This is topic Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, first woman on U.S. Supreme Court, is retiring. in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
It's breaking news... link Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Wow! She's a swing vote on so many issues! If it was Rehnquist, he's conservative, and would be replaced by another conservative, so what? I hope Bush doesn't give the nod to a real rabid conservative, or a lightning rod like Ashcroft. Hopefully, he will pick someone more centrist that will get some democratic support.
I'm surprised, I thought it was going to be Rehnquist.
Well, there goes that filibuster deal.
[ July 01, 2005, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Possible replacements include Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales
If that happens, I will leave the US (seriously). I will not continue to be part of a country that supports torture and awards violators of basic human rights with such appointments.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Now, don't say anything rash you can't take back, Rabbit.
Besides, isn't it better to stay in the fray politically? Fight the power!
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Bye bye Rabbit! See ya! Don't let the door hit ya on the way out.
I'm anxious for another good conservative to get on the court. So many votes have been close and she's been such a swinger. Ashcroft would be great and so would Gonzales. Not to mention I bet the constitutional option will be forced through finally. No more filibusters on nominations. Excellent. I’m very excited and hopeful that the Senate Republicans will do the right thing and get Presidents Bush’s nominees through.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It'd be a nice change for me to unabashedly support Democratic blockading of a Bush nominee-past blockages I see mingled pure politics and honest reasons.
Which I can do if Gonzales is put forward to Congress. Hell, I'll even be pissed at that freaking jackass if he's even put out there on the list.
Fortunately I'm quite certain that it won't happen. If the Democrats have the balls to prevent Bolton from being pushed through, they've certainly got the balls to prevent Gonzales from making it to the USSC. I kind of hope Bush does present Gonzales, so I can see Democrats having some stones for an issue I totally agree with.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Jay,
Gonzales is by no means the right man to become a United States Supreme Court Justice. I hesitantly think he's alright for Att. Gen., but not the USC, man.
Your sentiments about Rabbit are shameful and un-American, by the way. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. We (Americans) are supposed to want dissent, you bloody McCarthyist.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ashcroft and Gonzales would both suck as appointments. I seriously doubt either would be appointed. The really in-your-face move would be to nominate Estrada, but I don't see that as very likely.
But yes, if the nominee is fillibustered, the deal is gone.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
The people who left Germany when Hitler began his rise to power were the smart ones.
I'm very very disturbed by the lack of respect for basic human rights that this latest bunch in power have. Not only do they seem to think torture and disappearing people is fine, but they've also reintroduced Soviet-style Lysenkoism to science, defunding anyone whose research shows anything contrary to their political agenda. To the revelations of torture in U.S. military prisons abroad, their answer was to restrict the pictures soldiers are allowed to send home?
It's like the Soviets won the cold war or something, because our government has adopted so many of the techniques and tactics of the pre-glastnost Soviet Union. Why?
If we're in favor of Democracy, then that means openness. The rule of law. No more lies. No more spin. No more secrets. That's our way and we know it works. Why change that?
Hopefully the American people will have sense enough to toss out these guys in the next election. Now if they put another Clarence Thomas type on the Supreme Court, it will be that much worse, and for years to come.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, I think Democrats could argue in good faith if Gonzales in particular were nominated (his name being associated with support of torture), it would constitute an extraordinary circumstance.
Ashcroft wouldn't be too hard, either.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Jay is demonstrating exactly why many people of conscience like myself feel ashamed our our country.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Nahhh…. Nothing un-American about that. Saying you’re going to leave over it is very un-American though. I’m still waiting for all these movie stars who said they would leave if President Bush got reelected to leave and I would want the gate to hit them on the way out! Ha!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If you think people of like mind with Jay won't be found wherever you go, Rabbit, you're in for a rude awakening indeed.
I know you don't expect that, but I thought I'd point it out. For example, Spain's new SSM legislation (unfortunately it will be quite awhile before that makes its way across the Atlantic to us, or even south of the border for that matter) passed fairly narrowly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Let me refine my prediction: If the nominee is fillibustered and a majority favors confirmation, the deal is done.
The Democrats' definition of "extraordinary" is irrelevant to the outcome. It's the Republicans' that count, because they're the ones who will decide if the deal has been broken.
BTW, to say Gonzales a supporter of torture or a violator of human rights based on those memoes is inaccurate at best.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Anyone find any free streams of Bush's speech at 11:15?
By the way, Clinton and Bush Sr are still friends and hang out, so we all can too!
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Ok, never mind about Gonzo: No, not Gonzales! Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
The Democrats won't protest if Gonzalez is nominated. Sure, they did before, but Gonzalez is pro-abortion -- said Roe v. Wade is "inviolable." If Gonzalez is nominated, it's Republicans who will argue.
I would say it would be interesting, hearing the ones who tried to block him from atty general pushing for his nomination to the court, but the media will downplay it if that happens.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Neat list off of CNN:
Ok, I can't get the link to work how I want..... just go to CNN.com and look for the "• Special Report: Potential nominees" link.... Sigh....
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:If you think people of like mind with Jay won't be found wherever you go, Rabbit, you're in for a rude awakening indeed.
I've lived in alot of places and am not so naive.
And Jay, I'm afraid I can't be friends with anyone who so routinely meets my serious concerns with mockery. When you (and the President you so adore) can start treating me and my values with the respect they deserve, I will reconsider.
If wanting to leave a country because it supports torture is un-American -- then I am un-American.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: BTW, to say Gonzales a supporter of torture or a violator of human rights based on those memoes is inaccurate at best.
But he did call the Geneva Conventions "quaint."
Gonzales is at the heart of the human rights abuses of Abu Ghirab and Git-mo. Many military lawyers (hardly a liberal bunch) vehemently disagreed with his take on abandoning a long history of US treatment of POWs.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Whatever Rabbit, you know we’re not guilty of torture. You just love the buzz and the sound of it so you can try and make President Bush look bad.
And as I said, the un-American thing is wanting to leave over this. It would be interesting to see if people who have said they would leave, and have, if they like the new more socialist country they go to better.
By the way, does this mean you don’t want to play some golf? Hang out at a book signing? Go to a ball game?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dagonee,
Yes, I know, but I have deep-seated doubts about Gonzales. While the evidence against him is not ironclad...let's just say I wouldn't want to be a prisoner in his jail.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Jay, please fix your link. And your attitude.
Edit: thanks for the link fix. Now for the attitude adjustment--now, this won't hurt a bit. Is it safe? *screech of dental drill*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hey, I said he (Gonzales) would suck. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And yes, Jay, telling people that you're glad they're leaving just because of political differences of opinion IS un-American.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:You know we’re not guilty of torture. You just love the buzz and the sound of it so you can try and make President Bush look bad.
I wish I did, but the evidence is growing that the US is up to at least its knees in torture. I don't love the buzz. I hate it. I hate being associated with a country that denies peoples human rights. I don't need to make Bush look bad, he does a fine job on his own. When Bush was originally elected, I was hopeful that he would live up to his promise of being a uniter and that unlike many other conservatives, he might respect that opinions of his opponents and seek compromises which would unite rather than divide. The constant cricism that I never gave Bush a chance or I would like him, is simply unfounded (not to mention insulting and rather condescending).
Your dismissal of my concerns is exactly what I mean when I say that you and your beloved President so no respect for me and my ideas.
Posted by Rember (Member # 8273) on :
What is the American response when someone says they are leaving this country because they disapprove of its course? Pleading for them to stay? Quickly agreeing with them to keep them happy? Or offering to help them pack? This is for future reference. Thank you.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
How about: And here's a lovely parting gift...?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Perhaps asking why they are so upset with the country or its actions? Maybe listen to their concerns and see if there's something to them, or try to talk to them to see if misunderstandings have occurred or some compromise might be found?
If one of your children expresses displeasure over your household and starts packing, do you wave as they go or try to find out why?
It may be that the concerns of the person leaving are irreconciliable with you, but at least you'll know.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
quote:You know we’re not guilty of torture. You just love the buzz and the sound of it so you can try and make President Bush look bad.
Well. I'm very tempted to take each one of the words in that lovely quote and assign a different photo from Abu Ghraib to each, but I don't have the time. You'll just have to imagine it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What is the American response when someone says they are leaving this country because they disapprove of its course? Pleading for them to stay? Quickly agreeing with them to keep them happy? Or offering to help them pack? This is for future reference. Thank you.
Here are some:
1.) Please stay and help us fight to correct Problem X.
2.) Problem X is not really a problem. Here's some additional information I think you should consider.
3.) I hadn't heard of Problem X. Could you please point me to some additional information on this issue?
4.) I'm sorry you feel so disconnected from our country that you feel the need to leave. I hope this decision works out for the best for you.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I wasn't really trying to be very snarky. I just don't much care if someone I don't know decides to leave the country.
I've thought about leaving myself for different reasons, but so far none of the reasons have been big enough. I don't expect anybody to really care if I leave. After all, we'll still all be on the 'net.
-Katarain
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I'm all ready for a revolution. We need one pretty badly.
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
quote: By the way, Clinton and Bush Sr are still friends and hang out, so we all can too!
Yeah well Former President Clinton and Former President Bush both behave like decent adults.
What makes some people obnoxious is not their political position, but rather their nasty and arrogant behavior towards other citizens with opposing views. Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
You know Jay, you brighten my day.
Have you considered wearing motley? It would add greatly to the effect.
Posted by Rember (Member # 8273) on :
Is it impossible to settle differences without personal attacks, accusations, exaggerations, and the like? I don't think it's reasonable to argue about the flaws in potential nominees when no names have even been put forth yet. Heated controversy seems to be an addiction in these troubled times.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
It's kind of odd to assume that the point of personal attacks and the like is to settle differences, isn't it?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am concerned about many things we let our government do, but "I'm going to leave the country" is overused. People threaten to leave the country every election, every major decision, everything. It never happens. Saying it is a melodramatic way of getting attention.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rember: I don't think it's reasonable to argue about the flaws in potential nominees when no names have even been put forth yet. Heated controversy seems to be an addiction in these troubled times.
But I like to argue! And this is a critical issue, a Justice can serve for decades and wield enormous influence.
Posted by Rember (Member # 8273) on :
I would rather discuss than argue. It's better to downplay emotions and highlight facts, and remain on friendly terms.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Saying it is a melodramatic way of getting attention.
Or perhaps I feel strongly enough about torture that I simply won't keep paying taxes to pay for it. So far, the courts have come down on the side of human rights and against the Bush administration policies in Gitmo, but the decisions have been close. If Gonzales is appoint to the court, It is highly likely that court opinions will swing the opposite direction. When that happens I will have very few choices, jail for tax evasion or immigration to another country that still recognizes the Geneva convention, the Anti-torture convention and the universal declaration of human rights. You may think I'm being melodramatic, think what you will. I have already started looking for a position outside the US. I'm not looking forward to leaving my extended family or the beauty of the land I love but I could not in good conscience continue to support the US government in Gozales were appointed to the Supreme Court.
Sometimes you have to draw a line in the sand. I've drawn mine. If I had real courage, I would go to jail with other tax protestors.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I try to be friendly while arguing. I have no animosity against Jay. I do think some of his political positions are apalling, but he's entitled to his opinion. But Ashcroft, Jay, OMG? Not only would he be a bad justice, he's so polarizing his confirmation hearing would degenerate into a melee that would benefit no one, including the president. I can't imagine Bush miscalculating that badly.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rember: I would rather discuss than argue. It's better to downplay emotions and highlight facts, and remain on friendly terms.
Yes, but not quite as satsifying.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Okay, everybody. Forget about Gonzalez and Ashcroft.
Everybody join with me in supporting Michael McConnell.
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
I know three families who HAVE left the country since the last election.
I have always had mixed feelings about them. Lucky for them, they have somewhere to go for four years and can then come back.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
*cheers Michael McConnell*
He represented us in front of SCOTUS.
He rocks.
Although I'd hate to have to knock him off my clerkship application list.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rember: I don't think it's reasonable to argue about the flaws in potential nominees when no names have even been put forth yet. Heated controversy seems to be an addiction in these troubled times.
The name has not officially been put forth but their have been several indications that Gonzales is at the top of the White Houses list. Given the Bush administrations policy of "staying the course" on issues not matter how hot they become. If Bush nominates Gonzales, they will make it a fight to the death to get approved by the Senate. I think the time to start opposing Gonzales is right now -- before he has been nominated. Perhaps then the Bush administration will avoid the fight and pick a more appropriate candidate.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I look at MOST threats to leave the country the same way as I look at threats to leave Hatrack: as a means of getting attention. As in, "Somebody please stop me!"
You take yourself out of the process, you DESERVE to be out of the process. You have expressed unfaith in the community and in the intellects of those who make it up to change things for the better.
That is simply your perogative; I wish you all the best, but don't expect me to cater to your plea for attention. I'm hanging on with all the faithful, and I don't have time to spare for your defeatism.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If it's any consolation Rabbit, speculations on SCOTUS nominations are pretty much based on air. And Bush has held this very close to the chest.
Anyone who puts him "at the top of the list" without citing a source is either guessing or repeating others' guesses. I've seen at least 4 people listed as "top of the list" in the last 6 months.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Curiously, The link at the top of the page has been edited since I first read it. The quote I posted referring to Gonzales as the top candidate for the position was copied directly from the article. I was part a paragraph that list several likely candidates. I just went back to the site to see because I had forgotten some of the other names on the list and its gone. I wonder why they chose to edited out that part of the article.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Maybe they know something.
There's a list linked from the front page of www.washingtonpost.com. Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Funny. It’s always interesting to see what you all will be critical of!
Dag – Yeah, I want someone much more conservative.
Morbo – Fix my attitude? Whatever.
Rakeesh – I didn’t say I was glad, just said see ya. It’s his freedom to leave and it’s always just talk anyway!
Rabbit – Did I say whatever yet?
Zuegma – Those people who did that have been punished too. And it might have been embarrassing, but it was hardly beheading.
Jebus – I would but they said you hadn’t retuned it to the rental shop yet.
I do like a lot of the people on that CNN list. I imagine that all will get filibustered. Don’t take this the way it’s going to sound, but I think you can cross off all the white guys. I think that leaves Brown, Garza, and Jones. There will be a fight no matter who he nominates, just because he’s President Bush!
Posted by Rember (Member # 8273) on :
Opposition becomes more credible and meaningful when expressed fairly and factually, doesn't it?
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote: You have expressed unfaith in the community and in the intellects of those who make it up to change things for the better.
I would say that the "intellects of those who make up the community" of Hatrack are by far more trustworthy, for the most part, than the intellects of those that make up the community of our current government. I have sincere doubts about the way the country is currently being run. I am scared witless of some of the decisions being made, and I do see this country getting very, very far away from the much-touted ideals of freedom and democracy. Since when does imprisonment without trial, or torture, fall under those ideals?
I am not leaving the country, but I certainly understand the inclination. I am sick and tired of being unable to defend the actions of my country's government. We're supposed to be the good guys, for heaven's sake! Why are the good guys involved in things like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib? Why do so many people defend those actions?
I love the ideals upon which this country was founded; that's why I'm so concerned to see the government moving away from those ideals as fast as they possibly can.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Dag, talk to him...perhaps you could clerk for him there....wouldn't THAT rock?
Kwea
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Rabbit – Did I say whatever yet?
Yes Jay! You've made it abundantly clear that you don't care about me or my concerns. I've got the point, you don't need to keep rubbing it in unless of course that what you think Jesus would do.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>I would say that the "intellects of those who make up the community" of Hatrack are by far more trustworthy, for the most part, than the intellects of those that make up the community of our current government.
I don't disagree, but I wasn't pointing at the politicians as the primary people who are responsible for changing the country.
I was talking about the common American citizenry.
Posted by Rember (Member # 8273) on :
Why do people continue to say that this country supports the actions of those who have been duly prosecuted and punished for their mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib? They were tried and punished! They were held responsible when their actions came to light. This country did the right thing and should not be condemned for the crimes of its citizenry.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Scott: Ok, fair enough...although I'm not sure how much faith I have in the intellects of the general population, either. I never did buy into that whole "the common man as an ideal" thing. It seems to me that the common American citizenry seems to have made a lot of pretty dumb decisions.
Now, granted, I'm a cynic, and growing more misanthropic every day, so I suppose my view of people as a whole ought to be taken with a grain of salt.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, talk to him...perhaps you could clerk for him there....wouldn't THAT rock?
Don't think it hasn't crossed my mind.
Briefly, and only in moments of wild abandon. But still.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I find the image of lawyers in moments of wild abandon to be amusing and endearing in a whimsical sort of way.
*imagines lawyers frolicking in a field with flowers in their hair*
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Interesting... the sort of have it backwards. Especially with the rulings on eminent domain and protecting unborn babies. I love Moveon! They make it so easy!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Why do people continue to say that this country supports the actions of those who have been duly prosecuted and punished for their mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib?
Because there is plausible evidence that the abuse at Abu Ghraib was not simply due to the few bad apples that were prosecuted and is actually part of wide spread system of abuses from Gitmo to extra-ordinary rendition.
Because earlier this week Italy indicted several CIA agents for kidnapping an Muslim cleric and transporting him to Egypt to be tortured.
Because Gonzales wrote a memo to Bush before the abuse ever took place, define cases under which torture could be justified.
Because the reports of the tortures at Abu Ghraib were ignored by the Bush administration until the pictures made the front pages of papers around the world. (And yes, the report had been sitting on Cheney's desk for months before the newspapers got the story.
Because my friend who spent 21 years as an Arabic interrogator in the military, the last of those years in Abu Ghraib, has left the military and the country because of what is going on.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
Personally, I'd like to see a judge that was completely pro-life (anti abortion and anti death penalty), pro free speech (whether it is anti government speech or prayer in school), and pro gun rights.
It annoys me when people equate "tough on crime" with the death penalty. I am all for being tough on crime, but you don't have to kill people to do it.
I don't think I'll ever see that mix though.
Oh, and after seeing Jay's latest post...it reminded me...the judge should not let the government use eminent domain for anything other than direct public use (ie: roads) and then only when it can't be avoided. None of this taking land and turning it over to another private citizen/business.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Maybe if you didn’t get all your information from sources like CBS you wouldn’t feel so negative about everything
_________________________ Megan: For Rabbit -
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:There will be a fight no matter who he nominates, just because he’s President Bush!
Strange impression. The senate has confirmed over 95% of Bush's court nominees without a fight. Under Clinton, over 30% of the nominees were blocked in committee.
Bush has been given a smoother ride on nominations than any president in the past 30 years.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Jay: Are you talking to me, or Rabbit?
If it's me, then let me just say that I'm not taking media advice from a person who actually believes Fox News is unbiased.
Furthermore, my opinion of the common American citizenry is derived from MUCH more than what I could see on any news program.
If you weren't talking to me, then never mind.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Let's talk about upper courts and not the little courts and you'll see some different %'s. Smoother ride! Ha! It's the first time ever that the filibuster has been used on nominees. Give me a break. Let’s keep things in perspective and leave the spin at home.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote: Let’s keep things in perspective and leave the spin at home.
Practice what you preach, bucko.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not true, Jay, although, from what I can find, it is the first time a fillibuster has been used on a nominee with majority support.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Text of Bush's Remarks on O'Connor
By The Associated Press The Associated Press Friday, July 1, 2005; 11:57 AM
-- President Bush's remarks Friday in the Rose Garden on the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, as transcribed by CQ Transcriptions:
Good morning. A short time ago I had a warm conversation with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has decided to retire from the Supreme Court of the United States. America is proud of Justice O'Connor's distinguished service and I'm proud to know her. Today, she has the gratitude of her fellow citizens, and she and John and their family have our respect and good wishes.
Sandra Day O'Connor joined the nation's highest court in 1981 as the first woman ever appointed to that position. Throughout her tenure she has been a discerning and conscientious judge, and a public servant of complete integrity. Justice O'Connor's great intellect, wisdom and personal decency have won her the esteem of her colleagues and our country.
Under the Constitution, I am responsible for nominating a successor to Justice O'Connor. I take this responsibility seriously. I will be deliberate and thorough in this process. I have directed my staff, in cooperation with the Department of Justice, to compile information and recommend for my review potential nominees who meet a high standard of legal ability, judgment and integrity and who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country.
As well, I will continue to consult, as will my advisers, with members of the United States Senate. The nation deserves, and I will select, a Supreme Court Justice that Americans can be proud of. The nation also deserves a dignified process of confirmation in the United States Senate, characterized by fair treatment, a fair hearing and a fair vote. I will choose a nominee in a timely manner so that the hearing and the vote can be completed before the new Supreme Court term begins.
Today, however, is a day to honor the contributions of a fine citizen and a great patriot. Many years ago, Sandra Day O'Connor chose the path of public service, and she served with distinction as a legislator and a judge in Arizona before joining the Supreme Court. When President Ronald Reagan appointed Justice O'Connor 24 years ago, Americans had high expectations of her -- and she has surpassed those expectations in the performance of her duties.
This great lady, born in El Paso, Texas, rose above the obstacles of an earlier time and became one of the most admired Americans of our time. She leaves an outstanding record of service to the United States and our nation is deeply grateful.
Thank you.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay: Smoother ride! Ha! It's the first time ever that the filibuster has been used on nominees. Give me a break. Let’s keep things in perspective and leave the spin at home.
This oft-repeated lie is really becoming tiresome. Filibusters have been attempted on nominees before.
People are entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote:Originally posted by Megan:
quote: Let’s keep things in perspective and leave the spin at home.
Practice what you preach, bucko.
Bucko?! I should be offended! She called me a name!!! Name calling is not allowed! Somebody yell at her, I always get yelled at if I even imply a hint of a name call.
By the way, we here in WV are Mountaineers. The Bucks are up north east of us at Ohio State.
(trying to lighten the mood here…. Not sure it’ll work, but figure it’s worth a try)
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: ...recommend for my review potential nominees who meet a high standard of legal ability, judgment and integrity ...
Well, that rules out Ashcroft and Gonzales. That's a load off. Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
You know, I had a feeling that was coming...
quote:buck·o n. pl. buck·oes or buck·os
1. A blustering or bossy person. 2. Irish. A young man; a lad.
From dictionary.com .
Posted by Rember (Member # 8273) on :
Rabbit, probably there's a difference in how we are defining the word "torture". Certainly, this government and this president do not endorse or utilize the type of torture employed by our enemies. And the terrorists are not brought to trial by their respective governments.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote:That was funny. But you're still wrong
Oh yeah, you’re right, they’re the Buckeyes!
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote:And the terrorists are not brought to trial by their respective governments.
Most don’t even have governments
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
I really hope the Republican leadership has gotten over the idea of Orrin Hatch as a potential nominee. That was always a horrible idea.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Certainly, this government and this president do not endorse or utilize the type of torture employed by our enemies.
You need to read the indictments made in Italy this week. CIA agents have been charged with kidnapping a Cleric and transporting him to a prison where he had electric shock applied to his Genitiles among other tortures. He was held for over year. He contact his family and Italian authorities when he was released. Shortly there after he disappeared again. The evidence supporting these claims is substantial enough that the agents have been indicted.
The evidence is mounting that this government and the President do indeed support the type of torture employed by the most oppressive regimes. What's more, they steadfastly refuse to allow Red Cross and Amnesty International to investigate claims of torture at US facilities. When survivors of these facilities testify of abuses and the government refuses to allow anyone to inspect the facilities -- it sure looks like our government is guilty.
I would be happy to believe otherwise. If an unbiased third party is allowed to inspect Gitmo and our other prison camps and determines that they are inline with the international treaties prohibiting torture, I will be greatly releaved. Until then, it hardly seems that the Bush administration has any credibility on this issue.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: It's the first time ever that the filibuster has been used on nominees.
It should also be mentioned, that it has been a very long time since the house, senate, and presidency were all held by the same party. The country is more polarized than it has been in years and the Bush administration is so dismissive of the opinions of the oppostion that fillibuster is the only check and balance left in the government.
Posted by 1lobo1 (Member # 7762) on :
Lawyer for a client
is not the same
as
a
judge...
Gonzales is the most appealing of the potential Bush Nominees (I prefer middle of the road types to extremes)...
(I am an attorney).
Posted by Rember (Member # 8273) on :
Gitmo has been inspected on numerous occasions. I'm beginning to wonder if such a thing as an unbiased,, objective party exists.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Once you get caught with your pants down, so to speak, you tend to invest in a better belt buckle.
-Trevor
Posted by Rember (Member # 8273) on :
So even with inspections of Gitmo, we're still hiding our torture of the enemy combattants? How can we solve this problem? Any volunteers to go live amongst the inmates for a month or two so we can get the true picture of their treatment?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Gitmo has been inspected on numerous occasions.
By whom? As of last week, they were refusing UN commision on human rights access.
From USA Today
quote:U.N. human rights investigators, citing "persistent and credible" reports of torture at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay, urged the United States on Thursday to allow them to check conditions there.
The failure of the United States to respond to requests since early 2002 is leading the experts to conclude Washington has something to hide at the Cuban base, said Manfred Nowak, a specialist on torture and a professor of human rights law in Vienna, Austria. However, he added: "We are not making a judgment if torture or treatment under degrading conditions has taken place."
The Red Cross has not been allowed in and Amnesty International has not been allowed. To the best of my knowledge, no third party has been allowed to inspect Gitmo since 2002.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Short of allowing 3rd parties to reside on-site and conduct unannounced, surprise inspections, I don't think you can convince the world it's not happening. Edit: Which would seriously compromise the ability to gain intelligence and use it effectively when that information could be compromised at any time by inspectors who happened to be within earshot at the time.
And with reports of US agents kidnapping foreign nationals to be tortured to gain information, I'd be surprised if "Gitmo" was anything more than a colorful diversion to keep curious eyes away from more functional locations.
-Trevor
Posted by Rember (Member # 8273) on :
Congressional visits are not uncommon at Gitmo.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Congressional visits are not third-party.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
There is a certain irony that we would have to allow 3rd parties the same unfettered, unchecked access we demanded Saddam's regime give to weapons inspectors before any claims of torture could be suitably dismissed.
-Trevor
Posted by Rember (Member # 8273) on :
RAP, RAP, RAP music compares quite favorably to beheadings.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Oddly enough, just because "they" are doing worse things doesn't mean that "we" aren't doing bad things.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Congressional visits are not uncommon at Gitmo.
Not exactly a third party and congression visits are hardly equivalent to inspections.
No one ever tortures people in front of visitors. Human Rights inspectors are trained to look for signs of torture. They are typically given unsupervised access to the prison and are allowed to question detainees of their choosing. Visits do not constitute inspections. Visitors to the German concentration camps frequently reported no abuse.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Just because we're not as bad as the enemy doesn't we're any better. (edit: Megan beat me to it. )
Although, to be fair, I am less opposed to the concept of torture and "enthusiastic interrogations" than I am hiding behind the polite fiction that the US would never condone such human rights violations and never, ever contemplate using torture to gain information.
There is, however, the current dispute of exactly what constitutes "torture" and where the acceptable line of "enthusiastic questioning" ends and "torture" begins.
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
As soon as a nominee is named, assuming it's not Gonzales, I'm going to wrench this thread back on track.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Dag: It'll be at least a week. According to CNN, a nominee won't be named until after Bush returns from Europe on July 8.
My dark horse (very dark, as it's not happening) would be Stephen Carter. I'd be happy as I'm going to get with McConnell, though.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: Interesting... the sort of have it backwards. Especially with the rulings on eminent domain and protecting unborn babies. I love Moveon! They make it so easy!
Exactly what was so wrong with that ad? I've seen ads from Christian groups that are a thousands times more fiery and vehement than that. It was a warning against more Shaivo like intrusions into the American family (ironic, considering Conservatives claim to be the defender of the American family).
It was pretty docile too, all things considered.
And I agree that you have it backwards Jay, Democrats won't automatically knock down a Bush nominee because his name is attached to it. Because he is the one choosing, it will almost definetely be someone ultra-conservative, and thus against the ideology of the Democratic party. If the situation were reversed, would you just let it go?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"speculations on SCOTUS nominations are pretty much based on air. And Bush has held this very close to the chest."
Nah, Dagonee, Dubya has already proclaimed that his nominee
quote:deserves a dignified process of confirmation in the United States Senate
will be a flaming bag of dog doodoo left on the American porch.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I just find it intensely amusing that a developer is taking advantage of the ruling to try and lay claim to the Chief Justice's property.
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Well fark, I should have read the article more closely.
Still funny though.
-Trevor
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Some might be interested in the text of the email Pat Leahy wrote to Democracy for America, the group that Howard Dean started when he lost his presidential bid.
DFA sends out practically daily emails to its members to both inform and try to wrangle money out of them. I signed up, because it was right after the primaries, and I had worked on the local Dean campaign, and they won't take me off the mailing list.
It's a long letter though, so I'll post some of the highlights. The email is entitled "The Senate is Not a Rubber Stamp":
quote: This is a momentous time in our nation's history. The next justice will have enormous influence on a woman's medical decisions, the rights of workers and consumers, the civil and privacy rights of us all, the enforcement of our environmental laws, how our elections are conducted, and nearly every other aspect of our lives.
We cannot allow the independence of our courts to be threatened by a judicial activist who places personal ideology above the law. The Supreme Court is no place for fringe judges. And the Senate is not a rubber stamp for any president's nominations.
America must maintain separate but equal branches of government. Neither the legislature, nor the judiciary, should be subjugated to the will of any president - or to the loudest wing of any political party In recent years, the President has chosen a path of confrontation rather than consultation with the Senate.
I voted against Janice Rogers Brown, a judge quoted telling conservative audiences that the New Deal "mark[ed] the triumph of our own socialist revolution," and that elderly Americans who depend on Social Security "blithely cannibalize their grandchildren."
I voted against Priscilla Owen, a judge who inserts her opinions into the law so freely that President Bush's own attorney general once called her behavior "unconscionable ... judicial activism."
President Bush will decide whether there will be a divisive or unifying process and nomination. If consensus is a goal, bipartisan consultation will help achieve it. I believe that is what the American people want and what they deserve. The President can unite the nation and the Senate with his choice, or he can once again divide us.
If the President chooses a Supreme Court nominee because of that nominee's ideological fervor or record of activism in the hope that he or she will deliver political victories, the President will have done so knowing that he is again choosing the path of confrontation. He will do so knowing that we will once again be forced to defend our belief that the Supreme Court should not be an arm of either political party. It belongs to all Americans.
The President and Republican leaders have a choice: choose a battle that divides America, or seek a middle ground with a nominee we all can trust to fairly interpret and uphold the Constitution and the law. Let the Senators who will make this important decision know that America doesn't want us to rubber stamp the President's nominee.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:He will do so knowing that we will once again be forced to defend our belief that the Supreme Court should not be an arm of either political party. It belongs to all Americans.
I'd have lot more sympathy with that if every single nominee who opposed Roe v. Wade wasn't automatically labeled too extreme.
I guess the Supreme Court is only supposed to be an arm of NARAL, huh?
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Bush wants to appoint Gonzales. First Latino, historic; he's personally close to him, which is pretty much #1 requirement for being high up in the Administration. Politically it's a bad move for two reasons:
1) It alienates the base: evangelical Christians don't like Gonzales' positions on abortion. (See Texas Supreme Court decisions that ruled in favor of Roe v. Wade and against parental notification.)
2) The Democrats will put Gonzales (and Bush) on trial for war crimes. (See this thread; it's evidence.
So does Bush have the balls? Odds are, probably. Second choice is J. Michael Luttig, a D.C. Circuit Court judge. Ultra, ultra conservative. Dems would hate him. Evangelicals would love him.
Third choice, John Roberts. Strongly conservative but considered evenhanded. Most easily confirmable.
That's the word on the streets in DC, anyway.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Gonzales is a non-starter. That's why he was appointed AG - so Bush wouldn't have to consider him for SCOTUS.
If Bush wanted to appoint him, he wouldn't have made him AG. He knew about Rehnquist's illness at the time; this wasn't unexpected.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
This whole thread makes me sad and more than a little tired.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Why?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Gonzales is a non-starter. That's why he was appointed AG - so Bush wouldn't have to consider him for SCOTUS.
If Bush wanted to appoint him, he wouldn't have made him AG. He knew about Rehnquist's illness at the time; this wasn't unexpected.
This makes sense to me.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I'm sure right-wing groups have similar ads out there.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I like it: at least they're not trying to hide their intentions behind "moderation." They are, of course, asking a potential judge to commit to how they'll rule in the future. I'd like to get such a commitment, too, although going the other way.
But it's probably inappropriate for any candidate to do so.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No more than miniscule group of politicians would try to try the president or any non-military figure for war crimes.
For one thing, no matter what advice gonzales gave, he wasn't the one who implemented any of it. It was a research piece on possible avenues, which everyone does, much as some might disagree with his opinions.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Figuratively speaking, fugu. And yes, way more than a handful would object to Gonzales for that reason, despite the fact that he was writing on behalf of the government, not on behalf of himself.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The twisting of the law in Gonzales's memo was less that in Blackmun's decision in Roe.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
In reading through the list of possible nominees that the Washington Post has listed, I have to say that most of them sound reasonable and should pass without too much problem.
Gonzalez would tick me off, but at least on the Supreme Court he'd only be one voice in several whereas as AG he weilds incredible power with very little oversight.
I'm not sure where I'd rather have him, if he has to be there. I mean, the damage he could do as AG is somewhat limited by the fact that he'll probably be replaced by the next President. The damage he could do as a Supreme Court justice is limited by the need to be part of a majority on any particular issue, and to have the decision be somewhat reasonable.
Ah well.
I'm hoping for the other nominees to SCOTUS anyway.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
btw, Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed after a 99-0 confirmation vote in the Senate.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If Gonzalez is appointed, I will be pissed beyond belief. It will be a betrayal to a very large number of people who voted for Bush.
But, I think there's little risk of it.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Consensus...wouldn't that be a wonderful thing?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Dag, would that be because he's not conservative enough? Probably wouldn't vote to dismantle abortion rights? Or what?
The pundits on the sunday news shows all mentioned that many conservative groups are against Gonzalez, mainly because of abortion rights IIRC.
Although I agreed with Dag's reasoning above that Gonzalez' appointment as AG might signal that Bush wouldn't appoint him to SCOTUS, I'm starting to have doubts, for several reasons.
1)He's very close personally to the President, something Bush values tremendously.
2)He's a minority, which will make it harder for Dems to oppose him
3)He's just been through a Senate confirmation hearing, which would make another hearing easier. I wonder if in new hearings he'd be held to the fire more on the torture memos than he was for his AG hearings?
I know nothing about his judicial philosophy, beyond the fact that he doesn't seem conservative enough for some, which is a plus for me.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Actually, if you look at the list of folks that the WP says are candidates, none of them really seem like idealogues. All are conservative, of course, but none of them really sound like they'd go in with an agenda. With the exception of Gonzalez, of course.
I'll also note that Ashcroft is not on the list. <insert huge sigh of relief here>
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, would that be because he's not conservative enough? Probably wouldn't vote to dismantle abortion rights? Or what?
The second reason, although I wouldn't phrase it that way.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:With the exception of Gonzalez, of course.
Why would you think Gonzalez would go in with an agenda?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)