only care of Alito’s nomination only because Bush tell them this is the right man. They are not very educated, or to much with another design. Like the ones who would really profits of those so call DEATH TAX that really would not touch average people with less than $500,000, or the tax cut! I do value my European schooling which was harder than my degree in USA.
Ostoption: Alito did name that Princeton PAC on an application for a job that would help him. He lied and does that make him a justice. I guess it does. I would add that as an independent, who has mostly voted republican all my live cannot abet what is happening. These last 5 years has been the first 4 was 9/11. That is why the repetition was we need security, orange alert, even now when you listen to them it is we stop a bridge’s destruction! Yea, with a blow torch!
While dark Vader Cheney is getting richer by leap and bound.
Appendix: I have known for a long time, that homosexuality is probably genes related. We are learning more & more everyday, not from Ann Landers. With each discovery, we might learn that most tendency like serial killer might also be a defective gene.
Here Are 2 sites.
1) Might be a little too technical.
2) The religious tolerance
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus3.htm
OTH, is there anything to actually be lost by going nuclear? Having already been painted as obstructionists, meanies, traitors, (insert latest smear here), why the hell not? It's not as if republicans, WPE, the mouthpieces in the media can't find some other nifty label to apply.
It's our future. It's our lives. The dems have some (sure, admittedly it just some) political capital, some dry powder. I say use it.
Posted by dorita at January 12, 2006 06:25 PMOT, sorry -- roo seems to be some sort of adaptive program. It's not quite perfected in that it has not yet mastered HTML skills. I can only conclude that those more complex routines are beyond the programers for the time being.
Posted by dorita at January 12, 2006 06:32 PMOTH, is there anything to actually be lost by going nuclear?
The GOP will stop playing nice.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 12, 2006 06:36 PMdorita, is roo pretending to be a dem? What'd I miss?
Posted by iamcoyote at January 12, 2006 06:40 PMFrist is dying to do it
Who's afraid of Bill Frist? Anyone?
Posted by dorita at January 12, 2006 06:43 PMyup, scroll just up above Steve's comment. I'm not sure if that's where it started, though -- I haven't read through all of the threads yet.
Posted by dorita at January 12, 2006 06:45 PMIf one were a GOP stooge, that would be true."
and we have our first lemming jumping off the cliff.....
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 05:56 PM
*****
You seem to be implying it's political suicide for the Democrats to filibuster over this issue and that we should save the filibuster for a bigger, better fight. What bigger, better fight? When? I say force the nuclear option. I believe in one or two cycles, the dems will control the senate again and then there will be hell to pay for the GOP.
"You seem to be implying it's political suicide for the Democrats to filibuster over this issue and that we should save the filibuster for a bigger, better fight."
Yes, it would be. Nothing came out in the cirfirmation hearings that the dems can point to as a reason for filibustering Alito and the public does not like filibuster without cause.
"What bigger, better fight? When? I say force the nuclear option."
Is it because you've become so used to being on the losing end of the stick that you no longer even have any desire to get dems elected to congress and/or the presidency?
Don't jump off the cliff without a net.
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 06:53 PMI can see it now.....we had to filibuster because of that CAP thingy......oh but wait, didn't Hillary go to .....uh......WELLESLEY? And didn't Teddy belong to the OWL Club at Harvard, which was eventually forced to go co-ed?
Think BEFORE you speak, please, dems, think BEFORE you speak.
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 06:56 PMWell iamcoyote, it seems that the roo program got caught in a loop and now has disgorged itself. It is back to the regular progamming of all questions all the time.
Posted by dorita at January 12, 2006 06:59 PMdamn -- that was a quick meltdown. Sputter -- caps lock -- flame.
Ugly actually.
Posted by dorita at January 12, 2006 07:01 PMIs it because you've become so used to being on the losing end of the stick that you no longer even have any desire to get dems elected to congress and/or the presidency?
****
Actually, no, I'm not used to being on the "losing end" as I am 55 years old and have seen power shifts between republicans and democrats for 6 decades. You are obviously too young or foolish, or both to realize that. As far as Alito, there's plenty of reason to object to his nomination, for his core beliefs are in direct opposition to ours. As far as the American people are concerned, I'll let them speak for themselves. You're not their spokesman. You've already made a complete fool of yourself in the Afganistan thread, don't make it a second time.
Whoa, that was freaky to witness.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 12, 2006 07:12 PMWell said. Linked you at Alito and Other Absurdities
Posted by The Heretik at January 12, 2006 07:13 PMI didn't mean you, sf. I meant roo.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 12, 2006 07:13 PMTell me Steve and pessimist, do you expect this people in DC to generate a successful drive to retake the Congress for Democrats? Really, they'd have a problem retaking control of the TV remote in the den.
I've thoroughly enjoyed reading all 59 comments. even gow's! Thanks for confirming the old Leno line. Republicans are lossing to an unnamed Democrat. It's when Democrats place a name on the ballot that they lose.
Thanks for the grins! Edith Clement will probably be the NEXT SC nominee. Thanks for telling us she'd be okay. Will remember that when she's named.
Hello Associate Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito!
Good day and Good night!!!
Posted by peter at January 12, 2006 07:15 PM"Actually, no, I'm not used to being on the "losing end" as I am 55 years old and have seen power shifts between republicans and democrats for 6 decades. "
How many democratic presidencies during that time? How many repubs?
"As far as Alito, there's plenty of reason to object to his nomination, for his core beliefs are in direct opposition to ours."
They're not to mine and I'm a dem. Pro-choice, anti-gun dem.
"As far as the American people are concerned, I'll let them speak for themselves. "
You sure you want to do that? Liberals usually avoid that like the plague becuase they so rarely like the answer.
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 07:22 PM"Tell me Steve and pessimist, do you expect this people in DC to generate a successful drive to retake the Congress for Democrats? Really, they'd have a problem retaking control of the TV remote in the den."
and yet we keep doing the same tired things that keep us out of office. It's not working folks, time to try something new, like a plan to actually win. Crazy doesn't get votes.
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 07:24 PMpeter you know you will check back here. You also must know that no one, nary a person who has read this blog for any amount of time takes you seriously. Why? You distort and lie. Sleep sweet peter.
Posted by dorita at January 12, 2006 07:45 PMMr. OPUS, sir, (btw: I sure miss the original bloom county, but thats another story)
Stare Decisis (sic)- Since I'm not a Constitutional Lawyer per se, I just play one on liberal blogger sites, I can't say that I've developed an opinion either way on that particular rule of sorts.
If I'm not mistaken, Plessy (seperate but equal) was overturned after almost 60 years, by Brown (seperate isn't equal).
Lawrence v. Kansas (sodomy between men) overturned after only 17 years the Bowers v. Hardwick case.
If I recall, it might have been Souter that said in 92, that Roe, which was only 20+ years old, deserved Stare Decisis status at that time. (although my memory may fail)
It seems when Liberals get their way, Stare Decisis is unimportant, but if its to their benefit their trumpet its glorious legal edification of time. Its just B/S political talk.
I think Stare Decisis is really sort of stupid and a sign of weak minded judges. If a decision is bad, then it should be overturned. The Courts like to protect their own, and I understand that its not easy making these decisions day in and day out, but whats right and truthful should not take a back seat to some latin phrase that most people don't understand. I don't recall if I remember what it means, I could look it up on google, I think it means "to allow the decision to stand", now let me google it. , , , Yeah I was pretty close.
Speaking of Sodomy. . .
in 1992 when I first starting to pretend I was a real lawyer.. .
A fellow was on trial for an assault of his wife.
He testified on his own behalf. During that testimony, he admitted that they had had a fight and had made up, in fact, he admitted, that he had performed oral sex on her.
the judge (sua sponte-which means on his own) charged the guy with Sodomy. The jury went out found him not guilty for the assault, but since he admitted to the oral sex, well, guilty.
The judge threw him in jail. I knew the attorney. It took quite a while to get him out. It was obviously amusing and sort of sad. The Judge was an ass and ate defense attorney's for lunch. Ate me for lunch on my first trial, which I somehow won, even though my guy confessed, go figure.
More food for foder, I wonder if Chief Justice Roberts will open the door to cameras, etc. in the Court now that he is in charge? That would be awesome, since we can only "listen" to argument, you can not see it in action. And I'll tell you boys and girls, oral argument is pretty cool.
They're not to mine and I'm a dem. Pro-choice, anti-gun dem.
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 07:22 PM
****
I doubt you're a democrat very seriously. I mean you don't talk like one, at least one that I've ever met. And I've met plenty. But you're entitled to your opinion, and it is after all, merely your opinion.
"I doubt you're a democrat very seriously. I mean you don't talk like one, at least one that I've ever met."
I don't know that it matters whether you think I'm a dem or not. The democratic party isn't quite as intolerant as you are. We have varying opinions on a number of issues.
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 07:58 PMCarpe,
And what exactly would you say is the diference between the Plessy and Lawrence v. Kansas and Roe v. Wade?
Or to put it another way what compelling interest does the state have in overturning Roe v. Wade?
Posted by at January 12, 2006 08:02 PMWe have varying opinions on a number of issues.
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 07:58 PM
****
Generally not when it comes to supporting a radical conservative judge like Alito to the Supreme court.
The democratic party isn't quite as intolerant as you are.
Did you type that with a straight face?
Posted by snark at January 12, 2006 08:04 PM"Generally not when it comes to supporting a radical conservative judge like Alito to the Supreme court."
apparently we don't all think he IS a radical conservative judge. just like many dems didn't think John Roberts was even though the far-left said he was. The party is more diverse than you appear to know.
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 08:06 PM"Generally not when it comes to supporting a radical conservative judge like Alito to the Supreme court."
apparently we don't all think he IS a radical conservative judge. just like many dems didn't think John Roberts was even though the far-left said he was. The party is more diverse than you appear to know.
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 08:06 PM
*****
Posted by sf at January 12, 2006 08:19 PMIs that your white flag?
;)
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 08:23 PM"Generally not when it comes to supporting a radical conservative judge like Alito to the Supreme court."
apparently we don't all think he IS a radical conservative judge. just like many dems didn't think John Roberts was even though the far-left said he was. The party is more diverse than you appear to know.
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 08:06 PM
*****
You're reaching here, Avaroo. I feel reasonably safe in saying the overwhelming majority of Democrats do not support a sharp right turn in the SCOTUS. We're not far left, we're Democrats, ok?
I guess we should immediately notify Patrick Leahy and Russ Feingold that they must not really be democrats cause they voted for the radical conservative John Roberts.
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 08:26 PM"With the committee vote over, other Democrats began to line up for and against Roberts. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), announced yesterday that she will vote no on the nomination, as did Barack Obama (Ill.)."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/22/AR2005092200796.html
Oh no, which ones are the REAL democrats.....Clinton and Obama or Leahy and Feingold?
Is that your white flag?
;)
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 08:23 PM
*****
I actually gave you a chance not to make a fool of yourself a second time, but obviously, you declined.
As you declined to say who were the REAL democrats.....Clinton and Obama or Leahy and Feingold. Diversity of opinion is a bitch, ain't it?
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 08:33 PMIt's a new loop for roo, same old routine. roo, I have to give you an "A" for effort. . . good old college try, you're a cheerleader for your kind, I'm humbled at your programer's ability, all that.
Perhaps you should try exclamation points!!!!!!
Carpe, we meet again. Perhaps it is in the stars :) I'm not in a very good mood this evening, so if I offend you, please take that into consideration.
You are playing fast and loose with that "law of the land" idea. It's typical and I had hoped better from you. One redeeming point is that you have stopped putting liberals in all caps. Thank you for consenting to that.
While your personal experiences in the course of your work falls into the category of the nature of many of the comments on threads, I've got to say that, while anecdotal evidence has some merit, it doesn't hold weight in most discussions. Your personal experiences are just that. Connect them to larger issues as you will. It means nothing unless there is some proof. I know this. I have made the same mistake as you have. I have thought that my experience is similar to others. I was wrong.
In the end, I must say that for every couple of steps forward, you have only taken one step back. And you should be praised for that.
And so, well done carpe!
Posted by dorita at January 12, 2006 08:34 PM
Oh and sf, I'm anti-gun. Don't think anyone should be able to own one personally. But John Kerry disagrees, in fact, he owns guns himself. As does George W. Bush.
uh...who's the dem? Kerry and Bush, both gun owners.....or me
DAMN THAT DIVERSITY
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 08:38 PMdon't run off now, sf.
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 08:38 PMroo's program prematurely ejacutated.
Posted by dorita at January 12, 2006 08:42 PMroo hasn't gotten to gay marriage yet on this thread. Searching . . .searching. . .
Posted by dorita at January 12, 2006 08:44 PMI guess we should immediately notify Patrick Leahy and Russ Feingold that they must not really be democrats cause they voted for the radical conservative John Roberts.
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 08:26 PM
****
You see, Avaroo, what seems to fly over your head is that this is the Alito nomination, not the Roberts nomination, and if any Democrat supports tipping the balance of the SCOTUS that far right, they're not democrats to me, I don't care if it's Clinton, Obama, or whoever you cite.
loops gone wild!
Why do you guys think avaroo is a bot?
Why not address his point?
I don't necessarily agree with him re Alito (I was willing to give Roberts a pass because I think he's a genuinely worthy intellect to have on the court)who I think is a conservative idealog. But I agree with him (avaroo) that the democratic party represents a much more diverse group of people than many here appreciate. In fact I think that's part of its problem. Not the diversity, but the finding a platform that is not antagonistic to any one falling under the Democratic umbrella.
Posted by muckcat at January 12, 2006 08:50 PM"You see, Avaroo, what seems to fly over your head is that this is the Alito nomination, not the Roberts nomination"
but some dems said Roberts was a radical conservative, yet others voted FOR him. How can they all be dems if, as you say, all dems think alike?
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 08:52 PM"Not the diversity, but the finding a platform that is not antagonistic to any one falling under the Democratic umbrella. "
the repubs manage to do it. Why can't we?
Posted by avaoo at January 12, 2006 08:54 PMWhat do you suggest?
Posted by muckcat at January 12, 2006 08:56 PMwell, I've been suggesting it on here for some time. In fact, I suggested it on this thread before you did. We get our own ideas out there and stop just attacking the other side. That's not going to work. We have to come up with plans for healthcare, for taxes, for social security, for national security, for education. Stop telling me what's wrong with what the repubs say. What do WE say?
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 08:59 PMOh hi Dorita. Hows Houston? Still enjoying the thread up here in Dallas. Democrats, Got to love em. They keep the humor in politics.
Laughing all over the place with the timid lines of questioning the last few days.
A new SC Justice will be in a few weeks. Before the SOTU Address. Probably be in the Capitol for the speech. Way to go Sam Alito!
Posted by peter at January 12, 2006 08:59 PMoh and muck, most important, STAY POSITIVE. Drop the sourpuss, crybaby stuff dems do so well. Americans vote for the candidate who is positive, not the negative one. That's why Gore and Kerry lost, it's also why Clinton won. It's why Reagan won.
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 09:06 PM, I've been suggesting it on here for some time. In fact, I suggested it on this thread before you did. We get our own ideas out there and stop just attacking the other side. That's not going to work. We have to come up with plans for healthcare, for taxes, for social security, for national security, for education. Stop telling me what's wrong with what the repubs say. What do WE say?
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 08:59 PM
****
You might be a democrat after all. All of the things you suggest, though, require fighting for it. Just like fighting against Alito's nomination. The base needs to know they're representatives stand for something, which was the original point of this post. I'm retiring for the evening.
"You might be a democrat after all."
Not because you say so. Because I say so.
"All of the things you suggest, though, require fighting for it."
No, they require first some thinking. We don't even have the plans yet. That will take some time. Then we have to sell them to the American public.
"Just like fighting against Alito's nomination."
That was a loser from day one. We need to work smarter, not lose every battle. Take on something we CAN win.
"The base needs to know they're representatives stand for something, which was the original point of this post."
I doubt we agree as to who is in the base and who isn't.
Because it's all just a big farking popularity contest, ain't it?
Just a big freakin' game, huh?
Who can eat the most big fat banana slugs, right?
All hail to the winners, by hook or crook. Never mind the rightness of things, just obesiance to the "winner"
Feh.
Posted by Duckman GR at January 12, 2006 09:16 PMyeah, let's be right and lose every election. Now THAT's a platform people.
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 09:17 PMOh my, I am left to explain roo, convince muckcat (whom I respect) and remind peter.
Ok, I will try. muckcat, this new tac from roo is just that, new. Please don't let this one thread dominate your view of roo. I am not the best rep to say because I have not been here enough in the past few days to say, but over the holidays, I had my own pare with roo, and even broke my New Year's resolution according to DukeRevolution. I have tried to abide by it (my resolution) ever since.
roo has changed it's agenda, in hopes, I guess of snaring those who don't check in often, that it is a dem. It seems to have started today, on this thread, but I am not 100% sure.
peter you are the next comment.
Posted by dorita at January 12, 2006 09:19 PMHow can they all be dems if, as you say, all dems think alike?
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 08:52 PM
*********
I admit I did not read the middle part of this thread, I'm just not in the mood. I do, however, take umbridge with this statement.
I like that the Democratic Party is diverse. I like that they are not rubber stamps for whatever the issue is. I like that they have freedom of thought. I like that they all have different methodologies for solving problems that require diverse thinking and then coming together with a combination of good ideas.
As for platforms, there are many. They have a budget. They have an ethics proposal. They have campaign finance reform. They have education proposals. They have health care proposals. They have SS reform, Medicare reform, Medicaid reform. They have a solid energy plan.
It is all there on the DSCC, the DCCC, the DNC, the House Leader site. It is all there.
MSM does not report. People never hear about it unless they watch them in Congress on the SPAN or read endlessly.
Roo, I would suggest that you do that. If I missed somewhere in the middle of this thread that you have already done that - my apologies.
Bottom line - they are diverse people and do not claim to speak for eachother nor do they speak in one uniform robotic voice. They DO have platforms on which they agree.
This is all good.
As for them not screaming it loud enough, I agree. I think that this is more MSMs fault, however, than the Dems.
peter, baby, back as I predicted. You lie and then get an invite? Me: not surprised.
You said nothing to refute that you have lied.
Typical. Any new lies from you this thread? Please lay them on me.
Posted by dorita at January 12, 2006 09:22 PMsorry Duckman, I thought I was all alone :) Just missed that backup in typing.
Posted by dorita at January 12, 2006 09:27 PMAnjha, you said you were going! It's good to find you here :)
Posted by dorita at January 12, 2006 09:32 PM"As for them not screaming it loud enough, I agree. I think that this is more MSMs fault, however, than the Dems."
pitiful, absolutely pitiful. We have plans..... it's just that MSM won't cover them. What rot. People have to find out for themselves what our platform is.....it's not up to us to tell them.
No No No
The roo program had a blip, forgot it's name . . .unless someone else wants to take credit for that.
Posted by dorita at January 12, 2006 09:39 PMYes, Dorita, I am waiting for ER to come on. Ms PacMan did not change my headspace enough, I need real escape.
Posted by Anjha at January 12, 2006 09:45 PMpitiful, absolutely pitiful. We have plans..... it's just that MSM won't cover them. What rot. People have to find out for themselves what our platform is.....it's not up to us to tell them.
No No No Posted by anonymous lazy dude
******
Hey, why not HELP get the messages out. We cannot count on MSM so we need to talk, write letters, scream from street corners, picket, go to vigils, attend gatherings. Even homeowners association meetings, school boards, local districts - anything. We cannot wait. The world cannot wait.
I have seen a many a press conference with the Dems - only on CSPAN - MSM has been bought off. It is up to us now.
Don't be anonymous, scream louder.
Posted by Anjha at January 12, 2006 09:48 PMWow, all this lovely chat with roo and kin. I'm not involved, nor am I really caring to follow the soap opera much, so I'll continue with my conversation with Carpe.
Carpe writes:
"I think Stare Decisis is really sort of stupid and a sign of weak minded judges. If a decision is bad, then it should be overturned. The Courts like to protect their own, and I understand that its not easy making these decisions day in and day out, but whats right and truthful should not take a back seat to some latin phrase that most people don't understand"
I actually agree with you there. I mean if we follow history, wasn't it Stare Decisis that allowed "separate but equal" to dominate the courts for, what, something like over 5 decades?
But you hit upon a key phrase here by stating, "if the decision is bad, then it should be overturned. Well at first blush no one would disagree, but what exactly determines a bad decision? Or on the flip side, what exactly determines a GOOD decision for that matter?
Well hell, even Alito answered that one on a number of occasions - the Constitution AND precedence (i.e. involving stare decisis). Now does that logically follow that all decisions under stare decisis are GOOD ones? No, but they do merit much greater respect and latitude.
I guess I equate it to scientific theory. Certain theories like, say, quantum theory and evolution are tested every single day in the lab. They have thousands upon millions of research work supporting them. Does that mean they may one day be incorrect or heavily modified to resemble nothing from what they look like today? No, but it's gotta be a pretty damn hard body of supporting evidence under scientific scrutiny (i.e. observation, test, retest, and falsification) that could accomplish creating an alternate theory to explain such natural phenomenon that both theories explain so well at present.
To me the same applies to stare decisis. Such decisions may not be the ABSOLUTE correct interpretations of Constitutional law, but more and more challenges that are either struck down or withheld that support the original decision DOES give that original decision merit in future cases.
And BTW, I too am a big Bloom County fan, though I must say I'm quite proud of B. Breathed with his Opus resurrection!
Posted by MisterOpus1 at January 12, 2006 09:52 PM"Hey, why not HELP get the messages out."
That's a new idea. Why no one has suggested it on here before.
"Don't be anonymous, scream louder."
Don't scream, period. People don't listen to screaming, only to calm, rational discussion.
Posted by at January 12, 2006 09:52 PMAfter the fact, but tag you are it MisterOpus1:) I have been working with him for a while now. Before you, he only directly resonded to me. I will continue on my path; I'm happy to have another on this journey.
Great comments BTW -- I read every one.
Posted by dorita at January 12, 2006 09:59 PM"You might be a democrat after all."
Not because you say so. Because I say so.
"All of the things you suggest, though, require fighting for it."
No, they require first some thinking. We don't even have the plans yet. That will take some time. Then we have to sell them to the American public.
"Just like fighting against Alito's nomination."
That was a loser from day one. We need to work smarter, not lose every battle. Take on something we CAN win.
"The base needs to know they're representatives stand for something, which was the original point of this post."
I doubt we agree as to who is in the base and who isn't.
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 09:14 PM
****
Once again, only supposition and opinion on your part. I really don't think you have a finger on the pulse of the Democratic party if you think we support a conservative SCOTUS, and if you think Alito is some kind of moderate, then you're really out to lunch. I realize you don't care for my opinion, but trust me, I couldn't give a shit less about yours. You're about 25 cents short of a bus ride in your analysis. Just my opinion. As far as the white flag thing, suffice it say you made yourself look pretty stupid. Again.
"I really don't think you have a finger on the pulse of the Democratic party if you think we support a conservative SCOTUS"
call Leahy and Feingold, ask them why they voted for a man Clinton and Obama said was a radical conservative.
You might as well face it, the party is not just the far left.
"I realize you don't care for my opinion, but trust me, I couldn't give a shit less about yours."
Agreed. The difference between us though is that I'm actually interested in seeing the dems win some elections. You're not.
While you're at it, ask Kerry why he agrees with Bush on guns.
DAMN THAT DIVERSITY
Posted by avaroo at January 12, 2006 10:38 PM"The difference between us though is that I'm actually interested in seeing the dems win some elections. You're not."
Avaroo, I know some Democrats, and you sir/madam, are no Democrat.
"Avaroo, I know some Democrats"
why of course you do
I cannot watch. It is too painful being reminded of the ineptitude and inanity of most participants in the hearings. Yes, the process is screwed up beyond hope, and part of that is because we seem to be mistaking the confirmation hearings as a probe to discover whether the nominee is even remotely compatible with the philosophical views of the "opposition" (they never will be) and because any sensible nominee would avoid speculating about how he or she will rule on a hypothetical case that may or may not arise. Any nominee stupid enough to "go there" should be gonged off the floor immediately. For mental incompetence.
In my experience in hiring people, it is critically important to review the record or results --- MUCH more important than listening to the candidate's statements in an "artificial" setting. Just as important is listening carefully to what those who have worked closely with and around the candidate say (or refrain from saying, as in "damning with faint praise"). Today, as I understand it, Alioto's colleagues came in to offer their insights. Am I right in saying that the Democratic Senators didn't even bother to listen, and just left the room? How is that defensible?
I took this from Power Line, where I go for the "other side of the story", verbatim:
"This is truly extraordinary. Extraordinary that Judge Alito's colleagues have turned out to defend him against the Democrats' smears; extraordinary that the Democrats themselves couldn't be bothered to stick around to hear what this distinguished group of judges had to say. After all, if the Democrats were actually interested in what kind of judge Sam Alito is, these are precisely the witnesses who could tell them. If the Democrats really thought that Alito's judicial opinions reflect poorly on him, these are exactly the people who could answer their questions, and, if they are correct, confirm their fears. But the Democrats apparently knew that wasn't going to happen. The only conclusion one can draw is that the Democrats knew they were smearing a fine man and a fine judge. But the fact that they didn't even have the decency or respect to stay and listen to Alito's colleagues is disgusting."
I no more would support the "boycotting" of this testimony than I would the tactic of Sensenbrenner cutting off the microphone (mentioned upthread). What are these people thinking?
Posted by Terry Ott at January 12, 2006 11:05 PMSorry Steve. I see your overall point but I respectfully must say that your focus on senator's miscues is misplaced.
Alito gave them enough information to deny him confirmation. He stated that Roe was not super precedent. He evaded questions about his membership in CAP (which, by the way, does matter). He did not back away from his stances on absolute power for executive branch.
No, the senators on the judiciary committee were not perfect. But we don't need them, we just need one to two senators to agree to filibuster.
Flaming the Dems on the panel - no matter how well deserved - just feeds the right-wing meme that Scalito's coronation is inevitable. A better use of our time is continuing to pound the obvious, he must be stopped or we lose right to abortion, privacy, and separation of powers.
The rest (i.e. hearings, punditry) is simply entertainment for a mere 14% of the US population.
We cannot lose focus on the real right.
Posted by Cath at January 12, 2006 11:38 PMI agree with Steve- If you can't sink a swiftboat, stay off the beach. Where was the evidence and members testimony? Its not like they did'nt have time to prepare. How inept. Byrd is 102, and still remembers the day he joined the clan. Alito's wife should be crying over Sam's memory loss.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 13, 2006 12:20 AMhttp://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060111-112622-2876r.htm
Posted by at January 13, 2006 04:39 AMavaroo? YOu there? what specific principles and plafform should the democrats take since your advice is to stop attacking and to stand for something? Just what "something" should they stand for? I will wait... You won't answer with anything substantial I bet? What does your party that you identify yourself with do to win the next election besides just some vagueries you pointed out of "stop attacking" and "stand for something"....stand for what roo? please do tell us what is the platform they stand for and I want specifics positions on all issues on what they need to take to appeal to the apathetic masses in order to start winning elections.
I'm calling you bs bluff I want specifics.
Posted by at January 13, 2006 07:08 AM"Alito gave them enough information to deny him confirmation. He stated that Roe was not super precedent."
It isn't.
"He evaded questions about his membership in CAP (which, by the way, does matter)."
Sorry but if Alito's membership in CAP matters then so does Kennedy's membership in OWL, kicked off Harvard's campus decades after Kennedy was a prominent member, for refusing to admit women. You don't want to be a hypocrite, do you?
"He did not back away from his stances on absolute power for executive branch."
At no time in the entire 18 hours did he saythe executive branch has absolute power.
Posted by avaroo at January 13, 2006 07:20 AM"what specific principles and plafform should the democrats take since your advice is to stop attacking and to stand for something? "
on what issue, healthcare? education? national security?
"Just what "something" should they stand for?"
If you don't believe that the democratic party needs a platform, then it's no wonder that you haven't a clue that until we get one, we'll continue to lose elections.
"What does your party that you identify yourself with do to win the next election besides just some vagueries you pointed out of "stop attacking" and "stand for something"....stand for what roo?"
Pick an issue.
"please do tell us what is the platform they stand for"
that's the problem, no one actually knows
Sorry but if Alito's membership in CAP matters then so does Kennedy's membership in OWL, kicked off Harvard's campus decades after Kennedy was a prominent member, for refusing to admit women. You don't want to be a hypocrite, do you?
Sure it does and I'll be sure to make sure all his constituents know about it before his next re-election. You know. The election. When elected officials are held accountable. See, this is Alito's election. And CAP is relevant.
Posted by at January 13, 2006 07:41 AM"Sure it does and I'll be sure to make sure all his constituents know about it before his next re-election."
as if
"And CAP is relevant."
So you would have been FOR Teddy Kennedy recusing himself from questioning Alito on CAP based on the fact that he belonged to an exclusionary group while at Harvard? Can you show me where you have called for that prior to the hearings? Would you now state that Kennedy's participation in the hearing was inappropriate based on his own behavior?
Posted by avaroo at January 13, 2006 07:53 AMI agree, Steve, except for the knock on the Dems for raising concerns about ScAlito's CAP membership.
I don't care if it WAS 30 years ago. Had he been a KKK member, don't you think it would make a difference (esp. w/o a long, strong repudiation)? And you can take it to the bank that the fact I've raised the Klan issue will cause some troll to mention WV Sen. Byrd's FORMER Klan membership in the 1950s--even though he's apologized and repudiated it a million times. Ditto "Hanoi" Jane Fonda and "Chappaquiddick" Ted Kennedy. Repubs will NEVER let those issues die, EVER. Massachusetts voters have had the chance to rule on Ted's actions several times since 1969. I can't imagine there's anyone left in America who's not aware of it.
ScAlito, on the other hand, will (short of impeachment) never again face public scrutiny. This is a LIFETIME appointment. He's a LOCK to overturn Roe v. Wade and anyone who says otherwise is either a fool or a shill trying to fool others.
Posted by bartcopfan at January 13, 2006 07:55 AMbart, where did Teddy apologize for his membership in OWL at Harvard?
Posted by bartcop at January 13, 2006 07:56 AMDear Mr. Opus, (I don't get the newspaper anymore, too liberal, and their numbers are dropping everyday. I read the online version but no comics. If you have a link pass it on.)
Back to Stare Decisis, I read your thoughts and don't agree with your analysis comparing the law with emprical scientific science.
The number one thing that the law is supposed to be is "reasonable". We are taught that the vast majority of the law is based upon the "reasonable man". Therefore as laws are written and applied and then interpreted, the Courts are deemed to rule upon apparent contradictions or inconsistencies by using 1. The law, but no. 2. a reasonable understanding of its application.
Sometimes old laws stay with us until Societial MORES, change our perspective on either the law or things that might not have been contemplated when the law was written.
The law doesn't contemplate every possible future occurence.
For example, Roe v. Wade was decided as if they were legislatures being taught by physicians. Tri-mesters verses viability were juggled about until they got a "feeling" that they got it right. It was not some definable "right" that they discovered, it was a created one, so they had to bang it around a bit to try and figure it out to where they felt good about it.
Now applying that "right" to other rights, such as a parent's right to look after the health care of their children. All of a sudden, what was reasonable and normal in the past, doesn't apply. Now this newly "created" right trumps summarily the "right" that parents have in their children.
Eventually, this "right" has gone all the way to partial birth abortions and eventually as the trend continues, it will be a Governmental right to force abortions upon women whose children have certain birth defects.
Then like in China, it will be forced upon families for merely having too many children.
I don't know why I'm using abortion as an example, but its been on the news lately, with the alito confirmation. You might even be surprised by my real views about it.
My point is, that activist judges try to apply their feelings to everything they think is reasonable and that they think is good and nice, even if the answer relies with the legislature to do. Sometimes the legislature refuses to act, either because they don't want the law to change or they haven't caught up, so "feel good" judges feel the pain of their petitioners and just make it so.... Like in Mass, when they created Gay Marriage.
In another fifty years, consentual sex between 14 year olds and 50 year olds will deemed reasonable.
Then marriage between a father and his daughter or father and a son, will occur too. (Remember it was the Courts and not the legislature that began the recognition of inter-racial marriages too) The "unreasonable" reason we don't allow inter marriage is due to having "wierd" children, (generations of natural law taught us this) but if its a father and son,(they can't produce wierd children) hey, no "reasonable reason" not to allow it now. and its only about the LOVE between a man and a boy. Gees, you hate mongers can't let a man and and boy love each other naturally without your "unreasonable stereotypes.
I can't wait until beastiality becomes reasonable and then we can marry our pet canary or st. bernard.
I'll finish by saying this. There is no doubt that many activist judges have done many wonderful things that racists, or ignorant or even lazy legislative bodies did not and should have done.
But sometimes societial acceptance takes time and having laws forced down our throats can make it better, but sometimes it makes it worse, since the natural evolving standards are not learned, they are created.
When a bunch of 70 year old men and women are the final arbiteurs of whether I have to hire a girl that refuses to remove her nose ring and I have to hire purple haired, tatooed, devil worshippers at my protestant church so I don't discriminate, then something is wrong. We are not there yet, but give those dying old farts time to engineer more social acceptance programs that they "feel" is "reasonable".
Posted by carpediem at January 13, 2006 08:04 AM"And you can take it to the bank that the fact I've raised the Klan issue will cause some troll to mention WV Sen. Byrd's FORMER Klan membership in the 1950s...."
Oops, now that I've read more of the posts, I see a troll has already complied. Thanks for the confirmation.
On the Dem platform, I think Dems agree on increasing the minimum wage and improving access to and quality and affordability of healthcare. We believe in (and during the Clinton Boom, demonstrated) our commitment to PAYING THE COUNTRY'S BILLS (budget deficit). We believe in opportunity for ALL Americans, not just the economically and politically well-connected. We believe in fighting the GWoT where the terrorists are (Tora Bora) instead of creating new ones where they weren't (Iraq). We believe in protecting people's privacy. There's a lot more, but that's a start. Reasonable people can disagree; Repub Robots march in lockstep (and thus, by definition, are unreasonable).
Avaroo - Maybe YOU can explain why W supports "don't ask, don't tell" on military service by gays.
as if
That was awfully condescending. Why are you disrespecting me that way?
See how easy that is!
So you would have been FOR Teddy Kennedy recusing himself from questioning Alito on CAP based on the fact that he belonged to an exclusionary group while at Harvard?
Why should he. Alito should have asked him about it. Put old Teddy on the spot. What do I care?
Can you show me where you have called for that prior to the hearings?
I didn't. It's ridiculous.
Would you now state that Kennedy's participation in the hearing was inappropriate based on his own behavior?
No.
Posted by at January 13, 2006 08:15 AMbart, you missed my question....where did Teddy apologize for his membership in OWL at Harvard?
"Avaroo - Maybe YOU can explain why W supports "don't ask, don't tell" on military service by gays."
Don't you mean Clinton?
"Why should he."
Because he has no right to question the behavior of anyone doing the same thing he did himself.
"Alito should have asked him about it."
That's not the way confirmation hearings work.
Posted by at January 13, 2006 08:35 AMBecause he has no right to question the behavior of anyone doing the same thing he did himself.
Really. Why not?
That's not the way confirmation hearings work.
Too bad for Alito.
Posted by at January 13, 2006 08:50 AMWhy not?
Maybe you're right, Teddy Kennedy ALWAYS has the right to be a hypocrite. After all, he's Teddy Kennedy.
Posted by avaroo at January 13, 2006 08:56 AMTeddy Kennedy's dog is named "Splash"
Seriously. When he has that little self-awareness, what else can we expect from him?
Posted by avaroo at January 13, 2006 08:57 AMDear Carpe,
Perhaps my thoughts on stare decisis were a bit too much wishful thinking, and I guess I have to concede the differences between empirical observation and what you state as a "reasonable man". You state that decisions are applied based on:
"1. The law, but no. 2. a reasonable understanding of its application."
Well your #1 demands an observation, consideration, and respect of past rulings that depict parallel arguments to a present case, do they not? Therefore, previous arguments and rulings are giving precedent which directly influence the present argument at hand. Now #2 of course applies and may or may not bolster legal precedent set down in past decisions, but nevertheless precedent still applies (which I agree - for better or worse).
Now you further opined in a bit of a slippery slope on the eeevils of futuristic liberal decisions to the most extreme that, jesus I'm surprised you didn't mention the possibility of beastiality being all hunky dory down the road as well. I must say you share the same fears that I often see with Freepers (that's FreeRepublic.com posters) that tends to be both unfounded and out of the scope of "reasonable man", if I may borrow your term. For example, shall we be truly afraid of the possibility of the gov't demanding abortions which has been interpreted numerous times legally subsequent to Roe v Wade as a woman's Constitutional right to privacy? By what legal precedent could we possibly and rationally have such a fear?
I can think of none whatsoever. Both interpretation of Constitutional law AND legal precedent (words of Alito, not mine) could not possibly lend us to such an irrational and outlandish notion.
Shall we fear such governmental controls with the likes of China, who force population control upon families? Again, what legal precedent or rational interpretation of OUR Constitution would give credence to such a notion? Comparing our Courts and Constitution to the courts of China is nothing shy of an absolute insult to our Judicial system. I don't know international law very well, but I'd venture to guess such totalitarian laws and law making in China do not hold water to our 3 branches of government.
Besides, allow me to put the shoe on the other foot and give you the reverse situation. What if, God forbid, our civil rights and liberties are being infringed to the point where we can be detained without due process? What if it becomes okay to illegally wiretap our phones without a warrant of any sort, even in accordance to FISA laws that give the government up to 72 hours after the initial wiretap? What if our mail could be opened by the Dept. of Homeland Security without any rhyme or legal reason to do so?:
Well guess what? It's all a reality.
So I guess my point is, what should we really fear? The scaremongering "what ifs" of totalitarian Communism, or the present day realities that resemble an Orwellian Fascist nightmare?
I guess I choose the latter for obvious reasons.
Finally, you continue to throw around the term, "actist judges". I've given you a link to a study a little while ago that demonstrates those current SC Justices who deviate from Constitutional law the most, and they ARE NOT the so-called liberal ones. Perhaps it's appropriate to ask you your personal definition of "activist judge" before we can discuss and debate it further, because clearly history and case law demonstrates the term can be easily (and I would argue more often) applied to Conservative judges than the Liberal ones.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at January 13, 2006 09:25 AMSeriously. When he has that little self-awareness, what else can we expect from him?
Again, ask his constituents. They keep re-electing him.
Posted by at January 13, 2006 09:33 AM......and a better argument for term limits, I have never heard
Posted by avaroo at January 13, 2006 09:39 AMMy point is, that activist judges try to apply their feelings to everything they think is reasonable and that they think is good and nice, even if the answer relies with the legislature to do. Sometimes the legislature refuses to act, either because they don't want the law to change or they haven't caught up, so "feel good" judges feel the pain of their petitioners and just make it so.... Like in Mass, when they created Gay Marriage. posted by Carpe
*********
The converse is also true Crappy.
Repukes say they do not want "activist judges" because they do not like the activism of finding a woman's right to control her own body, life and destiny constitutional.
However, they do want activist judges who will deny women these rights.
If they really want to criminalize abortion or criminalize gay marraige, or whatever they wish to criminalize, then let them do so legislatively.
The argument that they do NOT want activist judges just does not hold water, at all.
Posted by Anjha at January 13, 2006 09:50 AM"Repukes say they do not want "activist judges" because they do not like the activism of finding a woman's right to control her own body, life and destiny constitutional."
Actually, most republicans just want the people to decide that issue for themselves, through legislature.
"However, they do want activist judges who will deny women these rights."
Overturning Roe would not make abortion illegal.
"If they really want to criminalize abortion or criminalize gay marraige, or whatever they wish to criminalize, then let them do so legislatively."
Precisely the point. Decisions should be made by legislatures, accountable to the people through elections, not by unelected judges. But moonbats don't want the people to decide because they may not like the decisions the people make.
Posted by avaroo at January 13, 2006 09:54 AMRoe will forever continue to resurface because it was decided by the wrong body. Not because the decision that abortion remain legal was wrong.
People disagree with all kinds of legislation, but when it's passed acording to the constitution, by the correct body, it doesn't become a Roe scale issue. Say the President, any president, suddenly said tomorrow that abortion will be illegal throughout the US. That would be an example of the wrong constitutional body making the decision. That too wouldn't sit well. The reason Roe is a constant sore point is because underneath everything, we know that that particular decision should have been made by the people.
Posted by avaroo at January 13, 2006 09:58 AMDear Opus,
The link was wrong, something about Sentator Brownback. I'll review it again, if you have the link.
Regarding Bestaility, well, why not? A normal progression of societial mores has taken us quite far. 50 Years ago, gays hid in the closet and no one suggested, even dared think that they might be appropriate in a boy scout role. NOw, schools are stopping the boy scouts from forming there because of their "discrimination".
Mind you some changes have been good and society often moves forward in a good way, but sometimes not.
Look at pornography? Sexual Promuscuity, the divorce rate, illegitamate births. Not all changes, while acceptable socially, are good.
Again, back to stare decisis. I don't think old decisions deserve respect at all. I think respect comes with the truth, with justice, with a fundamental appreciation of the law. Some OLD cases deserve respect because they are right, not because they are old. So again, stare decisis is sort of silly.
As to judicial activism, give me a break. You know exactly what I mean by that, and when you give me the link, I'll take you bet and you're gonna regret, cuz' I'm the best thats ever been....(charlie daniels)
But seriously, you can't be serious. I know some liberal commentators have tried to use the term activist judges in a "spin" fashion to try to take onus off of them, but anyone with any deliberate legal backing understands that conservative justices leave as much as they can in the hands of the executive and legislative branches and only intersedes as a last resort. Liberal judges do whatever they feel like doing, even to the extent of creating new law, as in Roe and in Mass, regarding gay marriage.
Avaroo writes:
"People disagree with all kinds of legislation, but when it's passed acording to the constitution, by the correct body, it doesn't become a Roe scale issue. Say the President, any president, suddenly said tomorrow that abortion will be illegal throughout the US. That would be an example of the wrong constitutional body making the decision. That too wouldn't sit well. The reason Roe is a constant sore point is because underneath everything, we know that that particular decision should have been made by the people."
Legislation is decision that is made by the people (through elected Representatives). However you seemingly omit the duty of the Judicial system itself - correctly deciding via Constitutional interpretation whether or not such decisions are made by the people/Legislative branch is Constitutional.
Absent of this is simply not our form of government. For example, the majority of the people and thereby their elected Representatives and Senators PRIOR to the Civil Rights law of 1969 (right year?) felt that interracial marriage was wrong. Does that necessitate it being legally right to outlaw interracial marriage, simply because the "people" decide that is so?
Of course not. The judicial system correctly interpreted such laws are unConstitutional on the basis of discrimination.
Now it could be argued that the decision of Roe was or was not on a very firm Constitutional basis. However the subsequent decisions upholding the DECISION itself, i.e. a woman's right to privacy with her body, some 38 proceeding decisions upholding the Roe decision ARE correctly interpreted on a Constitutional basis, and give the original assertion legal precedent.
Finally, you stated:
"Overturning Roe would not make abortion illegal."
On a Federal level, yes it would. If the Federal law states that it is illegal to prohibit a woman to have an abortion, then overturning such a decision would make it legal to prohibit an abortion on a State level should those states vote against such measures. While true that some States may still permit an abortion, other states would not and the Federal gov't would no longer have a say in the matter.
So what you're implying is not altogether true, nor is it completely false either.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at January 13, 2006 10:16 AM"Legislation is decision that is made by the people (through elected Representatives). However you seemingly omit the duty of the Judicial system itself - correctly deciding via Constitutional interpretation whether or not such decisions are made by the people/Legislative branch is Constitutional."
There's not a thing in the Constitution about abortion. Correctly, this decision would be made by state legislatures, accountable to voters.
"For example, the majority of the people and thereby their elected Representatives and Senators PRIOR to the Civil Rights law of 1969 (right year?) felt that interracial marriage was wrong."
1964-65. You don't actually know that a majority of the people felt that way. Their elected representatives obviously did.
"Does that necessitate it being legally right to outlaw interracial marriage, simply because the "people" decide that is so?"
THAT would be a Constitutional issue. And it would violate a number of Constitutional provisions. But where was that decision made? You got it, the legislature, through the CRA's of 64 and 65. That's also where the abortion issue should be decided.
"Now it could be argued that the decision of Roe was or was not on a very firm Constitutional basis."
That argument could be made but it is secondary to the issue of who makes the decision.
"On a Federal level, yes it would."
No, it would not. Abortion has never been illegal at the federal level and would not become so if Roe were overturned. Abortion was legal in NY state before Roe was passed in 1973.
"If the Federal law states that it is illegal to prohibit a woman to have an abortion, then overturning such a decision would make it legal to prohibit an abortion on a State level should those states vote against such measures."
This is correct.
"While true that some States may still permit an abortion, other states would not and the Federal gov't would no longer have a say in the matter."
You mean the people would decide rather than the federal government? What a concept. I like it, I like it a lot.
Posted by avaroo at January 13, 2006 10:27 AMYou mean the people would decide rather than the federal government? What a concept. I like it, I like it a lot.
Why should the people have anything at all to say about whether a woman wants to carry a pregnancy to term?
Posted by at January 13, 2006 10:35 AM"Why should the people have anything at all to say about whether a woman wants to carry a pregnancy to term?"
Cause that's who gets pregnant, people.
Posted by avaroo at January 13, 2006 10:42 AMWhy should the people have anything at all to say about whether a child attends school?
Why should the people have anything at all to say about how to spend tax dollars? Why don't we just let judges tell us?
Why should the people have anything at all to say about social security? Why don't we just let judges tell us?
READ THE CONSTITUTION
Posted by at January 13, 2006 10:45 AMCarpe writes:
The link was wrong, something about Sentator Brownback. I'll review it again, if you have the link.
The link works fine for me. Here, copy and paste this:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/jan/13/brownback_questions_federal_mail_inspections/?city_local
And my point and question pertaining to that particular topic was noticeably unanswered by you. I'll post it again:
"Besides, allow me to put the shoe on the other foot and give you the reverse situation. What if, God forbid, our civil rights and liberties are being infringed to the point where we can be detained without due process? What if it becomes okay to illegally wiretap our phones without a warrant of any sort, even in accordance to FISA laws that give the government up to 72 hours after the initial wiretap? What if our mail could be opened by the Dept. of Homeland Security without any rhyme or legal reason to do so?
Well guess what? It's all a reality.
So I guess my point is, what should we really fear? The scaremongering "what ifs" of totalitarian Communism, or the present day realities that resemble an Orwellian Fascist nightmare?"
Regarding Bestaility, well, why not?
The question you should be asking is not "why not", but "why"?
A normal progression of societial mores has taken us quite far.
Indeed they have, but in the correct direction, IMO. But if you're so worried about taking the absurd step that enhances your fears to beastiality, again I ask:
" By what legal precedent could we possibly and rationally have such a fear?
I can think of none whatsoever. Both interpretation of Constitutional law AND legal precedent (words of Alito, not mine) could not possibly lend us to such an irrational and outlandish notion."
"50 Years ago, gays hid in the closet and no one suggested, even dared think that they might be appropriate in a boy scout role. NOw, schools are stopping the boy scouts from forming there because of their "discrimination".
And rightfully so. The boy scouts can discriminate all they choose on the basis of the SC decision to do so. They're a private group, they can invite whomever they choose I guess (admittedly I don't know the logistics of the specific case). But consequently, anyone holding such discriminatory practices can choose NOT to hold such practices in their classrooms or basements (in my old church, for example), by the same token of reason boy scouts choose to be discriminatory. If an organization doesn't want to exhibit discriminatory behavior by allowing discriminatory groups holding meetings in their facilities, far be it for you or me to say they're wrong legally and ethically to do so.
Look at pornography? Sexual Promuscuity, the divorce rate, illegitamate births. Not all changes, while acceptable socially, are good.
Well sure, but what legally could be truly done with such changes? Are we supposed to somehow interpret Constitutional law into holding divorces illegal? How much judicial activism would be necessitated for such a course of action, would you think?
You live by the Constitution through and through, for better or for worse. John Stuart Mill wrote about such things in "On Liberty". In short, you take the goods with the bads, but ultimately things work themselves out (my little interpretation, granted).
Again, back to stare decisis. I don't think old decisions deserve respect at all. I think respect comes with the truth, with justice, with a fundamental appreciation of the law. Some OLD cases deserve respect because they are right, not because they are old. So again, stare decisis is sort of silly.
Well I think you are misconstruing stare decisis if you are defining it in such a narrow term. By no means does it necessitate respect of precedent SOLELY ON THE BASIS of the a previous ruling. That's just downright silly. Certainly the "truth and justice" come into play with Stare Decisis, otherwise subsequent decisions proceeding the original ruling would be rendered useless and even baseless.
IOW, Stare Decisis directly necessitates truth, justice, and good legal interpretation of the Constitution.
As to judicial activism, give me a break. You know exactly what I mean by that,
No, I don't, which is exactly why I asked. Often times in a discussion of an issue, differing interpretations of the same word or phrase tend to occur. So I want to see exactly YOUR definition and make sure we are in agreement, so we can go from there.
and when you give me the link, I'll take you bet and you're gonna regret, cuz' I'm the best thats ever been....(charlie daniels)
Well the link and study I was referring to was here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/opinion/06gewirtz.htmlex=1278302400&en=0e5fac7774080327&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
The results are as follows:
We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below.
One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more ''liberal'' -- Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens -- vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled ''conservative'' vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the latter group is the most activist.
...
Chart:
Thomas: 65.63%
Kennedy: 64.06%
Scalia: 56.25%
Rehnquist: 46.88%
O'Connor: 46.77%
Souter: 42.19%
Stevens: 39.34%
Ginsburg: 39.06%
Breyer: 28.13%"
Now granted, this doesn't necessarily directly imply activism in the sense of overturning Constitutional law itself, but it does entail such actions indirectly by overturning Congressional Law set forth by the Legislature.
But seriously, you can't be serious.
I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
I know some liberal commentators have tried to use the term activist judges in a "spin" fashion to try to take onus off of them,
I am unconcerned with what any given liberal commentator has stated. It's quite irrelevant to our personal discussion on the matter.
but anyone with any deliberate legal backing understands that conservative justices leave as much as they can in the hands of the executive and legislative branches and only intersedes as a last resort.
Well if this is part of your working definition, then the study I cited early clearly demonstrates this to be quite false.
Liberal judges do whatever they feel like doing, even to the extent of creating new law, as in Roe and in Mass, regarding gay marriage.
And monkeys often fly out of my butt simply because I say they can, and when I go to the zoo I often see monkeys covered in excrement, therefore they must have come from my butt.
Or perhaps both your statement and mine does not logically follow, and we can attempt to drop all non sequiturs?
Posted by MisterOpus1 at January 13, 2006 10:49 AMCause that's who gets pregnant, people.
Wow. And judges and legislators don't get pregnant?
Posted by at January 13, 2006 10:50 AM"Wow. And judges and legislators don't get pregnant?"
Judges and legislators are....ahem......people
Posted by avaroo at January 13, 2006 10:52 AMavaroo,
Unfortunately I'm out the door. I'll have to get to your reply either tonight or tomorrow.
I do appreciate some corrections on my knowledge and memory. Some other issues can still be debated, however.
Cheers,
Opus
Posted by MisterOpus1 at January 13, 2006 10:58 AMThanks for the civil, reasoned conversation, Opus. It's all too rare on here.
Posted by avaroo at January 13, 2006 11:00 AMbart, where did Teddy apologize for his membership in OWL at Harvard?
I dunno. But I smell RepuBS. First, do YOUR homework and show me where Ted is/was a member. Then, show me what the evil goals of the org were/are. Then get a few of your brothers killed, including one in combat. Then spend 40+ years of your life working on behalf of people w/ less than you.
Then we'll talk. Maybe you should take it up w/ MA voters.
Besides, Ted isn't the one going for a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS. Alito the 10 year-old illegal strip-search approver is.
BTW, you ain't bartcop.
Steve, we are not only on the same page on this one but have dotted the same "i's" and crossed the same "t's."
Posted by Marie at January 13, 2006 11:12 AMWhat compelling interest does my neighbor or the state have in what happens inside my body?
Why should the people have anything at all to say about whether a child attends school?
Are you comparing a child to a fetus? In any event the state has a compelling interest in ensuring an educated citizenry.
Why should the people have anything at all to say about how to spend tax dollars?
Because we're all resonsible to each other to contribute to the maintanance of the general welfare.
Why should the people have anything at all to say about social security?
Because the state has a compelling interest in keeping the majority of its elderly citizens from wallowing in poverty once their producive years have passed.
"I dunno. But I smell RepuBS. First, do YOUR homework and show me where Ted is/was a member."
Denial, always the first phase.
"Besides, Ted isn't the one going for a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS."
No, just one to the Senate.
Posted by avaroo at January 13, 2006 11:17 AM"What compelling interest does my neighbor or the state have in what happens inside my body?"
So you see no need for tobacco legislation? Or healthcare legislation? Or education legislation (assuming you have a brain in your body)?
Goodness, all those compelling interest you mention. How wonderful. Now make the leap, dear.
Posted by avaroo at January 13, 2006 11:19 AM"Avaroo - Maybe YOU can explain why W supports "don't ask, don't tell" on military service by gays."
Don't you mean Clinton?
No, I mean George W. Bush. To my knowledge, "don't ask, don't tell" is to this very day the law of the land. Why hasn't he changed it?
From Wikipedia (granted, not the best source): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell
"...The actual policy was crafted by Colin Powell and has been maintained by Clinton's successor, George W. Bush...."
BTW, I'm not bart, either.
"No, I mean George W. Bush. To my knowledge, "don't ask, don't tell" is to this very day the law of the land."
And who was that law passed under, bart? Bush? LOL
Posted by avaroo at January 13, 2006 11:25 AM"No, just one to the Senate".
I thought you championed all political decisions of the majority, Assaroo.
Posted by euzoius at January 13, 2006 11:33 AMSo you see no need for tobacco legislation?
No. Cigarette smoking directly affects the health of non-smokers.
Or healthcare legislation? Or education legislation (assuming you have a brain in your body)?
Again, the state has a compelling interest in a healthy and educated citizenry.
Personal insults. Always the hallmark of a strong argument.
Please tell me what is the compelling interest that the state has in my fetus? Are you worried that everyone is going to abort their children and no one will be left to vote Teddy Kennedy out of office?
Posted by at January 13, 2006 11:42 AM"I thought you championed all political decisions of the majority"
If you can show where I said anything even vaguely like that, we'll talk.
Posted by avaroo at January 13, 2006 11:45 AM"No. Cigarette smoking directly affects the health of non-smokers."
abortion directly affects the life of a baby or, if you prefer, fetus.
I'm pro-choice btw, I just want the decisions made by the people, not handed down fom judges.
"Again, the state has a compelling interest in a healthy and educated citizenry."
States have said repeatedly that they have a compelling interest in the life of a fetus. Particularly after a certain point.
"Please tell me what is the compelling interest that the state has in my fetus?"
What compelling interest does the state have in you wearing a helmet on a motorcycle? Or wearing your seatbelt? After all, you'd only be hurting yourself if you didn't.
"Are you worried that everyone is going to abort their children"
No, abortion has gone way down. With RU-486, hopefully it will go down even further. It's not Americans who have to worry about declining birthrates.
Posted by avaroo at January 13, 2006 11:50 AMabortion directly affects the life of a baby or, if you prefer, fetus.
Does a fetus have rights under the constitution?
States have said repeatedly that they have a compelling interest in the life of a fetus. Particularly after a certain point.
When it becomes viable outside the womb? Isn't that the distinction that Roe v. Wade drew? Perhaps any state that outlaws abortion should adopt all the unwanted babies as wards of the state. Then the people could decide how much tax money they want to spend on them.
What compelling interest does the state have in you wearing a helmet on a motorcycle? Or wearing your seatbelt? After all, you'd only be hurting yourself if you didn't.
The state has an interest in your safety. But you wouldn't catch me crying if Roberts and Alito decided that seatbelt laws and helmet laws were unconstitutional tomorrow.
No, abortion has gone way down. With RU-486, hopefully it will go down even further. It's not Americans who have to worry about declining birthrates.
Exactly, and the same people who seek to outlaw abortion would also deny people birth control. Morons. Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.
Posted by at January 13, 2006 12:03 PM"Does a fetus have rights under the constitution?"
After a certain point, clearly yes. Unless you think the USSC's declaration of a compleling state interest beyond a number of weeks is a declaration that it has no rights.
"When it becomes viable outside the womb? Isn't that the distinction that Roe v. Wade drew?"
When Roe was passed in 73, viability outside the womb was about 4 weeks later than it is now.
"Perhaps any state that outlaws abortion should adopt all the unwanted babies as wards of the state."
So only people for abortion should have the right to express a view. And pass laws?
"Then the people could decide how much tax money they want to spend on them."
Rather than on the babies of unwed girls as young as 14, like it does now?
"The state has an interest in your safety."
What? You are only hurting yourself. Isn't that a privacy issue if you want to drive without a seatbelt?
"But you wouldn't catch me crying if Roberts and Alito decided that seatbelt laws and helmet laws were unconstitutional tomorrow."
Me neither.
"Exactly, and the same people who seek to outlaw abortion would also deny people birth control."
That's simply not true.
"Abortion should be safe, legal and rare."
I agree.
Posted by avaroo at January 13, 2006 12:13 PMAfter a certain point, clearly yes. Unless you think the USSC's declaration of a compleling state interest beyond a number of weeks is a declaration that it has no rights.
Not at all. As my citation of Roe v. Wade demonstrates.
When Roe was passed in 73, viability outside the womb was about 4 weeks later than it is now.
The prolongation of the end of life now faces the same questions? How much do we do to keep someone alive?
So only people for abortion should have the right to express a view. And pass laws?
Did I say that. Am I not allowed to make suggestions? Just like any other "people". Personally I think the Roe v. Wade solution was about the best resolution to the issue of abortion anyone is likely to come up with. I'm opposed to people having abortions but I believe it is none of my business. The fact that Roe recognizes that a fetus becomes a viable individual at some point during the term is an acceptable compromise between those who seek a right to privacy and those who wish to exert the states interest in protecting what will shortly be a child. Acomplete ban on abortion would be a mistake in my mind as would the unrestricted ability for a woman to have an abortion on demand right up til the end of her term.
That's simply not true.
Yes, it is.
Posted by at January 13, 2006 12:26 PMI also think smoking should be banned entirely. But I recognize that I don't have the right to tell someone that they absolutely can't smoke a cigarette if they want to.
Posted by at January 13, 2006 12:29 PM"Did I say that."
Pretty much, yes.
"Personally I think the Roe v. Wade solution was about the best resolution to the issue of abortion anyone is likely to come up with."
The resolution wasn't the problem. Where it was decided was. And it will forever resurface because it was improperly decided by the USSC.
"I'm opposed to people having abortions but I believe it is none of my business."
I'm not opposed to people having abortions and I agree, it's none of your business.
"yes, it is"
No, it's not. Plenty of people who use birth control are opposed to abortion.
Posted by avaroo at January 13, 2006 12:41 PMPretty much, yes.
You'll have to be a little clearer on that one.
The resolution wasn't the problem. Where it was decided was. And it will forever resurface because it was improperly decided by the USSC.
What would you support? National abortion legislation. Or do you think individual states should be allowed to outlaw abortion if the people see fit?
I'm not opposed to people having abortions and I agree, it's none of your business.
Fine with me.
No, it's not. Plenty of people who use birth control are opposed to abortion.
The organized opposition to abortion in this country is also largely anti-birth control.
Posted by at January 13, 2006 12:51 PM"What would you support? National abortion legislation."
No, state legislation.
"Or do you think individual states should be allowed to outlaw abortion if the people see fit? "
You DON'T think states should do what people who live in them want? Why not?
"The organized opposition to abortion in this country is also largely anti-birth control."
No, it's not.
Posted by avaroo at January 13, 2006 12:58 PMHere's the website for National Right to Life. Point out the anti-birth control part.
http://www.nrlc.org/
Posted by avaroo at January 13, 2006 01:08 PMoh, I found it myself....
From NRL's mission statement.
"The ultimate goal of the National Right to Life Committee is to restore legal protection to innocent human life. The primary interest of the
National Right to Life Committee and its members has been the abortion controversy; however, it is also concerned with related matters of medical ethics which relate to the right to life issues of euthanasia and infanticide. The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense."
You DON'T think states should do what people who live in them want? Why not?
Majority rule is not the basis of our Constitution. The rights of the minority are to be protected from the whim of the majority. The Constitution is the ultimate arbiter.
Posted by at January 13, 2006 01:21 PM"Majority rule is not the basis of our Constitution."
ya think?
"The rights of the minority are to be protected from the whim of the majority. The Constitution is the ultimate arbiter."
You don't even know what's being discussed, do you?
Posted by avaroo at January 13, 2006 01:22 PMThe Catholic Church, and most other Christian religious denominations that are anti-abortion are also anti-birth control. The Bush administration is anti-birth control.
Posted by at January 13, 2006 01:23 PMya think?
You tell me please.
You don't even know what's being discussed, do you?
Again, please tell me.
Posted by at January 13, 2006 01:25 PM"The Catholic Church, and most other Christian religious denominations that are anti-abortion are also anti-birth control. The Bush administration is anti-birth control."
But here's what you said....
"The organized opposition to abortion in this country is also largely anti-birth control."
and that's wrong. I proved that with the website of the largest organized opposition.
Posted by at January 13, 2006 01:28 PMand that's wrong. I proved that with the website of the largest organized opposition.
Perhaps they should take a position on birth control and tell the Bush administration to climb out of the dark ages.
Posted by at January 13, 2006 01:30 PMYou DON'T think states should do what people who live in them want? Why not?
So if the people of New Jersey decided they wanted to reimpose slavery that would be ok with you? It's what the people want.
Posted by at January 13, 2006 01:34 PM"Perhaps they should take a position on birth control and tell the Bush administration to climb out of the dark ages."
perhaps, but your claim was still false, the organized opposition is not against birth control.
"So if the people of New Jersey decided they wanted to reimpose slavery that would be ok with you? It's what the people want."
Have you ever had a class in US government? Or is that on next year's curriculum?
Posted by at January 13, 2006 01:36 PMHave you ever had a class in US government? Or is that on next year's curriculum?
Please enlighten me.
Posted by at January 13, 2006 01:38 PMI have no idea whether US government is part of your curriculum in school next year. If it is, come back after the classs is over.
Posted by at January 13, 2006 01:45 PMSo you don't have anything other than snark?
Why should a woman be told that she must carry a baby to term if she discovers herself to be a few weeks pregnant?
Posted by at January 13, 2006 01:51 PMShe shouldn't, in my view. I'm pro-choice.
Posted by avaroo at January 13, 2006 01:52 PMYet you feel that if 51% of the people in a state think otherwise they should be able to compel her to have a baby?
Posted by at January 13, 2006 01:55 PMYou believe that state legislatures do what 51% of the people want?
Posted by at January 13, 2006 01:56 PMYou believe that state legislatures do what 51% of the people want?
No they do not generally. The governor of California seems to think that is part of the problem and he likes to assemble the people for statewide plebicites to do just that. Exactly because the legislature won't.
Posted by at January 13, 2006 02:00 PM"No they do not generally."
They don't? Wouldn't they be tossed out of office if they didn't?
Posted by at January 13, 2006 02:05 PMEnough with the games.
Posted by at January 13, 2006 02:08 PMya think?
Posted by at January 13, 2006 02:09 PMyup.
Posted by at January 13, 2006 02:10 PMthought so
Posted by at January 13, 2006 02:11 PM… anyone with any deliberate legal backing understands that conservative justices leave as much as they can in the hands of the executive and legislative branches and only intersedes as a last resort…. Posted by Carpediem atThe usual meaning of "Activist Judge" is one who is most inclined to strike down Congressional laws, or in other words, one who intercedes most often. By that measure, Thomas 65.63 %, Kennedy 64.06 %, Scalia 56.25 %, Rehnquist 46.88 %, and O'Connor 46.77 % are most activist. Posted by Mike at January 14, 2006 03:08 PM
I agree with Steve!
Posted by bbtb at January 14, 2006 09:59 PM