| Do you approve of President Bush's pick? |
| Yes. This is a PHENOMINAL choice. |
|
33% |
[ 2 ] |
| It's a good choice. |
|
16% |
[ 1 ] |
| This is a fine choice. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| It's a bad choice, but I'll accept it for his qualifications. |
|
16% |
[ 1 ] |
| He's a horrible choice, and that's all there is to it. |
|
33% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 6 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
 Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:26 pm Bush Nominates Alito for Supreme Court |
|
| Quote: | Bush Nominates Alito for Supreme Court
Monday, October 31, 2005
By Liza Porteus
WASHINGTON � To the delight of the conservative base that elected him, President Bush on Monday nominated Samuel Alito (search) to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Alito is filling the spot that opened when Harriet Miers (search) withdrew her nomination last week after facing strong criticism from the president's conservative base. While many Republicans praised the new nominee, Democrats wasted no time in publicly blasting him as "too radical."
"Judge Alito is one of the most accomplished and respected judges of America and his long career in public service has given him an extraordinary breadth of judicial experience," Bush said in making the announcement in the White House.
"He's scholarly, fair-minded and principled and these qualities will serve him well on the highest court in the land."
Noting that Alito has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in 70 years, Bush added that his record "reveals a thoughtful judge who considers the legal merits carefully and applies the law in a principled fashion. He has a deep understanding of the proper role of judges in our society. He understands judges are to interpret the laws, not to impose their preferences or priorities on the people."
Following the announcement, Alito went to the U.S. Capitol, where Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (search) greeted him and accompanied the nominee and two of his children to the Capitol rotunda while he paid his respects at the coffin of late civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks.
Frist, a fellow Princeton graduate, read from a school publication a prediction that Alito would eventually "warm a seat" on the Supreme Court.
"That was a college joke," Alito said with a grin. "I think my real ambition at the time was to be commissioner of baseball. Of course, I never dreamed that this day would arrive."
Senate Judiciary Committee Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he would not ask Alito directly about whether he would overturn Roe v. Wade (search), the landmark abortion rights ruling.
"There is a lot more to do with a woman's right to choose than how you feel about it personally," he said. Specter cited adherence to legal precedent in view of a series of rulings over 30 years upholding abortion rights.
There will be a "a very, very thorough review" of Alito's record, Specter said. Asked about the immediate negative reaction from Democrats to Alito's nomination, Specter responded: "Well this is Washington, D.C."
If approved, Alito � considered a conservative federal judge � will replace O'Connor, a moderate who has been considered a decisive swing vote in a host of affirmative action, abortion, campaign finance, discrimination and death penalty cases.
"I am deeply honored to be nominated to serve on the Supreme Court and I am very grateful for the confidence you have shown in me," Alito said at his nomination announcement. "The Supreme Court has been an institution that I have long held in reverence."
A senior GOP leadership aide said leading lawmakers are pushing for hearings and a final vote on the Senate floor by the Christmas holiday.
Some at the White House said they believe there will be 22 votes against Alito, the same number of Democrats who rejected Chief Justice John Roberts (search). They said if some lawmakers didn't like Roberts, they also won't like Alito. The Senate in September voted 78-22 in favor of confirming Roberts for the top judicial position.
Roberts may be closest to Alito in that "both are conservatives but both are very careful not to give their opinion" on social issues, John Nagle, an associate dean at Notre Dame Law School who knows Alito, told FOX News on Monday.
Calling Alito a "terrific nominee," Nagle said the nominee has a "distinguished record" while working on constitutional issues in the Justice Department and during the rest of his professional career.
Alito is "very gracious, easy going, personable. He's really a legal thinker but he's not a person who in his personal conversations � tries to prove how bright he is," Nagle said.
"He's conservative but you don't get the sense from his opinions that he's pursuing a particular agenda. ... His decisions are very measured, analytical."
Alito has been dubbed "Scalito" or "Scalia-lite" by some lawyers because his judicial philosophy invites comparisons to that of conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (search), for whom Alito once clerked. But while Scalia is outspoken and known to badger lawyers, Alito is polite, reserved and even-tempered. Some at the White House have taken offense to the nickname.
FOX News Supreme Court analyst Tim O'Brien said while Alito's ideology may be similar to that of Scalia's, he is an independent thinker and should not be labeled as another Scalia.
But "he is a friendly, easy-going guy and that certainly will help him in this confirmation here," O'Brien said.
The White House hopes the choice mends a rift in the Republican Party created by the failed nomination of Miers. Many members of Bush's own party argued that the Texas lawyer and Bush loyalist didn't have enough credentials on constitutional law and no proven record as a judicial conservative. She didn't calm fears during a series of meet-and-greets with lawmakers throughout October.
Alito was Bush's favorite choice among the judges in the last set of deliberations; however, the president settled instead on Miers because she was someone outside what he calls the "judicial monastery," administration officials said.
Bush said he believes the 55-year-old Alito has not only the right experience as a judge and prosecutor and conservative ideology for the job but a temperament suited to building consensus on the court.
'Needlessly Provocative?'
While Alito has already won praise from U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other Bush's allies on the right who say he's not an ideologue, Democrats have served notice they will not make the confirmation process easy.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday that he is "disappointed" in the pick of Alito in that he is not a "consensus nominee" and said one day earlier that that nominee would "create a lot of problems."
"The nomination of Judge Alito requires an especially long, hard look by the Senate because of what happened last week to Harriet Miers," Reid said in a statement Monday.
"Conservative activists forced Miers to withdraw from consideration for this same Supreme Court seat because she was not radical enough for them," he continued. "Now the Senate needs to find out if the man replacing Miers is too radical for the American people."
Reid also criticized Bush for not choosing a woman or an Hispanic for the court. "He has chosen yet another federal appellate judge to join a court that already has eight justices with that narrow background," Reid added. "President Bush would leave the Supreme Court looking less like America and more like an old boys' club."
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., also blasted Bush for not picking someone in the "mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, who would unify us."
"The president seems to want to hunker down in his bunker" and "soothe the ruffled feathers of the extreme wing of his party," Schumer said. "This controversial nominee, who would make the court less diverse and far more conservative, will get very careful scrutiny from the Senate and from the American people."
Schumer also said the confirmation process should not be rushed: "When there is a controversial nominee for a pivotal swing vote on the Supreme Court, the precedure should not be short-circuited, short-changed or rushed."
Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the Alito nomination is a "needlessly provocative nomination."
There are perhaps only two other people in the country who would cause Democrats to be "more disturbed" than Alito, said Democratic strategist Bob Beckel.
"He runs counter to everything we believe in," Beckel added. "Let me congratulate the right wing. They beat the president back and they got somebody they wanted."
But Frist applauded the selection of Alito and warned lawmakers not to make the confirmation process a mud-slinging, all-out battle over the bench.
"I enthusiastically support it [the nomination] based on what I know today. He is clearly a highly qualified nominee. ... He's shown judicial restraint in the past," Frist told FOX News on Monday.
Democrats "will try to pick fights and they will look for documents and they will use scare tactics, but at the end of the day ... I think he will overwhelmingly be confirmed. If the Democrats look for a fight, we will be ready to fight. This is a highly qualified nominee."
Sen. John Cornyn, the Texas Republican who served as a pointman in the Senate on behalf of Roberts during his confirmation process, agreed that a political fight over Alito is likely.
"I think it's going to be contentious but he'll be confirmed by a bipartisan majority in the Senate," Cornyn told FOX News. "I think we're in a position to move rather quickly."
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who is also on the Judiciary Committee, told FOX News he does not think a filibuster to prevent a vote on Alito is likely. "If [Democrats] become against someone with the qualifications of Sam Alito, Judge Alito, then I think it's going to be held against them."
While he said Alito will likely be confirmed, Hatch added, "We're all going to have to work very hard to make that so ... he's got so many credentials, it's going to be hard for [Democrats] to play politics with this one."
Unlike Miers, who has never been a judge, Alito, a jurist from New Jersey, has been a strong conservative voice on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia since former President George H.W. Bush seated him at the age of 39 in 1990.
A former deputy assistant to Attorney General Ed Meese in the mid-1980s, the Italian-American also worked in President Reagan's solicitor general office. After growing up in Trenton, N.J., Alito was educated at Princeton University and earned a law degree from Yale University, the president's alma mater.
Interest Groups Gear Up for Battle
Judicial conservatives praise Alito's 15 years on the federal court and say his record shows a commitment to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, ensuring that the separation of powers and checks and balances are respected and enforced.
They also contend that Alito has been a powerful voice for the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and the free exercise of religion.
But Alito's role as the sole dissenter on the 3rd Circuit court in the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision (search), which struck down a Pennsylvania law that required women to inform their husbands before they got an abortion, could cause Democratic objections.
"The Pennsylvania Legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems � such as economic constraints, future plans or the husbands' previously expressed opposition � that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion," Alito wrote.
The decision by the court � considered one of the most liberal circuit courts in the country � was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 vote. The late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (search) cited Alito's reasoning in his own dissent.
"There are a number of Democrats who have a lot of angst about it [the nomination] because of Casey v. Planned Parenthood. It seems to them, abortion is the end-all, be-all issue," Hatch said.
Interest groups are already taking up positions on Alito.
"The president has made an excellent choice today, which reflects his commitment to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and [Clarence] Thomas," said Kay Daly, president of the conservative Coalition for a Fair Judiciary.
Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network, told FOX News that the Alito nomination is "a grand slam homerun. The president has really given us an outstanding judge."
With Roberts, Scalia and possibly Alito on the bench, he said, the Supreme Court will be stocked with "intellectual firepower" on the conservative side. He added that Alito's dissent in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision was "hardly an overwhelming denunciation of Roe v. Wade."
While Robertson said he was comfortable with Miers, who has never been a judge, as a possibility for the bench before she withdrew, Alito's judicial background is much stronger. "Without question, this man is one of the outstanding legal minds in the country," he added. "He overwhelms Harriet Miers in his qualifications."
While left-wing groups like MoveOn.org vowed to mobilize its members against the nomination, abortion-rights activists also denounced the pick. "Now, the gauntlet has been, I think, thrown down," said Kat Michelman, past president of NARAL-Pro-Choice American.
The head of the National Women's Law Center said Alito has a "highly troubling record that raises serious concerns for women in the area of reproductive rights, federalism and sex discrimination in employment.
"In nominating Judge Alito, President Bush has chosen someone who threatens the very existence of core legal rights that Americans, especially women, have relied on for decades," said center Co-President Marcia D. Greenberger. "Instead of naming a consensus nominee, President Bush has opted to pick someone who meets the far right's ideological litmus test."
FOXNews' Carl Cameron, Sharon Kehnemui Liss and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Source |
EXCELLENT choice, and the Left never ceases to amaze me. More on this when I have a commentary.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Oct 31, 2005 6:29 pm |
|
To the Left: wait until the hearings to go against him like that. Find out his philosophy, and how he would judge cases. He's overly qualified. He's been an established attorney and a credited judge.
Look at Ginsberg. Clinton got to nominate her, and she was FAR left: former senior counsel to the ACLU, believed polygamy to be a constitutional right (same with prostitution), and had other really liberal credentials. And yet what happened? The Conservatives and Republicans let her get on to the bench with almost no decent. Why can't the Liberals and Democrats give the same treatment to Republican nominees, when it's the President's perogative to nominate whom he wants and we let the most liberal justice on the Court by?
And then you have Senators like my Democratic Senator, Salazar, saying that they are upset about the nominee partially because they weren't spoken with about the choice before he made it. Alright, that's baloney. Why? Because before Miers he talked EXTENSIVELY with them about a nominee. And when she withdrew, he doubled back and chose another nominee, after having extensive discussions already.
He's a good choice with solid credentials. No reason to not let him go through and join the bench, as we did with Ginsberg.
And what's also a lame-duck attack is saying that the nominee is a bad choice because he's not a woman. Yeah, right, good reason. 
So he's anti-abortion. But does that mean that he's going to make a decision based on that? No. He's a man who will judge cases fairly, not letting bias get into play. I believe that.
And what's sooo interesting is the Liberals with their abortion litmus test. I gotta tell ya. And then good 'ol Teddy Kennedy said after Miers withdrew that the Conservatives have a litmus test, and yet isn't HE the one who's got the litmus test--both on abortion and religion?
And oh no! If appointed, Alito will be the FIFTH Supreme Court justice who is Catholic!  Oh, God, we can't approve him because of that! That, folks, was in an AP article that Sean Hannity read today on his radio show. What in the world, whoop-di-do! So there would be 5 Catholics. Big deal. Doesn't mean that they decide based on their religious beliefs. I don't get what the point of that article was, unless...Whaaa---Liberal media bias?
Again, qualified nominee. Overlee (sp?) qualified, and a great choice. The Abortion and Religious litmus tests of the left aren't gonna slide. And you know, he fits more with the mainstream of America than an activist liberal justice who believes that the Constitution is a living document does.
And finally, again, I'm not looking for a conservative justice, per se, although I'd like one, however this nominee is overwhelmingly qualified and just a great choice. The left amazes meto no end with their reaction. Well, not really. It's more amusement than otherwise. I really want an originalist justice, which Alito is, it seems.
But to the liberals that think he shouldn't get appointed, simply because he might rule on things that you disagree with? Then we should have opposed Ginsberg, because she was extremely Liberal, but that didn't stop us from being fair to her and having around 5--if that--decenters (sp?). He deserves to be approved, as Ginsberg was, despite his conservatism--and originalism.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Mon Oct 31, 2005 7:20 pm |
|
Okay, even the far left people aren't as radical and extreme as the far right. Far left people don't tend to let religion rule their judgments of other people, inferior or superior to themselves. The left takes care of the special interest groups, the right takes care of rich white people, and while its a bad thing that they only take care of special interest groups, no one ever bothers to take care of the general American public.
And the fact that he's not a woman is a bad thing because Bush is stacking the courts with rich white men who are more likely to have Bush's idea of values. That�s half the reason why Republicans oppose Meirs, because other than her lack of credibility she was a woman, thus enabling her to make a valid decision on issues such as abortion which only a woman could truly understand since they are the only one's who would ever undergo one. Her being able to make that decision scared the majority of the male Republican Party.
And getting your news from Sean Hannity is the conservative equivalent of getting your news from Jon Stewart. Don't get me started on Conservative media bias....
And FYI its bologna not baloney and overly not overlee 
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Mon Oct 31, 2005 7:23 pm |
|
| Starbuck wrote: | | Okay, even the far left people aren't as radical and extreme as the far right. |
The scary thing is you probably really believe that.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Oct 31, 2005 7:50 pm |
|
First, baloney is how I've always learned to spell it, and thanks for the overly correctly. I knew that, but forgot  .
Second, you're lucky I can't really give a response for a few hours, or I'd crush your points so bad.  Seriously, though, I think you are extremely wrong and I will give a complete rebuttal when I get the chance. So be prepared.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:08 pm |
|
| Starbuck wrote: | Okay, even the far left people aren't as radical and extreme as the far right. Far left people don't tend to let religion rule their judgments of other people, inferior or superior to themselves. The left takes care of the special interest groups, the right takes care of rich white people, and while its a bad thing that they only take care of special interest groups, no one ever bothers to take care of the general American public.
And the fact that he's not a woman is a bad thing because Bush is stacking the courts with rich white men who are more likely to have Bush's idea of values. That�s half the reason why Republicans oppose Meirs, because other than her lack of credibility she was a woman, thus enabling her to make a valid decision on issues such as abortion which only a woman could truly understand since they are the only one's who would ever undergo one. Her being able to make that decision scared the majority of the male Republican Party.
And getting your news from Sean Hannity is the conservative equivalent of getting your news from Jon Stewart. Don't get me started on Conservative media bias....
And FYI its bologna not baloney and overly not overlee |
Waaay to stereotype is all I can really say.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:41 pm |
|
| Starbuck wrote: | Okay, even the far left people aren't as radical and extreme as the far right. Far left people don't tend to let religion rule their judgments of other people, inferior or superior to themselves. The left takes care of the special interest groups, the right takes care of rich white people, and while its a bad thing that they only take care of special interest groups, no one ever bothers to take care of the general American public.
And the fact that he's not a woman is a bad thing because Bush is stacking the courts with rich white men who are more likely to have Bush's idea of values. That�s half the reason why Republicans oppose Meirs, because other than her lack of credibility she was a woman, thus enabling her to make a valid decision on issues such as abortion which only a woman could truly understand since they are the only one's who would ever undergo one. Her being able to make that decision scared the majority of the male Republican Party.
And getting your news from Sean Hannity is the conservative equivalent of getting your news from Jon Stewart. Don't get me started on Conservative media bias....
And FYI its bologna not baloney and overly not overlee |
Forgive me, but I'm angry right now. I have to be honest here, and that's the biggest load of liberal pooper-scooper (insert other word in place) I've heard all day, and I've heard a lot of it over this. Let me disect your illogical argument, piece by piece.
1. Far left people aren't as ratical? Baloney, however the heck you want to spell it. Both the far right (farther right than Ann Coulter, in which case Rush and Hannity wouldn't fit in) and the far-left (Michael Moore-ish, George Soros group) are equally as radical. We have to be clear here as to what the far right and far left are, and it's the fringe, not the general Conservative movement.
Far left liberals (tend to) hate America, first of all. And they HATE religion, period, and HATE morality. That's why they're trying to completely secularize the nation and make abortion and gay marriage without restriction, polygamy legal, and SO many other issues of morality. We are in two wars right now, and one of them is the morality war in the United States, which the far left fringe seems to be fighting extremely hard in, so as to get religion and morality out of America. They want to tear down America as it is to put their own little secular socialist state in place. They don't like America and the way it is now, and so they're trying to tear it down. And how are they going about this? Through the courts. (Which needs to be stopped.)
The right (I'm assuming you mean myself and Hannity and Rush, not the FAR right) lets religion influence them a lot, and there is NOTHING wrong with that. They have a deep faith in God and that is where their morals and strong beliefs are stemmed from. They HAVE morals, unlike the farther left, which has few morals and wants religion out, which means have no moral standards set any longer. They are the radical secularist group who wants to use the courts as a place to legislate what they couldn't legislate in the legislature. That's the farther left of this country. More radical than the farther right. And only the VERY far religious right tends to force their religious beliefs on the people like that, but the inferior or superior to themselves thing? A load of crap.
2. What evidence do you have that the right only cares about rich white people, because that's a danged foolish statement, because it's NOT TRUE. Are my parents rich? NO. Far from it. My dad's even threatened to sell our house for a smaller house. And yet I am as Conservative as Hannity and Limbaugh. Plus, Conservatives like myself and Hannity care about ALL people. Wealth and color don't matter. That's a VERY broad stereotype that is just plain wrong. And by the way. The Republicans aren't the party who only goes after the blacks for votes, like Howard Dean SAID. We try to convince them to join our side for more than just elections. Oh, and by the way. Here's a debunker to the "rich white man" thing. What races are our Secretary of State--and sex--and Attorney General? Black woman and Latino. Thought so.
3. Ay-ay-ay. It's Liberals like you that never cease to amaze me. So filled with anger and hatred, all unfedderred...Anyways, first of all, of COURSE Bush is going to put people on the bench that share his judicial philosophy! For God's sake, what the heck do you expect him to do!? It's what CLINTON did when he nominated Ginsberg--the Court's farthest left-wing person. No complaints about that, hmmm? It's his perogative to nominate someone with his philosophy and quality credentials.
Secondly, I fail to see how he's stacking the court with rich white men. So their white men, so what? It's really irrelivent the color and gender, so long as the person's qualified. It's the QUALIFICATIONS and CREDENTIALS that matter, not the color and gender! Besides, you would have opposed ANY Conservative nominee anyways, white, black, man, or woman. Rich and white and man has nothing to do with it. And again, his values are what he's supposed to choose on, and it's his perrogative. Eventually a Democrat will have the turn. Besides, it's not such a bad thing having people with his judicial philosophy on the court, anyhow.
4. What are you thinking!? Half the reason why Conservatives opposed Miers was because she was a woman? Well, forgive me for my language, but that's a damned generalization that is false. Maybe a few were, although no one can be named, but it was the credentials that we had a problem with. Even Ann Coulter, a WOMAN, was opposed to her nomination. Was half of HER reasons SEXIST? I think not. And also, plenty of Conservatives were hoping for Janis Rogers Brown (a Black woman) or what's-her-name Clemeents, also a woman. So there. You have just been proven wrong on that horrible stereotype.
5. Only a WOMAN can truly understand an abortion? I just don't think that's so. It is ENTIRELY ridiculous to suggest such a thing. Was half of that child before the abortion not the father's? Was it not HIM who did something? Could HE not have a say? It's ridiculous to say that only a woman should have a say in whether or not THEIR child should be aborted--whether or not the life that THEY created could be alive. Is it not the child of both pf them? Plus, it's simply ridiculous anyways to state that only woman could truly understand abortion. Ridiculous.
6. What evidence do you HAVE about her ability to make that decision scaring us? Most of us don't CARE about an abortion litmus test. I sure as hell don't. Nor does Hannity, or my Grandfather. Do we want Roe V. Wade to be overturned? Yes. But only on a case by case basis would we want such a decision. There is NO WAY that the fact that she could have the power to stop an overturning of Roe V. Wade scared us. Maybe it scared some, but that's a foolish generalization.
7. Like Jon Stewart? Hannity's like JON STEWART? Far from it. You are just a FAR LEFT ideologue who clearly HATES the opinions of people who agree with you, as this entire post shows. And of course Hannity's biased--he's a commentator--but he's FAR from Jon Stewart and is MORE credible than most of CNN. And he's a Fox anchor, too, working for a news organization. Means something. (And no, I don't get my NEWS from him, usually, but I get analysis.) And Conservative media bias? I've got one word for that. HAH! If the media was Conservatively biased, we wouldn't be living now, 'cause it just ain't true. I've been watching a lot of CNN and MSNBC these last few weeks (as much as my stomach can handle) and it's FAR from being conservatively biased.
There. Whew. Argument crushed . I had to let that anger and frustration out. Wow, so many Liberals--wait, socialists...Just, wow...
Last edited by Republican_Man on Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:51 pm; edited 1 time in total
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:50 pm |
|
I guess I have a one-tracked mind, but I really wanted to see a Latino Superme Court Justice, especially if it had been Miguel Estrada.
I think this is definately a solid choice, and he's got a great track record to boot, but I just think there were better choices. I do trust President Bush though.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:52 pm |
|
I think there was no more qualified nominee possible. Would it have been nice to have a woman or Latino? Yes, of course. However, that does not mean that there were any better choices. There were better choices than Miers, but I think there were no BETTER choices than Alito; some of the other choices were just as good.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Cathexis
The Angel of Avalon
Joined: 26 Dec 2001
Posts: 5901
Location: ~~ Where Dreams Have No End�
|
| Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:07 pm |
|
Where are the politiques these days? lol.
Well...I think that no matter who you are or what you stand for, as long as you are looking out for the welfare of the people above the religious aspects, because those can be argued over (as was proved throughout European history) and fought for to the death, you should have the opportunity to serve your government......in the name of the country, though, not your own endeavors.
Alito has just as much right to serve on the Supreme Court as Miers did, male or female should have nothing to do with it. Just because Bush chose Alito doesn't mean there isn't another qualified female, but in reality, shouldn't he be choosing the person he thinks is most qualified? What should gender have to do with it?
I think we're all radical in a lot of ways...even conservatives seem to be radical in their conservative beliefs. We'll all eventually cancel each other out...and shame on the Democrats (note: I'm leaning toward the Socialist ideals at the moment, but I was once a Democrat) for trying to opress the voices of their opponents....both parties should be heard as representatives. This struggle over how many Democrats or Republicans are Chief Justice, or who's a Catholic or Protestant......or anything of that nature is all really beside the point. It's about our nation and the justice and legal system that holds up to the founding beliefs upon which we were allowed to build our lives, our futures, and our childrens' futures.
We let ourselves get so mixed up in the power struggle...women try to say how evil Bush is for not choosing ANOTHER woman to replace O'Connor....don't you think that would seem just a little sexist if he had done that, in favor of women? We've got to be equally as fair toward men here....
It's about who Bush thinks is best. If he thinks Alito is the best choice, he has every right to nominate the man, yes, the MAN! Women press on and on for equality, but what we/they need to see is that we/they HAVE IT! Right now, it's about who's qualifications are up to par....Why are we/they expecting special treatment simply because we/they have an extra Y-chromosome? We/they are kind of defeating our/their own purpose in whining about whether or not Bush is doing the right thing in "stacking the courts with rich white men". Those men are "rich" because they've been at their jobs for a long time, earning that money by doing their best, whether or not you want to believe it, they aren't ALL corrupt and filled with an unslakeable sense of greed. Women.....wanting equality and yet still going about everything with a paranoid ignorance to the fact that they have what they wanted. They've had it for quite some time now.
Now, don't get any funny ideas about me....I am a woman, and proudly so.....but I'm what some people call an "equalist". If ya want things to be equal, it means that EVERYTHING is equal between EVERYONE, no exceptions.....the judges that were considered, man or woman, had an EQUAL opportunity to be nominated, based on their exemplary skills and records. I doubt that Bush sat at his big fat mahogany desk in the Oval Office and thought to himself, "Gee....so-and-so? Nah, I don't trust women...that's a negative on the 'she-judge'.....but Alito! Now there's a big strapping MASCULINE man for ya...yeah I think I'll go with him!"...if you think that that's what Bush does while going about making nominations, something's loose upstairs. Just because the man can't pronounce one of the most disastrous words in the English language (come ON man, it's "nook-leer", not "nook-ya-ler") doesn't mean he's a sexist pig, and just because he thinks he's cool when he says "dude", doesn't mean he's not making an effort to make a good choice here and there.
On the notion of secularizing the country and the way it's run...I'm sorry but the truth of the matter is, we can't force people to be religious, even though this country was founded by Protestants...times ARE changing. The President CANNOT expect to win people to his faith by denying the non-religious basic rights, especially civil unions/marriage between homosexual partners. He cannot expect to try to force these things by nominating Justices who support his religious beliefs, and who want just as badly to control how people live in this country.
It's all about balance.
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:47 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: |
Forgive me, but I'm angry right now. I have to be honest here, and that's the biggest load of liberal pooper-scooper (insert other word in place) I've heard all day, and I've heard a lot of it over this. Let me disect your illogical argument, piece by piece.
1. Far left people aren't as ratical? Baloney, however the heck you want to spell it. Both the far right (farther right than Ann Coulter, in which case Rush and Hannity wouldn't fit in) and the far-left (Michael Moore-ish, George Soros group) are equally as radical. We have to be clear here as to what the far right and far left are, and it's the fringe, not the general Conservative movement.
Far left liberals (tend to) hate America, first of all. And they HATE religion, period, and HATE morality. That's why they're trying to completely secularize the nation and make abortion and gay marriage without restriction, polygamy legal, and SO many other issues of morality. We are in two wars right now, and one of them is the morality war in the United States, which the far left fringe seems to be fighting extremely hard in, so as to get religion and morality out of America. They want to tear down America as it is to put their own little secular socialist state in place. They don't like America and the way it is now, and so they're trying to tear it down. And how are they going about this? Through the courts. (Which needs to be stopped.)
Making abortion and gay marriage legal is your idea of what morality is "not." You can legislate whatever you please, but you cannot destroy an idea, a way of life, a choice. What if gays believe, religiously, that they have a right to marry? It hurts no one, it's not sacrificial, it's a philosophical, even "religious" belief. Why would you impose this on someone? Tradition. That's what we call the fallacy of "two-wrongs" or "traditional wisdowm." Further, those on the far left are not evil...a lot of them are bad speakers, a lot of them are grotesquely angry and should not be acknowledged, but the hardcore ones--the normal people--sincerely believe in helping the poor, peace and the lessening of fake institutions we call "business." Whether or not they're wrong, up to you. I don't agree with Starbuck, not at all, but the entire far-left is not evil.
The right (I'm assuming you mean myself and Hannity and Rush, not the FAR right) lets religion influence them a lot, and there is NOTHING wrong with that. They have a deep faith in God and that is where their morals and strong beliefs are stemmed from. They HAVE morals, unlike the farther left, which has few morals and wants religion out, which means have no moral standards set any longer. They are the radical secularist group who wants to use the courts as a place to legislate what they couldn't legislate in the legislature. That's the farther left of this country. More radical than the farther right. And only the VERY far religious right tends to force their religious beliefs on the people like that, but the inferior or superior to themselves thing? A load of crap.
The far, far right wants to impose more religion on the country than necessary. Going as far as restricting freedom of speech is totally bogus, and the ACLU should be ashamed of it. But legislating based on it? No. "Morality" is not black and white, not for everyone. We shouldn't limit ways of life and thoughts. That's counter-productive in the extreme.
2. What evidence do you have that the right only cares about rich white people, because that's a danged foolish statement, because it's NOT TRUE. Are my parents rich? NO. Far from it. My dad's even threatened to sell our house for a smaller house. And yet I am as Conservative as Hannity and Limbaugh. Plus, Conservatives like myself and Hannity care about ALL people. Wealth and color don't matter. That's a VERY broad stereotype that is just plain wrong. And by the way. The Republicans aren't the party who only goes after the blacks for votes, like Howard Dean SAID. We try to convince them to join our side for more than just elections. Oh, and by the way. Here's a debunker to the "rich white man" thing. What races are our Secretary of State--and sex--and Attorney General? Black woman and Latino. Thought so.
I agree, it's not racial or about the rich, even though I disagree with a lot with how Republicans treat more abstract differences.
3. Ay-ay-ay. It's Liberals like you that never cease to amaze me. So filled with anger and hatred, all unfedderred...Anyways, first of all, of COURSE Bush is going to put people on the bench that share his judicial philosophy! For God's sake, what the heck do you expect him to do!? It's what CLINTON did when he nominated Ginsberg--the Court's farthest left-wing person. No complaints about that, hmmm? It's his perogative to nominate someone with his philosophy and quality credentials.
Secondly, I fail to see how he's stacking the court with rich white men. So their white men, so what? It's really irrelivent the color and gender, so long as the person's qualified. It's the QUALIFICATIONS and CREDENTIALS that matter, not the color and gender! Besides, you would have opposed ANY Conservative nominee anyways, white, black, man, or woman. Rich and white and man has nothing to do with it. And again, his values are what he's supposed to choose on, and it's his perrogative. Eventually a Democrat will have the turn. Besides, it's not such a bad thing having people with his judicial philosophy on the court, anyhow.
Alito has good credentials. And why attack the woman thing when Bush was so supportive of Miss Miers? Not a good argument, I agree. I would've liked a moderate far better, but Alito will do, I suppose.
4. What are you thinking!? Half the reason why Conservatives opposed Miers was because she was a woman? Well, forgive me for my language, but that's a damned generalization that is false. Maybe a few were, although no one can be named, but it was the credentials that we had a problem with. Even Ann Coulter, a WOMAN, was opposed to her nomination. Was half of HER reasons SEXIST? I think not. And also, plenty of Conservatives were hoping for Janis Rogers Brown (a Black woman) or what's-her-name Clemeents, also a woman. So there. You have just been proven wrong on that horrible stereotype.
Yep-yep. The opposition was more her lack of presence in paper trails than anything.
5. Only a WOMAN can truly understand an abortion? I just don't think that's so. It is ENTIRELY ridiculous to suggest such a thing. Was half of that child before the abortion not the father's? Was it not HIM who did something? Could HE not have a say? It's ridiculous to say that only a woman should have a say in whether or not THEIR child should be aborted--whether or not the life that THEY created could be alive. Is it not the child of both pf them? Plus, it's simply ridiculous anyways to state that only woman could truly understand abortion. Ridiculous.
True. The father is half the genome, if he wants the child, he should have a say. Unless it's rape or something like that...then obviously no.
6. What evidence do you HAVE about her ability to make that decision scaring us? Most of us don't CARE about an abortion litmus test. I sure as hell don't. Nor does Hannity, or my Grandfather. Do we want Roe V. Wade to be overturned? Yes. But only on a case by case basis would we want such a decision. There is NO WAY that the fact that she could have the power to stop an overturning of Roe V. Wade scared us. Maybe it scared some, but that's a foolish generalization.
7. Like Jon Stewart? Hannity's like JON STEWART? Far from it. You are just a FAR LEFT ideologue who clearly HATES the opinions of people who agree with you, as this entire post shows. And of course Hannity's biased--he's a commentator--but he's FAR from Jon Stewart and is MORE credible than most of CNN. And he's a Fox anchor, too, working for a news organization. Means something. (And no, I don't get my NEWS from him, usually, but I get analysis.) And Conservative media bias? I've got one word for that. HAH! If the media was Conservatively biased, we wouldn't be living now, 'cause it just ain't true. I've been watching a lot of CNN and MSNBC these last few weeks (as much as my stomach can handle) and it's FAR from being conservatively biased.
Again, granted. There's a huge difference between Fox and CNN. Fox shows a lot more on the conservative end, but that generally just balances it out, to me.
There. Whew. Argument crushed . I had to let that anger and frustration out. Wow, so many Liberals--wait, socialists...Just, wow... |
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:29 am |
|
First, thanks for the great discussion and debate, guys. It's a lot of fun. I love arguing politics and stuff.
| Exalya wrote: | | Making abortion and gay marriage legal is your idea of what morality is "not." You can legislate whatever you please, but you cannot destroy an idea, a way of life, a choice. What if gays believe, religiously, that they have a right to marry? It hurts no one, it's not sacrificial, it's a philosophical, even "religious" belief. Why would you impose this on someone? Tradition. That's what we call the fallacy of "two-wrongs" or "traditional wisdowm." Further, those on the far left are not evil...a lot of them are bad speakers, a lot of them are grotesquely angry and should not be acknowledged, but the hardcore ones--the normal people--sincerely believe in helping the poor, peace and the lessening of fake institutions we call "business." Whether or not they're wrong, up to you. I don't agree with Starbuck, not at all, but the entire far-left is not evil. |
I never meant to imply that the far left is evil. They're far from it (most of them, although I'm sure that some, like on the right, are, but most aren't). I just think that things that they are doing are wrong and with malacious intent, and are hurting America. I don't think that what they're doing is good for America, in any way, but is more of an attempted destruction of it, but not necessarily with evil intent. And again, I'm not saying all. I that's why I said "tend to," if you read that. And I don't want to debate gay marriage here, but I DO think that the left is using that and other things to try to dismantle the religious nature of America and morph it into something that it is not, and dispose of morals.
| Exalya wrote: | | The far, far right wants to impose more religion on the country than necessary. Going as far as restricting freedom of speech is totally bogus, and the ACLU should be ashamed of it. But legislating based on it? No. "Morality" is not black and white, not for everyone. We shouldn't limit ways of life and thoughts. That's counter-productive in the extreme. |
I agree, and hope that you don't think that I disagreed with that.
And Cathexis, I agree with almost everything you said, except for a here tid bits here and there and the following:
| Cathexis wrote: | | On the notion of secularizing the country and the way it's run...I'm sorry but the truth of the matter is, we can't force people to be religious, even though this country was founded by Protestants...times ARE changing. The President CANNOT expect to win people to his faith by denying the non-religious basic rights, especially civil unions/marriage between homosexual partners. He cannot expect to try to force these things by nominating Justices who support his religious beliefs, and who want just as badly to control how people live in this country. |
I never said anything about forcing people to be religious, nor do I believe that that should be done. And btw, I'm Catholic, not Protestant, but Protestantism is irrelivant here. It's our nation's Judeo-Christian heritage that I was talking about the left trying to destroy with that. The Left is trying to dismantle the religious nature of America, and wrongly so. Fact is, the majority of Americans are religious, and the majority of them are Christians of one form or another. I don't want God to be the reason that we make legislation or legislate based on religious beliefs (although of course they influence legislators in their ideals all the time), but I do not want secularization of the government. Religion should not be forced out of it, and it is dangerous for it to be, and if it is, then morality and freedom of religious expression will go down. It has been seen in history, and would happen here. That's why I think we should have a balance. Allow religion to play a role in the government (the people, that is) and to be recognized and our heritage to be recognized and allow it to remain to allow for good moral judgments to still be made, but still, at the same time, do not legislate based on God or the Bible. Do not force religion upon the people. Do not do all that, but do what the Founding Fathers intended--which was not secularization. If they wanted that, Jefferson wouldn't have given public funds to religion, specifically Christianity. If they wanted that, Washington and Adams wouldn't have incorporated religion into their addresses and administration and tied the outcome of the nation to the will of God in their first inaugural addresses. And if they wanted that, then the words "Endowed by our creator" would not be in the Declaration of Independence. The Founders did not intend for the government to be secularized, and nor should it, or morals would simply go down the drain. Luckily there's no way, not with the religiousness of many government officials, to completely strip religion out of the government, but with the ACLU and other organizations, it's happening.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Cathexis
The Angel of Avalon
Joined: 26 Dec 2001
Posts: 5901
Location: ~~ Where Dreams Have No End�
|
| Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:08 pm |
|
RM, I didn't say that you were talking about forcing anything upon anyone in particular...I wasn't directing that to you specifically.  And you are right about not totally secularizing our government, I agree 100% on that issue.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
