Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on January 31, 2006, 11:41:05 AM
-
This just up on CNN:
The Senate confirmed Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court on Tuesday by a vote of 58-42, a day after an attempt by some Democratic senators to block his nomination fizzled.
Now if Stevens would just decide to retire tomorrow and Ginsberg would quit the day after tomorrow.......
:D
-
Man that would pop Kennedy's head right off!
-
pulls nation out of recession, even with 911 .... steady growth every since
engages the terrorists with courage and fortitude .... took the fight to the ME
swings the SC towards the conservative side .... chose two very good men
just slightly better "legacy" than ole willies...
wtg Bush
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Man that would pop Kennedy's head right off!
Yeah Kennedy's "how do you stand on Abortion" questioning coming from the moral equivelent to Mickey Rourckes depiction of Henry Chinaski without the literary skills and noodlesmanship skills or even driving skills for that matter left a great impression on those who watched, to bad the vote was bi-partisan though it would have been nice to see a few dems cross the picket line from the dark side.... The head popping off thing would be a great pay per view moneymaker though!
TJ
-
In spite of Bush's gaffs and verbal dyslexia, the man is a genuine leader - like it or not.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Man that would pop Kennedy's head right off!
That would be worthwhile just byitself.
I think the one best answer to kennedy's abortion question would be to say: I am in favor of the oportunity for abortion as much or more so than you are about drowning mistresses.
-
Man that would pop Kennedy's head right off!
dont get me started. That jowley, fat-prettythang shameless charlatan - his liver is shaped like a Chivas Regal bottle... everything that comes out of his mouth sounds like its by rote. I'm surprized that anyone can tolerate the hypocracy of that coward.
-
I'm no canibal, but i like Canadian whisky...so mixed emotions i guess.
-
now... if these dems and liberals really feel that people are as mean spiritited and vindictive as they are....
they must be shaking in their slippers about now.
lazs
-
With all due respect to his stature as a US Senator and the spiritual leader of the Democratic Party, Party boy Uncle Ted is somebody we just like to kid about, you know, snorkel jokes, feeling up waitress anecdotes, waddling out on his dock to the yacht with some bimbos to do some off-shore drilling, double-dating with his nephews, waking up naked on his front lawn, pretending, with Kerry, to hang out with poor negroes, that sort of thing.
Of course, Dems don't engage in this activity re: Bush, being up in that rarified sensitive liberal atmosphere.... above it all ;)
-
You boys having fun together?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
You boys having fun together?
Yep, yet another Circle J***.
I wouldn't be suprised if Jeff Gukert/Gannon was in the middle. :P
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
Yep, yet another Circle J***.
I wouldn't be suprised if Jeff Gukert/Gannon was in the middle. :P
Stop beating around the bush, we know you want to be the cracker. You just have to ask.
-
Flatbar young man, let me give you some advice. Try to channel some of that carnal angst into getting out the vote this time, and actually try to do something to help your party win an election. And keep your hands out of your pockets for God's sake.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
You boys having fun together?
Yes. Hopefully this is the beginning of ripping America from the arms of liberal chaos thats been going on for 40+ years.
-
lol no filibuster, hes confirmed :rofl :aok
Originally posted by Eric Cartman
Yes! Yesss!! Oh, let me taste your tears,Mm, your tears are so yummy and sweet. Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness! My-ymmuy
eat it :o 's
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yes. Hopefully this is the beginning of ripping America from the arms of liberal chaos thats been going on for 40+ years.
You mean the Nixon/Ford Administration from '68-76, and the Reagan Administration from '80-88, and the Bush Administration from '88-92, and the current Bush Administration from '00-Present were/are Liberal?
From '68 to the Present the Republicans have held the White House 68% of the time or (26 of 38 years).
Rip, I'm not a liberal, but at the very least, give the facts a passing nod as you whiz by.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
You mean the Nixon/Ford Administration from '68-76, and the Reagan Administration from '80-88, and the Bush Administration from '88-92, and the current Bush Administration from '00-Present were/are Liberal?
From '68 to the Present the Republicans have held the White House 68% of the time or (26 of 38 years).
Rip, I'm not a liberal, but at the very least, give the facts a passing nod as you whiz by.
In 1969 and 1970, the Senate rejected two of President Richard Nixon's nominees over criticism of the nominees' personal qualities and philosophical positions. The defeat of President Ronald Reagan's nominee, Robert H. Bork, in 1987 was, all sides agree, based on considerations of judicial philosophy. In short, nominees have been rejected for a wide variety of reasons, partisan, personal, and philosophical.
-
Are you saying those admins didn't get to appoint Justices?
As I recall, at the time, SCJ Kennedy was referred to as Bork without the beard from an idealogy standpoint.
Your quote does not refute my point nor does it support your contention.
Now, also, over those years the Repubs have stacked the SC rather well. A point I don't think you can argue, to wit:
Seven of today's nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican Presidents. Ages range from 57 (Thomas) to 85 (Stevens) ; four atttended Stanford; six attended Harvard. Six had been in private practice; seven were already federal judges.
1. Roberts--Appointed by Bush II (replaced a Rhenquist who had been appointed by a Republican)
2. Stevens--Appointed by Ford
3. Alito--Appointed by Bush II (replaced O'Connor who had been appointed by Reagan)
4. Scalia--Appointed by Reagan
5. Kennedy--Appointed by Reagan
6. Souter--Appointed by Bush I
7. Thomas--Appointed by Bush I
Stupid facts!
-
As not to cloud one post with too many facts for you, I'll also quote the more of the passage from your rip and paste....
And the most important part------
The second phenomenon of overriding importance -- one closely related to the first -- is that the American people expect and demand that the Supreme Court will be independent of the political branches of government
And for your Nixon example, here's the story on the rejected nominees--
When Abe Fortas resigned in 1969, Nixon nominated Clement Haynsworth, a Southern jurist. His nomination was rejected by the Senate by a vote of 45-55 on November 21, 1969.
Haynsworth was nominated to the Supreme Court on August 21, 1969 by President Richard Nixon to replace Abe Fortas on the court. Haynsworth was opposed by Democrats, Liberal Republicans, and the NAACP and he was alleged to have made court decisions favoring segregation and decisions on subjects where he had a financial interest.
And just who voted against Haynsworth: 17 Republican senators -- including most of the GOP leadership -- joined in opposing Haynsworth's nomination.
In response, Nixon nominated G. Harrold Carswell, a Southerner with a history of supporting segregation. The Senate rejected his nomination 45 to 51 on April 8, 1970.
Carswell was praised by Senators such as Richard Russell; he was criticized for the high reversal rate (58%) of his decisions that were later appealed, and by civil-rights advocates for his judicial record and for vocally supporting White supremacy in 1948 while running for office in Georgia.
Of course how could he loose with endorsements such as this:
In a famous speech in Carswell's defense, Republican Sen. Roman Hruska of Nebraska argued: "Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers, and they are entitled to a little representation, aren't they? We can't have all Brandeises and Cardozos and Frankfurters and stuff like that."
This is the best part Rip:
!!Carswell was arrested and convicted of battery, in 1976, for advances he made to an undercover police officer in a Florida men's room;some claim him as the first homosexual or bisexual nominated to the Supreme Court.
Now onto Bork:
Bork lost confirmation by a Senate vote of 42 to 58, largely because Bork had written about his views on many controversial constitutional issues, but perhaps also because of his role in the Saturday Night Massacre
The "Saturday night massacre" (October 20, 1973) was the term given by political commentators to U.S. President Richard Nixon's executive dismissal of independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox, and the forced resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus during the controversial and drawn-out Watergate scandal.
Nixon then contacted the Solicitor General, Robert Bork, and ordered him as acting head of the Justice Department to fire Cox. Richardson and Ruckelshaus had both personally assured the congressional committee overseeing the special prosecutor investigation that they would not interfere – Bork had made no such assurance to the committee.
Congress was infuriated by the act, which was seen as a gross abuse of Presidential power. In the days that followed, numerous bills of impeachment against the President were introduced in Congress. Nixon defended his actions in a famous press conference on November 17, 1973, in which he said,
"...in all of my years of public life, I have never obstructed justice. And I think, too, that I can say that in my years of public life that [sic] I've welcomed this kind of examination, because people have got to know whether or not their President's a crook. Well, I'm not a crook!"
Dang, those stupid facts again!!
-
Alito proved one thing during the hearings...that he is far more of a gentleman than his inquisitors.
-
And a goodly percentage of Republican-nominated judges have turned out to be liberals....(Kennedy...) the reverse isn't true for the Democrats
-
Originally posted by bj229r
And a goodly percentage of Republican-nominated judges have turned out to be liberals....(Kennedy...) the reverse isn't true for the Democrats
OK, but as you noted they were Republican nominated.
And the reverse is true, actually. You just have to research it some. One of the best examples is Roosevelts nominee for the Chief Justice position (I can't remember his name right now) turned on him and struck down as unconstitutional a huge chunk of Roosevelts New Deal legislation.
-
I am thinking that Alito and Roberts are both as they seem... conservative constitutionalists.
The things I wanted Bush to do.. he did. I don't like the guy but he did get the firearm industry protected from frivolous lawsuits and he did get two good SC judges and he did let the "assault weapons" ban expire.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Stringer
You mean the Nixon/Ford Administration from '68-76, and the Reagan Administration from '80-88, and the Bush Administration from '88-92, and the current Bush Administration from '00-Present were/are Liberal?
From '68 to the Present the Republicans have held the White House 68% of the time or (26 of 38 years).
Rip, I'm not a liberal, but at the very least, give the facts a passing nod as you whiz by.
Can you say S-u-p-r-e-m-e C-o-u-r-t.... you see they have been making law for the past thirty years, their not supposed to do that. The legislative branch (the peoples representatives) does that. The president Administers the law, thats why it's called "The Administration".
-
Originally posted by Stringer
OK, but as you noted they were Republican nominated.
And the reverse is true, actually. You just have to research it some. One of the best examples is Roosevelts nominee for the Chief Justice position (I can't remember his name right now) turned on him and struck down as unconstitutional a huge chunk of Roosevelts New Deal legislation.
Thats because they were "Unconstitutional". Not because he turned on him. It would have been legislation passed by the legislators that was deemed "Unconstitutional". Presidents can only sign or veto legislation, they can't pass it. The administration can work with the congress (House and Senate) but ultimately they have the responsibility of making law.
-
Weasalsan,
I think you misinterpeted the intent of my post. It is exactly the position you have taken. My post was in reply to Rips's assertion that the SC has somehow been controlled by Democratic Nominees, which it has not.
You may have also missed in my post this part:
The second phenomenon of overriding importance -- one closely related to the first -- is that the American people expect and demand that the Supreme Court will be independent of the political branches of government
An ideal I completely agree with.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Can you say S-u-p-r-e-m-e C-o-u-r-t.... you see they have been making law for the past thirty years, their not supposed to do that. The legislative branch (the peoples representatives) does that. The president Administers the law, thats why it's called "The Administration".
Well then, if that's true, the Republicans have done a poor job of nominating Justices.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Weasalsan,
I think you misinterpeted the intent of my post. It is exactly the position you have taken. My post was in reply to Rips's assertion that the SC has somehow been controlled by Democratic Nominees, which it has not.
You may have also missed in my post this part:
The second phenomenon of overriding importance -- one closely related to the first -- is that the American people expect and demand that the Supreme Court will be independent of the political branches of government
An ideal I completely agree with.
i call spin here.
they were nominated by republicans but they had to be passed by a democratic controlled congress.
so only nominees who were approved by democrats were appointed to the SC.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yes. Hopefully this is the beginning of ripping America from the arms of liberal chaos thats been going on for 40+ years.
OK, I'm gonna type really slow, but this quote ^ in the same post as...
"My hope is to change the culture from one that has said, if it feels good, do it; if you've got a problem, blame somebody else — to one in which every single American understands that he or she is responsible for the decisions that you make."President G.W.Bush
Has got to win some award for irony. The Irony's? Maybe we could make a statue that looks like an iron and stick it on a wood base.
Executive - Republican
Legislature - Republican
Judicial - 7 of 9 Republican nominees.
When exactly do the republicans decide they can go ahead and be responsible?
-
Originally posted by john9001
i call spin here.
they were nominated by republicans but they had to be passed by a democratic controlled congress.
so only nominees who were approved by democrats were appointed to the SC.
Oh, there's spinning going on now, but not by whom you think.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
As not to cloud one post with too many facts for you, I'll also quote the more of the passage from your rip and paste....
At least I give authors credit for rip and pastes in quotes, rather than to appear intellectual like you try to appear...here is one of the sources of your "Rip and Paste".
Seven of today's nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican Presidents. Ages range from 57 (Thomas) to 85 (Stevens) ; four atttended Stanford; six attended Harvard. Six had been in private practice; seven were already federal judges.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/supreme_court.htm
:lol
-
http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2005/May/04-397154.html
Here is where you get some more of your post, word for word :lol
hey, at least quote it, don't act like you wrote it.. Jeez!:rofl
-
I'm sorry Rip, did you actually have a reply to the facts presented?
I never claimed that there were "my" facts, but nice try at dodging. Of course I had to dig those facts up from somewhere, jeez. I mean if I didn't get them from somewhere you would have said I made them up, so thanks for validating that my facts are indeed correct.
To be honest I tried to use the quote function like you did, but I don't usually post from other sites as much as you do, so I didn't see the quote bar up there last night. But thanks for pointing out the Robert's Rules of Posting.
I'm not trying to appear intellectual, although, when going up against you it's an easy accomplishment, so really, no big feat there.
Again, how about addressing the facts.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
I'm sorry Rip, did you actually have a reply to the facts presented?
I never claimed that there were "my" facts, but nice try at dodging. Of course I had to dig those facts up from somewhere, jeez. I mean if I didn't get them from somewhere you would have said I made them up, so thanks for validating that my facts are indeed correct.
I'm not trying to appear intellectual, although, when going up against you it's an easy accomplishment, so really, no big feat there.
Again, how about addressing the facts.
Yes good job on the facts, you get an F for trying to pass them off as your facts though. :rofl
In case you forgot, use the quote toggle when you post, its simple and easy to use, I'm confident you can figure it out.
-
I edited my post during your last attempt at intellectual sparring, so you'll see I've explained my error.
But Rip, seriously, what does that have to do with the facts as presented?
Again, for the record, I appreciate the Robert's Rules of Posting critique. Seriously, I do. I would not want to give you an excuse not to answer directly in the future, plus, IF anyone could give advise on how to rip and paste, it is you.
As for your attempt to deflect, nice try.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
I edited my post during your last attempt at intellectual sparring, so you'll see I've explained my error.
But Rip, seriously, what does that have to do with the facts as presented?
Again, for the record, I appreciate the Robert's Rules of Posting critique. Seriously, I do. I would not want to give you an excuse not to answer directly in the future, plus, IF anyone could give advise on how to rip and paste, it is you.
As for your attempt to deflect, nice try.
The deflection was worth the time to expose your pantomime attitude of intellectuality though. :D Your new name is String and Paste.
-
LOL...not bad Rip.
Although, you need to put down the Thesarus before your head explodes. :p
Now since you chastized me in your Boeing thread for not staying on topic, how about you get back on topic from your hijack and reconcile your statement with the facts that have been presented.
Or did you already admit to being wrong when you wrote:
Yes good job on the facts,
WooHoooo!!...I have now used the quote thingy button! I must thank you for that Rip, and I am serious about, because I had never noticed that until this thread.
Anyway, I humbly accept your surrender!
-
pointy headed pwnage