October 31, 2005
Schumer: Judge Alito ‘Hopelessly Overqualified’
by Scott Ott

(2005-10-31) — Federal Appeals Court Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., President George Bush’s most recent Supreme Court nominee, is “hopelessly overqualified” for the nation’s highest court, according to Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY.

“While average Americans had urged the president to appoint someone in the Harriet Miers tradition,” said Sen. Schumer, “Bush disappoints them by picking a Princeton and Yale graduate who’s a veteran jurist with a sharp intellect and rich legal experience. All of that ability and wisdom will be wasted at the Supreme Court, where his main job is simply to update the Constitution.”

The New York Democrat joined many of his colleagues in noting that the Supreme Court is “the people’s court” and should not be ruled by “an elite class of scholars far removed from the real world.”

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, “The president acknowledges that his nominee is probably too brilliant for this court.”

“Judge Alito would be a better candidate for the Senate, where he could help restore intellectual balance on Capitol Hill,” said Mr. McClellan. “But when your starter gets knocked out of the game, you have to go to the bench.”

November 1, 2005
Alito Name Too ‘Vowel-Heavy’, Schumer Says
by Scott Ott

(2005-11-01) — Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, today questioned Judge Samuel Alito’s commitment to diversity noting that the Supreme Court nominee’s last name is 60 percent vowels and only 40 percent consonants.

In perhaps the most substantive critique of President George Bush’s nominee to date, the senator also noted that the federal appeals court judge’s full name contains every vowel, but a disproportionately small percentage of consonants.

“Not only is Judge Alito’s name too vowel-heavy for mainstream Americans,” said Sen. Schumer. “But ‘Alito’ begins and ends with vowels, suggesting that vowels are the alpha and omega of the alphabet, and clearly denigrating the contribution of consonants to our society.”

<yawn>

October 31, 2005
Schumer: Judge Alito ‘Hopelessly Overqualified’
by Scott Ott

(2005-10-31) — Federal Appeals Court Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., President George Bush’s most recent Supreme Court nominee, is “hopelessly overqualified” for the nation’s highest court, according to Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY. “Bush disappoints them by picking a Princeton and Yale graduate who’s a veteran jurist with a sharp intellect and rich legal experience. All of that ability and wisdom will be wasted at the Supreme Court, where his main job is simply to update the Constitution.”


Geez... Bang Bush for picking an relatively unknown woman... Now he picks an incredible, highly respected individual and they still bash... Sounds like Schumer wants a job as a comedian instead of a member of Congress!!!

The things I post by Scott Ott are all satirical in nature and the quotes are not actually those of the quoted. Sorry for the confusion. I just find Ott way too funny. He hits these things right on the head.

I could really care less what the Democrats think of the nomination. When the Democrats nominated Ruth bader Ginsburg, the card carrying member of the ACLU, nobody on the right cried. Clinton got his choice. Now Bush gets his. So STFU.

I will sleep much better knowing that this country won't have a bunch of judges making crap up as they go along. We'll finally have a court that will 'interpret' the Constitution, not seek to further have our society continue its decline by having the Constitution 'evolve'.

The things I post by Scott Ott are all satirical in nature and the quotes are not actually those of the quoted. Sorry for the confusion. I just find Ott way too funny. He hits these things right on the head.

I could really care less what the Democrats think of the nomination. When the Democrats nominated Ruth bader Ginsburg, the card carrying member of the ACLU, nobody on the right cried. Clinton got his choice. Now Bush gets his. So STFU.

I will sleep much better knowing that this country won't have a bunch of judges making crap up as they go along. We'll finally have a court that will 'interpret' the Constitution, not seek to further have our society continue its decline by having the Constitution 'evolve'.

Amen brutha'.

:Beer

I could really care less what the Democrats think

I believe you mean't to say that you couldn't care less. Somehow I don't picture you caring at all what a Democrat thinks.

How about...I really could care less what the Democrats think, but I can't.

I could really care less what the Democrats think of the nomination. When the Democrats nominated Ruth bader Ginsburg, the card carrying member of the ACLU, nobody on the right cried. Clinton got his choice. Now Bush gets his. So STFU.




And thats why Bush has such great job performance numbers. (41% Approval Rating according to Brian's coveted FOX news) Guess what, he's the President of the whole country, not just the right wing. But he seems to have the same attitude. Which is why the country is so divided. This is not just about Bush getting his turn. If you think its that simple then you really need to read the Constitution again and maybe study its purpose and intention a bit.

That said.

You want to talk about how benevolent the republicans were with Justice Ginsburg? Guess what - Who do you think suggested her to President Clinton?

Orin Hatch.

Ginsburg's confirmation was not simply a case of Republicans setting aside their ideological differences. Hatch wrote in his autobiography, Square Peg: Confessions of a Citizen Senator (Basic Books, 2002), that Clinton nominated Ginsburg at Hatch's suggestion. Hatch wrote that he had discouraged Clinton in 1993 from nominating then-Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt to the Supreme Court, arguing that "confirmation would not be easy." Hatch then suggested a few possible nominees:

Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer's name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg [sic].

I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.

In the end, the President did not select Secretary Babbitt. Instead, he nominated Judge Ginsburg and Judge Breyer a year later, when Harry Blackmun retired from the Court. Both were confirmed with relative ease.

I havent made up my mind abouf this nomination as of yet, and I wont until I know more. I said the same thing about Justice Roberts and ended up supporting him after I learned more.

Why do I feel this way? Because the Supreme Court is a long term appointment that could have significant impact upon all of our lives and such an appointment deserves and requires a more in depth decision. So far, I think he is right on some issues and left on others. He seems to be right on women's rights and left on freedom of expression. I have more to learn.

However, I didnt like Harriet Miers because she had no experience dealing with Constitutional law. For those of you who dont realize the difference, Constitutional law can be very complicated and outside of the scope of most attorney's practice. Mostly, its only Judges, Law School Professors and Criminal law attorneys that deal with Constitutional Law with any frequency. She just didnt seem qualified to me in any way.

SO, we'll see. But dont accept him out of hand just because GW appointed him. If you cant tell me all about the nominee, then you havent done your homework and you are just being partisian and participating in the division of the country.

And thats why Bush has such great job performance numbers. (41% Approval Rating according to Brian's coveted FOX news) Guess what, he's the President of the whole country, not just the right wing. But he seems to have the same attitude. Which is why the country is so divided. This is not just about Bush getting his turn. If you think its that simple then you really need to read the Constitution again and maybe study its purpose and intention a bit.

That said.

You want to talk about how benevolent the republicans were with Justice Ginsburg? Guess what - Who do you think suggested her to President Clinton?

Orin Hatch.



I havent made up my mind abouf this nomination as of yet, and I wont until I know more. I said the same thing about Justice Roberts and ended up supporting him after I learned more.

Why do I feel this way? Because the Supreme Court is a long term appointment that could have significant impact upon all of our lives and such an appointment deserves and requires a more in depth decision. So far, I think he is right on some issues and left on others. He seems to be right on women's rights and left on freedom of expression. I have more to learn.

However, I didnt like Harriet Miers because she had no experience dealing with Constitutional law. For those of you who dont realize the difference, Constitutional law can be very complicated and outside of the scope of most attorney's practice. Mostly, its only Judges, Law School Professors and Criminal law attorneys that deal with Constitutional Law with any frequency. She just didnt seem qualified to me in any way.

SO, we'll see. But dont accept him out of hand just because GW appointed him. If you cant tell me all about the nominee, then you havent done your homework and you are just being partisian and participating in the division of the country.


Joey, I agree with 95% of what you just said.

As far as Orrin Hatch - he's a mod-lib Repub and I don't like him all that much. What you said doesn't surprise me.

I disagree with you about why the country is divided. We could devote a whole thread to that.

I would like to hear your views on this.

Guess what - Who do you think suggested her to President Clinton?Orin Hatch.And guess what? Orin was wrong! And Reagan got it wrong with Kennedy and Bush1 got it wrong with Souter. So why shouldn't we be cautious. Error on the side of conservatism so we don't wind up with another activist judge.

You talk about partisan but please explain the plethora of 5-4 Supreme Court decisions if the court is not already partisan. Liberals owned the Congress for 50 years. They have owned the judicial branch almost as long. It is time we try something else.

I'm sick of the partisan (can we all get along) line. If the Dems were in power, there would be no talk of reaching out and you know it.

"Overqualified"; the opposite of Schumer, who being "unqualified" for his position. It seems as though Alito is prime choice for this seat. I would like to have seen Rogers-Brown nominated for the seat in the first place, though. That whole Miers thing was a bloody fiasco...

Ya, Janice Rogers Brown would have been great. A black woman. Would have loved to see them (the left) tear her apart. ACLU, NAG, the whole gang. Would have been good entertainment for sure.

What would they call her, an Aunt Jemima to go along with Uncle Tom Thomas? Or would they just call to two of them 'the Jeffersons'?

If the Dems were in power

If the Democrats were in power Saddam would still be in power brutalizing his people. So :q:q:q:qing what! We watch it happen all over the world and don't do a thing about it. Now that Saddam's no longer in control his people are brutalizing our troops to the tune of over 2,000 deaths. The real shame is not the number of dead, but the number who lived through it. The ones that are coming home with deep psycological and physical problems. It's a repeat of Viet Nam. Our society will pay a price for this action.

I read that as of 10 years ago 50% of homeless men were Viet Nam veterans. Please educate me if you know different.

I now return you to the regularly scheduled thread.

If the Democrats were in power Saddam would still be in power brutalizing his people. So what! We watch it happen all over the world and don't do a thing about it.Since 9/11, we haven't been attacked again on our own soil. Simple coincidence? Yes or No?

Not even a vague connection.

Ya, Janice Rogers Brown would have been great. A black woman. Would have loved to see them (the left) tear her apart. ACLU, NAG, the whole gang. Would have been good entertainment for sure.

What would they call her, an Aunt Jemima to go along with Uncle Tom Thomas? Or would they just call to two of them 'the Jeffersons'?


I thought racist jargon was more of a conservative thing...

And guess what? Orin was wrong! And Reagan got it wrong with Kennedy and Bush1 got it wrong with Souter. So why shouldn't we be cautious. Error on the side of conservatism so we don't wind up with another activist judge.

You talk about partisan but please explain the plethora of 5-4 Supreme Court decisions if the court is not already partisan. Liberals owned the Congress for 50 years. They have owned the judicial branch almost as long. It is time we try something else.

I'm sick of the partisan (can we all get along) line. If the Dems were in power, there would be no talk of reaching out and you know it.


That last statement alone is partisian. THATS my point. Did I say Republicans anywhere in what I said except in pointing out hatch? No. And how do you figure the 'Dems' have owned the judiciary? I got news. Most of the people on the federal bench (not just the Sup CT) were appointed by Republicans. 24 of the last 32 years had a republican in the White house.

I dont want an activist either, from EITHER direction. That means I favor a moderate. Im not sure if this nominee is moderate or conservative. He may have moderate leanings but still be conservative, which may be ok with me. I dont want another Thomas or Scalia, nor another Ginsburg.

Bryan (MonsterMark to the newest people),

I really don’t understand why you're suddenly dumping on Miers now. I recall a thread started by Barry that was titled 'Will Bush Ever Tell The Truth'. The premise was 'did Bush lie when he told the American people that his religious inclinations would have nothing to do when making choices for the country'. Barry brought up the point about Bush saying 'that they (Miers) sharing the same religious convictions helped him make his choice on choosing her.' At that time you were all over having her on the bench and you said something about 'it being a lateral move, a conservation for a moderate and next a conservative for a liberal to push the court to the right'.

Just curious why you're suddenly on the 'dump on Miers' bandwagon? Many people that were for her on previous threads are now saying that Bush had made a bad call but he 'fixed' it with his Alito nomination.

Just curious why you're suddenly on the 'dump on Miers' bandwagon? Many people that were for her on previous threads are now saying that Bush had made a bad call but he 'fixed' it with his Alito nomination.I believe we ended up losing that thread so I can't refer to it.

Roberts wasn't challenged because when Rheinquist died, it was viewed that Roberts would simply be a replacement, conservative=conservative. With the Miers nomination, I liked the fact that she had no 'paper trail' but I didn't like her answers to the questionairre. Her former affiliation as a democrat and her voting for Gore, along with some comments regarding conservative groups really bothered alot of people, including myself. And then her '91 speeches surfaced and that was enough for me, and it seems alot of people. The left, Democrats in particular, would never be able to do what the Right did. That is, take a look at a nominee and understand that that person did not represent the best interests of the group that elected the President. A lefty would just go for the fact that the lefty was a lefty.

There are several posts floating around where I said I didn't like Harriet after what I learned. Same may hold true for Alito but I can't see the Administration not getting it right the second time. Bush obviously thought he could put someone in under the radar like Roberts but failed to realize he needed to be responsible to the people that got him elected. When he finally realized that, there was only one choice. Jettison the Question Mark and put a true conservative up to bat. He tried to avoid a fight but there was simply no way there was not going to be a fight.

The current equation is 4 liberals = 4 conservatives with 1 in the middle. That is the story the left wants you to believe. But the reality is the equation has been 5 liberal vs 4 conservative. Now the equation is tilting to 4 vs 5 and that is where the battle is. Does not matter who the nominee is. The battle was inevitable. Bush didn't realize that trying to appease the left with Miers was not in the best interests of the country.

I believe we ended up losing that thread so I can't refer to it.


It's on page 2 if you need to look.

I now return you to the regularly scheduled thread.

LOL - go take a throat lozenge, barry...

I have to agree with you guys here, this Democrat reason that he overqualified is pretty stupid. better to be overqualified than under.

That last statement alone is partisian. THATS my point. Did I say Republicans anywhere in what I said except in pointing out hatch? No. And how do you figure the 'Dems' have owned the judiciary? I got news. Most of the people on the federal bench (not just the Sup CT) were appointed by Republicans. 24 of the last 32 years had a republican in the White house.

I dont want an activist either, from EITHER direction. That means I favor a moderate. Im not sure if this nominee is moderate or conservative. He may have moderate leanings but still be conservative, which may be ok with me. I dont want another Thomas or Scalia, nor another Ginsburg.

Joey, I want you to consider this: I have never called for a 'Republican' or 'Democrat' for the judiciary. What I want is a Conservative Constructionist Originalist who will interpret the Constitution, not just make new law. What I do oppose on the bench is a liberal, like Ruth Ginsberg, who actively supports abortion, legalized prostitution, polygamy, and lowering the age of consensual sex for females, and loss of property rights, among other things. These are the issues that divide the country.

The fact is that several justices nominated by Republican Presidents have turned out to be liberal, which disappoints Conservatives. We aren't happy about it. Yes, they were errors. But that is why we want to be so very clear and careful about the background of every judge we the people select through our president. If he messes up, we yell at him, and apparently, he listens.

Okay, let's put all this Republican vs. Democrat judge crap to rest, all of you. What we Conservatives want on the bench is someone who will strictly interpret the Constitution according to the intent of the founders. Well, you ask, how can you know the original intent of the founders since they're all dead? I'm glad you asked. The answer is that we can't, except for the ACTUAL WORDS THAT THEY PENNED DOWN ON PAPER. That is known as the Constitution.

How do you define an activist judge? I would define him/her as someone who reads something into the Constitution that isn't actually there, such as abortion rights. (There is absolutely no mention of abortion rights in the Constitution, yet in 1973 seven unelected judges decided to re-write the Constitution, despite the opposition of over half of Americans.)

Activist judges believe that the Constitution is a so-called 'living document', and can be interpreted broadly and changed as needed. The problem with this is that the Government's Checks and Balances have been upset, because the only proper way to change the Constitution is supposed to be by passing an amendment. You might say, But that's too hard! Well, it's supposed to be hard. Any amendment is supposed to be ratified by 2/3 of the states of this country, which would show a true consensus of the majority of the people.

You see, we are supposed to be a self-governed people. But when only five out of nine people in black robes can make law, we fall dangerously into a (yep, now's the time to use this word) quagmire called elitist rule, where we have lost our governing ability.

So many times I have seen activist judges overturn a law that has been passed by the will of the people without there being any actual Constitutional reference to that law. Activist judges rule based upon their personal policy preferences, as in the case of Justice Stevens, who has publicly stated that we should use European law to help us interpret (re-write) the Constitution.

What we Conservatives believe is that a Justice should be concerned with interpreting the Constitution as it applies to the law, and only rule and opine based upon what the Constitution says.

The problem with a so-called 'moderate' judge is that he/she cannot be depended upon to rule in a consistent manner with regard to the Constitution. The very definition of a 'moderate' implies that they will straddle the fence. That could mean ruling at times based upon personal preference instead of the written law. But in reality, moderate judges tend to vote liberal on the most controversial issues, and that has dire consequences for the country. See the Kelo case, among others, which shows new law being made that actually takes away our freedoms.

Justices like Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, and Alito have shown a rock-solid consistency in ruling based upon the written law. It just so happens that their personal preference is to do so. They are reviled by the left for being extreme, but if you read their opinions (and I have), you will see that they carefully consider how the law applies before ruling.

Pay attention to the press in the next few weeks. The CODE-WORD will be "out of the mainstream", and it will be bandied about by the Democrats AND the Media when referring to Alito. But consider that Justice Ginsburg is as far out of the mainstream to the left as you can go, yet nobody even MENTIONED that when she was nominated. Also keep in mind that Alito has been nominated to two Federal benches, with votes of one hundred to zero in the United States Senate both times. That means Ted Kennedy and others voted to confirm him. Watch how they all of a sudden have a problem with him.

I know you probably don't agree with Conservatives in general, but I hope this at least explains our view. Not a single one of these words was copy-pasted from anywhere else. These are my own thoughts.

What I want is a Conservative Constructionist Originalist who will interpret the Constitution, not just make new law

If you said "a person" who will LOGICALLY interpret the constitution...........

If you said "a person" who will LOGICALLY interpret the constitution...........

Vitas, gimme a break, huh? I spent a lot of time and thought on that post, and I don't need you picking it apart for me. Geez.

If the Democrats were in power Saddam would still be in power brutalizing his people. So what! We watch it happen all over the world and don't do a thing about it. Now that Saddam's no longer in control his people are brutalizing our troops to the tune of over 2,000 deaths. The real shame is not the number of dead, but the number who lived through it. The ones that are coming home with deep psycological and physical problems. It's a repeat of Viet Nam. Our society will pay a price for this action.

I read that as of 10 years ago 50% of homeless men were Viet Nam veterans. Please educate me if you know different.

Under these particular circumstaces, we did, under International Law, have the power to DO something about it.

If the Democrats were in power Saddam would still be in power brutalizing his people. So :q:q:q:qing what! We watch it happen all over the world and don't do a thing about it. Now that Saddam's no longer in control his people are brutalizing our troops to the tune of over 2,000 deaths. The real shame is not the number of dead, but the number who lived through it. The ones that are coming home with deep psycological and physical problems. It's a repeat of Viet Nam. Our society will pay a price for this action.

I read that as of 10 years ago 50% of homeless men were Viet Nam veterans. Please educate me if you know different.

Barry, you're ranting a bit here. We never even got close to Hanoi in Vietnam. Here, we conquered Baghdad in a month. We're getting sporadic guerrilla attacks, but the loss of life in comparison is 29:1. This will be over soon, believe me. The Iraqis are almost ready to take over security from us, and we'll be pulling out.

Keep in mind that part of the reason for Vietnam vets not doing so well could very well be attributed to the 60's rebel anti-war Jane Fonda types who spit on our soldiers when they returned. The mood of the country was not supportive of our troops then. At least let's not repeat that same mistake. Let's treat our troops with dignity and respect and support them all the way, instead of bailing out on them.

Here's something in common with Vietnam...

Then, as we do now, we have leftists actively attempting to undermine the war effort. Also, we have an enemy who is keenly aware of the power of our media. They also know that our media is sympathetic to the enemy. Most importantly, they know that while they lack the strength to defeat us militarially, all they need to do is allow the left-wing media to defeat America from the inside.

The insurgents, just like the North Vietnamese, put their faith in the American press. If they could just hold out long enough they could rely upon the media to demoralize the military and undermine support, resulting in a premature pull out.

This time, it isn't going to work.

with that said:
Walter Cronkite is a scum bag.

Vitas, gimme a break, huh? I spent a lot of time and thought on that post, and I don't need you picking it apart for me. Geez.It was a great post David. I really enjoyed it. Bravo.

Vitas, gimme a break, huh? I spent a lot of time and thought on that post, and I don't need you picking it apart for me. Geez.

If you can't take a joke, why have a Supreme Court at all?

They all have to be conservatives?

Are you NUTZ?

What we Conservatives want on the bench is someone who will strictly interpret the Constitution according to the intent of the founders. Well, you ask, how can you know the original intent of the founders since they're all dead? I'm glad you asked. The answer is that we can't, except for the ACTUAL WORDS THAT THEY PENNED DOWN ON PAPER. That is known as the Constitution.


That is not what you really want. You may think you do, but consider this.

Where in the Constitution, in the actual words they penned on paper, does it say you have a right to own a gun?

Where in the Constitution, in the actual words they penned on paper, does it say you have a right to be given 'Miranda' rights?

Where in the Constitution, in the actual words they penned on paper, does it say you have a right to not have your home searched without a warrant signed by a judge upon presentation of probable cause?

- these are only a few examples - There are thousands of examples that make up the fabric core of our lives.

Interpeting the Constitution, and how to apply its principals to the laws of today, is the job of the Supreme Court. Do you think the framers anticipated the digital age in the actual words they penned on paper?

See my point? Far right wing people started this whole "legislate from the bench" BS - The Supreme Court has 2 main jobs. Handle disputes between the States and determine if the laws made by the States and the Congress infringe upon the Constitutional rights granted to individuals.

Most people are not really knowlegable about what the court does. They dont say" THe death penalty is 'ok' - they have to decide if the particular law in question affords the defendant protections granted to him by the due process clause of the Constitution.

Another example. The Supreme Court has not said 'Abortion is legal' - the Court has said a woman has the right to do as she wishes with her body, be it to have an abortion or have fake breasts implanted or decide to not have a surgical procedure. This isnt really quite as simple, because rights of the individual are balanced against the rights of others, the rights of the public, and so on.

All im saying, is that you dont really want to live by the actual words they penned on paper - You would be in for one hell of a rude awakening, believe me.

Why do I want a divided court like we have now? Simple. Because then only the truly important things succeed. Personally, I believe it should take 2/3 vote of the Senate to confirm a nominee, and it sure isnt just "Bush's Turn" - to me, that statement truly degrades the purpose of out nation's highest court.

Personally, I believe it should take 2/3 vote of the Senate to confirm a nominee, and it sure isnt just "Bush's Turn" - to me, that statement truly degrades the purpose of out nation's highest court.That's why we have elections. Bush ran on appointing a conservative constructionist to the court and that is why he was elected and then re-elected. The people have spoken. To the winner go the spoils.

If people don't like the direction of the court, they vote for the guy that will appoint people to change it when given the opportunity. Like maybe 30 years from now. That's how long us conservatives have had to wait, Reagan and Bush41 appointments notwithstanding.

Do you really believe the average american voter is smart enough to think like that? Nooooooope.


That's why we have elections. Bush ran on appointing a conservative constructionist to the court and that is why he was elected and then re-elected. The people have spoken. To the winner go the spoils.

If people don't like the direction of the court, they vote for the guy that will appoint people to change it when given the opportunity. Like maybe 30 years from now. That's how long us conservatives have had to wait, Reagan and Bush41 appointments notwithstanding.

How could not like this guy, thier calling him Scalia`lite

with him we will have 2 WOPs in there!:Beer

I couldn't be happer

Jeff Scalia

That is not what you really want. You may think you do, but consider this.

Where in the Constitution, in the actual words they penned on paper, does it say you have a right to own a gun?

Read the Bill of Rights. It's number II.


Where in the Constitution, in the actual words they penned on paper, does it say you have a right to be given 'Miranda' rights?

Actually, that was NOT in the Constitution and is bad law based upon judicial activism. You and I apparently agree on this. Makes my point.



Where in the Constitution, in the actual words they penned on paper, does it say you have a right to not have your home searched without a warrant signed by a judge upon presentation of probable cause?

Again, read the Bill of Rights, Amendment IV. Come on Joey, you're smarter than this.



...Do you think the framers anticipated the digital age in the actual words they penned on paper?

What's your point?



See my point? Far right wing people started this whole "legislate from the bench" BS...

Give me an example. I thought it was John Marshall who did it first.


Most people are not really knowlegable about what the court does. They dont say" THe death penalty is 'ok' - they have to decide if the particular law in question affords the defendant protections granted to him by the due process clause of the Constitution.

So do you think the Kelo case was adjudicated according to the law? It actually goes in DIRECT VIOLATION of the Constitution's Bill of Rights.



Another example. The Supreme Court has not said 'Abortion is legal' - the Court has said a woman has the right to do as she wishes with her body, be it to have an abortion or have fake breasts implanted or decide to not have a surgical procedure. This isnt really quite as simple, because rights of the individual are balanced against the rights of others, the rights of the public, and so on.

Joey, if a woman has a right to do whatever she wants with her body, what about prostitution? Isn't that illegal? There's hypocrisy there. And what about the unborn baby? Doesn't the baby have a Constitutional right to life? Wouldn't her right to an abortion infringe upon the baby's right to life?

All im saying, is that you dont really want to live by the actual words they penned on paper - You would be in for one hell of a rude awakening, believe me.

Why do I want a divided court like we have now? Simple. Because then only the truly important things succeed. Personally, I believe it should take 2/3 vote of the Senate to confirm a nominee, and it sure isnt just "Bush's Turn" - to me, that statement truly degrades the purpose of out nation's highest court.

Your last statement sounds just like what the left wants - more liberel interpretation of the Constitution, more new laws, less freedom, more division. Nobody argued when Clinton nominated Ginsburg, and she's as far out of the mainstream as anybody. But it was 'his turn.' If you read the Constitution, it is the President's prerogative to choose the justices, 'with the advice and consent of the Senate.' Not the 'permission' of the Senate. Not the 'final approval going to the Senate.'

We're getting sporadic guerrilla attacks, but the loss of life in comparison is 29:1. This will be over soon, believe me. The Iraqis are almost ready to take over security from us, and we'll be pulling out.



Absolutely right. In fact, the President of Iraq expressed on Fox News just this past weekend that the Iraquis begin taking over the security.

It was a great post David. I really enjoyed it. Bravo.


:I

Here's something in common with Vietnam...

Then, as we do now, we have leftists actively attempting to undermine the war effort. Also, we have an enemy who is keenly aware of the power of our media. They also know that our media is sympathetic to the enemy. Most importantly, they know that while they lack the strength to defeat us militarially, all they need to do is allow the left-wing media to defeat America from the inside.

The insurgents, just like the North Vietnamese, put their faith in the American press. If they could just hold out long enough they could rely upon the media to demoralize the military and undermine support, resulting in a premature pull out.

This time, it isn't going to work.

with that said:
Walter Cronkite is a scum bag.

AMEN!

I have traveled extensively overseas, and the "Blame America First Left" is quoted profusely in the foreign press. Kind of like here, where if you watched the networks and CNN only, you'd think the Democrats were still the majority party, since they're the only ones you ever see interviewed.

Here's something in common with Vietnam...

Then, as we do now, we have leftists actively attempting to undermine the war effort. Also, we have an enemy who is keenly aware of the power of our media. They also know that our media is sympathetic to the enemy. Most importantly, they know that while they lack the strength to defeat us militarially, all they need to do is allow the left-wing media to defeat America from the inside.

The insurgents, just like the North Vietnamese, put their faith in the American press. If they could just hold out long enough they could rely upon the media to demoralize the military and undermine support, resulting in a premature pull out.

This time, it isn't going to work.

with that said:
Walter Cronkite is a scum bag.

Yes, because any good American worth anything doesn’t question their leaders or their motives.

Following the herd blindly is not the American way. It is our duty as responsible American's to question our leaders and make sure they do what is best for the entire country and not the few. Not questioning your leaders will end you up rallying behind a Hitler.

If I had a penny for every time one of the conservatives on this board cried out something on the lines of "You hate America and you want to see it fall." every time someone questions a move by the current admin, I'd probably have enough to buy a decent sandwich with all the fixing's. And that’s just from a few people on this one board.

See, the problem with "questioning your leaders" is that it only applies to Bush. You never saw the press questioning Clinton about WMDs in Iraq, although he asserted that they were a threat. You never heard criticism of John Kerry, although he asserted the same. The same for several other Democratic Senators and liberal rags like the New York Times. Don't be forgetful. You libs show your hypocrisy in that you only question Bush and not the other leaders who agreed with him and in fact demanded that he take action.

See, the problem with "questioning your leaders" is that it only applies to Bush. You never saw the press questioning Clinton about WMDs in Iraq, although he asserted that they were a threat. You never heard criticism of John Kerry, although he asserted the same. The same for several other Democratic Senators and liberal rags like the New York Times. Don't be forgetful. You libs show your hypocrisy in that you only question Bush and not the other leaders who agreed with him and in fact demanded that he take action.

Im not worried about Clinton anymore, he's not in office. I'm worried about the current admin and the current war we are in. If Clinton was in office now and had taken the exact same steps as Bush and we were in the same predicament. I would be questioning Clinton's motives and I would certainly have a "Sorry, I Voted For Clinton' sticker on my caddy. You can say he wasn't the only one, and you'd be right, but the burden of blame falls on his shoulder's. If you give me a gun and I wrongfully shoot someone with it, who's more at fault? You for giving me the gun or me for pulling the trigger? Yes that is an over simplified analogy, but it fits.

I believe the analogy to be apt.

I don't buy the statement that we're only out to get Bush. My wife and I are both seasoned letter writers and have been published numerous times. My latest item that sets me off is Daylight Savings Time. Our local paper published my rant a little while ago and I actually got some people fired up.

I've met with numerous politicians both on and off the campaign trail. We've met with our Governor every year that she's been in office. You don't think I've given her an earfull? BTW, she's a Democrat. We're not just bitching on this site and we're not just bitching about Republicans, Conservatives or Bush. We are bitching about things that we think are wrong or could just be done better.

I think BuSh could do a much better job if the special interests didn't keep getting in the way.

Boxer and Kennedy dont like him that means he's good in my books

I believe the analogy to be apt.

I don't buy the statement that we're only out to get Bush. My wife and I are both seasoned letter writers and have been published numerous times. My latest item that sets me off is Daylight Savings Time. Our local paper published my rant a little while ago and I actually got some people fired up.

I've met with numerous politicians both on and off the campaign trail. We've met with our Governor every year that she's been in office. You don't think I've given her an earfull? BTW, she's a Democrat. We're not just bitching on this site and we're not just bitching about Republicans, Conservatives or Bush. We are bitching about things that we think are wrong or could just be done better.

I think BuSh could do a much better job if the special interests didn't keep getting in the way.

I want to believe you, Barry, I really do, but you guys routinely ignore the facts presented in this forum that exculpate Bush, while continuing to assert that he lied. It's common knowledge that the previous administration not only used the same intel that Bush used, but actually DEVELOPED it. I want to see you write it: How can you PROVE that Bush lied? If you can't, then STOP SAYING IT. Otherwise you fall into that predictable Bush-bashing category like these other yapping puppies around our ankles (you noobs know who you are).

Boxer and Kennedy dont like him that means he's good in my books


Boxer and Kennedy most likely don't like Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Noriega and Kadafi either.

This little snippet (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1102/p01s04-usju.html) should make Joey happy and pass his litmus test for a judge.

I want to believe you, Barry, I really do, but you guys routinely ignore the facts presented in this forum that exculpate Bush, while continuing to assert that he lied. It's common knowledge that the previous administration not only used the same intel that Bush used, but actually DEVELOPED it. I want to see you write it: How can you PROVE that Bush lied? If you can't, then STOP SAYING IT. Otherwise you fall into that predictable Bush-bashing category like these other yapping puppies around our ankles (you noobs know who you are).


See, the problem is, you (conservatives) see 'Questioning our leaders' as Bush-bashing yapping puppies around our ankles.

A certain movie comes to mind....

"You want answers, you want answers?!" = Conservative/Republicans
"We want the truth!" = Liberals/Democrates
"You can't handle the truth!" = Conservative/Republicans

David, David, David,

OK. I'll stop saying BuSh lied if you'll acknowledge that he misled us because he used faulty data that he thought was reliable.

What do you do when you use faulty data that you thought was reliable? You take responsibility, dont you?

Boxer and Kennedy most likely don't like Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Noriega and Kadafi either.

Don't count on it.

David, David, David,

OK. I'll stop saying BuSh lied if you'll acknowledge that he misled us because he used faulty data that he thought was reliable.

What do you do when you use faulty data that you thought was reliable? You take responsibility, dont you?

I'll settle for "erred", but that's as far as I go. The people who take responsibility are the people who are outlined in the Silberman/Robb Commission, which goes into detail about the faulty intelligence. You can read it if you want to. They exonerate Bush in that he wasn't lying, he was relying on information that was faulty. That's error at worst. Lying is knowingly misrepresenting falsehoods as truth.

Of course he has to take responsibility for it, but what would you have him do? Up and leave in the middle of this critical situation? Don't you agree that at this point we should at least honor the troops and let them finish the job?

If Bush has to take responsibility, then all these Democrats do, as well.

Where are they now, and what are they saying? And why aren't you yelling at them to take responsibility?


October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry -- all Democrats

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."



John Kerry, January 23rd, 2003
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."


Sandy Berger February 18th, 1998
"He''ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."



Senator Carl Levin September 19th, 2002
"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."


Madeleine Albright November 10th, 1999
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Robert Byrd October 3rd, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."


Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."


Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."


Madeleine Albright, February 1st, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

Nancy Pelosi December 16th, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."


Al Gore September 23rd, 2002
"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

John Kerry October 9th, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."


Ted Kennedy September 27th, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."


Jay Rockefeller October 10th, 2002
"There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."


Senator Bob Graham December 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

The people who take responsibility are the people who are outlined in the Silberman/Robb Commission, which goes into detail about the faulty intelligence.

Here are the high points, to save you the trouble.

Below are excerpts from the Report to the President by The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction -- also known as the Silberman-Robb Report -- which make it clear that allegations that intelligence was warped or manipulated are false. Below are some specific findings from the report which came out in March 2005:

(i) "Many observers of the Intelligence Community have expressed concern that Intelligence Community judgments concerning Iraq's purported WMD programs may have been warped by inappropriate political pressure... The Commission has found no evidence of 'politicization' of the Intelligence Community's assessments concerning Iraq's reported WMD programs. No analytical judgments were changed in response to political pressure to reach a particular conclusion." -- Intelligence Capabilities Commission Report, pages 187-188.

(ii) "We looked very closely at that question [Administration pressuring intelligence analysts]. Every member of the commission was sensitive to the number of questions that have been raised with respect to the, what we'll call politicization, or however you want to describe it. And we examined every single instance that had been referred to, in print or otherwise, to see if there was any occasion where a member of the administration or anyone else had asked an analyst or anybody else associated with the intelligence community to change a position that they were taking or whether they felt there was any undo influence, and we found absolutely no instance." -- Charles S. Robb, Co-Chairman, The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, March 31 press conference.

(iii) "The Intelligence Community’s Iraq assessments were ... riddled with errors. Contrary to what some defenders of the Intelligence Community have since asserted, these errors were not the result of a few harried months in 2002. Most of the fundamental errors were made and communicated to policymakers well before the now-infamous NIE of October 2002, and were not corrected in the months between the NIE and the start of the war. They were not isolated or random failings. Iraq had been an intelligence challenge at the forefront of U.S. attention for over a decade. It was a known adversary that had already fought one war with the United States and seemed increasingly likely to fight another. But, after ten years of effort, the Intelligence Community still had no good intelligence on the status of Iraq’s weapons programs." -- Intelligence Capabilities Commission Report Overview, page 9.

(iv) "Post-war investigations concluded that Curveball's [the code-name of an Iraqisource] was not influenced by, controlled by, or connected to, the INC [Iraqi National Congress]. In fact, over all, CIA's post-war investigations revealed that INC-related sources had a minimal impact on pre-war assessments." -- Intelligence Capabilities Commission Report Overview, page 108.

(v) "The NIE simply didn't communicate how weak the underlying intelligence was. This was, moreover, a problem that was not limited to the NIE. Our review found that after the publication of the October 2002 NIE but before Secretary of State Colin Powell’s February 2003 address to the United Nations, intelligence officials within the CIA failed to convey to policymakers new information casting serious doubt on the reliability of a human intelligence source known as 'Curveball.' This occurred despite the pivotal role Curveball’s information played in the Intelligence Community’s assessment of Iraq’s biological weapons programs, and in spite of Secretary Powell’s efforts to strip every dubious piece of information out of his proposed speech. In this instance, once again, the Intelligence Community failed to give policymakers a full understanding of the frailties of the intelligence on which they were relying." -- Intelligence Capabilities Commission Report Overview, pages 10-11.


"Jordan fades back - swish - AND THAT'S THE GAME!!!"
- Jim Carrey

David,

You've got to stop blaming Clinton for things that Bush "erred" on. The information was mostly provided by the CIA. GB Sr. ran the CIA and developed and furthered its culture. Blame the son for the sins of the father?

The report may explain the president's actions but it does not exonerate him. Hardly.

David,

You've got to stop blaming Clinton for things that Bush "erred" on. The information was mostly provided by the CIA. GB Sr. ran the CIA and developed and furthered its culture. Blame the son for the sins of the father?

The report may explain the president's actions but it does not exonerate him. Hardly.

Barry, I've posted myself blue in the face with REAL FACTS here for you to peruse. Furthermore, most of the quotes above are from Democratic Senators DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION (many of them the same senators now accusing him of a coverup), with barely any mention of Clinton. This leads me to believe that you didn't even read it.

My question to you is, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT BUSH LIED? Just because your Dem leaders assert it doesn't make it true. The FACTS that I've laid out for you show that he didn't lie. Joe Wilson's been discredited as a public liar. How can you depend upon the corrupt 9/11 commission while ignoring the Silberman/Robb Commission?

I asked you earlier if you would be able to look at this objectively, yet at every turn you stubbornly resist the truth that I offer. I am starting to think that you never really intended to make this a true debate. If you don't start showing YOUR evidence that Bush lied, then I'm done here.

Back to the original topic of this thread.

David, David, David,

OK. I'll stop saying BuSh lied if you'll acknowledge that he misled us because he used faulty data that he thought was reliable.

What do you do when you use faulty data that you thought was reliable? You take responsibility, dont you?

Do you want to discuss this, or are you still not talking to me?

I think BuSh could do a much better job if the special interests didn't keep getting in the way.

So, it is not Bush, it is the special interests? Correct?

Take your issues to PM or private EMail. Don't air the dirty laundry with the grease stains out here for all of us to see.

Thank you for your cooperation.


Ive deleted the post. Personal BS doesnt belong in here.

Ive deleted the post. Personal BS doesnt belong in here.

You need to make it clear that you deleted Barry’s post directed at me, and not something that I posted.

You need to make it clear that you deleted Barry’s post directed at me, and not something that I posted.


No I dont. I dont NEED to do anything. You two have me about at my wits end. Discuss the facts of the thread or dont post in it! I am so sick of you two throwing jabs at each other. It stops NOW. Anyone who knows me knows I dont get pissed and talk like this often, so take that as an indication of my seriousness.

No I dont. I dont NEED to do anything.
http://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gif

Well, then I will make it clear. I did not post a hissy fit this morning, whosis did.

http://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/a.gif

Well, then I will make it clear. I did not post a hissy fit this morning, whosis did.

Yay for you!

Back to topic. Should Judge Alito be confirmed to the Supreme Court?

I find it interesting that Bryan thinks that conservatives have had to wait 30 years to nominate someone to the bench. That's a laugh. And, I find it confusing and obtuse that he thinks the average voter actually took in to consideration who would go on the Supreme Court...a question that didn't come up at all during the debate (maybe if Bush hadn't pussed out on having more debates, and we'd had the normal 4 or so, it would have gotten around to that)...a question that wasn't in the pundit talking points that I recall...a question that I didn't hear talked about at all until Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement.

I also remember a big bi-partisan push during the Clinton years to make sure that anyone nominated to the bench was a moderate (hence the article quoted that started the liberal/un-biased media debate). To be a proper Judge you should be moderate...neither conservative nor liberal. You should decide things based on the constitution and case law, not your personal value system. The high court is just what Joey said...


Interpeting the Constitution, and how to apply its principals to the laws of today, is the job of the Supreme Court.

So all the 'legislating from the bench' bull is ridiculous...

Should Judge Alito be put on the bench? I don't know...all I've heard are talking points...nothing about him as a judge and his law writings...has he broken the constitution in his rulings? Does he believe in revising the constitution or throwing out basic tenants of it if it suits his beliefs?

I find it interesting that Bryan thinks that conservatives have had to wait 30 years to nominate someone to the bench. That's a laugh.


Nice try. What I said was we have had to wait over 30 years for a conservative bench. To think that the Supreme Court has not leaned liberal these past years is laughable. One needs to look no further than the Kelo decision for proof of that. Or to Roe v Wade for when the judicial started legislating.

And I find it confusing and obtuse that he thinks the average voter actually took in to consideration who would go on the Supreme Court...a question that didn't come up at all during the debateNot the avergae voter. The average voter can't even tell you who's running for President. All they do is walk like sheeple into the voting both and look for that (D) besides the name. That is all they know. Want proof? Go ask people at the next election why they voted for who and sit back and listen in horror. How do I know? Because I am one of those wierd people to who go around to voting venues and talk to the people.

I also remember a big bi-partisan push during the Clinton years to make sure that anyone nominated to the bench was a moderate (hence the article quoted that started the liberal/un-biased media debate).And what did Clinton do? Nominated the ACLU! Nice moderate bi-partisan effort there Bill.

So all the 'legislating from the bench' bull is ridiculous...No it is not. The reason you don't like it is because conservatives have distilled this debate down to something that is understandable to the average joe. Judges are supposed to judge. Legislaters legislate. Simple.

And what did Clinton do? Nominated the ACLU! Nice moderate bi-partisan effort there Bill.





a. As I already mentioned, Ginsberg was suggested to Clinton by Orin Hatch(R)

b. Whats so bad about the ACLU? They are looking to protect the Constitution

C. Even still, What does Clinton have to do with GW? You didnt like it when he did it, so why should we like it when GW does it. Awfully one sided to me

I'm sick of the partisan (can we all get along) line. If the Dems were in power, there would be no talk of reaching out and you know it.



Hmm - and your saying GW reached out with this nomination?

I believe the analogy to be apt.

I don't buy the statement that we're only out to get Bush. My wife and I are both seasoned letter writers and have been published numerous times. My latest item that sets me off is Daylight Savings Time. Our local paper published my rant a little while ago and I actually got some people fired up.


What the Hell could you have a problem with Daylight Saving Time.

b. Whats so bad about the ACLU? They are looking to protect the Constitution


Don't get me started. Do you even know anything about the ACLU?


The ACLU’s position is this: criminalize the production but legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography. This is the kind of lawyerly distinction that no one on the Supreme Court found convincing. They also fight for public sex acts and legalizing prostitution while suing churches for opposing strip clubs that open right across the street.