[BRussell]

Well no one else has started the thread, it might as well be me.

I love the smell of filibusters and nuclear options and race-baiting and religion-baiting and abortions in the morning. And for the next 3 months. It's perfect for the Political Lounge!

[NYCFarmboy]

Alita is a safe easily confirmable choice.

I was hoping for Janice Rogers Brown though... next time I hope!

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

Alita is a safe easily confirmable choice.

I was hoping for Janice Rogers Brown though... next time I hope!

Don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

Alita is a safe easily confirmable choice.

I was hoping for Janice Rogers Brown though... next time I hope!

If Mr. Alita plays his cards right (like Roberts did), he will absolutely be confirmed, as long as it comes to a vote. All the has to do is say "Roe V. Wade is the settled law of the land", like Roberts did, and that will provide cover for Democratic senators in Republican states to not just bring the matter to a vote, but possibly vote in his favor. remember he was confirmed to the Federal court while Bush I was in office, with a Democratically-controlled Senate. Which means at least some of the current crop of Democrats in the Senate have voted to confirm him once already.

The real issue is whether there will be 41 senators who will want to fillibuster. I have no problem with fillibustering, but right now I believe that if there are enough senators to provoke a fillibuster the Senate puts the matter aside and moves on to other matters. I would love to see the old-style, Jimmy Stewart fillibuster come back. You know, when Chuck Schumer is live on C-Span at 2 in the morning reading the Brooklyn phone book, because he has to keep talking or else yield the floor to someone who would call for a vote. That would be great for entertainment value alone. Jon Stewart would have a field day!

[BRussell]

Not a single Democrat will vote for this guy. I also wouldn't be surprised if there was a filibuster and Republican "nuclear option."

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Not a single Democrat will vote for this guy. I also wouldn't be surprised if there was a filibuster and Republican "nuclear option."

why would they not vote for him? his record is mainstream/middle of the road on almost everything.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

why would they not vote for him? his record is mainstream/middle of the road on almost everything.

If by "Mainstream/middle of the road" you mean "just like Justice Scalia, but with more hair", then I guess you're right.

Seriously, though, I'm just reciting what I see in the press. I'm not qualified to analyze his opinions, or compare them with Scalia. But Bush got elected by saying he would appoint justices "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas", and that's what he apparently did this time around. At least he has a record that can be examined before the confirmation.

[Artful Dodger]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

why would they not vote for him? his record is mainstream/middle of the road on almost everything.

You are expecting dems to look at the facts. Is that even possible? They will assassinate this man's character and demonize him as a tyrant good ol' boy. They missed the boat on Roberts by not swinging first and thus allowed the Reps to take control of the portrayal. Dems have learned from their mistake. They will unleash a world of sh!t on Alito. And, yes, it will all be because of abortion. Will they be successful...who knows??? But I would be surprised if Bush withdrew a second candidate...won't happen.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Artful Dodger

You are expecting dems to look at the facts. Is that even possible?

From my experience, it is completely impossible. Insightful point there.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Artful Dodger

You are expecting dems to look at the facts.

Oh, you mean like the facts that took us to war in Iraq! Gotcha!

[Artful Dodger]

^case in point. what a predictable response, not to mention totally off topic. Must be tough to pay attention while typing and giving Franken head simultaneously. Please get off your knees. Have some respect for your propagandized fallen self.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Not a single Democrat will vote for this guy. I also wouldn't be surprised if there was a filibuster and Republican "nuclear option."

OT, but there is a Republican nuclear option. Right here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li.../jp3_12fc2.pdf (1.8mb).

National policy requires a single execution and termination authority for the use of nuclear weapons. The President retains sole authority for the employment and termination of nuclear weapons. The pace of modern war dictates streamlined and efficient methods of C2. The President and Secretary of Defense must have the most current and available situational information and intelligence and must comprehend all strategic and theater nuclear plans and options, relationships, command responsibilities, and command and control actions.

Hold me, I'm scared!

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Artful Dodger

^case in point. what a predictable response, not to mention totally off topic. Must be tough to pay attention while typing and giving Franken head simultaneously. Please get off your knees. Have some respect for your propagandized fallen self.

I'm not the one with the appropriate name of Artful Dodger. It's okay for you to make wild generalizations, isn't it?

[Artful Dodger]

Great comment, do you have anything to say about Alito, or is this thread strictly reserved for the further promotion of your stupidity.

You took my words as an insult to your party without realizing that it was merely a comment on the current political/judicial nomination climate. I'd expect the same from the reps if the roles were reversed. It's not a jab at one party in particular, but both, especially in the current political environment. Check with your nursing home attendant to see if you can get your knees checked out.

Fact is: the true test for nominees isn't which personal views they hold, but to what extent those personal views may influence how they rule in a particular case. I just don't think the dems will be able to view this guy in such an objective light. His 15 years of service will all come down to his view on abortion. That's a perspective primarily driven by emotion since all other merits are consequently marginalized. Just a thought, if you feel like disagreeing do so in such a way so that you improve on your previous attempts.

[Artful Dodger]

db problem

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Artful Dodger

You are expecting dems to look at the facts. Is that even possible? They will assassinate this man's character and demonize him ...

and then

Originally Posted by Artful Dodger

...Must be tough to pay attention while typing and giving Franken head simultaneously. Please get off your knees. Have some respect for your propagandized fallen self.

bravo. really. that was great. great discussion. who needs facts now, or event to look at how facts are used? dems = **********s, repubs = don't **** with me. get it.

[typoon]

Well it's kind of funny seeing the democrats who DIDN'T have a problem with him the first time around when he was being voted on for a federal bench now those same democrats who voted for him are not going to vote for him or are calling him too conservative or "need to look more at his record on how he is going to vote."

Give me a break it's just that they don't like that Bush finally picked someone with a pretty decent record, but now that it's for a supreme court seat he is "too conversative."

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by typoon

Well it's kind of funny seeing the democrats who DIDN'T have a problem with him the first time around when he was being voted on for a federal bench now those same democrats who voted for him are not going to vote for him or are calling him too conservative or "need to look more at his record on how he is going to vote."

Give me a break it's just that they don't like that Bush finally picked someone with a pretty decent record, but now that it's for a supreme court seat he is "too conversative."

Two points:
1. I think it's fair to say that Supreme Court nominees deserve more scrutiny than lower court nominees. It's a more important and powerful position, why wouldn't they?

2. He really didn't have a record when he was approved in 1990. He was a hot shot Republican lawyer. He now has a 15-year record writing decisions. And that record seems to involve consistently ruling in favor of government and against civil liberties. In any case, however you see his record, to criticize Dems for wanting to be careful seems silly when Republican Senators have voted 100% for every nominee Bush has put up.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Artful Dodger

Great comment, do you have anything to say about Alito, or is this thread strictly reserved for the further promotion of your stupidity.

You took my words as an insult to your party without realizing that it was merely a comment on the current political/judicial nomination climate. I'd expect the same from the reps if the roles were reversed. It's not a jab at one party in particular, but both, especially in the current political environment. Check with your nursing home attendant to see if you can get your knees checked out.

Fact is: the true test for nominees isn't which personal views they hold, but to what extent those personal views may influence how they rule in a particular case. I just don't think the dems will be able to view this guy in such an objective light. His 15 years of service will all come down to his view on abortion. That's a perspective primarily driven by emotion since all other merits are consequently marginalized. Just a thought, if you feel like disagreeing do so in such a way so that you improve on your previous attempts.

Nice try at spinning. You made comments specifically derogatory to "dems," not both parties, and then you quite obviously show us your anger management problems, and try to spin it as if it's my fault, and attack my character. You should seek help.

[Artful Dodger]

I'm sure you can recommend a therapist. What's sad is your attempt to reduce everything to the war. Your hyper senstitivity of your party has made your comments irrelevant. You fail to realize that the "facts" that drove us to war are the same facts that many dems were also convinced by, including many foreign intelligence agencies. For you to imply that it was only reps, shows your own ignorance of the Democratic party. You still haven't mentioned anything about Alito. Please go away.

[OldManMac]

I didn't mention any parties; you did, and I'm not going anywhere, but thanks for your concern.

[Artful Dodger]

That's why I used the word "imply." I guess the gotcha comment in your original post evokes agreement. You aren't fooling anyone, except yourself, or yourselves. My concern requires no recognition.

In other news, Karl G has yet to mention anything about Alito.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Artful Dodger

^case in point. what a predictable response, not to mention totally off topic. Must be tough to pay attention while typing and giving Franken head simultaneously. Please get off your knees. Have some respect for your propagandized fallen self.

*high-five*

(and I thought I was good at chewing people out...he's godlike)

[OldManMac]

You could use the same advice I gave Mojo - get over yourself.

[Spliffdaddy]

But the guy's good, Karl.

Much better than me.

Heck, we're all just relieved he's picking on you.

I'd help you if I could. But, damn, I don't want to be his next victim.

[OldManMac]

He's probably creaming his jeans, 'cause he thinks he won an argument on the internet.

[Artful Dodger]

Apparently you are reminiscing about things you can't do unless you are on the little blue pill.

Argument?? That's the last word I would use to describe conversation with you. More fittingly, "Communicating with Primates," comes to mind.

QED

[BRussell]

[typoon]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Two points:
1. I think it's fair to say that Supreme Court nominees deserve more scrutiny than lower court nominees. It's a more important and powerful position, why wouldn't they?

2. He really didn't have a record when he was approved in 1990. He was a hot shot Republican lawyer. He now has a 15-year record writing decisions. And that record seems to involve consistently ruling in favor of government and against civil liberties. In any case, however you see his record, to criticize Dems for wanting to be careful seems silly when Republican Senators have voted 100% for every nominee Bush has put up.

What's interesting is that When Clinton nominated Ginsberg the republicans didn't fight for it because they felt that a president should be able to get their nominee. I mean clearly Ginsberg IS an activist Judge who shouldn't have been confirmed to the supreme court because of her radical positions. The Dems were criticizing Bush's nominations for not answering questions. They seem to forget that Ginsberg gave the smae types of answers when she was asked about her stance on abortion and other issues that she might be faced with on the supreme court.

[NYCFarmboy]

DEMOCRATS STICK FORK IN OWN HEADS
November 3, 2005

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi



ANN COULTER


What a difference a week makes! Last week, liberals were expecting big things. They were counting on special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and the White House to do their work for them.

On Friday, Fitzgerald was supposed to indict Karl Rove. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were going to be named unindicted co-conspirators. Maybe Condoleezza Rice too. Who knew — maybe even Clarence Thomas. There was even talk of a posthumous indictment for Nixon.

It was going to be Fitzmas Day! (Which is much like Christmas except instead of having her baby in a manger, the woman has a late-term abortion.) Oh, it was hard to fall asleep on Fitzmas Eve!

But Friday came, and only Irve Lewis Libby was accused of committing any crimes. They were all crimes like perjury and obstruction of justice, personal to Libby, unrelated to the administration.

Fitzmas sucked. Instead of GI Joe and Mr. Machine, all Democrats got was a lousy cardigan sweater.

With the Democrats still reeling from Friday's sad news, Bush gave them a right-hook by nominating the stunningly qualified Judge Sam Alito on Monday. (So I guess not all qualified candidates for the Supreme Court turned Bush down before he nominated Miers.)

Not only is Alito qualified, but he also does not consider membership in the Federalist Society comparable to joining the Klan. In other words, this was just the sort of judicial nominee that would have terrified the White House a month ago.

Judge Alito's dear 90-year-old mother — who evidently had not yet been briefed by White House political consultants to avoid stating positions popular with Americans — immediately said of her son, "Of course he's against abortion."

As a judge on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, Alito voted to uphold a Pennsylvania statute passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor that required women to notify their husbands before getting an abortion. (This was later deemed an "undue burden" by liberals' favorite Supreme Court justice, Sandra Day O'Connor.)

There is no question about Alito's qualifications. Democrats can only oppose him for his record, which will alarm a narrow segment of lunatics commonly known as "the Democratic Party base."

Now that timid Republicans are forced to face their fears, it turns out that liberal America was always a paper tiger. Americans are not rising in anger at a judicial nominee who would uphold a state law requiring husbands to be notified of their wives' abortions.

The only people attacking Alito for his abortion ruling are the usual nuts — Planned Parenthood, NARAL, People for the American Way and senators from New York and California (or what CBS thinks of as "the American heartland").

So confident are the Democrats about the popularity of their stance on abortion that the day after Alito's nomination, Senate Democrats shut down the Senate so they wouldn't be forced to talk about Alito.

Minority Leader Harry Reid dramatically invoked an obscure Senate rule to close the Senate for two hours, putatively in order to rehash old arguments about the Iraq war in closed session. In other words, Reid demanded more transparency in government by shutting the doors, throwing out the public, dimming the lights, and turning off the TV cameras in the chambers of the U.S. Senate.

That night, the cable news shows were fixated on Reid's weird stunt — and Senate Democrats narrowly avoided having to talk about Alito's abortion ruling for one more day.

If this is not a coincidence, let's see how long it takes Harry Reid to go on TV and state his position on a wife having to notify her husband before getting an abortion. Heck, I'd settle for seeing Harry Reid definitively adopt any position on legalized abortion.

The nuts are perplexed. Why aren't Senate Democrats screaming from rooftops: "This is a judge who would force women to tell their husbands before they have an abortion! Are you people listening?"

Maybe the Democrats aren't running from their base. Maybe they're trying to help NARAL by preventing anyone from finding out about their agenda. If only Democrats could get the American people to believe that a group with the words "abortion" and "rights" in its name is some kind of benevolent little charity that holds bake sales.

Believe me, you don't want the Democrats out there reminding the American people that it's a constitutional right to abort a baby five minutes before birth. I understand that People for the American Way thinks it is "the American way" for wives not to tell their husbands about an abortion. But that's because they need to get out more.

In a 2003 Gallup poll, 72 percent of respondents favored a law requiring the husband of a woman to be notified if she decides to have an abortion. To put it another way, only 28 percent of Americans hold the position that married men have absolutely no reproductive rights whatsoever (but a lot of responsibilities!).

Upward of 60 percent of self-described "liberals" and "Democrats" favored husbands being notified of their wives' abortions. This is consistent with polls going back a decade.

If these poll results don't sound right to you, try crossing Central Park sometime. You'll find another part of Manhattan that's not the Upper West Side. Or do something wild and visit Queens or Staten Island. You won't even have to leave New York City! See how normal people react to the idea of a woman being required to tell her husband that she's having an abortion.

In the past few years, the Democrats have had to run from big government, gun control, welfare, criminal rights and gay marriage. With the Alito nomination, it looks like the Democrats are going to have to renounce the NARAL ladies or prepare for another sad day after the 2006 elections.

[OldManMac]

Quick; where's Weyland-Yutani? Rule #8 violation!!! The world is coming to an end!

Ann Coulter has as much credibility as the stuff in my garbage can.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by typoon

What's interesting is that When Clinton nominated Ginsberg the republicans didn't fight for it because they felt that a president should be able to get their nominee.

Orrin Hatch, the Republican chair of the Senate Judiciary committee at the time, recommended to Clinton that he nominate Ginsburg. She was the Republican choice. According to Hatch, Clinton wanted to nominate someone else, but Hatch said no and recommended Breyer and Ginsburg.

I mean clearly Ginsberg IS an activist Judge who shouldn't have been confirmed to the supreme court because of her radical positions.

How do you define "activist?" Usually it just means "makes decision I don't like." The only objective measure of activism I've seen is the willingness to overturn laws. By that measure, here's how activist our current justices are:

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

Ginsburg is not the least activist judge - Clinton's other appointee is. Ginsburg is second least activist.

[Joshua]

So what exactly is the substantive argument against Alito here?

[Ron Goodman]

Remind me--what radical positions does Ginsberg take?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Joshua

So what exactly is the substantive argument against Alito here?

Well I haven't seen anyone opposing him in this thread, but here's a liberals group's criticisms of him.

They say he's more conservative in his opinions that Scalia and Rehnquist, more like a Thomas. He would reduce the federal government's power to enforce civil rights but increase its power in criminal justice and the like. Basically, that O'Connor was the swing vote and was a moderate, as it should be, but that now the swing votes would be on the right wing side: Big government and less individual rights.

[Moderator]

've always wondered why people on the right are so eager to give up personal privacy. Even if it isn't stipulated in the constitution..who doesn't want privacy? isn't this bigger than the constitution..isn't this a human right?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

DEMOCRATS STICK FORK IN OWN HEADS
November 3, 2005

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi



ANN COULTER


SNIP

Hey Farmboy, when are you ever gonna learn? Rule 8 is there for a reason.

Please tell us what you think about Ann Coulter's commentary and how it relates to the discussion at hand.
Please tell us in what way her commentary advances the arguments being made in the thread here.
Thanks!

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Moderator

've always wondered why people on the right are so eager to give up personal privacy. Even if it isn't stipulated in the constitution..who doesn't want privacy? isn't this bigger than the constitution..isn't this a human right?

I have no formal training in this stuff, but I read a lot, and Simey will be along soon to correct whatever I get wrong anyway.

The disconnect comes from the fact that the only thing regarding privacy explicitly mentioned in the Constitution was the part that your personal belongings and home could not be searched without probable cause. So the cops can't just put a bug in your bedroom and wait for you to break the law before arresting you. They need to find out that you might be doing it, then get a judge to approve the order to collect evidence. But note that this only constrains how the Government behaves. It makes no reference to whether or not the Government can control how you behave. After all, if the government can arrest you for growing a certain type of leafy plant in your home, why can't they arrest you for having an abortion? Clearly, a true "right to privacy" would cover both cases, no?

Personally (and speaking as a supporter of the "so-called" Right to Privacy myself), I think that people who strive to make the law fit their moral structure, by definition, can't condone a right to privacy. A right to privacy implies that there are certain things that the Government has no business being involved in. As long as they are not causing anyone else any harm and are not visible to the public, the Government ought to butt out. But this involves an acknowledgement (for instance) that someone, somewhere, is having gay sex in the privacy of their own home, and as long as a right to privacy exists, the Government can't do anything about it. So the only way that Religious Conservatives can pass laws that reflect their own morality is to do away with a Right to Privacy altogether.

Now, the Abortion issue is a little different: it depends also on when you think that fetus is deserving of protection as a viable human being. After all, murdering another human being is still illegal even if the deed is done in private-- this is a case of the public good trumping the right to privacy. But without the right to privacy, the Government can regulate abortion regardless of when the fetus becomes alive. But remember that the same privacy arguments are used to permit birth control also. One could argue that there would be fewer abortions as long as birth control is legal, no matter what the status of abortion is.

The unfortunate thing is that I think that the right to privacy is very much in line with traditional "conservative" values, or at least the non-religious ones. Many Conservatives want a smaller government, that spends less, and that interferes in people's lives less. Many Conservatives would agree that they want to be in charge of their children's education, home-schooling them if need be. Many conservatives do not want the government anywhere near the health care system, because they think it would make overall health care suffer. But all these needs go away if people don't have the right to teach their children in private, to make their own medical decisions in private, and to generally tell the Government to go away if they're overstepping their bounds. But I guess all that's not as important as making sure gay people don't ever have sex, and noone ever has access to birth control.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Hey Farmboy, when are you ever gonna learn? Rule 8 is there for a reason.

Please tell us what you think about Ann Coulter's commentary and how it relates to the discussion at hand.
Please tell us in what way her commentary advances the arguments being made in the thread here.
Thanks!

moi?

ok... I find her comments interesting and wanted to see how others felt about her interesting comments.

Her interesting comments most definately advanced interesting comments in a interesting way for this thread.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

moi?

ok... I find her comments interesting and wanted to see how others felt about her interesting comments.

Her interesting comments most definately advanced interesting comments in a interesting way for this thread.

Anything in particular about her "interesting comments" that stood out for you as being particularly "interesting"?

[cpt kangarooski]

Dork--

The disconnect comes from the fact that the only thing regarding privacy explicitly mentioned in the Constitution was the part that your personal belongings and home could not be searched without probable cause.

Actually, what it says explicitly is that there are to be no unreasonable searches or seizures and that no warrants for searches or seizures will be issued without probable cause, etc.

Of course, you're using the wrong meaning of privacy. Privacy in the Constitutional context means freedom from government intrusion. For example, married couples have a right of privacy that permits them to use contraception. Parents have a right of privacy that allows them to teach their children various languages. And so forth. Privacy isn't just about keeping things a secret from the government.

So, for example, the Third Amendment is deals with a form of privacy. To some degree, so do the First, and Fifth. The Ninth Amendment is a reminder that the people have rights other than those enumerated in the other amendments, and the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth require the government to not intrude on rights, whether enumerated or not, unduly. Taken in sum, we find a general privacy, i.e. freedom from government intrusion, right.

After all, if the government can arrest you for growing a certain type of leafy plant in your home, why can't they arrest you for having an abortion? Clearly, a true "right to privacy" would cover both cases, no?

It would cover both, but that doesn't mean that the results are always the same. If the government can satisfy their burdens for procedural and substantive due process, they can act anyway. Whether they can or not will tend to hinge on what the right in question is. Some rights are more highly protected than others.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Anything in particular about her "interesting comments" that stood out for you as being particularly "interesting"?

I find just about everything Ann Coulter says VERY interesting.

[Spliffdaddy]

Ann is a hottie.

[Artful Dodger]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Ann is a hottie.

*high five*

[Spliffdaddy]

I'd hit it.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I'd hit it.

Careful. She has a strap-on.

[Dork.]

Now, thanks to the good folks at judgealito.com, you can have the judge's smiling face and strict constructionist record on your iPod!

http://judgealito.com/docs/alito2go/

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

I find just about everything Ann Coulter says VERY interesting.

I have to admit, so do I, as it reminds me that there are still hateful, spiteful, bile-spewing people out there, who's main purpose is to hook people by the oft successful tactic of appealing to their emotions. History has shown us more than a couple of people like that, even as late as the 20th century.

[Spliffdaddy]

heh.

Sounds like her words hit pretty close to home.

[IceBreaker]

Ann is a hot babe!!!!!!