"Clinton used to consult with Senator Orrin Hatch before making a nomination to Supreme Court, I wonder if Bush will show that type of class & consult with a democrat(s) when making his pick?"
So, was Clinton consulting with the head of the judiciary committee (who happened to be a Republican), or was he "just" consulting with a Repub?!?! Let's be carefull about trying to put spin on something just to try and score a point.
"How about the class showed by democrats to let Clarence Thomas have a vote?.....Yes, it was a close vote, but Thomas received support from 11 southern democrats which enabled him to gain confirmation by a 52-48 margin.....
And, in case you want to bring up Bork's nomination, remember he was defeated soundly (58-42 against) & not only did the southern democrats who supported Thomas not vote for him, several Republicans (not just Sen. Spector) voted against him to....."
And the issue isn't whether Thomas & Bork were confirmed or rejected, the issue is that they were both brought before the full senate for a vote. If Bush wants to nominate Judge Roy Bean for Supreme Court, let him have his vote in the Senate, not this idiotic game of "we're going to fillibuster, so let's all just accept that as fact and skip the process" BS.
With the sudden announced retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor, an important swing vote on the Supreme Court is now up for grabs.
Me, I certainly expect the criminal Bush to appease the Christian Evangelicals, and appoint the most odiously obnoxious conservative he can get his grubby little sleazoid mitts on.
Roe v Wade and other rational laws are now officially in danger as of right now.
I fully expect to see one of the worst fights DC has ever seen. It will make the Swiftboat Veterans look like Mary Poppins by cmparison. And the big losers will be the American people, the Constitution, and Democracy as we know it.
Can you tell what sort of mood I'm in this morning?
Glad to see that you're being so objective and rational! All the woes of this country are shared equally by both parties, including yours asshole. To blame it all on Bush and the Conservatives is really lame. Maybe we should start a board for the "Perfect People Party" You could be the moderator... Patooie on you man!
Otherwise you'd know that alot of my ranting rhetoric is just for the shits n giggles of raising the hackles of uptight types like yourself.
exhibit some. There's no need to use language like "asshole" in addressing fellow posters.
Liberal as I am I would not quarrel much with a scholarly conservative nominee like Alito or Garza. Hell, Bush won the election. If the guy or gal is qualified, he should get the choice. We can keep the bulk of abortion rights in the state legistlatures now.
But if he does something like Ashcroft or Gonzales then scorched earth baby!
I know, how about Philyss Schlafly??
Some conservatives think he's not tough on abortion & liberals are concerned with human rights issues......
and less "in-your-face" than his typical choices have been to this point, and maybe we can avoid the rancor.
I don't expect him to pick a liberal Democrat. But someone with less baggage and closer to the moderate conservative perspective that O'Connor exemplified in her 24 years on the bench would be a welcome change of pace.
I don't know about you, but I really don't want to see another bitchfest attempt to subvert Roe v Wade, Lee v. Weisman, or other landmark decisions that went against the desires of the fundamentalists in this country.
Look at the detritus still being slung over Terry Schiavo. Its appalling, and serves no constructive purpose other than to further widen the partisan chasm in this country.
Bush would show me ALOT by nominating someone who could glide through the confirmation process.
Rudy50 elsewhere in this thread mentions Alito (I'm assuming he refers to Samuel A. Alito Jr.) & Garza (Emilio Garza?)as being acceptable conservative choices for the bench. I would concur with that assessment. I admittedly would prefer to see someone more progressive and liberal minded, but thats not realistic under the current administration. I would gladly settle for a level headed conservative. Someone in the mold of O'Connor would be great.
But truth be told, I fear the arrogance displayed by George W Bush with his judicial nominations will continue, and the rancor will reach unprecedented levels.
Oh look, its almost 4:20. See ya!
Bush's desire for someone conservative are "ODIOUS" and "OBNOXIOUS"?
He won the election, you won JACK.
Clinton got his two libs.
The only ones talking about scorched earth are the libs. The press is putting on the pressure for him to nominate someone A.S.A.P. (telling everyone to expect it within a week or two).
That would be foolish. He should wait until Congress returns. Otherwise they will have all Summer to plan their attacks on the specific individual.
You're making the same mistake Patooie is bro...
in case you haven't noticed, when i want to vent some steam, i go over the top. Its fun for me, and sometimes rattles a few cages. Rarely get any respondents to those... hopefully cuz folks see it for what it is, and for what it isn't.
But I also posted a response to Snowman where i tried to present my perspective in a more civil and realistic manner.
so if you'd like to engage in a reasonable dialog considering different points of view, and how and where we might find a consensus on candidates for the Supreme court, I would much rather spend time with that than my flipside attempts to counter such conservative hatemonger icons like Coulter and Hannity.
I AM perfectly capable of reasonable rational and open minded dialog. So are you when you choose to be. How about it?
BTW - What does any of this have to do with Clinton anyway? That's the sort of partisan dart that opens the floor to acrimonious spleen-venting.
So what if he appointed two members to the Supreme Court? Is this a contest? Nixon appointed four, Reagan 3(and made Rehnquist Chief) GHW Bush appointed 2. The election of a different President does not automatically ensure nominating a Supreme. Nor, with the exception of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, does it insure that the philosophies and leanings of an appointed judge will always reflect the desires of their President. O'Connors rulings over the years have often been against the wishes of the more extreme members of the conservative right wing, i.e. Roe V. Wade. she's been considered the swing vote many times. and for very good reason.
Frankly, I'd vote for HER for President before I'd vote for Hillary. It's an integrity thing. O'Connor has always had it.
Bush could do far worse than to nominate someone of similar caliber and cachet as O'Connor. But if Bush nominates an idealogue, especially a religious idealogue, its going to get ugly.
Ed, you did make a valid point that Bush should wait until Congress returns before making the nomination. But rather than putting such a rancorous spin on it ("Otherwise they will have all Summer to plan their attacks on the specific individual.") how about looking at it from the positive perspective that it will give a much better opportunity to research and vette potential candidates, and nominate the absolute best one for the position, and minimize the acrimony.
In addition, O'Connor stated in her letter of resignation she would continue to sit on the bench until her replacement had been confirmed and was ready to replace her. So there is no urgency, as in the death of a Judge to fill the position. As with all her major decisions over 24 years on the bench, agree or disagree with her opinion, she has been a class act. One to be honored, and emulated.
Enjoy Independence Day. I certainly plan to.
You repeatedly make note of your "tweaking" attitude. Well then if someone bites, you shouldn't then recoil. You were admittedly asking for it.
As far as Clinton goes, the point is, he got his liberal choices (with little opposition). There are many libs saying that O'Conner needs to be replaced with someone of similar tenor, so as not to "upset" the balance of the court.
If ELECTIONS can't change the status quo or "balance" then what the hell good are they?
You expect special treatment? You think that your words don't mean what they say?
You admit that you say these things to get a rise out of people and then when you are successful, you want a pass, you are exempt from response because we should all know and respect who you are?
SHEESH
the problem with calling someone "controversial" is that is always up to one's own interpretation.
Janice Rogers Brown was filibustered by the Democrats for years because they believed her stance on private property owner's right was "too extreme". So now the Supremes say that a government can sieze a private property owners land by force to give it to a private developer. Gee, sounds like Judge Brown is just the type of "controversial" person we need for the high court!
What's there to cause us NOT to feel the same way? If a nominee can't pass an up or down vote, he's out. There is no other "secret" way to get someone in there, especially if we happened to be in the minority.
The point is that NEVER before has the minority used the filibuster to block Judicial nominations on philosophical or political basis. Note: There was once, can't remember his name, where he was blocked because he was a sleeze ball.)
The Republicans HAVE blocked nominees in committee, but that was when they were in the majority (i.e. had control of the committee during some Clinton years).
-- Modified on 7/3/2005 12:59:21 PM
So because the Republicans were in the majority, that gives them the right to block nominees in commitee? How is this different in effect and intent than the Democrats refusing to let the GOP ramrod their ideological choices through Congress by blocking an up or down vote? Oh, I forget, they are always "right". I wonder how loudly you will be beating your drums after the 2006 elections, when the people have exercised their right to vote and removed the nefarious self-serving ideologues who have hijacked the Legislative branch of our government. By the time 2008 comes along, if Bush hasn't been impeached for his and his administrations high crimes, he will leave office with the LOWEST approval rating of any President in history. He will be driven from office in shame and, if there is any justice, in chains for his crimes against America, and the world.
Bush has succeeded in fooling some of the people all of the time, and he has certainly fooled all of the people some of the time. But now his luck is running out, because he will not fool all of the people all of the time. And America is starting to wise up to the machinations of the Bush administration.
No wonder the right is so desperate to get two ideologues on the Supreme Court. Its their last chance to throw America back into the New Dark Ages.
I'm not ranting or raving, and I am quite sober. I'm telling you how I feel and what I think. I welcome your measured and cohesive response, but I won't tolerate any further personal denigrations or attacks. Like I said elsewhere, I won't waste energy arguing with a brick.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the same arguments put forward by the Dem's if the positions were reversed.
She was an ACLU lawyer and the Republicans still let her have a vote? Any chance the Dem's will show this type of class? My gut says NO!!
Clinton used to consult with Senator Orrin Hatch before making a nomination to Supreme Court, I wonder if Bush will show that type of class & consult with a democrat(s) when making his pick?
How about the class showed by democrats to let Clarence Thomas have a vote?.....Yes, it was a close vote, but Thomas received support from 11 southern democrats which enabled him to gain confirmation by a 52-48 margin.....
And, in case you want to bring up Bork's nomination, remember he was defeated soundly (58-42 against) & not only did the southern democrats who supported Thomas not vote for him, several Republicans (not just Sen. Spector) voted against him to.....
-- Modified on 7/3/2005 8:12:25 PM
"Clinton used to consult with Senator Orrin Hatch before making a nomination to Supreme Court, I wonder if Bush will show that type of class & consult with a democrat(s) when making his pick?"
So, was Clinton consulting with the head of the judiciary committee (who happened to be a Republican), or was he "just" consulting with a Repub?!?! Let's be carefull about trying to put spin on something just to try and score a point.
"How about the class showed by democrats to let Clarence Thomas have a vote?.....Yes, it was a close vote, but Thomas received support from 11 southern democrats which enabled him to gain confirmation by a 52-48 margin.....
And, in case you want to bring up Bork's nomination, remember he was defeated soundly (58-42 against) & not only did the southern democrats who supported Thomas not vote for him, several Republicans (not just Sen. Spector) voted against him to....."
And the issue isn't whether Thomas & Bork were confirmed or rejected, the issue is that they were both brought before the full senate for a vote. If Bush wants to nominate Judge Roy Bean for Supreme Court, let him have his vote in the Senate, not this idiotic game of "we're going to fillibuster, so let's all just accept that as fact and skip the process" BS.
Are you forgetting it was Reagan who appointed O'Connor? Are you forgetting she was, and still is considered a conservative? A moderate conservative, to be sure. Or maybe the correct term would be a non-religious idealogue conservative with a deep understanding and respect for the Constitution and the Law. No wonder the extreme right wing wanted her off the court almost as much as they want to vilify Ginsburg. How much of it has to do with her gender? Ahh, never mind, thats just obfuscation, isn't it.
You (and this is not directed specifically at you, Snowman, but at the hard right wingers of this board) denigrate me and other socialists, progressives and liberals on this board for voicing our feelings, expressions and contempt for George W Bush and his administration and their associates, yet you feel no compunction at all about referring to former President Bill Clinton as a rapist. Tell me thats not a double standard, in addition to being a slanderous falsehood. Monica was a willing participant in their sex games. If anything that makes her a provider, not a victim of rape.
You get all wound up and indignant over Clinton having perjured himself over getting a BBBJTCIM from an intern, an action which in no way shape or form detracted from his abilities to lead this country for 8 years while enjoying an approval rating that steadily held over 60%. You mock the Clintons, liberals, Howard Dean and the Democrats while ignoring the arrogance and hubris of the Bush administration. You conveniently point out the military maneuvers of the Clinton administration (Somalia, Bosnia, etc) while failing to acknowledge the apples to oranges comparisons with Bush and his pre-emptive doctrine. You eagerly blame Clinton and his people for the intelligence failings that led to 911, while completely overlooking (intentionally or ignorantly, doesn't matter) the manufactured rationale for going to war against Iraq. I have lost count of how many times I have read "Saddam was evil and needed to go anyway" as justification for the Iraqi invasion. Damn it man, Saddam was bad, he was evil, and he certainly deserved to get his ass kicked from here to Hell and back, but he wasn't even in the top ten tyrants running countries in the world in 2002. Hell, he was the only secular Arab leader in the Middle East! Both Iran and North Korea had and have far more advanced nuclear weapons programs, and were a far greater threat to this country than Iraq. Additionally, Saddam Hussein wasn't motivated by fundamental Islamist dogma, but by the same motivators that fuel our own leadership; Greed and Power. The rest of em are far more Medieval and Islamist, and I'm damned if you didn't know that already. But what does it matter to Bush loyalists, because when W speaks, rational dialog takes a hike, and Messianic ideology takes the front row.
Sure the Democrats screw up. Sure they have special interests. THEY ALL DO! There is no such thing as a politician without a special interest backing them anymore. And before I forget to mention it, whens the last time George W Bush even mentioned Weapons of Mass Destruction? He had the golden opportunity in his PR speech last week at Ft. Bragg, but other than yet again attempting to attach Iraq to 911 numerous times, he failed to mention Al-Q'aida, or Osama bin Laden, or Weapons of Mass Destruction. But I bet you applauded, cheered, and clapped yourselves into a frenetic orgasm of right wing feelgood and PATRIOTISM. More jingoism. America secures Iraqi Oil, and Truth gets the shaft.
So knock off the hypocritical double standards, and then maybe we can dialog. Until then, pray your children don't wind up going to war in Iraq to die so Halliburton and the Carlyle Group can profit by it.
Ok, I'm done now. Go ahead and trash my ass if thats what you feel the need to do. From this point, I simply consider the source.
Thanks for letting me share. Happy Fourth of July to all.
PS - Emerald Vodka and I don't agree on much, but at least he's a rational mentsch who knows how to have a dialog and isn't encumbered and blinded by petty partisan loyalties. I wish he were the rule here among the conservatives, not the exception.
OK, enough of that. Where are my meds?
well saiddam it
can i quote u?
To your first point. I never mentioned anything about O'Conner or who appointed her. My point only was to allow an up or down vote on Judicial nominees. And by the way, if you want to point out that the hard right wing wants her off the court, why do you so conveniently fail to mention the hatred the left has expressed for both Justices Thomas and Scalia.
To your second point, I have never referred to Clinton as a rapist. If you want to lump me in with those who do, then it would be fair for me to lunp you in with the hard left that says GWB is a murderer? Is that your belief? Kind of sucks being broad brushed, huh?
In regards to Clinton, you REALLY miss the point. It's not that he lied about sex, it's that he LIED to a court of law!!! It came down to a point where he had to choose between his own personal embarrasment or upholding the Constutuion while POTUS, and he choose his personal interests. What he did with Monica is just a smoke screen by te left to trivialize the real error in judgement, LYING UNDER OATH. One other thing, I do not believe he was DISBARRED for a BJ, but for lying under oath.
As far as the reasons for Iraq, I have already stated by beliefs on this board. I think we DID need to go in, EVERYONE believed he had WMDs and even if he did not, sure seems he had the capability to produce them. Good enough for me.
In regards to Bush's speech. YEP, I THOUGHT IT WAS GREAT!!! It was supposed to talk about Iraq and that is exactly what he did. That war for oil line is pretty damn worn out. We have Iraq, so why I am still paying so much for gas? Kind of screws your theory, huh??
BTW, I LMAO when I read the next line...
"Ok, I'm done now. Go ahead and trash my ass if thats what you feel the need to do. From this point, I simply consider the source."
In other words, please don't post a reply and if I do I am scum?? What the hell do you think a discussion board is about? If you aren't ready to defend your opinions, do us all a favor and keep them to yourself.
As far as this source, if you think so little, why bother to post the first place? Anyways, be assured your opinion of me is one I cound care less of...
because he was just kidding, or he's just on one of his rants, or it's the mood he's in, or it's "that time of the month".
Funny how he is going to consider the source when it's something that hits home, but when he goes over the top we are just supposed to consider the source and give him a pass.
WORDS MEAN THINGS.
The ultimate test for truth whether or not any WMD's were in Iraq lies simply in this, if Sadam had these weapons you would have heard such a scream from Isreal that you could have heard it round the world.
Go ahead Snowman flame that one!!!
Someone calls you names, insults you personally and attacks your character, that is a "flame"...
If you haven't noticed, I have not done this...
This is a discussion board, and I find it funny that so many on this board get their panties in a wad when someone disagrees with them. Gee, I kinda figured thats what this board was for, discussion. If folks want a liberal circle jerk with no condecending voices, there are plenty of sites out there for that.
In regards to Isreal, make no mistake. That is one clever country. Why should they bother taking out Saddam when they can see the writing on the wall that we will do it and save them the trouble. Also, they have one additional advantage over the US. If Saddam were to launch a chemical attack against the US, we would try to respond with some type of "equal" response. Isreal would just nuke his ass and he knew it.
Saddam was evil, but NOT stupid.
Flames, Flames, Flames, Why is it that you don't understand Snowman that when you "Flame" my words you "Flame" me! What you don't understand is that if you try to "Flame" me you will hurt yourself. PS Isreal was not interested in getting rid of Saddam, they wanted the WMD's gone. You will note that the USA attack on Iraq DID NOT remove the threat of WMD's because there were NONE!
No WMDs, No WMDs, BOO HOO HOO!!!
Hell, you couldn't even win an election with that argument, what do you expect to get with it now?? Face it, Saddam was a bad man and needed to go. And yes, he did support terrorism and we had YEARS of negotiation with Iraq. Bottom line is most Americans and world leaders believed he had them, and they will not hang GWB if he got some bad intel. (Remember, it was Carter who gutted our intelligence gathering capabilities in that region).
BTW, I do not "Flame" your words and ideas, I simply point out the obvious, that they are wrong 
At last Snowman tells the truth. There were no WMD's(see Snowman's last post)and all he can say is BOO HOO HOO!! 1750 dead Amercan soldiers in Iraq fighting for nothing and that's all you can say. WOW what compassion for our Armed Forces in harms way. If that's what being a Righ=Wing-Nut is I don't want any. Go ahead Snowman run and melt away.
freedom is free.
My point about your complaining about the WMDs is that except for those on the hard left, most Americans DO NOT CARE if there were any. We are not so blinded by hatred for GWB that we do not see the logic for going in. It was justified, WMD's or not. Don't believe me, go ask Kerry. He lost his shot at POTUS using this argument as the left will continue to lose elections by griping about things that no one cares about.
My point here is you are still trying to fight an ARGUMENT you have already lost!! (i.e. Dead Horse)
In regards to our lost soldiers in Iraq, since I believe the move into Iraq was justified, the losses, while sad, are also justified. What I find really hypocritical by the left will talk about the dead soliders all day, but let GWB even mention the dead from 9/11, and GOD FORBID he is using the dead as politial capital. The left is so hypocritial it is amazing...
So to sum up, your ASSUMPTION that they are fighting for nothing is your own belief, and not that of the MAJORITY of Americans (once again why you can't win elections)
Sorry, but the Snowman just frosted your ass
have heard Israeli F-16s screaming into Iraq to take out those weapons. But having said that, I agree with the statement that we invaded Iraq wrongly and at the wrong time. Saddam was one of the smallest of our concerns, Osama Bin Laden and Afganistan towered above his pitiful ass. We took our eye of the correct ball and now we have our troops stretched thin and young men and women failing to volunteer for military service at desired rates.
Sometimes cause becomes effect and effect become cause. The US and Britain invaded Iraq because of the belief that Saddam was well on his way to making or buying chemical and nuclear weapons. France, Germany, the UN and a number of countries said that we were wrong in our interpretation of information and that inspections had been effected in limiting Saddam's desires. So who was right? The answer, on this board and elsewhere in the country largely comes down to what one's political beliefs are.