religious right: "G-d purged wickedness" from New Orleans
Stephen Stein
"God may have used the hurricane to purge wickedness from the city."
"God simply, I believe, in His mercy purged all of that stuff out of
there -- and now we're going to start over again."
Disgusting - that's the only word that fits.
- Steve Stein
Dick Margulis
I realize that the "agape" in "Agape Press" is a three-syllable word,
but my mouth was two-syllable agape when I read that. All I can say in
response is that if there were a God as vengeful as Bill Shanks
envisions, Bill Shanks wouldn't be here to spew his venom.
tonyp
"Stephen Stein" <szs.forw...@comcast.net> wrote
Oh, I don't know. "Predictable" also fits pretty well :-)
-- TP
JR-jred
Ed <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> "Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explaind by
> stupidity."
Ed, I don't know if that's your own quote or if you lifted it from
another source but either way, I'll definitely be using it - often.
Thanks,
--
-JR
Hung like Einstein and smart as a horse
Remove NO SPAM from e-mai address to reply
Dick Margulis
> In article <020920052216411087%nos...@nospam.com>,
> Ed <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explaind by
>>stupidity."
>
>
> Ed, I don't know if that's your own quote or if you lifted it from
> another source but either way, I'll definitely be using it - often.
>
> Thanks,
>
Ascribed to Napoleon Bonaparte. Not sure who did the English translation.
AlanG
"Stephen Stein" <szs.forw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:65ydnd-JIby...@comcast.com...
> http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/9/22005b.asp
When I clicked on the URL I was expecting to find Pat Robertson was
involved...but then I remembered that he recently met or exceeded his lunacy
quotient for at least the next year.
tonyp
"AlanG" <snow...@comcast.net> wrote
> When I clicked on the URL I was expecting to find Pat Robertson was
> involved...but then I remembered that he recently met or exceeded his
lunacy
> quotient for at least the next year.
I have always believed that god has a wicked sense of humor, and a curious
sense of timing. At any rate, he chose an amusing moment to gather unto
himself the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Pat Robertson might consider this development a well-timed answer to his
prayer of some months ago. Or he may be starting to view his god as one of
those deceitful genii of legends and jokes, and be more _precise_ in
phrasing his future prayers :-)
But seriously folks: any bets on who replaces Rehnquist? Does Bush elevate
Scalia and slog through _three_ confirmation battles? Does he nominate
Gonzales or Estrada for Chief? Does he nominate the most conservative woman
he can find?
-- TP
R Philip Dowds
...
> But seriously folks: any bets on who replaces Rehnquist? Does Bush elevate
> Scalia and slog through _three_ confirmation battles? Does he nominate
> Gonzales or Estrada for Chief? Does he nominate the most conservative woman
> he can find?
>
> -- TP
With Mr Rhenquist visibly failing, I suspect the Bush team gamed this
scenario during the process of selecting Mr Roberts. I think they trust
Mr Roberts to not upset the Roe v Wade applecart, so it's probably safe
to replace one pro-lifer with another. But since the Chief Justice has
important administrative and symbolic functions to perform, they can't
throw in just any nut — women in charge are usually troubling for
conservative guys — and I don't think Torture Man will ever get
confirmed for any seat on SCOTUS. So ... I don't know.
RPD / Cambridge
Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.
R Philip Dowds
Court. S/he serves as head of the US Judicial Conference, which has
broad authority governing the operations of the entire federal court
system; federal procedurals tend to set the standard for State
procedurals. S/he administers certain oaths of office, and presides
over certain impeachments. More generally, as the "head" or "chair" of
committees and their meetings, s/he plays the lead role in setting the
agendas and managing the time. By most accounts, Mr Rehnquist was
pretty good at this stuff.
RPD / Cambridge
Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.
Ed wrote:
> In article <MRJSe.7478$FW1....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, R
> Philip Dowds <rpd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>But since the Chief Justice has important administrative and symbolic functions to perform
>
>
>
> Actually what does the "Chief" Justice do? I can understand "symbolic"
> although I don't know why it counts for much of anything. What really
> sets him apart from the rest of the Justices?
Info Junkie
From the AP: "Bush Nominates Roberts for Chief Justice
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/05/D8CE4LSO0.html
"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
Info Junkie
Followup (IMO):
I suspect that based on the race card that is being bandied about against Bush
wrt New Orleans*, the replacement nominee for Justice O'Conner will (now) shift
from Roberts to Janice Rogers Brown. She will (politically) fulfill two
potential areas of contention:
1. Replaces a female (O'Conner) with another female and
2. Ensures another black is added to the highest court (USSC).
This is but pure speculation on my part. We'll just have to wait and see...
Justice Janice Rogers Brown was confirmed to the US Court of Appeals for the DC
Circuit on June 8th, 2005.**
*http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/usweatherracejackson&printer=1
*http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/01/AR2005090102305_pf.html
*http://www.zebrality.com/article.php?article_id=93
*http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007203
**http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/08/AR2005060801688.html
tonyp
"Info Junkie" <bond...@ifx.net> wrote
> I suspect that based on the race card that is being bandied about against
Bush
> wrt New Orleans*, the replacement nominee for Justice O'Conner will (now)
shift
> from Roberts to Janice Rogers Brown. She will (politically) fulfill two
> potential areas of contention:
> 1. Replaces a female (O'Conner) with another female and
> 2. Ensures another black is added to the highest court (USSC).
Notice that these are _political_ considerations. I do not object, myself,
to presidents selecting nominees on political grounds. There are always
dozens or hundreds of "qualified" people to choose from, and if the founders
had wanted to eliminate politics from the nomination process they could have
specified that the nominee shall be selected by competitive examination, or
by seniority, or by lot. But they did not: they made it a _political_
choice.
Modern spinmeisters like to pretend, sometimes, that politics should _not_
figure into the Senate's advice-and-consent role. They seem to argue that
the president can nominate on political grounds, but the Senate must confirm
only on "qualifications". Senators have no right to probe the nominee's
ideology, says the modern spin. If we have any respect for the founders,
this spin is clearly balderdash.
So, I look forward to a _political_ battle over these two seats. Let the
games begin :-)
-- TP
Jim Taylor
> women in charge are usually troubling for conservative guys
Really? Where did you learn this nugget from? The head of the state department?
Ms. Thatcher's Great Britain?
Jim Taylor
It's worth remembering how Senator Kennedy's memo on Estrada said that his
nomination as a *judge* must be blocked because "he is Hispanic." (actual
quote). The nerve of a person immigrating to this country (legally), learning
English, and becoming a highly intelligent, talented and respected judge! The
nerve. Better do everything you can to destroy the man personally.
Jim Taylor
Middle Easterners are saying that Katrina is Allah's soldier....how does
that register on you disgusting meter?
Some "musician" says that "George Bush doesn't care about black people"
on national televsion.....
Face it there's always going to be clowns that say outrageous things.
No need to get yourself all worked up with selective outrage.
Many churches and religious organizations are doing wonderful work and
pouring aid monies to help the victims of the hurricane. But don't let
that get in the way of your anti-religion "outrage."
Jim Taylor
> "AlanG" <snow...@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > When I clicked on the URL I was expecting to find Pat Robertson was
> > involved...but then I remembered that he recently met or exceeded his
> lunacy
> > quotient for at least the next year.
>
> I have always believed that god has a wicked sense of humor, and a curious
> sense of timing. At any rate, he chose an amusing moment to gather unto
> himself the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
>
> Pat Robertson might consider this development a well-timed answer to his
> prayer of some months ago. Or he may be starting to view his god as one of
> those deceitful genii of legends and jokes, and be more _precise_ in
> phrasing his future prayers :-)
What a fitting subject line in a thread dedicated to "outrage" about religious
statements. Hipocracy abounds......
Info Junkie
>
>"Info Junkie" <bond...@ifx.net> wrote
>
>> I suspect that based on the race card that is being bandied about against
>Bush
>> wrt New Orleans*, the replacement nominee for Justice O'Conner will (now)
>shift
>> from Roberts to Janice Rogers Brown. She will (politically) fulfill two
>> potential areas of contention:
>> 1. Replaces a female (O'Conner) with another female and
>> 2. Ensures another black is added to the highest court (USSC).
>
>
>Notice that these are _political_ considerations. I do not object, myself,
>to presidents selecting nominees on political grounds. There are always
>dozens or hundreds of "qualified" people to choose from, and if the founders
>had wanted to eliminate politics from the nomination process they could have
>specified that the nominee shall be selected by competitive examination, or
>by seniority, or by lot. But they did not: they made it a _political_
>choice.
(My apologies to those that feel my response may be verbose. Now back to our
irregularly scheduled Usenet comments... :-)
Agreed....and which I made note that such a nominee would benefit the POTUS
"politically".
Common sense dictates that any POTUS having an opportunity to further their
ideological beliefs for the general direction of the country would select
individual(s) that shared those beliefs. This has been true since President
Washington nominated John Jay as the first Chief Justice in 1789.
However, many times such selections have "backfired" (ex: FDR: Felix
Frankfurter, Eisenhower: Earl Warren and William J. Brennan, Nixon: Harry
Blackmun, Reagan: Anthony Kennedy, Bush (41): David Souter).
>Modern spinmeisters like to pretend, sometimes, that politics should _not_
>figure into the Senate's advice-and-consent role. They seem to argue that
>the president can nominate on political grounds, but the Senate must confirm
>only on "qualifications". Senators have no right to probe the nominee's
>ideology, says the modern spin. If we have any respect for the founders,
>this spin is clearly balderdash.
The Constitution is silent on what those "qualifications" may be...beyond
Article III,sec 1: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall
hold their Offices during good Behaviour..."
OTOH, "Nominees to the Supreme Court, as well as to lower federal courts, are
evaluated by the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Federal
Judiciary. The panel is composed of fifteen federal judges (but not Supreme
Court Justices), including at least one from each federal judicial circuit. The
body assesses the nominee "solely to professional qualifications:
integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament," and offers a
rating of "well qualified," "qualified," or "not qualified."
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States#Qualifications
The Senators may well use such information to determine the "qualifications" of
the nominee from this information. The political "ideology" of the nominee is
irrelevent as shown you above, as once some nominees are confirmed, they may
change their positions.
OTOH, IIRC only since FDR have nominees been seriously considered for their
potential as "un-elected legislators" on specific issues and political
ideologies...something the founding fathers felt would NOT occur with
regularity, and which is why they were given lifetime appointments rather than
being elected to avoid obligations to a political ideology in their rulings.
Yet the "Constitution provides that the President "shall nominate, and by and
with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint" Supreme Court Justices
and, as established by Congress, other federal judges. Art. II, 2, cl. 2. Since
1952 the President, through the Department of Justice, has requested advice from
the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary (ABA
Committee) in making such nominations.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=491&page=449
All (?) of the current POTUS nominations to the appellete courts have received a
"well qualified" rating. Why are some Senators insisting on filibustering and/or
discrediting a nominee on their "political ideology"? It would behove them to
follow their "Advise and Consent" role by challenging WHY they were given such a
rating by the ABA, rather than focusing on a "guilt by association" mindset wrt
how the nominee's political "ideology" may reflect the position of the current
POTUS, and their belief (hatred?) towards him.
OTOH, we've previously had this discussion in ne.politics (Subject: What is
"judicial philosophy"?), where the discussion involved wrt Amendments IX, X, and
your questions wrt suicide.
Probing a nominee's "Ideology" is fine...if one wishes to ascertain his
political beliefs, as I mentioned to you in Message-ID:
<42eb7c74...@news.ifx.net>:
"One may ask Mr Nominee (how he/she) would "label" himself in general...but not
on any specific issue: Liberal, Classical Liberal, Libertarian?
(followup) (How) Would Mr Nominee apply this "label" to social, national,
political or economic areas of interest?" (wrt their rulings...or would they?).
Bottom line: There are those that wish to pose specific questions regarding
potential cases coming before the court. They seem to believe that somehow a
nominee's political "ideology" implies how the nominee *WILL RULE* on a case
before its been argued.
Others use such tactics (such as you did*) to see if the nominee agrees or
disagrees with a previous case and/or justice's opinion on a specific case.
Although less direct, this too somehow implies a nominee's political "ideology"
determines how the nominee *WILL RULE* on a case before its been argued. This is
but a disingenuous attempt to imply a "guilt by association" mindset, and was
also pointed out to you.
*http://groups.google.com/group/ne.politics/browse_thread/thread/8bcf2a4c0d1edc94/d9543615ba7fb24c?lnk=st&q=group:ne.politics+author:to...@world.std.com&rnum=1&hl=en#d9543615ba7fb24c
In those same threads, you were asked:
"Would you instead prefer Judge Roberts (Mr Nominee) use Canon 5 of the American
Bar Association's Model Code for Judicial Conduct?
This is also known as the "Ginsburg Rule", where as, "prohibits candidates for a
judical office from making statements that commit the candidate regarding cases,
controversies or issues likey to come before the court". It is being revised,
but the intent has not changed:
http://www.abanet.org/judicialethics/draft_canon5_052605.pdf
Justice Ginsburg used that tactic quite effectively even though she was a known
activist in several very liberal causes prior to her nomination to the USSC. Yet
deomcrats never aggressively "called" on her those activities, because she
invokes this usage of this canon multiples times."
(Message-ID: <42ecc5cf...@news.ifx.net>)
You've not yet answered that question.
>So, I look forward to a _political_ battle over these two seats. Let the
>games begin :-)
Political considerations have been used since Geo. Washington nominated John Jay
as the first Chief Justice....and continues to this day. Nothing new here.
However, the primary difference these days is that some (read Democrat) wish to
determine how a nominee will rule on specific cases that may reject their
political agenda of using the courts as "un-elected legislators". They do so for
laws (or interpretation of law) they could not get passed otherwised, while
virtually *throwing-up-their-hands* and disassociating themselves (politically)
of any outrage from an angry majority of voters. (ex: New London vs Kelo)
After all, the *blame* would be placed on the "Court", that lifetime appointed
group that "created new law" (or "found" new "insights" within current laws),
and the political party (read Democrat) nor individual Congressperson (read
(Democrat) could not be held DIRECTLY responsible for the outcome, eh? LOL.
tonyp
"Info Junkie" <bond...@ifx.net> wrote
> OTOH, IIRC only since FDR have nominees been
> seriously considered for their potential as
> "un-elected legislators" on specific issues and
> political ideologies ...
But _do_ you recall correctly? I'm not sure either way.
> Bottom line: There are those that wish to pose
> specific questions regarding potential cases
> coming before the court. They seem to believe that
> somehow a nominee's political "ideology"
> implies how the nominee *WILL RULE* on a case
> before its been argued.
Let me ask you this: what do you think _Bush_ asked Roberts when he
interviewed him for the job?
I suspect you're uncomfortable with the proposition that Senators are
entitled to ask the same questions as the President is. I suspect you don't
think Senators should have access to all the documents the President had
access to. Am I reading you about right?
As for this "WILL RULE" business: practically _any_ question, in this
litigious nation, can end up as a federal case. What exactly can we ask a
nominee, if questions about even "potential" cases are out of bounds?
-- TP
Info Junkie
>
>"Info Junkie" <bond...@ifx.net> wrote
>
>> OTOH, IIRC only since FDR have nominees been
>> seriously considered for their potential as
>> "un-elected legislators" on specific issues and
>> political ideologies ...
>
>
>But _do_ you recall correctly? I'm not sure either way.
I don't recall a nominee being discredited or praised based on their political
"ideology" by Senate Judicial Committees prior to FDR. Is it relevent or do you
have a "nit" to pick?
>> Bottom line: There are those that wish to pose
>> specific questions regarding potential cases
>> coming before the court. They seem to believe that
>> somehow a nominee's political "ideology"
>> implies how the nominee *WILL RULE* on a case
>> before its been argued.
>
>
>Let me ask you this: what do you think _Bush_ asked Roberts when he
>interviewed him for the job?
One may speculate on such things ad infinitum...maybe his golf handicap?
>I suspect you're uncomfortable with the proposition that Senators are
>entitled to ask the same questions as the President is.
I'm not uncomfortable at all. You're making the presumption that Presidents have
a list of questions on specific cases that he wants the nominee to answer. Do
you wish to force the President to provide this presumed list of questions to
the Senate?
> I suspect you don't
>think Senators should have access to all the documents the President had
>access to. Am I reading you about right?
This would depend on what you mean by "all documents". Private love letters to
his wife? The documentation wrt the adoption of his children? A private diary he
may have written to when he was 12 years old? I've no idea how many documents
the President had access to...neither do you.
Up to 65,000 - 75,000 documents have been or are being released on John Roberts.
Evidently some biased senators have not yet found the "dirt" they are hoping to
find. Are you referring to include all private memoranda and personal notes
that fall under the attorney-client privilege?
The real issue is: beyond the three obvious nay-sayers (Durbin, Schumer and
Kennedy) how did the Senate have a near-unanimous vote on Roberts confirmation
to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit just two years ago (May 8, 2003)?
Senators know that historically this court has been a stepping-stone to the
USSC. Shouldn't they have been more diligent in their demands then? What has
changed in the last two years? Could it be two vacancies to the USSC and not any
historical documentation from Roberts past?
IMO, they're "stalling". They are hoping to derail any high position POTUS'
nominees, so that they:
1. Have the senatorial elections in 2006
2. Show the public how well they're doing and they should be returned to power
3. Can convince the public; appointments by this President can not be trusted
4. Appointments to high positions are considered moot from a "lame-duck" POTUS
Should these biased senators demand to look under every rock for dirt against
nominees they've already pre-judged without evidence, eventually no nominee will
meet their "qualifications" unless said nominee meets THEIR political "ideology"
of having the courts "legislate-from-the-bench".
>As for this "WILL RULE" business: practically _any_ question, in this
>litigious nation, can end up as a federal case. What exactly can we ask a
>nominee, if questions about even "potential" cases are out of bounds?
Note the context I used wrt "WILL RULE". This is not to ascertain the
qualifications of the nominee, but tactics used to determine how a nominee "WILL
RULE" on specific cases prior to hearing the arguments in court.
Several approaches wrt questioning nominees has been previously provided you.
Maybe you should stop ignoring the answers and come up with your own. Start by
considering what questions senators asked previous nominees, beginning with
those in the 1950's that received ratings from the ABA.
For the third and final time, will you answer the following question?
"Would you instead prefer Judge Roberts (Mr Nominee) use Canon 5 of the American
Bar Association's Model Code for Judicial Conduct?
This is also known as the "Ginsburg Rule", where as, "prohibits candidates for a
judical office from making statements that commit the candidate regarding cases,
controversies or issues likey to come before the court". It is being revised,
but the intent has not changed:
http://www.abanet.org/judicialethics/draft_canon5_052605.pdf
Justice Ginsburg used that tactic quite effectively even though she was a known
activist in several very liberal causes prior to her nomination to the USSC. Yet
deomcrats never aggressively "called" on her those activities, because she
invokes this usage of this canon multiples times."
(Message-ID: <42ecc5cf...@news.ifx.net>)
(Message-ID: <431e38a...@news.ifx.net>)
As mentioned, the Senators may well use such information from the ABA to
determine the "qualifications" of the nominee based on this information for
their role of "Advise and Consent", and spend less time being concerned with how
a nominee's political "ideology" fits THEIR political "ideolgy", else they'll
publically discredit the nominee through "guilt-by-association" tactics towards
the current POTUS.
tonyp
"Info Junkie" <bond...@ifx.net> wrote
> "tonyp" <to...@world.std.com> wrote:
> >But _do_ you recall correctly? I'm not sure either way.
>
> I don't recall a nominee being discredited or praised based on their
political
> "ideology" by Senate Judicial Committees prior to FDR. Is it relevent or
do you
> have a "nit" to pick?
If you "don't recall", that's fine. I don't recall either. Just don't base
your argument on things you don't recall, if you want to be taken seriously.
BTW, this I do recall: the Senate has a _Judiciary_ committee.
> >Let me ask you this: what do you think _Bush_ asked Roberts when he
> >interviewed him for the job?
>
> One may speculate on such things ad infinitum...maybe his golf handicap?
Maybe so. Our current president is not renowned as a studious or curious
man.
> >I suspect you're uncomfortable with the proposition that Senators are
> >entitled to ask the same questions as the President is.
>
> I'm not uncomfortable at all. You're making the presumption that
Presidents have
> a list of questions on specific cases that he wants the nominee to answer.
Do
> you wish to force the President to provide this presumed list of questions
to
> the Senate?
I make no presumptions about Bush except this: he must have _some_ reason
for wanting Roberts instead of, say, Lawrence Tribe. I doubt he just drew
names from a hat. BTW, do you think that if by some wild chance we had an
audio tape of the interview(s), either Bush or Roberts would have any cause
for embarassment? If so, what could it possibly be?
> > I suspect you don't
> >think Senators should have access to all the documents the President had
> >access to. Am I reading you about right?
>
> This would depend on what you mean by "all documents". Private love
letters to
> his wife? The documentation wrt the adoption of his children? A private
diary he
> may have written to when he was 12 years old?
I spoke of "documents the President had access to" -- and you bring up love
letters?
> I've no idea how many documents the President had access to...neither do
you.
> Up to 65,000 - 75,000 documents have been or are being released ...
Let's show some respect for the mother tongue, shall we? First, 75,000
"pages of documents" is marginally plausible, but not 75,000 "documents".
Second, 75,000 is a lot of pages: over 20 years or so, it's about 3750
pages per year, or over 10 pages for every day including Christmas. Third,
even if Roberts _was_ that prolific a writer, it's a sure bet that some of
those pages are no more informative than time sheets or laundry tickets.
Quantity means nothing except to people who think data equals information.
> Evidently some biased senators have not yet found the "dirt" they are
hoping to
> find. Are you referring to include all private memoranda and personal
notes
> that fall under the attorney-client privilege?
One man's "dirt" is another man's "evidence". Evidence of what? Quite
possibly of the proposition that John Roberts is a serious, sober,
fair-minded man who believes that individual Americans have certain rights
even if the majority of their fellow Americans doesn't like it. Such
evidence, if uncovered, would not be "dirt" in my book.
Believe it or not, Inf, I would not be surprised if those "privileged"
documents contained nothing but evidence _favorable_ to Roberts. But when
the administration (any administration) says "You can't look for evidence
over _here_, only in the pile we put out over _there_", I get a bit
suspicious.
> The real issue is: beyond the three obvious nay-sayers (Durbin, Schumer
and
> Kennedy) how did the Senate have a near-unanimous vote on Roberts
confirmation
> to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit just two years ago (May 8,
2003)?
A scholar of your stature surely knows the answer: the Supreme Court is
different. Lower court judges must _follow_ precedent.
> For the third and final time, will you answer the following question?
> "Would you instead prefer Judge Roberts (Mr Nominee) use Canon 5
> of the American Bar Association's Model Code for Judicial Conduct?
> This is also known as the "Ginsburg Rule" ...
Yeah, by the right-wing spin machine. Scalia and Thomas both invoked what
you call the "Ginsburg Rule" long before it had the name you like to call it
by. Canon 5, read as expansively as you want to read it, literally confines
nominees to talking about the weather -- and maybe not even that, after
Katrina.
My answer to your question is this: if you're serious about Canon 5, then
it must apply to what the candidate says to the _President_, as well as to
the Senate. Maybe you seriously believe that. But if so, then you should
seriously answer _my_ question:
"What do you think _Bush_ asked Roberts when he interviewed him for the
job?"
> As mentioned, the Senators may well use such information from the ABA to
> determine the "qualifications" of the nominee based on this information
for
> their role of "Advise and Consent", and spend less time being concerned
with how
> a nominee's political "ideology" fits THEIR political "ideolgy", else
they'll
> publically discredit the nominee through "guilt-by-association" tactics
towards
> the current POTUS.
Maybe the nominee _deserves_ "discrediting". Would _you_ have voted
for G. Harold Carswell?
-- TP
Trent Frist
>Senator Kennedy's memo on Estrada said that his
>nomination as a *judge* must be blocked because "he is Hispanic." (actual quote).
(I know, I know, I shouldn't bother...)
This is untrue and you cannot cite a source, because what you're
quoting is actually conservatives' interpretation/spin of memos written
by Democratic Senators' staff - which, you'll recall, Republicans
obtained by breaking into the Democrats' computer systems.
"I was shocked to learn that this may have occurred," Hatch said in a
statement. "I am mortified that this improper, unethical and simply
unacceptable breach of confidential files may have occurred on my
watch."
"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"
-Captain Renault
tonyp
"Jim Taylor" <jim.t...@ss.ff> wrote
> What a fitting subject line in a thread dedicated to "outrage" about
religious
> statements. Hipocracy abounds......
>
HIPOCRACY, noun, singular. 1) That form of society wherein hypocrisy
stifles democracy, e.g. when deference is afforded to preachers who make
asses of themselves. 2) Direct rule by hypocrites, e.g. persons who piously
tsk-tsk when others display contempt for properly contemptible things. 3)
Republican government.
from my Republican-to-English dictionary,
to be published when I get around to it.
Jim Taylor
> "Jim Taylor" <jim.t...@ss.ff> wrote
>
> > What a fitting subject line in a thread dedicated to "outrage" about
> religious
> > statements. Hipocracy abounds......
> >
>
> HIPOCRACY, noun, singular. 1) That form of society wherein hypocrisy
> stifles democracy, e.g. when deference is afforded to preachers who make
> asses of themselves. 2) Direct rule by hypocrites, e.g. persons who piously
> tsk-tsk when others display contempt for properly contemptible things. 3)
> Republican government.
Wow, excellent reasoning, Professor. It is because it is. No doubt a US
Senator who claims to be against global warming but owns a handful or so of
SUVs, tools around the country in a large Gulfstream V, cruises up and down the
coast in a $800,000 power boat whose fuel consumption can be measured in gallons
per mile instead of miles per gallon and who heats and cools five mansions or
very large houses would NOT be a hypocrite, ne c'est pas?
Jim Taylor
> Jim Taylor wrote:
> >Senator Kennedy's memo on Estrada said that his
> >nomination as a *judge* must be blocked because "he is Hispanic." (actual quote).
>
> (I know, I know, I shouldn't bother...)
> This is untrue
You're right. The actual quote was "He is Latino." I'm sorry I accidentally
completely distorted the meaning of the statement by saying "He is Hispanic" instead,
now corrected.
> and you cannot cite a source,
Wall Street Journal. November 14, 2004, page A17.
> because what you're
> quoting is actually conservatives' interpretation/spin of memos
Oh ok. First said memo didn't exist. Now you admit that it not only does exist, but
was of course written by the offices of US [Democrat] Senators!
> written
> by Democratic Senators' staff
Actually that is an exact quote,
<< "He is Latino." As in, "They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as
especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White
House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment." >> -- Wall Street
Journal 11/14/03
> - which, you'll recall, Republicans
> obtained by breaking into the Democrats' computer systems.
Actually the document was placed on servers accessible to anyone in the Senate,
Democrat, Republican or otherwise. The document was freely available to all, no
special password or anything. First you claim the document didn't exist, then it did
exist, now you are claiming it was obtained by "breaking into" computers. No servers
were "broken into" any more then you "broke into" a news server to read this message.
>
>
> "I was shocked to learn that this may have occurred," Hatch said in a
> statement. "I am mortified that this improper, unethical and simply
> unacceptable breach of confidential files may have occurred on my
> watch."
Hatch was misinformed when he spoke that. As was pointed out many times afterwards the
files were placed on an open server. If Coke places its recipe on its open web site,
it can hardly claim a trade secret has been stolen when somebody surfs over to it.
No doubt the Democrats were embarrased. Now everyone knows how they really feel about
Latinos and their prejudice practices behind closed doors. Too bad they put it on an
open server.
Jim Taylor
>
> The real issue is: beyond the three obvious nay-sayers (Durbin, Schumer and
> Kennedy) how did the Senate have a near-unanimous vote on Roberts confirmation
> to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit just two years ago (May 8, 2003)?
Sshhhh!!! Don't mention that! Next you'll be remarking how a Junior US Senator
from New York was lamblasting the administration for placing FEMA under the
jurisdiction of the Homeland Security Dept, but (oops!) conveniently forgettingthat
she voted to place FEMA under the jurisdiction of the Homeland Security Dept. How
dare you comment on hipocracy! Of course under Professor Tony's hipocracy
definition, the Junior Senators of Massachusetts and New York are clearly
Republican.
tonyp
"Jim Taylor" <jim.t...@ss.ff> wrote
> Wow, excellent reasoning, Professor. It is because it is.
> No doubt a US Senator who claims to be against
> global warming but owns a handful or so of SUVs,
> tools around the country in a large Gulfstream V,
> cruises up and down the coast in a $800,000 power boat
> whose fuel consumption can be measured in gallons
> per mile instead of miles per gallon and who heats and
> cools five mansions or very large houses
> would NOT be a hypocrite, ne c'est pas?
It's a little embarassing to keep displaying your ignorance,
n'est-ce pas?
-- TP
Info Junkie
>
>"Info Junkie" <bond...@ifx.net> wrote
>
>> "tonyp" <to...@world.std.com> wrote:
>> >But _do_ you recall correctly? I'm not sure either way.
>>
>> I don't recall a nominee being discredited or praised based on their
>political
>> "ideology" by Senate Judicial Committees prior to FDR. Is it relevent or
>do you
>> have a "nit" to pick?
>
>
>If you "don't recall", that's fine. I don't recall either. Just don't base
>your argument on things you don't recall, if you want to be taken seriously.
>BTW, this I do recall: the Senate has a _Judiciary_ committee.
My argument included that if I recalled correctly...FDR nominees. What I didn't
recall is pre-FDR, something I didn't base my argument on. The other is but a
typo.
>> >Let me ask you this: what do you think _Bush_ asked Roberts when he
>> >interviewed him for the job?
>>
>> One may speculate on such things ad infinitum...maybe his golf handicap?
>
>
>Maybe so. Our current president is not renowned as a studious or curious
>man.
So your conclusions are not based on any facts you have, but your biased
speculation. Understood
>> >I suspect you're uncomfortable with the proposition that Senators are
>> >entitled to ask the same questions as the President is.
>>
>> I'm not uncomfortable at all. You're making the presumption that
>Presidents have
>> a list of questions on specific cases that he wants the nominee to answer.
>Do
>> you wish to force the President to provide this presumed list of questions
>to
>> the Senate?
>
>
>I make no presumptions about Bush except this: he must have _some_ reason
>for wanting Roberts instead of, say, Lawrence Tribe. I doubt he just drew
>names from a hat. BTW, do you think that if by some wild chance we had an
>audio tape of the interview(s), either Bush or Roberts would have any cause
>for embarassment? If so, what could it possibly be?
I suspect one of his "reason(s)" were based on a political decision. No
disagreement from me.
However, IMO, an "audio tape of the interview(s)" for any Clinton nominee, would
be no more of an "embarassment", as he probably didn't "(draw) names from a hat"
either.
In your foolish attempt to apply some "sinister" inference of WHY Bush picked
Roberts, you speculate the posssibility that an "audio tape of the interview(s)"
might be not "a", but "ANY cause for embarassment". IOW, like the
leftist-liberal senators, you're hoping to find any *dirt* that may be "cause
for embarassment" to the nominee.
It is such tactics as you've shown in your posts that serve only to validate my
earlier comments wrt those that attempt to discredit a nominee in a
"guilt-by-association" tactic, directly and/or indrectly against the POTUS.
>> > I suspect you don't
>> >think Senators should have access to all the documents the President had
>> >access to. Am I reading you about right?
>>
>> This would depend on what you mean by "all documents". Private love
>letters to
>> his wife? The documentation wrt the adoption of his children? A private
>diary he
>> may have written to when he was 12 years old?
>
>
>I spoke of "documents the President had access to" -- and you bring up love
>letters?
Do you know he didn't have access to the documents I mentioned above?
>> I've no idea how many documents the President had access to...neither do
>you.
>> Up to 65,000 - 75,000 documents have been or are being released ...
>
>
>Let's show some respect for the mother tongue, shall we? First, 75,000
>"pages of documents" is marginally plausible, but not 75,000 "documents".
>Second, 75,000 is a lot of pages: over 20 years or so, it's about 3750
>pages per year, or over 10 pages for every day including Christmas. Third,
>even if Roberts _was_ that prolific a writer, it's a sure bet that some of
>those pages are no more informative than time sheets or laundry tickets.
>Quantity means nothing except to people who think data equals information.
In my many years in Usenet, I've made it clear in various NGs that I don't have
a grammar or spell checker. Is this all you have? Grammatical errors?
FWIW, should you use a search engine you'd find that quoted information as
"documents have been" or "are being released" are listed in a variety of places.
Comparatively, very few show up that are displayed as "pages of documents". This
is not an excuse of my failure to differentiate the two, but if one fails to
grasps the obviousness of the point, it makes one wonder what else you fail to
grasp intelligently. The number of documents (or pages) has varied depending on
the article under review and the source of information. IOW, lot's of
information that is available has been provided to the Senate Judicary
Committee. That is the point, unless you wish to nitpick on grammar and/or
spelling.
>> Evidently some biased senators have not yet found the "dirt" they are
>hoping to
>> find. Are you referring to include all private memoranda and personal
>notes
>> that fall under the attorney-client privilege?
>
>
>One man's "dirt" is another man's "evidence". Evidence of what? Quite
>possibly of the proposition that John Roberts is a serious, sober,
>fair-minded man who believes that individual Americans have certain rights
>even if the majority of their fellow Americans doesn't like it. Such
>evidence, if uncovered, would not be "dirt" in my book.
Regardless of what Roberts personnally believes, how it applies,
constitutionally falls under the header of "qualifications", not "political
ideology".
OTOH, if Roberts found "certain rights" or "certain powers" do not exist as
understood within the context of constitutional law as previous liberal courts
have "found", this would be considered "dirt" as far as some of these senators
are concerned, e.g.. "Roe vs Wade" and "privacy rights", or "general Welfare"
and welfare checks, "New London vs Kelo" and the "fifth amendment" (BOR).
Since you spoke of "respect for the mother tongue", unless I'm mistaken,
shouldn't have one part of your sentence read..."majority of fellow Americans
don't like it". Not that it matters, but it appears you have grammatical errors
when typing as well....but I understood your point...and have addressed them.
>Believe it or not, Inf, I would not be surprised if those "privileged"
>documents contained nothing but evidence _favorable_ to Roberts. But when
>the administration (any administration) says "You can't look for evidence
>over _here_, only in the pile we put out over _there_", I get a bit
>suspicious.
Note that these senators demand documents they know they've no reason to access,
but becomes your claim that they "...can't look for evidence over _here". .
Show where senators have ever demanded and received attorney-client priviledged
documentation where no suspicion of wrong-doing was an issue.
OTOH, you'll have no problem showing where these same senators demanded this
type of documentation from Clinton nominees.
>> The real issue is: beyond the three obvious nay-sayers (Durbin, Schumer
>and
>> Kennedy) how did the Senate have a near-unanimous vote on Roberts
>confirmation
>> to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit just two years ago (May 8,
>2003)?
>
>A scholar of your stature surely knows the answer: the Supreme Court is
>different. Lower court judges must _follow_ precedent.
The USSC, like the DC Cirucit court, is an appellate court. While nominees for
the USSC may be held to a higher standard wrt "qualifications", the US Court of
Appeals for the DC Circuit is still THE appellate court that has historically
been a stepping-stone for the USSC. These same senators know this, and didn't
factor this in? Or are they now looking for "any cause for embarassment"? This
way they can reject a nominee that doesn't fit THEIR "political ideology" but
may also try to apply "guilt-by-association" to the POTUS,
To what "precedent" are you referring?
>> For the third and final time, will you answer the following question?
>> "Would you instead prefer Judge Roberts (Mr Nominee) use Canon 5
>> of the American Bar Association's Model Code for Judicial Conduct?
>> This is also known as the "Ginsburg Rule" ...
>
>
>Yeah, by the right-wing spin machine. Scalia and Thomas both invoked what
>you call the "Ginsburg Rule" long before it had the name you like to call it
>by. Canon 5, read as expansively as you want to read it, literally confines
>nominees to talking about the weather -- and maybe not even that, after
>Katrina.
Are you claiming the American Bar Association is a "right-wing spin machine"?
ROTFLMHO.
Scalia was confirmed to the USSC in 1968 and Thomas in 1991, not 1993. If either
had applied this canon in the same manner and as often as Justice Ginsburg, it
would've probably been called the "Scalia (or Thomas) Rule".
Many others when nominees refused to answer such questions. To name a few:
Justices Thurgood Marshall (1967), Justice John Paul Stevens (1975), Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor (1981), Justice Antonin Scalia (1986) and Justice Clarence
Thomas (1991) . Yet not one of these nominees refused to answer such questions
in anywhere near the volume Justice Ginsburg did (multiple times) in her
confirmation process. She "sailed" through, yet you want to disallow Justice
Roberts the ability to use this tactic? Why?
Justice Ginsburg refused to answer questions based on this (judical ethics)
canon 55 times throughout her confirmation hearings.
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=245159
Canon 5 does indeed "politcally" protect a nominee from potentially pre-judging
cases that may come before a court that may have to rule on...this you'll note
falls under "judical ethics". You don't have to like it, but you're free to
discuss it with the ABA (...the ABA as a "right-wing spin machine"...LOL...now
THAT's funny).
>My answer to your question is this: if you're serious about Canon 5, then
>it must apply to what the candidate says to the _President_, as well as to
>the Senate. Maybe you seriously believe that. But if so, then you should
>seriously answer _my_ question:
First, you didn't answer the question, you avoided it by trying to reframe the
question.
Your "answer" is complete and absolute utter nonsense. What a candidate and the
President discuss prior to the candidate offically becoming a nominee is a
private matter. No obligations have been made prior to the annoucement from the
POTUS to Congress and the public. Until such an offical announcement has been
made, neither the President has offically offered nor the candidate accepted any
position.
Again, if you believe your nonsense above, you must be looking for some sort of
list of questions that a President asks the nominee (in private), and presume
these same questions should also be asked by the Senate...in public. Beginning
with such a false premise (your "answer" above), you end with a flawed
conclusion.
The President, as you admitted makes a "political" decison, whereas the Senate
must "Advise and Consent" based on the "qualifications" of the nominee.
>"What do you think _Bush_ asked Roberts when he interviewed him for the
>job?"
Seriously, I've no idea what the POTUS may or may not ask a candidate, other
than the obvious question, i.e., IF they would accept a higher position in the
Judicial system. I suspect those in his administration gave him a "short list"
of pre-screened candidates, any of which with he may have been equally
comfortable. He may have wanted to see if the potential nominee's "management
style" or personality would "gel" with the others members of the court. Since
I've never been nor ever will be the POTUS, I've no clue as to what it means to
have the opportunity to nominate more than one candidate to the USSC...and
neither do you. We may only speculate ad infinitum what any POTUS may ask a
potential nominee.
>> As mentioned, the Senators may well use such information from the ABA to
>> determine the "qualifications" of the nominee based on this information
>for
>> their role of "Advise and Consent", and spend less time being concerned
>with how
>> a nominee's political "ideology" fits THEIR political "ideolgy", else
>they'll
>> publically discredit the nominee through "guilt-by-association" tactics
>towards
>> the current POTUS.
>
>
>Maybe the nominee _deserves_ "discrediting". Would _you_ have voted
>for G. Harold Carswell?
So you base your presumption, not on the qualifications of a nominee, but on
your hatred of the POTUS? OTOH, if such a nominee "deserve(d)_discrediting",
then his position on any court would be endangered for failing he general rule
of "good behaviour", and would be subject to removal.
You seem to confirm my comments with each post you make on this issue.
In answer to your question, I would've no more voted for G. Harold Carswell than
I would have voted for Abe Fortas to Chief Juctice of the USSC.
This is but a fallacy of distraction, as neither of us have the ability to vote
for these nominees any more than you can speculate sommething "sinister" about
the questions you belive the POTUS asked a potential nominee.
Carl Witthoft
wrote:
It's easy for the whole bunch of you to take all the pot-shots you want,
just as the Republicans did in the last couple elections.
The truth is just too much for you, isn't it: The House and Senate get
work done by (omigod) compromising and negotiating. That means lots
and lots of people accept stuff they don't want as part of one deal or
another to get more stuff they do want.
But go ahead. Jump all over [fill in name here] for allegedly voting
for or against some hot-ticket issue. It's easier than thinking.
tonyp
"Info Junkie" <bond...@ifx.net> wrote
> Your "answer" is complete and absolute utter nonsense.
> What a candidate and the President discuss
> prior to the candidate offically becoming a nominee
> is a private matter.
Next time a Democrat president picks a nominee, we will find out how
sincerely you hold this principle.
..
> Again, if you believe your nonsense above, you must be
> looking for some sort of list of questions that a
> President asks the nominee (in private), and presume
> these same questions should also be asked by the Senate
> ...in public.
I am willing to allow the President to ask all sorts of questions "in
private" when he is interviewing a prospective mistress. Prospective
Justices are a different matter.
Your oft-cited Canon 5 speaks of judicial _candidates_. It does not
distinguish between what they may say "in private" or "in public", as they
pursue judgeships. Roberts was a _candidate_ when he interviewed with Bush.
Assuming Bush asked him anything more than "how ya doin", then one of two
things happened:
1) The candidate cited Canon 5 and refused to answer; or
2) The candidate violated Canon 5 "in private".
If you think there is a thrid possibility, tell us what it is. If not,
which of the two is more likely, in your opinion?
-- TP
p.s.: "the majority (of Americans) doesn't like it"
Info Junkie
>
>"Info Junkie" <bond...@ifx.net> wrote
>
>
>> Your "answer" is complete and absolute utter nonsense.
>> What a candidate and the President discuss
>> prior to the candidate offically becoming a nominee
>> is a private matter.
>
>
>Next time a Democrat president picks a nominee, we will find out how
>sincerely you hold this principle.
I had no problem with this same principle for ex-POTUS Clinton when he made his
selections, did you? Nor did I have this problem with Presidents Johnson - Bush
(41). I may have disagreed with some of their selections, but have not
challenged the manner they did so, any more than I challenged the manner the
current POTUS made with his selections.
IMNSHO, a point that I've noticed in Usenet (since 1998); many of the
discussions (in various political NGs) I've had with leftist-liberals types, is
they rarely seem to have fixed principles. If they did they would not believe in
the ideology of the US Constitution as a "living document", nor invoke hypocrisy
by using double-standards...one standard for those they agree with and another
for those they disagree with wrt political issues. This may be seen when even
some words or phrases are *re-defined* from previously and commonly used form,
if only to *fit* the their "ideology" of the moment....but that'll be for
another thread in the future.
>> Again, if you believe your nonsense above, you must be
>> looking for some sort of list of questions that a
>> President asks the nominee (in private), and presume
>> these same questions should also be asked by the Senate
>> ...in public.
>
>I am willing to allow the President to ask all sorts of questions "in
>private" when he is interviewing a prospective mistress. Prospective
>Justices are a different matter.
IYO, as you're entitled to believe whatever foolishness you wish, including
interjecting fallacies of distraction.
>Your oft-cited Canon 5 speaks of judicial _candidates_. It does not
>distinguish between what they may say "in private" or "in public", as they
>pursue judgeships. Roberts was a _candidate_ when he interviewed with Bush.
Nor have you evidence that Roberts did not use canon 5. Still hoping the POTUS
will provide the Senate Judiciary Committee his "list" of questions? Or are you
presuming Roberts violated canon 5 during his interview? Do you know in fact if
the POTUS told him he was being interviewed for the USSC prior to advising him
he was a candidate? After all, Roberts once advised those in the Reagan
administration wrt legal matters, and may have been asked similar questions...
sort of like asking a doctor for a "second opinion", eh? One will never know
how any POTUS approaches his potential candidates, and one may spectulate the
possibilities ad infinitum...
BTW, who knew Roberts was on the list of presidential candidates (for Justice
O'Conner replacement) before it was announced he was a nominee...or did his
(initial) nomination surprise many in the media (including so-called political
"insiders")? At the press conference, even Roberts seemed surprised that he'd
been nominated.
Yet you continue to try and find something "sinister" in Bush's nomination, in a
feeble effort in *grasping-for-straws" for any *dirt* on Roberts (and/or Bush)
..something I doubt you ever did towards Clinton's nominees, eh?
>Assuming Bush asked him anything more than "how ya doin", then one of two
>things happened:
>1) The candidate cited Canon 5 and refused to answer; or
Then your point is moot.
>2) The candidate violated Canon 5 "in private".
Unless you have evidence to the contrary, one may also "assume" he did not
violate canon 5, if he knew he was a candidate for the position. Last time I
checked, isn't the "innocent-until-proven-guilty" still a viable concept?
>If you think there is a thrid possibility, tell us what it is. If not,
>which of the two is more likely, in your opinion?
A third option is mentioned above...see "second opinion".
A fourth option:
If one had a hatred of the POTUS (as you apparently do...you've not denied it)
but considered Roberts a fair individual, one may presume he answered whatever
the POTUS asked...by prefacing it with "off-the-record" or some such wording.
FWIW, I have no reason to believe Roberts would violate canon 5...privately or
publically. Rather than attempt to reframe the question as you did previously,
try answering the following as asked:
Will you react negatively towards Roberts if he imposed canon 5 in his
confirmation hearings as often as Justice Ginsburg did?
OTOH, you seems to be truely *grasping-for-straws* as you continue to look for
*dirt* on Roberts (and/or Bush), either through your presumptive assertions that
a violation of canon 5 may have occurred between the President's interview with
Roberts; the refusal to release attorney-client priviledged documentation or
hoping for an "audio tape of the interview(s), either Bush or Roberts (that)
would have ANY cause for embarassment" available for public review.
(emphasis mine)
Well, NGs readers can see that towards a Republican presidential judicial
nomination, you're looking for "ANY cause for embarrassment". Yet, some time in
the future, these same NG readers may also provide you the same proposal you
offered to me: "Next time a Democrat president picks a nominee, we will find out
how sincerely you hold this principle" wrt to looking for "ANY cause for
embarrassment". BTW, your comments are easily searchable for future reference.
LOL
You've not refuted these biased senators are looking (as are you) *under every
rock* for *dirt* against Roberts (or most Bush appellete court nominees) they've
already pre-judged without evidence, unless said nominee meets THEIR "political
ideology" of having the courts "legislate-from-the-bench".
>p.s.: "the majority (of Americans) doesn't like it"
"the majority (of Americans) does not like it"? I'll let someone with a far
better grasp of grammar that I do handle his one...it just does not sound
"right"...to me. Then again, I've never claimed to have been grammatically
correct.
Zadig
wrote:
> "They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as
> especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and
> the White
> House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment." >> -- Wall
> Street
> Journal 11/14/03
[snip]
> No doubt the Democrats were embarrased. Now everyone knows how they really
> feel about
> Latinos and their prejudice practices behind closed doors. Too bad they put
> it on an
> open server.
If you're going to be this dishonest, you shouldn't include the evidence
in your own post that refutes you. Here goes:
Your first misquote -- that Kennedy's memo said to block Estrada because
he was Hispanic -- was crap, because you posted the actual quote saying
that, as a nominee, Estrada is dangerous because he's Latino. Of course
that's true... it's harder to mount opposition to *any* minority because
you then run the risk of being called racist. Sounds dangerous to me.
But that doesn't say "block him because he's Latino" in any way... it
just points out that he'll be hard to block because he's Latino. To
which I say "well, duh."
The irony here is that, by issuing a memo pointing out that Estrada was
dangerous for being Latino (and therefore hard to block because of the
risk of being called racist), the Democrats were called racist, even
though that was completely untrue in this case.
So you misquoted, and misrepresented the actual quote, trying to make
the Democrats look bad, but you ended up looking like an idiot. Funny.
Stephen Stein
9/8/05 9:27 PM:
> Trent Frist wrote:
>
>> - which, you'll recall, Republicans
>> obtained by breaking into the Democrats' computer systems.
>
> Actually the document was placed on servers accessible to anyone in the
> Senate, Democrat, Republican or otherwise. The document was freely available
> to all, no special password or anything.
By that "logic", if you leave your house unlocked, I am free to come in take
anything I want.
Good to know!
- Steve Stein
Jim Taylor
Zadig wrote:
> In article <4320E4DC...@ss.ff>, Jim Taylor <jim.t...@ss.ff>
> wrote:
>
> > "They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as
> > especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and
> > the White
> > House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment." >> -- Wall
> > Street
> > Journal 11/14/03
> [snip]
> > No doubt the Democrats were embarrased. Now everyone knows how they really
> > feel about
> > Latinos and their prejudice practices behind closed doors. Too bad they put
> > it on an
> > open server.
>
> If you're going to be this dishonest, you shouldn't include the evidence
> in your own post that refutes you.
No dishonesty, the quotes came from their attributed source.
> Here goes:
>
> Your first misquote -- that Kennedy's memo said to block Estrada because
> he was Hispanic -- was crap, because you posted the actual quote saying
> that, as a nominee, Estrada is dangerous because he's Latino.
At least you admit that *I* posted the admittedly very minor correction. I
admitted that the exact word was not precisely correct, and as soon I did the full
research and learned the exact phrase, I immediately posted it here. I will also
note that even you did not post anything to the contrary until AFTER my correction
was already posted to this thread. Furthermore, my thesaurus lists Latino as a
synonym of Hispanic, so this is a distinction without a difference anyway. So much
for your "was crap" phony indignation.
> Of course
> that's true... it's harder to mount opposition to *any* minority because
> you then run the risk of being called racist. Sounds dangerous to me.
Wow! When did we start talking about race and racism? And which "race" are you
talking about, pray tell, "Zadig?"
>
> But that doesn't say "block him because he's Latino" in any way... it
> just points out that he'll be hard to block because he's Latino. To
> which I say "well, duh."
>
> The irony here is that, by issuing a memo pointing out that Estrada was
> dangerous for being Latino (and therefore hard to block because of the
> risk of being called racist)
Sorry, but there was nothing stated about being "therefore hard to block because of
the risk of being called racist." Estrada was blocked in part because he was
Latino, as the document stated. And I note that he wasn't just merely voted
against. Instead he was filibustered to PREVENT a vote. I find it fascinating
that Democrats are opposed the Democratic process of voting in an elected
government. Instead they seek to prevent votes from ever being cast. If
Democrats were really opposed to him or thought somehow that he was unqualified for
the job being filled, they could have simply voted AGAINST him.
> , the Democrats were called racist, even
> though that was completely untrue in this case.
Yeah, except a Senate Democratic memo revealed that Judiciary Committee Democrats
targeted Miguel Estrada's judicial nomination for defeat because "he is Latino."
It *was* untrue that Democrats were racist. It was very true that their true
internal bigotry saw the light of day, something they were *VERY* upset about.
>
>
> So you misquoted, and misrepresented the actual quote, trying to make
> the Democrats look bad, but you ended up looking like an idiot.
Actually it was I, and only I, who posted the correct quote to the thread, so much
for your "misquoted/misrepresented" charge.. I didn't make Democrats look bad;
Democrats made Democrats look bad. The bottom line is that they prevented a vote
by a representative government and also we know that this is because the good
judge, [who came to this country, taught himself English, and raised himself from
nothing], is Latino/Hispanic.
> Funny.
Yes, funny. Ha, ha. "Count all the votes," indeed. Let's demand to see
everyone else's documents, except we sure don't want anyone to see what WE discuss
behind closed doors, e.g. our anti-Latino bigotry. And funny how Democrats don't
seem so excited about their closed-door viewpoints from being printed in a
newspaper.
Jim Taylor
anyone.------
Stephen Stein wrote:
No building was entered, nor was anything missing. All that happened was that
people viewed information provided on a publicly accessible computer server, just
as you are doing here while reading this (private) message. The documents were
neither confidential nor classified, nor did anyone stuff classified documents down
their trousers. Your logic fails.
> Good to know!
I can only wonder what else you "know."
Jim Taylor
> In article <4320E748...@ss.ff>, Jim Taylor <jim.t...@ss.ff>
> wrote:
>
> > Info Junkie wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The real issue is: beyond the three obvious nay-sayers (Durbin, Schumer and
> > > Kennedy) how did the Senate have a near-unanimous vote on Roberts
> > > confirmation
> > > to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit just two years ago (May 8,
> > > 2003)?
> >
> > Sshhhh!!! Don't mention that! Next you'll be remarking how a Junior US
> > Senator
> > from New York was lamblasting the administration for placing FEMA under the
> > jurisdiction of the Homeland Security Dept, but (oops!) conveniently
> > forgettingthat
> > she voted to place FEMA under the jurisdiction of the Homeland Security Dept.
> > How
> > dare you comment on hipocracy! Of course under Professor Tony's hipocracy
> > definition, the Junior Senators of Massachusetts and New York are clearly
> > Republican.
>
> It's easy for the whole bunch of you to take all the pot-shots you want,
> just as the Republicans did in the last couple elections.
Thank goodness we have Democrats to never take any "pot-shots" in elections!!!
>
>
> The truth is just too much for you, isn't it:
No.
> The House and Senate get
> work done by (omigod) compromising and negotiating.
Sometimes true. So if you compromise and negotiate, don't bother indignantly
repudiating what you just compromised and negotiated.
> That means lots
> and lots of people accept stuff they don't want as part of one deal or
> another to get more stuff they do want.
I see. So that would explain Senator Kennedy (D-Mass) voting for TOBACCO
subsidies, no doubt to get funding for the Big Dig boondoggle. But would it
explain why his fellow Massachusetts Senator has failed to show up and vote so
consistently? Even when a bill was on the floor to extend unemployment benefits
such as in May 2004, Senator Liveshot (D-Mass) couldn't be bothered to stop over
and vote for it, or even against it. So the bill failed by one vote. I guess when
you have a $18 Million airplane to fly yourself to your $10 Million estate in
Nantucket so you can fill up your $800,000 power boat with 100 gallons of gasoline,
cruise around for a while, then hop back on your airplane to your $12 Million
estate in Iowa, etc, etc. who the hell cares about the people or unemployment
benefits?
> But go ahead. Jump all over [fill in name here] for allegedly voting
> for or against some hot-ticket issue.
No jumping here. And no 'allegedly' here either.
> It's easier than thinking.
So says you.
Stephen Stein
Well, I know this - your account is at odds with that of Senate
Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch:
"It is with deep regret that I must report today the the interviews have
revealed at least one member of the Judiciary Committee majority staff
had improperly accessed some of the Democratic documents."
Hatch said he was "mortified" at the results of the investigation.
http://www.hillnews.com/news/112603/hatch.aspx
So pardon me if I doubt that you're telling the whole story.
- Steve Stein
Cheryl Isaak
Stein" <szs.forw...@comcast.net> wrote:
Doesn't it bother you at all that Kennedy opposed a nominee on ethnic/racial
grounds? How ever the memo was accessed?
After all, if a Republican had made the same comment, he/she would have been
forced to resign by now.
Cheryl
Stephen Stein
> Doesn't it bother you at all that Kennedy opposed a nominee on ethnic/racial
> grounds?
I do not believe that Kennedy did oppose Estrada's nomination on those
grounds.
Why do you?
- Steve Stein
Cheryl Isaak
Stein" <szs.forw...@comcast.net> wrote:
Because I know how Kennedy treats the people that serve his food (yes,
personal experience), mow his lawn and his drivers. So, it is not much of a
stretch.
Cheryl
tonyp
"Stephen Stein" <szs.forw...@comcast.net> wrote
This is a perfect example of why government officials don't want us (their
employers) to know their internal discussions.
Senator X opposes nominee Y for being a secular humanist liberal. But
Senator X worries, in private, that the nomination will be hard to oppose
because Y is a paraplegic immigrant soccer mom. The public may mistake
tactics for goals, and conclude that the Senator opposes soccer moms.
Therefore, Senator X figures, it is important to hide from the public his
memos on how to defeat nominee Y.
I can see the problem, but I think the solution is _less_ secrecy. Less for
Senators, less for Presidents, less in general. It would be harder for both
the "liberal media" and for the avowedly-right-wing media to take things out
of context if we had more access to the context.
-- TP
Stephen Stein
May be true, but it's not much of an answer to whether or not those were
Kennedy's grounds for opposing the nominee.
Kennedy opposed this nomination because Estrada's politics were not to
his liking. He said it would be politcally troublesome to oppose the
nomination because Estrada was Latino - he thought right-wingers would
cry "racism". Which is exactly what has happened.
You are not Latino (as far as I could tell from meeting you :-), so if
he treated you poorly, it wasn't for reasons of race. I have no
personal experience with the man.
- Steve Stein
Cheryl Isaak
Stein" <szs.forw...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Cheryl Isaak wrote:
>> On 9/21/05 2:36 PM, in article CvednWWx46K...@comcast.com, "Stephen
>> Stein" <szs.forw...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Cheryl Isaak wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Doesn't it bother you at all that Kennedy opposed a nominee on
>>>> ethnic/racial
>>>> grounds?
>>>
>>> I do not believe that Kennedy did oppose Estrada's nomination on those
>>> grounds.
>>>
>>> Why do you?
>>>
>>> - Steve Stein
>>>
>>
>> Because I know how Kennedy treats the people that serve his food (yes,
>> personal experience), mow his lawn and his drivers. So, it is not much of a
>> stretch.
>
> May be true, but it's not much of an answer to whether or not those were
> Kennedy's grounds for opposing the nominee.
>
I think he is a racist and bigot and anti-Semite in personal life and talks
a good game in public. I also think he likes the power he has right now just
a little too much.
And I did hear the "names" the family had for their driver - trust me, they
were racist.
> Kennedy opposed this nomination because Estrada's politics were not to
> his liking. He said it would be politcally troublesome to oppose the
> nomination because Estrada was Latino - he thought right-wingers would
> cry "racism". Which is exactly what has happened.
Which is exactly what the left-wingers would have said if Clinton had
nominated a Latino and the Republicans had opposed the nominee.
>
> You are not Latino (as far as I could tell from meeting you :-), so if
> he treated you poorly, it wasn't for reasons of race. I have no
> personal experience with the man.
>
> - Steve Stein
>
As my boss told me, waiting on the Kennedy family and swallowing the bill
was part of doing business in Hyannis - all businesses had similar troubles.
Squawking about it brought extra visits from the Health Department or other
oversight agencies.
Cheryl
Stephen Stein
> As my boss told me, waiting on the Kennedy family and swallowing the bill
> was part of doing business in Hyannis - all businesses had similar troubles.
> Squawking about it brought extra visits from the Health Department or other
> oversight agencies.
I have a friend who provided health care supplies for Rose for years and
never had problems like that. But that's the only data point I have.
- Steve Stein
Cheryl Isaak
Stein" <szs.forw...@comcast.net> wrote:
Lucky person from all I heard in the late 70's. I got stuck with a $25 "tab"
(for ice cream), no tip and and a royal mess to clean up. The only time my
boss didn't make me (and others) pay up for "chew and screw"s out of the
day's tips.
Cheryl
Jim Taylor
And what part of what I said was "ignorant?" You "forgot" to mention
what you are trying to claim I said that is wrong. Please do tell,
Professor.
tonyp
"Jim Taylor" <jim.t...@ss.ff> wrote
> tonyp wrote:
>
> > "Jim Taylor" <jim.t...@ss.ff> wrote
<snip>
> > ... would NOT be a hypocrite, ne c'est pas?
> >
> >
> > It's a little embarassing to keep displaying your ignorance,
> > n'est-ce pas?
>
> And what part of what I said was "ignorant?"
Stick to the tongue of Milton and Shakespeare, is all I'm saying.
Incidentally, w.r.t. Harriet Miers, the right wing seems to have abandoned
its old position that "every nominee DESERVES an up or down vote!" Wonder
how long it will take them to flip-flop back.
-- TP
Rich Carreiro
> Incidentally, w.r.t. Harriet Miers, the right wing seems to have abandoned
> its old position that "every nominee DESERVES an up or down vote!" Wonder
> how long it will take them to flip-flop back.
I was wondering how long it would take our resident addle-pated
partisan hack to bring that up.
One would expect functioning human beings to understand the difference
between "if the President chooses to send a nominee all the way
through the process, that nominee should be given an up or down vote
by the Senate, rather than being filibustered" and "the President
(and/or the nominee) has decided he would rather nominate someone
else" and realize there's no conflict whatsoever between those two
positions. But then those poor, sad, rabid sufferers of Bush
Derangement Syndrome can't exactly be described as functional.
What would have been a flip-flop was for the President/nominee to not
withdraw the nomination, and then for the President to explicitly or
tacitly solicit a filibuster to do the dirty work of killing the
nomination without a wuthdrawal having to be done. I assume
(dangerous, I know) you noticed that didn't happen.
--
Rich Carreiro rlc...@animato.arlington.ma.us
Info Junkie
"snip"
>Incidentally, w.r.t. Harriet Miers, the right wing seems to have abandoned
>its old position that "every nominee DESERVES an up or down vote!" Wonder
>how long it will take them to flip-flop back.
I don't see where the "right wing...abandoned" any such concept. Unlike the
"left wing" which filibustered previous nominees to an appellate court, did
Republicans filibuster this nominee to the appellate court?
tonyp
"Rich Carreiro" <rlc...@animato.arlington.ma.us> wrote
Fascinating! So Dubya "would rather nominate someone else". Can Rich
explain why in the name of all the gods and little fishes he did not
nominate that "someone else" in the first place?
When Dubya nominated Miers, did he _want_ her to get an "up-or-down" vote in
the Senate, or not? If he now says "never mind", has _he_ flip-flopped, or
not?
-- TP
tonyp
"Info Junkie" <bond...@ifx.net> wrote
> I don't see where the "right wing...abandoned" any such concept. Unlike
the
> "left wing" which filibustered previous nominees to an appellate court,
did
> Republicans filibuster this nominee to the appellate court?
You're right, Inf: Republicans did not filibuster Miers. Kudos to them.
Now imagine this scenario: the next nominee is unacceptable to the Left,
just as Miers was unacceptable to the Right. Forty Democrat Senators
declare their opposition to him/her before the hearings. Bush, facing a
filibuster, withdraws the nomination.
In that scenario, will you scoff when I point out that the Dems did not
_actually_ filibuster anybody?
-- TP
Info Junkie
I won't speak for "Rich", but IMHO it was politically calculated with the 2006
Senate elections in mind.
OTOH, IMHO recent decades of polarizaton between the political parties has grown
more intense. In this light, it would be a rare occurrance for a nominee to
receive "overwhelming support" from either side, not based on the
qualifications of the nominee, but from the fighting between the political
parties.
Should this trend of increasing polarization continue, one may expect the
more qualified nominees for the higher positions, such as the appellate level,
will dwindle, as they'd be less inclined to have their their family and friends,
as well as their charcter, honesty and integrity they've spent a lifetime to
achieve become "smeared", by the press and/or politicians,
and would refuse or withdraw from such a nomination.
Eventually, I expect this smaller "pool" of potential candidates to refuse to
wait long periods of being in a "holding" status, while political parties make
public accusations against them and the candidates can not defend themselves.
During this period of "silence" their bosses and peers may also see such
"smears"...the silence of the nominee, and covertly reconsider
their view of the nominee.
In time, (decades?) those less qualified nominees that "hold on" through such a
grueling process may be suspected of being more desirous of the power of the
position than the principles they'd swear (or affirm) to uphold . It would be
similar to those nominees for a Hollywood award; "It's an honor just to be
nominated" idiocy. Their judical rulings may become less inclined to follow the
principles of the Constitution, and more inclined to retain the powers they hold
and wielding such powers, sway the social ideologies of their personal beliefs
...similar to the politicians of today...of both parties.
Since I originally made those (similar) comments in another NG, a discussion
occurred in a broadcast of Focus of the Family broadcast between Dr. James
Dobson and John Fuller.
"The following is a transcript of Focus on the Family Chairman Dr. James
Dobson's comments from Wednesday's (10/12/05) broadcast, in which he discusses
what the White House told him about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers....
(Dr. Dobson in a telephonic conversation with Karl Rove):
Some of the other candidates who had been on that short list, and that many
conservatives are now upset about were highly qualified individuals that had
been passed over. Well, what Karl told me is that some of those individuals
took themselves off that list and they would not allow their names to be
considered, because the process has become so vicious and so vitriolic and so
bitter, that they didn't want to subject themselves or the members of their
families to it."
It would appear that some of the "more qualified" candidates are rejecting the
*opportunity* to be nominated faster than I anticipated...
>When Dubya nominated Miers, did he _want_ her to get an "up-or-down" vote in
>the Senate, or not?
IMHO, I suspect Ms Miers was a "trial ballon"...to see how far he could go wrt
both sides of the political aisle and witness public reaction. Regardless, its
all speculative and I doubt we'll really ever know.
>If he now says "never mind", has _he_ flip-flopped, or
>not?
It was Ms Miers that withdrew, not the POTUS. He's neither "flip-flopped" nor
said "never mind".
tonyp
"Info Junkie" <bond...@ifx.net> wrote
> It would appear that some of the "more qualified" candidates are rejecting
the
> *opportunity* to be nominated faster than I anticipated...
Well, you have the holy Dr. Dobson's word for it, anyway.
> IMHO, I suspect Ms Miers was a "trial ballon"...to see how far he could go
wrt
> both sides of the political aisle and witness public reaction.
Regardless, its
> all speculative and I doubt we'll really ever know.
"Trial baloon"? Are you seriously suggesting that Dubya is cynical enough
to:
1) Treat the opportunity to exercise one of his most important presidential
powers as a throw-away bit of political gamesmanship?
2) Expose his devoted and adoring lawyer to ridicule by the likes of Ann
Coulter, just as an experiment?
3) Count on his supporters to be so loyal as to make such silly arguments
as you and Rich are making here?
> It was Ms Miers that withdrew, not the POTUS. He's neither "flip-flopped"
nor
> said "never mind".
Forgive me, Inf, but it's just nuts to claim that Dubya has not said "Never
mind".
-- TP
Jim Taylor
I, for one, wouldn't scoff if at sometime you did point out accurate
information.
Jim Taylor
>> > Jim Taylor wrote:
>>
>> > > Wow, excellent reasoning, Professor. It is because it is.
>> > > No doubt a US Senator who claims to be against
>> > > global warming but owns a handful or so of SUVs,
>> > > tools around the country in a large Gulfstream V,
>> > > cruises up and down the coast in a $800,000 power boat
>> > > whose fuel consumption can be measured in gallons
>> > > per mile instead of miles per gallon and who heats and
>> > > cools five mansions or very large houses
>> > > would NOT be a hypocrite, ne c'est pas?
>> >
>> > It's a little embarassing to keep displaying your ignorance,
>> > n'est-ce pas?
>>
>> And what part of what I said was "ignorant?" You "forgot" to mention
>> what you are trying to claim I said that is wrong. Please do tell,
>> Professor.
>>
>
> Stick to the tongue of Milton and Shakespeare, is all I'm saying.
How did we get to "tongue of Milton and Shakespeare?" Again, what part of
what I said was "ignorant" as you were claiming? Please explain. No appeals
to Shakespeare are necessary.
> Incidentally, w.r.t. Harriet Miers, the right wing seems to have abandoned
> its old position that "every nominee DESERVES an up or down vote!"
And when did this "seem" to happen?
> Wonder how long it will take them to flip-flop back.
Since a flip flop is a prequisite to a flip flop back, perhaps you might
explain when, by who, etc. the "right wing" blocked any candidate? Was there
a filibuster I missed? Were candidates prevented from a vote in the full
Senate, by committee maneuvering or otherwise?
Carl Witthoft
bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
> On 29 Oct 2005 18:27:37 -0400, "tonyp" <to...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
> "snip"
>
> >Incidentally, w.r.t. Harriet Miers, the right wing seems to have abandoned
> >its old position that "every nominee DESERVES an up or down vote!" Wonder
> >how long it will take them to flip-flop back.
>
> I don't see where the "right wing...abandoned" any such concept. Unlike the
> "left wing" which filibustered previous nominees to an appellate court, did
> Republicans filibuster this nominee to the appellate court?
Selective memory in action. Maybe it was the Dems fault for not
explicitly showing the public all of the obstructionist behavior on the
part of the Repubs on every single nominee during the Carter and Clinton
years, but you sure are misrepresenting reality with your claim.
Heck, remember Clinton trying to nominate a certain *Republican*
governor for ambassador only to have the Repub neocons trash him for
alleged "soft on drugs" positioning?
Jim Taylor
> In article <4364af6...@news.ifx.net>,
> bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
>
> > On 29 Oct 2005 18:27:37 -0400, "tonyp" <to...@world.std.com> wrote:
> >
> > "snip"
> >
> > >Incidentally, w.r.t. Harriet Miers, the right wing seems to have abandoned
> > >its old position that "every nominee DESERVES an up or down vote!" Wonder
> > >how long it will take them to flip-flop back.
> >
> > I don't see where the "right wing...abandoned" any such concept. Unlike the
> > "left wing" which filibustered previous nominees to an appellate court, did
> > Republicans filibuster this nominee to the appellate court?
>
> Selective memory in action. Maybe it was the Dems fault for not
> explicitly showing the public all of the obstructionist behavior on the
> part of the Repubs on every single nominee during the Carter and Clinton
> years, but you sure are misrepresenting reality with your claim.
What claim are you referring to? Do you know what a question [?] is?
But it is amazing what we can learn with your NON-selective memory. I suppose
your "NON-selective memory" includes recollections of Justices Breyer and
Ginsburg being blocked by Republicans....blocking tactics such as their actually
voting to confirm them.
By the way, do you have a list of these "every single nominees" as you are
claiming the Republicans were obstructing? Please explain how BOTH of
President Clinton's supreme court appointees getting nominated counts as
"obstructionist behavior???" By the way, Clinton appointee Ginsburg, a liberal
ACLU activist attorney, was confirmed by a vote or 96-3. Clinton liberal
appointee Breyer was confirmed with a vote of 87-9.
While we're on the subject, ever hear of Robert Bork?
tonyp
"Jim Taylor" <jim.t...@ss.ff> wrote
> >> > > would NOT be a hypocrite, ne c'est pas?
> How did we get to "tongue of Milton and Shakespeare?" Again, what part of
> what I said was "ignorant" as you were claiming? Please explain. No
appeals
> to Shakespeare are necessary.
I guess you still haven't caught on, N'EST-CE PAS?
> > Incidentally, w.r.t. Harriet Miers, the right wing seems to have
abandoned
> > its old position that "every nominee DESERVES an up or down vote!"
>
> And when did this "seem" to happen?
>
> > Wonder how long it will take them to flip-flop back.
>
> Since a flip flop is a prequisite to a flip flop back, perhaps you might
> explain when, by who, etc. the "right wing" blocked any candidate? Was
there
> a filibuster I missed? Were candidates prevented from a vote in the full
> Senate, by committee maneuvering or otherwise?
I could explain it, but it would be a waste of keystrokes: you would
pretend not to get it, and everybody else already does.
-- TP
John S
tonyp wrote:
> "Jim Taylor" <jim.t...@ss.ff> wrote
>
> > >> > > would NOT be a hypocrite, ne c'est pas?
>
> > How did we get to "tongue of Milton and Shakespeare?" Again, what part of
> > what I said was "ignorant" as you were claiming? Please explain. No
> appeals
> > to Shakespeare are necessary.
>
> I guess you still haven't caught on, N'EST-CE PAS?
I'll bite. Jim posted some accurate information, which you claim is ignorant,
while at the same time snipping the same information in your reply. I'm
impressed by your use of french in capital letters. Veuilles-toi continuer en
français?
>
>
> > > Incidentally, w.r.t. Harriet Miers, the right wing seems to have
> abandoned
> > > its old position that "every nominee DESERVES an up or down vote!"
> >
> > And when did this "seem" to happen?
> >
> > > Wonder how long it will take them to flip-flop back.
> >
> > Since a flip flop is a prequisite to a flip flop back, perhaps you might
> > explain when, by who, etc. the "right wing" blocked any candidate? Was
> there
> > a filibuster I missed? Were candidates prevented from a vote in the full
> > Senate, by committee maneuvering or otherwise?
>
> I could explain it, but it would be a waste of keystrokes: you would
> pretend not to get it, and everybody else already does.
Wow, what a sharp, well thought out response. In other words you have no idea
what you are talking about either. But as you pointed out in another post, you
seem to think that voluntarily collecting a donation to a radio station is
"stealing," so I can't say I'm surprised by your reasoning skills here.
Ed
wrote:
> Carl Witthoft wrote:
My memory may not be that good, but I thought I was during the LBJ
years (that's about 40 years ago) that was the last time that
Republicans blocked any Democratic nomination to the Supremes. I'd be
glad to be educated if I'm wrong.
Dick Margulis
>
> tonyp wrote:
>
>
>>"Jim Taylor" <jim.t...@ss.ff> wrote
>>
>>
>>>>>>>would NOT be a hypocrite, ne c'est pas?
>>
>>>How did we get to "tongue of Milton and Shakespeare?" Again, what part of
>>>what I said was "ignorant" as you were claiming? Please explain. No
>>
>>appeals
>>
>>>to Shakespeare are necessary.
>>
>>I guess you still haven't caught on, N'EST-CE PAS?
>
>
> I'll bite. Jim posted some accurate information, which you claim is ignorant,
> while at the same time snipping the same information in your reply. I'm
> impressed by your use of french in capital letters. Veuilles-toi continuer en
> français?
>
>
Sheesh, people!
"Jim Taylor" <jim.t...@ss.ff> wrote:
>
> ... ne c'est pas?
tonyp replied:
>
> It's a little embarassing to keep displaying your ignorance,
> n'est-ce pas?
He was commenting on "Jim Taylor"'s butchering of the phrase. Go back
and read it carefully again, letter by letter. Okay? Got it now? That's
all the "ignorance" barb was about, as near as I can tell.
Sorry to spoil your fun, tonyp, but it seems that no matter how many
hints you drop, nobody is going to pick up on the typo. Remind me not to
hire any of these folks as a proofreader.
tonyp
"Dick Margulis" <marg...@comcast.net> wrote
> Sorry to spoil your fun, tonyp, but it seems that
> no matter how many hints you drop,
> nobody is going to pick up on the typo.
> Remind me not to hire any of these folks as a proofreader.
No apology necessary -- thanks for stepping in.
BTW, it's not my habit to make fun of typos. We all make those. I don't
even point out misspellings unless they are accidentally amusing, like
"hypocracy".
But "ne c'est pas" and "Veuilles-toi" are not _typos_, exactly. From a
French schoolboy, they would be merely bad grammar. From English speakers
who gratuitously fling them about on usenet, they are a voluntary display of
ignorance. That is the sort of thing up with which etc. etc. :-)
-- TP
John S
My mistake, I was under the impression that your earlier post was part of a
discussion of the topic thread, not stooping to a callow grammar contest. Carry
on.
(Maybe now we can have a discussion that donating to somebody actually means
somebody is stealing. :-)
Info Junkie
>
>"Info Junkie" <bond...@ifx.net> wrote
>
>> It would appear that some of the "more qualified" candidates are rejecting
>the
>> *opportunity* to be nominated faster than I anticipated...
>
>
>Well, you have the holy Dr. Dobson's word for it, anyway.
I've no idea why you refer to Dr. Dobson as "holy", nor why you subtely imply he
may be lying.
>> IMHO, I suspect Ms Miers was a "trial ballon"...to see how far he could go
>wrt
>> both sides of the political aisle and witness public reaction.
>Regardless, its
>> all speculative and I doubt we'll really ever know.
>
>
>"Trial baloon"? Are you seriously suggesting that Dubya is cynical enough
>to:
>1) Treat the opportunity to exercise one of his most important presidential
>powers as a throw-away bit of political gamesmanship?
In the *game* of politics, this is hardly unusual, any more than previous
nominees withdrawing their name, or those that resign/retire/step down from
whatever administration as they only "serve at the pleasure of the President".
IMO, I suspect (historically) there have been those that *fell on their sword*
to protect those they reported to...or higher officials.
Most politicans up for election in 2006 will be wary of ANY legislation and/or
speeches/comments they sign onto/make that may offend those that help fill their
"war chests" and keep up their poll numbers. With the numbers being so close in
the Senate, just a few either way may "tip-the-scales" to strengthening the
POTUS' agenda or relegating his final two years to a "lame duck" President.
Depending on those 2006 elections, the POTUS remains in office until Jan 19th,
2009. With that in mind, we have Justice Gingsburg who apparently has health
problems, and Justice Stevens who is 85 years old. Don't believe for a minute
there aren't those that understand Bush may have the opportunity to nominate two
more Justices before his term expires. In politics, that's just part of the
*game*.
>2) Expose his devoted and adoring lawyer to ridicule by the likes of Ann
>Coulter, just as an experiment?
A strawman argument at best. FTM, has she stepped down as his lawyer? Prior to
her nomination, did Ms Miers *stand out* in news headlines, or was she primarily
just another person in the "Bush Administration"?
Again, "its all speculative and I doubt we'll really ever know."
>3) Count on his supporters to be so loyal as to make such silly arguments
>as you and Rich are making here?
You're free to believe what is "silly" or not, but "trial balloons" have been
*floated* by many politicans to see what the reactions will be...
I've no idea whether "Rich" is supportive (or how much if at all) of the POTUS
or not, nor do you know if I am. FWIW, how does this fallacy of distraction
("supporters...loyal...silly arguments") refute my opinion of a shrinking pool
of candidates based on the polarizaton between the political parties?
>> It was Ms Miers that withdrew, not the POTUS. He's neither "flip-flopped"
>nor
>> said "never mind".
>
>
>Forgive me, Inf, but it's just nuts to claim that Dubya has not said "Never
>mind".
If "nuts to claim" he actually said those words wrt Ms Miers withdrawal, you'll
have no problem providing the evidence that he said those words on this issue.
Note it was initially you, not I that placed "" (quotes) around those words as
if he said them.
Either way, it doesn't refute the fact that Ms Miers withdrew her name (not the
POTUS), nor the (common sense) issue regarding a shrinking pool of potential
candidates.
Info Junkie
Strawman fallacy. The US Senate Republicans, unlike the US Senate Democrats,
have never filibusterd a nominee to an appellate court. "tonyp" attempted to
liken the Republicans ( "right wing...abandoned") wrt "up or down vote"....I
called him on it and he choked by having to agree.
Info Junkie
"snip"
>But "ne c'est pas" and "Veuilles-toi" are not _typos_, exactly. From a
>French schoolboy, they would be merely bad grammar. From English speakers
>who gratuitously fling them about on usenet, they are a voluntary display of
>ignorance. That is the sort of thing up with which etc. etc. :-)
I "got it" from your first "hint" wrt a typo...and admit I've no understanding
of French...whether vocabulary, spelling or a grammatical perspective :-)
Info Junkie
>
>"Info Junkie" <bond...@ifx.net> wrote
>
>> I don't see where the "right wing...abandoned" any such concept. Unlike
>> the "left wing" which filibustered previous nominees to an appellate court,
>> did Republicans filibuster this nominee to the appellate court?
>
>You're right, Inf: Republicans did not filibuster Miers. Kudos to them.
Nor have the Repubicans ever filibustered a nominee to the appellate
court...including Ms Miers.
>Now imagine this scenario: the next nominee is unacceptable to the Left,
>just as Miers was unacceptable to the Right. Forty Democrat Senators
>declare their opposition to him/her before the hearings. Bush, facing a
>filibuster, withdraws the nomination.
One could "imagine" ad infinitum....yet, the leftist-liberal media is already
"chomping-at-the-bit":
CBS Reporter refers to Judge Alito's nomination as "sloppy seconds".
(http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9i.htm) (CBS reporter has since apologized)
"'Of course he's against abortion,' his 90-year-old mother Rose told reporters"
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051031/ap_on_go_su_co/bush_scotus_52)
"National Italian American Foundation (NIAF) Statement:
The NIAF is distressed by the attempts of some senators and the media (CNN, CBS)
to marginalize Judge Samuel Alito's outstanding record, by frequent reference to
his Italian heritage and by the use of the nickname, "Scalito."
(http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9ia.htm)
FWIW, IMO it was reporters that told the Alito family members where to stand for
their picture (they were probably unaware)...under ex-POTUS Clinton. This may be
but a subliminal "photo op" against Alito. I'll reserve judgement as I'm
probably making more of this than it is...
(http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/051031/photos_pl/2005_10_31t104118_450x386_us_bush_court)
>In that scenario, will you scoff when I point out that the Dems did not
>_actually_ filibuster anybody?
First...such a scenario must happen. Second, I rarely would draw such a
speculative conclusion from such an unlikely scenario that has no merit and
based on so little fact. I'll leave such speculation to those that "imagine",
but have little or no facts upon which to base their (flawed; i.e. "imagined")
conclusions.
tonyp
"Info Junkie" <bond...@ifx.net> wrote
> I've no idea why you refer to Dr. Dobson as "holy" ...
Is _Dr._ Dobson a physician of some kind?
> Either way, it doesn't refute the fact that Ms Miers withdrew her name
(not the
> POTUS), nor the (common sense) issue regarding a shrinking pool of
potential
> candidates.
For a sophisticated observer of the "game" of politics, you make a very
naive point here. Do you honestly think Miers would have withdrawn if Bush
had made it clear he backed her? But I forgot: you claim she was a "trial
baloon", anyway.
As for your second point: poor weary Scott McLellan touched on it at his
press briefing today. In response to a reporter's question about "several"
potential nominees having declined consideration, he carefully backpedaled
to insisting that it was "a couple", not "several", and declined to offer
names.
I am as cynical as you are, Inf. And _my_ cynicism leads me to believe that
the ambitious are never in short supply. If "a couple" of them feel that a
SCOTUS seat is not worth the public scrutiny, we have no reason to suppose
_them_ the most virtuous or worthy of the lot.
-- TP
tonyp
"Info Junkie" <bond...@ifx.net> wrote
> Strawman fallacy. The US Senate Republicans, unlike the US Senate
Democrats,
> have never filibusterd a nominee to an appellate court. "tonyp" attempted
to
> liken the Republicans ( "right wing...abandoned") wrt "up or down
vote"....I
> called him on it and he choked by having to agree.
Look up "blue slip" in the context of Senate confirmation of judicial
nominees and get back to us, Inf.
-- TP
Info Junkie
Been there...done that. Now, feel free to explain to the readers the difference
between "blue slip" (that's been around since before Clinton), and "filibuster".
In THAT context, feel free to show how that refutes my comments wrt the
Republicans, unlike Democrats, have never flibustered a nominee to an appellate
court, won't you?
Info Junkie
>
>"Info Junkie" <bond...@ifx.net> wrote
>
>> I've no idea why you refer to Dr. Dobson as "holy" ...
>
>
>Is _Dr._ Dobson a physician of some kind?
IIRC, he's a licensed psychologist and his Ph.D. in in child development
Have you searched for his biography, or are you injecting a fallacy of
distraction rather than justifing why you referred to him as "holy"?
>> Either way, it doesn't refute the fact that Ms Miers withdrew her name
>> (not the POTUS), nor the (common sense) issue regarding a shrinking
>> pool of potential candidates.
>
>For a sophisticated observer of the "game" of politics, you make a very
>naive point here. Do you honestly think Miers would have withdrawn if Bush
>had made it clear he backed her? But I forgot: you claim she was a "trial
>baloon", anyway.
I've no idea what Ms Miers thinks, but you're free to ask her. My comments are
not "naive", as I specifically stated twice, "its all speculative and I doubt
we'll really ever know." Unless you have evidence to the contrary, your
spculation is no less "naive" than your assertion of my own.
FWIW, I made no "claim" Ms Miers WAS a "trial balloon", as you failed to read
where I specifically wrote; "IMHO, I suspect...". I proided no evidence but
offered my opinion based on observation of politic(ian)s over many years.
>As for your second point: poor weary Scott McLellan touched on it at his
>press briefing today. In response to a reporter's question about "several"
>potential nominees having declined consideration, he carefully backpedaled
>to insisting that it was "a couple", not "several", and declined to offer
>names.
I pointed out in Dr Dobson's interview where he stated: "some of those
individuals took themselves off that list ", not "several" nor "a couple". One
could play semantics with "a couple" (McLellan), "several" (media), and "some"
(Dobson) ad infinitum, but the fact that more than one candidate declined
indicates a reluctance by more than one candidate to expose "their family and
friends,as well as their charcter, honesty and integrity they've spent a
lifetime to achieve become "smeared", by the press and/or politicians, and
would refuse or withdraw from such a nomination.".
FWIW, those that made up the President's "short list" indicates he had
"several", "some" or more than "a couple", and we'll never know if even "a
couple" withdrew themselves from a list that only contained say...6 or 7 names.
>I am as cynical as you are, Inf. And _my_ cynicism leads me to believe that
>the ambitious are never in short supply. If "a couple" of them feel that a
>SCOTUS seat is not worth the public scrutiny, we have no reason to suppose
>_them_ the most virtuous or worthy of the lot.
The "ambitious" are what I referred to wrt those that followed "It's an honor
just to be nominated" concept, and "(t)heir judical rulings may become less
inclined to follow the principles of the Constitution, and more inclined to
retain the powers they hold and wielding such powers , sway the social
ideologies of their personal beliefs...similar to the politicians of today...of
both parties.", i.e. "the ambitious".
OTOH, my opinion is far more credible if "some/several/a couple" of them
decline, and the "SCOTUS seat is not worth the public scrutiny, we have no
reason" NOT "to suppose_them_ the most virtuous or worthy of the lot.", else why
would they have been placed on the "short list" in the first place? Which is why
I prefaced my original comments on the the matter with "IMO...", as my comments
remain unrefuted.
Info Junkie
Although "tacky" to respond/add to one's own post...I coudn't resist :-)
>Most politicans up for election in 2006 will be wary of ANY legislation and/or
>speeches/comments they sign onto/make that may offend those that help fill their
>"war chests" and keep up their poll numbers. With the numbers being so close in
>the Senate, just a few either way may "tip-the-scales" to strengthening the
>POTUS' agenda or relegating his final two years to a "lame duck" President.
"To go all-out to stop Alito risks not just losing the nomination fight. It
risks giving new traction to a president who has been on the ropes. And that
could remove the biggest asset Democrats have entering the 2006 elections."
(http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/columnists/orl-brown0105nov01,0,2424060.column)
>Depending on those 2006 elections, the POTUS remains in office until Jan 19th,
>2009. With that in mind, we have Justice Gingsburg who apparently has health
>problems, and Justice Stevens who is 85 years old. Don't believe for a minute
>there aren't those that understand Bush may have the opportunity to nominate two
>more Justices before his term expires. In politics, that's just part of the
>*game*.
"In a party-line division, Democrats don't have the votes to defeat Alito --
unless they want to take the ultimate gamble on a filibuster.
If they lose a filibuster test, they would be giving Bush a free pass to
nominate whomever he wants in the next three years should another vacancy occur.
One of the liberals' favorite justices, John Paul Stevens, is 85."
(http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/columnists/orl-brown0105nov01,0,2424060.column)
John S
Better yet, try yourself to figure out the difference between a fillibuster,
which is what is being discussed, and a 'blue slip' which you introduced into
the discussion. No need to get back to us unless you can't figure it out. :)
John S
> "Info Junkie" <bond...@ifx.net> wrote
>
> > I've no idea why you refer to Dr. Dobson as "holy" ...
>
> Is _Dr._ Dobson a physician of some kind?
>
> > Either way, it doesn't refute the fact that Ms Miers withdrew her name
> (not the
> > POTUS), nor the (common sense) issue regarding a shrinking pool of
> potential
> > candidates.
>
> For a sophisticated observer of the "game" of politics, you make a very
> naive point here. Do you honestly think Miers would have withdrawn if Bush
> had made it clear he backed her?
Yes. Another example: Bush made it quite clear that he backed Miguel Estrada,
another judicial nominee, and Estrada withdrew.
> But I forgot: you claim she was a "trial
> baloon", anyway.
Aside: If you're going to go on an criticize grammar/spelling, better get that
spell check working.
>
>
> As for your second point: poor weary Scott McLellan touched on it at his
> press briefing today. In response to a reporter's question about "several"
> potential nominees having declined consideration, he carefully backpedaled
> to insisting that it was "a couple", not "several", and declined to offer
> names.
So?
> I am as cynical as you are, Inf. And _my_ cynicism leads me to believe that
> the ambitious are never in short supply. If "a couple" of them feel that a
> SCOTUS seat is not worth the public scrutiny, we have no reason to suppose
> _them_ the most virtuous or worthy of the lot.
The pool of qualified and talented sharp people is much greater than the pool of
qualified and talented sharp people that enjoy putting up with being attacked,
having their reputation dragged through the mud, investigated, having their
credit reports and other personal private information scrutinized in public,
having their families attacked, et cetera. Consider even Judge Alito's 90 year
old mother Rose is being harassed by reporters and is effectively under house
arrest to avoid being swarmed on her doorstep.
tonyp
"Info Junkie" <bond...@ifx.net> wrote in message
> "tonyp" <to...@world.std.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Info Junkie" <bond...@ifx.net> wrote
> >> I've no idea why you refer to Dr. Dobson as "holy" ...
> >
> >Is _Dr._ Dobson a physician of some kind?
>
> IIRC, he's a licensed psychologist and his Ph.D. in in child development
Well, I'll be damned :-)
OK, Inf: henceforth I promise to refer to him as the _un_holy Dr. Dobson.
-- TP
Info Junkie
>
>"Info Junkie" <bond...@ifx.net> wrote in message
>
>> "tonyp" <to...@world.std.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Info Junkie" <bond...@ifx.net> wrote
>> >> I've no idea why you refer to Dr. Dobson as "holy" ...
>> >
>> >Is _Dr._ Dobson a physician of some kind?
>>
>> IIRC, he's a licensed psychologist and his Ph.D. in in child development
>
>
>Well, I'll be damned :-)
If you say so...but that's not for me to judge :-)
>OK, Inf: henceforth I promise to refer to him as the _un_holy Dr. Dobson.
Ah, so you apply Prejudicial Language* as part of your fallacious remarks in
lieu of refuting my comments. Understood.
*http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm