posted
This is a reason why people often get upset with you Jay. Is there a reason to make jabs when simply posting news?
Posts: 291 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was hoping someone would say that! As you will notice in the previous news post: http://www.hatrack.com/cgi-bin/ubbmain/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=039039;p=1#000003 I was bashed first and joked around right back. So…. Tell ya what. Get over it! It was meant to be funny. And if someone really gets their feelings hurt over something so little they really need to grow up cause the real world is a lot meaner.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it should be more a matter of being civil, rather then taking someone else's slights as reason to respond in the same manner. Granted, it may all be little jokes, but I'm sure there is some truth in them. And with that, I'll leave and let this topic be about the subject, rather then the poster.
Posts: 291 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if someone really gets their feelings hurt over something so little they really need to grow up cause the real world is a lot meaner.
And this gives you an excuse to make the world worse?
Jay,
Could you please provide the quotation where you (or conservatives) were maligned which you feel justifies your use of the term "whiney liberals?"
I looked at the thread you linked to and could only find you using the phrase over there after someone provided a link other than FOX news. They didn't whine, they just said provided the link and said it wasn't from FOX news.
If that's what you're reacting to, I don't see where that gives you an opening to start slamming people.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I know there are different rules for Jay then there are everyone else, but I often refuse to pay attention to the rules that are meant for me only. If kidding around with buddies isn’t being civil, then we’re all doomed!
So yes, back to the subject at hand! What do you think? I haven’t heard anything I don’t like yet.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Bob! Get off your high horse. No one is buying it. Really. Go to the link, you’ll see the evil conservative remark. Which didn’t offend me since I knew it was a joke, and joked right back. And again. If that is a slam, grow up. It’s a fraking joke!
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Sorry, I don't buy it. Someone jokingly calling you an "evil conservative" when you've already been bantering back and forth versus you starting your thread with a slam on all liberals just aren't the same thing. I read the other parts of that post as friends joking around, just as you here asserted. That's why I knew you couldn't have been using the "whiners" remark here in response to that. The only other thing there is the link to a non-FOX source of news, which made 'some' sense in that you also provided a non-FOX source for your news -- indicating that's what you were now responding to. The slight against FOX news.
But you say you're just continuing playful banter from the other thread. People don't read every thread here. There's no way for us to know you were continuing a joke from another thread.
And really, the sensitivity I have to it is that I for one like coming to Hatrack for some reasoned discussion. I was interested in finding out more about Alito. Instead I open your thread about it and get the news link and an insult seemingly from left field. That and your assertion that you're just joking around.
If I wanted that, I could go lots of other places.
Anyway, do whatever you want. I'm off my high horse.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did I say anything about liberals in the top of the post? Let me see……. Hummm… I can’t find it. Guess you’re reading into things again. Yes, we all know about how sensitive people are here at Hatrack. A new reader could come here and think it was a anti Scott Card web board at times. So tell ya what. Take your lectures to someone who would like to listen. I’ve had to check my sensitivity at the door pretty much all the time here. You try the same and you can be happy too! Lighten up dude!
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm... are you sure that isn't a Fox News link? It doesn't have the name, I guess, but it sure looks and sounds like Fox News.
Anyways, it looks like Bush has predictably gone back on the promise that he would nominate a mainstream non-activist judge. In his credit, though, he did seem to try with Miers. The good news is, Alito at least seems qualified for the position.
I sense a fillibuster coming. But would Republicans resort to the so-called "nuclear option" in an election year? They are already in danger of losing control of Congress. Republicans are definitely now under a serious risk of being labeled in the minds of moderates (especially hispanic and/or female moderates) as a party hijacked by the extreme religious right...
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Did I say anything about liberals in the top of the post? Let me see……. Hummm… I can’t find it. Guess you’re reading into things again. Lighten up dude!
Point taken.
I read more into your current post than you put there. That was because I read your linked thread before responding and saw that you were making a liberal reference. I figured since you were trying to make the case that this was a continuation of the same joke, you wouldn't mind having your own words referenced.
What's with the stuff about anti-Card sentiment? Are you trying to indicate that I've been saying things against OSC here?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Now that President Bush has caved into the conservative pundits and nominated a conservative Supreme Court Justice, Roe V Wade will soon be overturned.
With abortion a non-issue, masses of people who supported Bush will have no further reason to agree to his pro-Rich, cronyism politics. The fear mongers on the right will just have to retreat to fears of Terror and Homosexuality to inspire their troops. Fear of terror is a common fear that the left and right can use. Fear of homosexuality isn't nearly as strong as the right hopes.
The result will be a much more moderate government, and much less confrontational, in the near future.
It is just sad that it has to come at the costs of losing the Supreme Court to Scalians.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think its going to be amusing when Alito and Scalia butt heads. Those'll be some fireworks.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it'd take more than the overturning of Roe v Wade for us to have a moderate government. Everything (almost every issue) is too polarized, and all the name calling on both sides is just making it worse. I think it will be a while before we have a moderate government.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If kidding around with buddies isn’t being civil, then we’re all doomed!
When my buddies make fun of me, I know it's because that's what we do. When annoying strangers do it, I get pissed.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob my thing about OSC and the negativism towards him was meant to say that I’d be more concerned about that for new comers then anything political said here. Wasn’t saying anything about you specifically, just a board tendency that I really dislike.
Dan I don’t see how Roe could get overturned by this. The make up might be 4 conservatives 4 liberals and one moderate. This could bring balance to the force.
El JT, well no need to get pissed. We’re all friends here. Even after arch rivals play in football games everyone shakes hands. At least that’s how it’s supposed to be.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not pissed, just presenting an alternate take on events.
And in football it's about sportsmanship. I shook hands with every team I ever played against, but that didn't make us friends. In fact, more often than not I would have gone after the guy I'd been playing if he'd so much as looked at me wrong. I didn't take losing well.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:El JT, well no need to get pissed. We’re all friends here.
No we aren't. While we should all try to be civil, we are not all friends.
There are liberties that you have with friends that you don't have with others. It is considered rude to take those liberties undeserved.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oddly enough, I think that if the original "all you whiners" comment had been more insulting, everyone would have got right away that it was just a joke. Like if you said "all you whiney pinko commie god-hating hippie traitor flag-burning cowardly easily-offended liberals!" Or if there had been a
Personally, I have no problem with friendly teasing on either side, but if that's the intent we do all need to make it clear that it's friendly.
For the actual topic of the thread though, I'm curious as to how the confirmation process will go with this being a second-try nomination. He obviously has more judicial experience than Meiers, but also seems more clearly conservative so Democrats may try to put up more of a fight. I'll make the popcorn if someone else brings the scorecards.
Not about Jay...Jay's sort of like that noise that your brakes make when the pads are too worn, and you can sometimes hear them squeaking when you're driving but the squeak doesn't drive you crazy until you apply the pressure...but I digress...
I'm upset that Bush has nominated yet another devisive candidate...
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something I haven't heard yet, but expect to hear too much of very shortly: is he a divisive candidate? What, exactly, are his positions? What has he ruled upon that would enrage one or both sides?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The nomination of Miers was withdrawn primarily because she was acceptable to the other side. Bush's conservative base wants the fight and thinks they can win it.
They may be right, but the victory will be pyrrhic. I really think they grossly underestimate how overturning Roe v. Wade will invigorate moderate Republicans and most Democrats. I am guessing that if Alito is confirmed before the 2006 election, it will cost them control of the Senate and weaken the majority in the House substantially.
There are still a lot of voters out there who elected Bush on the basis of his promise to unify the country. And this nomination is as divisive as one can be.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wasn't it the intent of the framers of the Constitution that the Supreme Court be more conservative, not changing with every political whim of the times?
That said, I'm not saying that right-wing idealogues should be confirmed. (I perceive a difference between conservative and right-wing). I think that legislating-from-the-bench is dangerous. In fact, I honestly can't decide whether an out of control liberal court or conservative court scares me more. To be honest, as a religious conservative the Miers woman scared me to death, especially with all the references to her religion.
I have high hopes for Chief Justice Roberts that he will respect the limits placed on the judiciary branch and interpret the law in a fair and consistent manner.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you'll find by far most Democrats came out against Miers, they just didn't need to speak very loudly since the Republicans were doing such a fine job, and didn't want to since that could've resulted in her being confirmed.
There was a very simple reason: there was no way to show she was qualified. There was very little about her unacceptable to Democrats that came out, true, but mainly because there was almost nothing about her, which is in itself unacceptable.
And I doubt Roe v. Wade will be overturned. I even suspect the court won't take any cases taht would revisit it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BQT: it was the intent of the framers that the court not change with every whim, but that only means conservative in a limited sense. Even early in its existence the court at times did some very "unconservative" things, but this was not generally viewed as a violation of the original intent for the court. In fact, that these things were often unpopular should indicate the lack of accomodation to political whims.
As for legislating from the bench, I rather like this statement by a distinguished jurist: "I think judicial activism is when you disagree with what the court did." -- Clarence Thomas.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I look forward to hearing the Republicans argue about against a Demcratic Filibuster-- "He deserves a simple up or down vote" followed by the question "Then why didn't you give one to Harriett Meirs?"
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't disagree with your first paragraph. It was designed to be a more unchanging institution the other two branches. The existence of noteable exceptions doesn't change that fact.
As to the second, then I have to respectfully disagree with Justice Thomas. What he said probably makes people more likely to claim judicial activism. I think back to Senator Schuman of New York during the Roberts hearings, and various Limbaugh soundbytes I have heard. Are you indirectly denying that various special interest groups from both ends of the political spectrum have successfully used the courts to effectively legislate?
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the court has been effectively legislating in that sense as long as its been around. I think this is exactly what was intended by the founders of this country, and I think this is a perfectly reasonable thing. The notion of a power to check the legislature implies the power acts in the legislature's domain.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
She withdrew under pressure from right wing power brokers who didn't want her to get an up or down vote.
Certainly Dag, you are not so completely blinded by the right (wing) that you can't see the hypocrisy at work here.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certainly, Rabbit, you're not so blinded by the left that you can't tell the difference between someone withdrawing and someone being denied a vote on the thinnest, flimsiest excuse of having more "debate."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan Raven made an interesting point about abortion and the right. If Alito were appointed, and if Roe v. Wade was overturned, what next? The right is energized and sent forth in droves to vote based on their clamor for anti-abortion laws. Once they get what they want, voting for a pro-life candidate won't be as big a deal anymore, and the left gains the advantage with energy.
I am sad that Bush decided to change the makeup of the court instead of preserving its previous 'harmony.' He has apparently decided to pander to his base rather than promote unity amongst a divided America. But I guess I didn't really expect any different from him. I wonder how far he and his base will push his party to the right before they hit tilt.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
The case involved a class assignment that each child make a poster illustrating what they are thankful for. One child included "Jesus" on his poster. The teacher hung all the posters on the wall. While she was out, a school employee removed the poster. The teacher later hung it up in a less prominent position.
The matter being decided is fairly technical, but the important thing to understand about the procedural posture is that, for purposes of the motion being considered, the school admits that the reason for the disparate treatment was the religious content of the poster.
Alito dissented. From p. 12:
quote:I would hold that discriminatory treatment of the poster because of its "religious theme" would violate the First Amendment. Specifically, I would hold that public school students have the right to express religious views in class discussion or in assigned work, provided that their expression falls within the scope of the discussion or the assignment and provided that the school's restriction on expression does not satisfy strict scrutiny. This conclusion follows from the following two propositions: first, even in a "closed forum," governmental "viewpoint discrimination" must satisfy strict scrutiny and, second, disfavoring speech because of its religious nature is viewpoint discrimination.
This is as far as I've gotten in my research, but I like it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am sad that Bush decided to change the makeup of the court instead of preserving its previous 'harmony.' He has apparently decided to pander to his base rather than promote unity amongst a divided America. But I guess I didn't really expect any different from him. I wonder how far he and his base will push his party to the right before they hit tilt.
So if a conservative nominates a conservative he is just pandering to his base? Is the same true if a liberal nominates a liberal? Does this also mean that if a liberal tries to put forth a liberal idea they are trying to pander to their base instead of trying to promote unity in a divided nation? I don't think there was much 'harmony' in the SC at any time in history.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I was wondering about the SC harmony when they threw property rights out the window not to long ago.
Clinton got his ultra liberal nominees overwhelmingly approved, why shouldn’t Bush have his conservative picks approved in the same way.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Clinton got his ultra liberal nominees overwhelmingly approved, why shouldn’t Bush have his conservative picks approved in the same way.
You mean like this?
quote: Between 1996 and 2000, 20 of Bill Clinton's appeals-court nominees were denied hearings, including Elena Kagan, now dean of the Harvard Law School, and many other women and minorities. In 1999, Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch refused to hold hearings for almost six months on any of 16 circuit-court and 31 district-court nominations Clinton had sent up. Three appeals-court nominees who did manage to obtain a hearing in Clinton's second term were denied a committee vote... Some 45 district-court nominees were also denied hearings, and two more were afforded hearings but not a committee vote.
Or this?
quote: "Don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't think deserves to be on the circuit court ... . That is my responsibility. That is my advice and consent role, and I intend to exercise it." Bob Smith (R-NH) 1999 re the nomination of Richard Paez to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
posted
Thanks, Dagonee. That makes more sense. Although I think that my point (that Democrats are hardly unique in holding up judicial appointments) still holds. Yes?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
You can find Dems from the same period saying what the Repubs are saying now, of course. This situation highlights much of what I hate about outcome-based procedural decision making.
I oppose all fillibusters unless the person(s) are actually up there speaking the entire time and the rest of the Senate business has halted.
If I wanted to be really nasty, I'd require each senator to swear or affirm that the speech he is about to give is material to the matter to be decided. I wouldn't try to convict anyone of perjury; I'd just like speakers to have to consciously lie if all they're doing is delaying.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just saw Mr. Smith Goes to Washington for the first time a month ago. I watched it like four times straight all the way through. I love it.
And yes, that is pandering to his base. I never said it wasn't pandering if the liberals do it too. Before the court was somewhat balanced in that it had four extremes, two at either end, somewhat moderates more towards the middle, and then swing votes. But now it's going all hard to the right. It's Bush's perogative to do that if he wants, it's his power of the presidency. But when the left gets all pissy and is less helpful in anything he wants to get done, he really can't be all that surprised by it.
Had he appointed a moderate swing vote like O'Connor was, he might have found the Democrats more willing to meet him in the middle on other issues, and we might have gotten some governing done. But it's his choice, and much as I would like Alito not to be confirmed, rightfully I think he should be. Regardless of his views, he appears to be a good judge with a long history of decisions. He deserves a vote.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
What he said probably makes people more likely to claim judicial activism. I think back to Senator Schuman of New York during the Roberts hearings, and various Limbaugh soundbytes I have heard.
