Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A serious question for those who want Roberts filibustered

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:07 AM
Original message
A serious question for those who want Roberts filibustered
Would you be willing to see that happen to a Democrat's nominees? By all accounts Roberts is a conservative judge but a mainstream one. He isn't a Bork or Thomas or Scalia. If this standard is enforced now then a Democratic president couldn't name a liberal. Is that really what you want? If this were 2003, then I could see a filibuster. But this is 2005, Bush won a term of office. Elections matter, even when we lose them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:10 AM
Response to Original message
1. The election was stolen in 2004.
Are we to compromise with the fascists until we have no more rights?

First they came for the Muslims, then they came for the gays, then they came for the women...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okieinpain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
157. man oh man, dear god. yes the election was rigged. but rigged or
not bushler is prez baby. he get's to pick how big a dick we get screwed by, sorry but that's the way it is. it would be nice if we had control of the senate, but oops we don't have that either. so your point is kinda moot, unless of course you're fixing to travel to iraq to begin your training.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #157
166. What?!?
"so your point is kinda moot, unless of course you're fixing to travel to iraq to begin your training." - Well, since we have American brothers and sisters fixing to go to Iraq right now the point isn't moot. You can explain the relevance of my statement to my cousin when he returns from his second tour in Iraq. :mad:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okieinpain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #166
176. training for over throwing the government, because that is the only
way you're going to stop roberts for sitting his weird ass down in one of those chairs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:11 AM
Response to Original message
2. Roberts is NOT a mainstream conservative.


To answer your question, yes that is what I really want. If a Supreme court nominee isn't acceptable to both the right and the left he/she has no business being on the court.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Then who would be on the court
The right didn't accept O'Connor to give one example. It is literally impossible to come up with a judge who would be acceptable to both the right and the left (among other things the judge would have to both favor and oppose Roe v Wade)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. There's no such thing as a mainstream conservative anymore.
Just shepherds and sheeple.

Whichever category he falls into, I'm sure he knows when to take orders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RememberWellstone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #11
153. I agree.
He was responsible for the stealing of Florida in 2000 lest we forget. Shepherds and sheep, this one is a Bushite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:12 AM
Response to Original message
3. the election was a blatant fraud so Bush didn't win anything
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:17 AM
Response to Original message
5. You're fooling yourself.
Repukes would block ANYONE as liberal as Roberts is conservative. You honestly think they'll play fair next time if we let this one through? Ha!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. They didn't block either Ginsburg or Breyer
and probably wouldn't have blocked Marshall had he been a white liberal. So yes, I would expect that a similarly liberal judge would be confirmed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Ginsberg and Breyer are liberals?
That's news to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #6
28. Orrin Hatch suggested Ginsburg's name...
and she's a moderate, not a liberal...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danocrat Donating Member (485 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. What Trotsky said/nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. I'm Curious How You Would Define Ginsburg And Breyer?
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 08:32 AM by DemocratSinceBirth
They are reliably

pro affirmative action...

pro reproductive rights...

pro gay rights...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #10
19. Ginsburg and Breyer are left-leaning moderates.
They have been part of conservative decisions, too. If they're so liberal, why is John Paul Stevens still considered the court's most liberal voice?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. Because There Are Degrees Of Liberalism....



From left to right..

Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter,Kennedy, Roberts, Rehnquist,Scalia, Thomas....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #21
168. Interesting that you put Thomas to the right of Scalia
I think they ae exactly on the same page, in lockstep that is far,far right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okieinpain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #10
159. damn those conservative bastard judges. I bet they eat meat too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
9. The country seems divided against him, at least in the latest polls
I don't think our party has to use the unfortunate circumstance of Bush'e re-elevation to office as a mandate for him to have his way, on anything. That's why we have a system where his authority is 'checked' by the other branches. Our democracy only works if we participate. Ours is the opposition party. Most of our voters elected the members of our party to oppose Bush. If they wanted whatever Bush would offer they would have voted for him.

As far as a Democratic choice for the court, I don't automatically believe that republicans have the credibility to do a potential Dem Prez great harm in a SCOTUS fight. I welcome that battle, as it would mean that we had achieved the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
12. I don't think the candidate is a mainstream
conservative but I don't want to fall in their current trap. I say draw the battle lines on the next one that by the numbers will swing the court and concentrate on pushing and exposing the investigation which I see as our only hope of derailing this train.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. I Went To Bed Early Because I Knew The Choice Would Be Disappointing..
It was a bad choice but it could have been worse...


If I was a senator I would probably vote against him but I don't expect much opposition....


There are still four left of center justices and one swing justice....


If Souter, Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, or Kennedy retire I will be profoundly concerned....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
13. Guess what? Clinton's nominees WERE blocked
and they were, for the most part, MODERATES...

"By all accounts Roberts is a conservative judge but a mainstream one."
On what planet? Here on earth he's a extremist hack who's been a judge only two years.

Roberts was part of the disgraceful fight by the Bush administration to deny tortured American prisoners of war the compensation from Iraq a court said they were entitled to...(Acree v. Republic of Iraq)....

Roberts held that a 12 year old girl could be arrested and handcuffed for eating a french fry in public (Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority)

He's been an ally of Operation Rescue, the group that harasses womens' health clinics. He's anti-environmental law, and he publicly opposes the Violence Against Women Act...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. It will all come out
in public focus in September.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #15
31. And in the meantime
We need to get Americans to look at Judge Frenchfry in real focus....not in the phony light the GOP wants to shine on him...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. His Supreme Court Nominees Weren't Blocked...
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #17
29. Because Orrin Hatch suggested them...learn some history
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #29
33. He only suggested one
Breyer was under a Democratic Senate. Clinton messed that one up. He could have gotten a much more liberal person for that seat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. No, Hatch suggested BOTH Breyer and Ginsburg
and both were moderates, not liberals...

Here's Hatch's autobiography: "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.

I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507070002
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #29
45. "Learn Some History..."
Thank you... I consider myself a well informed citizen...

So Clinton ran his choices before Hatch before making them and Hatch put it in his trifling , little book...


I am sure it made Hatch feel better....

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was counsel for the ACLU and Steven Breyer was a liberal law professor at Harvard...

They have been on the "right" or left side of just about every issue that has come before the Court...

Clinton did a good job and I am glad his appeal to Hatch's vanity was not in vain....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #45
50. Again, learn some history....
"So Clinton ran his choices before Hatch before making them "
Yeah...go figure that.

"Ruth Bader Ginsburg was counsel for the ACLU and Steven Breyer was a liberal law professor at Harvard..."
No, both have been moderates...

What made Breyer "liberal"? Him being at Harvard?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #50
83. Your Condescending Attitude Will Win You No Bonus Points With Me
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 10:58 AM by DemocratSinceBirth
Your condescending attitude will win you no bonus points with me but I am sure that wasn't your intention...

Perhaps your self professed erudition will win the respect of other posters... Or maybe even their awe...

I haven't posted here for awhile... Your patronizing attitude which results in nothing ever getting accomplished reminds me why I began my hiatus...

"What made Breyer "liberal"? Him being at Harvard?"


Perhaps the fact that he clerked for Arthur Goldberg or was Democratic counsel on the House Impeachment Committe with Hillary Clinton during Watergate...


Kisses


Brian
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #83
147. No bonus points? Holy scalding shit!
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 12:59 PM by MrBenchley
How can I go on? (snicker)

"Your patronizing attitude which results in nothing ever getting accomplished"
Jeeze, I'm not the one trying to pretend moderates are liberals...nor do I see what deluding oneself about that, for the sake of pretending that Roberts ought not to be opposed, "accomplishes."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #29
134. Yes, Orin Hatch is a source to be believed....
...he would NEVER attempt to take credit for something or embellish his role.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #134
148. Suit yourself then....and roll over and play dead
for Chimpy and the GOP noise machine...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. On your specific charges
In the first case the issue was can those people sue Iraq if by doing so they are denying the current Iraqi government funds needed for reconstruction (Saddam was gone by the time the suit was decided) while I disagree with his finding it is absurd to call that "not letting torture victims sue".

The second case is disturbing. But it also is part of the body of law that treating juviniles differently from adults is acceptable. It should be noted that by the time the case was heard DC had reversed the policy in question. I wonder if the decision would have been different had they not done that.

Without seeing the rest I can't comment (you give no links or context for the rest of your charges).

Now as a general point. Mainstream conservatives, are in fact conservative. So yes, there will be some, maybe a multitude, of actions and or decisions that I and you won't like. Just like there were a multitude of actions and decisions by Ginsburg that the otherside didn't like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #18
27. The plain fact is...
that I doubt any but a handful of Halliburton employees would have said that US prisoners of war who had been tortured by Iraqis were not entitled to compensation from Iraq....and that the decision was utterly shameful.

"The second case is disturbing."
Almost to the point of comedy. What kind of vengeful idiot thinks eating a french fry is a felony, or that a 12 year old who does so is a dangerous felon?

"Mainstream conservatives, are in fact conservative."
But the who in the wide world of sports thinks the mainstream of THIS country is anywhere near the far right? Just because he's not on the far batshit-crazy firnge of the Federalist Society roster doesn't make him anywhere near the center.

"Just like there were a multitude of actions and decisions by Ginsburg that the otherside didn't like."
But how many of those would most Americans disagree? Be sure to dredge them up...

By the way, you do know that Clinton nominated Ginsburg on Orrin Hatch's recommendation, don't you? And that Ginsburg IS a moderate, not a liberal?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507070002
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #27
34. Among other things Ginsburg had sued to overturn statutory rape laws
I hardly think that is something most people want (she did so on the grounds that abusers of girls were treated more harshly than abusers of boys). I haven't thoroughly researched her record lately but I do recall that from her confirmation hearings.

She is a liberal. She may not be as liberal as we would like but she is liberal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #34
40. Yeah? Where was that?
The only references to anything like that are from Crazy Bill Buckley's Nazional Review and a bunch of freeper cesspools.....

"She is a liberal."
Not even close to true...you really ought to get out more...

"...a June 15, 1993, Washington Post article reported that Ginsburg had "straddled the liberal-conservative divide of the D.C. Court of Appeals for the last 13 years" and that her "pragmatic, non-ideological approach" would most likely put her in league with such "centrist-conservatives" as Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and David H. Souter. The Post article cited a study of the 1987 appeals court that found Ginsburg had voted more consistently with Republican-appointed judges than Democrats:
On the D.C. Court of Appeals, to which she was appointed by President Jimmy Carter in 1980, she has become a swing vote. A 1988 computer study by Legal Times newspaper found that she had sided more with Republican-appointed colleagues than Democratic counterparts. In cases that were not unanimous, she voted most often with then-Judge Kenneth W. Starr, who became George Bush's solicitor general, and Laurence H. Silberman, a Reagan appointee still on the court."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507070002

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #40
77. as a general cousul of the ACLU
I don't have a specific date and year but it was in the 1970's. The fact is that as a Supreme Court justice she has been a left of center justice. She isn't who Orrin Hatch would have named if he had been President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #77
81. Unless you've got a date and a time
I say it's crap. Because all I can find are dishonest and mindless smears from the scum of the earth, like Crazy Bill Buckley....

"She isn't who Orrin Hatch would have named if he had been President. "
Says you....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DWolper Donating Member (238 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #81
135. Ginsburg/ACLU
"Ginsburg launched her campaign by joining forces with the ACLUs national office. She helped to write the ACLUs brief in a key Supreme Court sex discrimination case, Reed v. Reed (1971), which struck down a state law that preferred men over women as administrators of decedents' estates. However, because the Court reached its decision without explicitly adopting a heightened standard of review, the ruling did not guarantee similar results in other cases."

"The ACLU established a Women's Rights Project in 1972 and placed Ginsburg at the helm. Over the next eight years, she sought to persuade a majority of the Supreme Court that sex-based legal distinctions should trigger some form of heightened judicial scrutiny."
http://www.supremecourthistory.org/justice/ginsburg.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #135
143. Nothing there about statutory rape...I think it's a right wing slur
"Between 1972 and 1978, Ginsburg argued six cases before the Court involving sex-role stereotyping and won five. In Craig v. Boren (1976), the Court finally accepted Ginsburgs view (expressed in a "friend-of-the-court" brief) that gender-based legal distinctions deserved heightened scrutiny."

http://www.supremecourthistory.org/justice/ginsburg.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #143
151. I heard her being asked directly about his in confirmantion hearings
and she certainly didn't say she hadn't done it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #151
154. Wow...that's certainly believable....NOT
And yet she was confirmanated...by a majoritarism too....(snicker)...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #154
165. Here is your link
It took me one Google search to find. I was a little busy down thread but here it is.

If Ginsburg is confirmed, she will have dramatic opportunities to develop her vision of the jurisprudence of equality over the jurisprudence of difference. She may, in time, be asked to pass judgment on many of the "benign preferences" for women that her intellectual opponents have endorsed: comparable worth policies that seek to reimburse women for traditional occupations, such as motherhood; statutory rape laws with different ages for women than for men (Ginsburg questioned their constitutionality while at the aclu); child custody laws preferring mothers to fathers; the Violence Against Women Act, which enhances penalties for crimes "motivated" by gender. She will also be able to re-examine some of her past positions that are arguably inconsistent with a symmetrical vision of sex equality, such as the 1971 article in which she endorsed David Riesman's suggestion that single-sex colleges for women, but not men, might be constitutional because "if America were now a matriarchy ... we would regard women's colleges as a menace and men's colleges as a possibly justified defense."In her first weeks on the Court, in fact, Ginsburg will confront a sexual harassment case in which the internecine battles of the women's movement seem to converge. In deciding wheth er women who are offended by a hostile work environment must prove that they have suffered from "psychological injury" to make out a claim under Title vii, Ginsburg will be asked to plug an expanding hole in the First Amendment that MacKinnon persuaded th e Court to overlook in 1986. Women's rights organizations have taken different positions in the case about whether sexual harassment should be judged from the perspective of the "reasonable woman," the "reasonable person" or the actual victim. In choosing among the various alternatives, Ginsburg will have the chance to reaffirm the view she expressed in New Delhi in 1988: "Generalizations about the way women or men are ... cannot guide me reliably in making decisions about particular individuals."

For all its resonance, in the end, Ginsburg's maxim, "better bitch than mouse," does not quite do justice to her vision of sex equality. She has never argued that women should be forced to act like beasts, or that men should be discouraged from acting li ke mice. On the contrary, her ambition as an advocate was to purge the law of sweeping stereotypes that prevent individuals, women and men, from following their inclinations rather than submitting to conventional gender roles. Perhaps her work on the Cour t will encourage feminists who have lost faith in her vision to think again

end of quote

The bold is added by me. The "better bitch than mouse" refers to a quote by Ginsburg herself. Any rational reading of this site shows someone who admires Ginsburg.

http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/fem02.htm

BTW You owe me an apology for your crappy post. And Karma is a hard thing. You better watch your spelling and grammar for the next few hundred posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #165
167. So in other words your slur was horsecrap....
and the "she tried to overturn statutory rape laws" was a big steaming right wing pantload just as I said.

Thanks for sharing.

"She has never argued that women should be forced to act like beasts, or that men should be discouraged from acting li ke mice. On the contrary, her ambition as an advocate was to purge the law of sweeping stereotypes that prevent individuals, women and men, from following their inclinations rather than submitting to conventional gender roles."


"Karma is a hard thing. You better watch your spelling and grammar for the next few hundred posts."
Why? What are you going to do, pout childishly about any typos?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #167
171. What part of the laws were unconstitutional do you not understand
and for that matter failed to quote? That is exactly what she was trying to do. Incidently, though irrelevent, I think she was completely correct to do so the laws as written were indeed unconstitutional. But in point of fact, you are both dishonest, in that you didn't quote the relevent part of my post, and flat out wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #34
46. This Is A Silly Picayune Debate...
On the great issues of our day from abortion to gay rights to affirmative action Breyer and Ginsburg are reliably liberal votes as are Thomas and Scalia reliably conservative votes...

Any further deconstruction of their decisions is like determining how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...

All you need to do is ask yourself what this country would look like if there were

-nine Clarence Thomases on the Court...


or


-nine Ruth Bade Ginsbergs on the Court...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #46
51. Says who?
"On the great issues of our day from abortion to gay rights to affirmative action Breyer and Ginsburg are reliably liberal votes"
No, they've been moderate votes. Americans overwhelmingly support those issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #51
94. Can you link the polls
where Americans

overwhelmingly support gay rights

abortion

and

affirmative action...


I think the only issue where you will find overwhelming support is for abortion but then you will find pluralities who favor parental notification, waiting periods, and restrictions on late term abortions...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #94
150. Hey, if you think Roberts is in the mainstream
don't let me disabuse you of your fantasies...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #150
158. First You Patronize Me Now You Are Bearing False Witness
Against Me...

I'll bet if you had my address you would put dog doo doo by my front door.....

I never said John Roberts was mainstream...

He's in the mainstream of the conservative movement as are folks like Lawrence Tribe in the mainstream of the liberal movement..


Oh, I'm still waiting for the polls that overwhelming majorities support affirmative action, abortion, and gay rights...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #158
160. Boo-fucking-hoo....
"I'll bet if you had my address you would put dog doo doo by my front door.."
Naw. There's enough inside.

"Oh, I'm still waiting for the polls that overwhelming majorities support affirmative action, abortion, and gay rights..."
Hold your breath while you wait.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #160
177. .......
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 06:53 PM by DemocratSinceBirth
I'd tell you what you could hold but you're not worth getting banned.....

Open mouth Kisses


Brian
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #94
155. elements of gay rights
have pretty decent support. The right not to be fired or evicted is in the upper 60's to lower 70's for instance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #18
175. true...the verdict didn't let torture victims COLLECT
the money they were awarded. it had nothing to do with not letting them sue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jerryman814 Donating Member (422 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #13
65. link to the case
I was amazed reading it.... what a heartless man...

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #65
84. Judge Smails could hardly have said it better....
"I've sent boys younger than you to the gas chamber, Danny. I didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
16. Of equal concern is the fact
that Roberts worked on the Bush Recount team and gave the team $1000.

What the Bush Recount Team did was to steal an election and he is one of the lawyers who helped them steal it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crowdance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
20. Absolutely. The fillibuster is now required.
I want to see the Democrats stand up for women's right to choose, and against the right-wing machine that works to deny women their full human rights. Anything less than a filibuster is a complete betrayal of 52% of this country's human beings. The party has already lost my money because of its lack of support for women's choice. Let's see if it now loses my vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. Sorry but many of those people are precisely why we are in the mess
we are in. 33% of pro choice voters voted for Bush. Pro choicers need to clean up their own house before asking Dems to do this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crowdance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
Women are in this mess; not you. And you choose to not stand with the women who have stood with you through many battles. Your CHOICE, of course.But, when your rights are decimated by the folks you've chosen to rule you, and be assured YOUR rights are also in danger, you'll find yourself standing alone. Because this is every human for her/himself, it would seem. Thanks, at least, for standing boldly for your ridiculous truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Not in this mess
Try Lawerence, that was the decision a mere two years ago, that held that gays and lesbians can't be arrested for having conscentual sex in their own homes. And yes, I think the 25% of LGBT voters who voted for Bush are equally to blame here. Incidently, don't you think that if we filibuser this nominee now on abortion grounds, that Republicans will do the same thing in the opposite direction? Do you really want the standard to be what the 5 or 6th most liberal Republican will let the President have?

The simple fact is that those who cared about this issue should have cared in November. Way too may didn't. Before bitching out a pro lifer who voted for Kerry, you might, just might, want to go after some of the 1 out of 3 pro choicers who voted for Bush. They, not I, are the reason we are in this mess. They, not I, installed Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
renaissanceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #26
39. And what makes you think that
the republicans are going to play fair when a democratic president nominates someone to SCOTUS?

they stole two elections.

they are willing to defy the law already for their own political gain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crowdance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #26
42. Your labeling of my statement as "bitching out" says it all
not only is it against DU rules, it reveals in stark black and white your agenda. You need to face the hard truth here, which is that you are on the wrong side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #42
67. I shouldn't have used the word bitching out
but I note that you haven't addressed Lawerence. I wonder why that is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #67
75. Possibly because I was addressing the post I was addressing...
:shrug:

I think you have me confused with someone else...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #75
79. The post you just answered isn't directed to you
it is you who are confused. I was answering Crowdance here. I answered you below, under your post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #79
80. That would explain it then...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crowdance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #67
170. If you had actually made a point, I would have addressed it
Perhaps you'd care to restate in a way that does make a point? Otherwise, I will ask: you seem to imply there's something insidious about my lack of reply. What, exactly, do you think that is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #26
54. "bitching out a pro lifer" ??? Are you calling her a bitch?
That's what it sounds like to me.

I'm embarrassed for gay people who don't support women's rights. Glad you are in the minority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #54
70. No I am not
And I would like you to quote where I did. BTW I mean an actually quote not something made up. They have to be words that I really typed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #70
85. "Before bitching out a pro lifer who voted for Kerry, you might, just ...
might, want to go after some of the 1 out of 3 pro choicers who voted for Bush."

Before BITCHING OUT a pro lifer... YOU might want to...

Hiding behind semantics and saying that you did not technically call her by the noun of "BITCH" is a weak tactic. Saying that she is "BITCHING" you OUT is the same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #26
99. Can you provide a link to Robert's position on Lawerence...
I didn't realize that he had ever publicly acknowledged his opposition to the overturning of that law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #99
103. I have no idea, anymore than you have any idea of his position of Roe
but as Soliciter General he argued on more than one occasion that Bowers v Hardwick was correctly decided. In short, if his arguing against Roe as SG is an OK basis for assuming he is against Roe then we can also assume he is against Lawerence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #103
107. I guess I'd like to see his public opinion on it.
Since he's been public enough about Roe v Wade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #107
110. No he hasn't
at least not that I have seen. He has been quoted in legal briefs as SG.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #24
43. Only women are in this mess?
Thanks for being offensive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crowdance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #43
48. MJ, I'll gladly stand up for your reproductive rights, too!
and I think being offended is the least of our problems right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #48
53. Yes, you have better things to do, like insulting those who share your
goals.

Great "strategy".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crowdance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #53
71. Who do you identify as sharing my goals?
In fact, you probably know close to nothing about my goals. That's the problem with a discussion board: you never really know the people with whom you're sharing space. In fact, there are those on this board who are here to inject certain memes into the conversation:
--"we have to trade the right to abortion for votes; it's for the good of the party";
--"the GOP doesn't want to do away with abortion rights--they'll lose votes. don't you worry about that"
--"etc., etc., etc."

I definitely don't share those kind of goals. And, I guess I'm insulted that you'd imply that I do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #71
86. You already identified the goals: reproductive rights.
You're otherwise arguing strategy.

Now if you want to alienate those who share your goals go ahead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crowdance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #86
91. You believe that dsc shares those goals? read again...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #91
93. I saw nothing to indicate he did not.
And I know I share that goal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #93
97. In fairness I am pro life
but equally it was clear you were referring to yourself in that exchange.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #97
102. Oh - well screw that!
But I'm afraid I must agree on other points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #97
108. Of COURSE you are! Finally the thread makes sense.
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 11:21 AM by Misunderestimator
:eyes: It took only a few hours to admit your underlying prejudice. What a waste of time this was...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #108
112. I think it is ludricrous to accuse me of lying here
which is exactly what you just did. I shouldn't have to premise everything I ever write here with the fact I am pro life given that it is a well known fact. Incidently exactly one post asked me if I was and that is the post I answered (BTW I do have a life believe it or not for at least an hour and a half of this time I wasn't posting at all). But in all honestly it is way, way, way more likely that Lawerence will be overturned than Roe. And if both are, it is way, way, way more likely that sodomy laws will return than laws against abortion in most of the country. In short, I have more to lose than the typical straight woman. And in the OP I do mention LGBT voters who voted for Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #112
116. No, I did not... and WOW, what a stretch after claiming that you did not
call someone a bitch by saying that she was "bitching you out"... :rofl:

Wow! so, somehow I called a you liar... lol

You think you have more to lose than a woman?!? The sodomy laws are not going to return... if they do, they will be struck down again. Do you think everyone of us will stop having sex when they reinvoke that law? Well, striking down Roe v Wade will most certainly cause doctors to stop providing abortions. How are these even similar?

IF YOU Really are concerned about the sodomy laws threatening you, it makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER that you wouldn't oppose the nomination. You are talking in circles.

Your OP did not in any way indicate that you were ANTI-CHOICE. So, no I was not accusing you of lying, but rather pointing out that it took that long for the truth of your Anti-choice position to come out. I suppose I should have known you were anti-choice, but I didn't. The pink triangle fooled, and I guess I just don't recall knowing this about you.

Tell me where I called you a liar... and use my words... you know, the words I actually typed. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #116
119. Not only do I recall discussing abortion with you in the past
at 9:05am (58 minutes after I posted the OP) I posted this:

The simple fact is that those who cared about this issue should have cared in November. Way too may didn't. Before bitching out a pro lifer who voted for Kerry, you might, just might, want to go after some of the 1 out of 3 pro choicers who voted for Bush. They, not I, are the reason we are in this mess. They, not I, installed Bush

Not only did you read this post, but you quoted it, including the pro life part. Thus there is no way, none, that you can honestly claim that I hid the fact I was a pro lifer for three hours. BTW I shouldn't have characterized the post as a bitching out but I did not call the person a bitch, there is a difference. This would be an example of you editting a post when you respond BTW. I don't have time to search and prove that I had told you before that I was pro life, and in all honestly you could have forgetten that. In any case I don't need to to disprove your charge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #119
120. LOL... OK... I'll admit I brushed right past that inference... since
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 11:51 AM by Misunderestimator
the "bitching out" stood out. Whatever man... :eyes:

You're anti-choice and you don't oppose this nominee. That's pretty much all I need to know.

By the way... you should read this thread, find out where your fellow democrats stand:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #120
124. Incidently I never, not even one time, stated I didn't oppose Roberts
I did say he shouldn't be filibustered. Frankly if enough pro choice Republicans, like the NARAL endorsed Chaffee for instance, decide to vote against him we don't need to filibuster. But, once again, you put words into my mouth. I defy you to find one place where I suggest Democrats, or anyone else should vote for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #124
125. I didn't say you said that... but it does follow that you don't oppose
him... since you are suggesting that democrats don't oppose him through filibuster. No where did I say that you actually said those words, I simply say that you are not opposed to him, because that is how I interpret your being opposed to filibustering him. So defy away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #125
127. So should Democrats filibuster any and every thing to which they are
opposed? Should the Senate require 60 votes to do anything? I would hate to think what that would mean for a Democratic President with this Senate. Even taking out the 40 worst Republicans would leave some real doozies. If we do this, this will set a precedent. Do you ever think the Senate will have 60 votes for upholding either Roe or Lawerence? What about things like flag burning or other unpopular speech?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #127
130. They should filibuster someone who would take away the rights of HALF
of us, YES! YES! YES! YES!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #130
136. and then when the reverse happens?
Say we succeed here and Bush gets a stealth nominee through who winds up overturning Roe anyway. Then in 2008, a Democrat (you choose), wins. That Democrat campaigns saying he or she will appoint a justice who will restore Roe v Wade in the place of Renquist, who has announced his retirement. What principled reason would there be for Republican pro lifers not to filibuster such a pick?

Among all of the bad things this precedent would do, it would also freeze the Court as it is now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #136
137. Somehow you trust republicans to treat us with deference...
simply because we don't object to their nominee...IF the tables are every turned again. I have no idea where such a naive concept would come from given all we know about their modus operandi.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #137
139. In the final analysis
they have to reap what they sew and they know it. Bush got them to act this way due to his immense power after 9/11. But, many of them realized then they were going too far. As his power has ebbed he is starting to lose on these things. Bolten has all but disappeared, the filibuster compromise was worked out. Even most Republican Senators understand that the Senate is designed to work a certain way and that the last few years were a horrible abberation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #139
141. Huh? They know that they reap what they sow?
And that this knowledge will lead them to being non-partisan? What? What evidence do you have that they will "play fair" as long as we don't oppose their nominees. If they are so unhappy with things.... THEY should be opposing this nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #141
149. How many SC nominees have been filibustered?
One, Fortas. And in all honesty, there was a serious ethical problem with him.

Do you honestly think that either Ginsburg or Breyer were people that Republicans would have named if they were in power? I would have preferred that Clinton name a more liberal judge than Breyer in 1994 but he still is lightyears better than even Souter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #149
156. Not enough....
Nixon jeered about "that idiot Renchberg" in private even as he was pushing him on the country...and Rehnquist has been a disgrace.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #156
161. wasn't that after
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 01:13 PM by dsc
Renquist voted to make him turn over the tapes? On edit, I think a filibuster of him on grounds of perjury in his first confirmation hearing would have been warrented. He was originally confirmed in 1973 after falsely claiming he hadn't taken part in discouraging minorities (mostly Hispanics) from voting in Arizona. In 1986, this came up again and he revised his story given new facts which had been found.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #161
163. Learn some history...
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 01:18 PM by MrBenchley
"That idiot Renchberg" wasn't even on the court when Nixon called him that...he was getting nominated in return for the swell job he had done in Arizona keeping Mexican-Americans from voting and trying to prop up Jim Crow...

"Renchberg" also helped try to get G. Harold Carswell onto the Supreme Court for Nixon....Carswell got the boot in the Senate because he was an out and out segregationist...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #163
172. Do you have a link?
You will notice, that unlike you, I am asking for one, not calling you names.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #108
144. in fairness, misunderestimator
his views are well-known here. there was another anti-choice gay male here who was a lot more obnoxious than dsc, but i think they finally :nuke: his ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #144
146. thank you
It honestly didn't occur to me that this wouldn't be read through the prism of my being pro life. Maybe I should have labelled it but I figured that my views on that were well enough known.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #146
162. i believe you didn't mean it to be read that way
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 01:15 PM by noiretblu
but of course, people who are familiar with your views will read it that way. on the other hand, your position is probably what a lot of moderates would think too, so i don't think you were being dishonest by not mentioning you are pro-life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #144
164. I recall that now, but honestly didn't when I first read the thread.
And I think that in fairness to people who aren't familiar with his positions, it should have been made clear in the OP. Pretty important point of reference.

I think maybe I put the two together and was remembering the nuked one. I've got to start taking notes...LOL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #164
169. the unmentionable one
was really :crazy: a true one-note wonder...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #164
173. Why
First, it isn't like I have hidden my pro life views. Had you asked me, I would have straight forwardly told you of them.

Second, and far more important, this isn't only about Roe v Wade. I find it deeply ironic that so many pro choicers seem to only care about this case. We had people saying Gonzoles would be acceptable since he might be pro choice. The fact is, this man isn't who I would want on the court for a variety of reasons. I think he endangers both Romer and Lawerence to name two decisions of personal import. He likely favors vouchers which will help destroy public education, I teach. And who knows what future issues this man will mess up. But in the final analysis, he is very likely going to be on the court and we would scream like raped roosters if the otherside tried to prevent a president of our party from naming a reasonable liberal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #173
174. It's not worth it to fight with an anti-choice man who doesn't give a flip
about my rights... and that's all I have left to say to you.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


HUGE KUDOS for SKINNER for that one! Glad that this site at least supports equality.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #43
58. Women are the ones at risk of losing their civil rights.
How many times have men had abortions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #58
62. Sorry - I didn't know he was anti-abortion but pro civil rights in every
other area.

HELLO.

He's not fucking likely to be any better on any OTHER civil rights, is he?

And the right to abortion is based on the principle of the HUMAN right to autonomy over your own body.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #62
64. OF COURSE NOT. What are you arguing about anyway?
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 10:44 AM by Misunderestimator
The primary thing here is his record on his opposition to Roe v Wade. Why muddy the waters right now with positions we know nothing about.

It's enough that he wants to take away rights of HALF the population.

Your last sentence... LOL... Is that supposed to be saying Feminism = Humanism... is that the angle? No... Abortion is based on the principle of the HUMAN right to autonomy over our own bodies, BUT only WOMEN are directly affected by this ONE HUGE RIGHT.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #64
68. Except HE is not on record on Roe v Wade - his CLIENT is.
And the SAME principle that supports the right to abortion also supports a host of other rights - including the right to have sex with the consenting partner of your choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #68
73. Again, I wonder what you are arguing about?
Is it just that you were offended not to be included? Where do you stand on this? Should this nominee be filibustered?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #73
89. I think the process should be vigorous and we should see what we can turn
up - but unless there are bombshells I don't think we have a hope of a filibuster or that it's a good strategy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
23. If Roberts is "mainstream" then the stream is polluted with fascism.
In case you haven't noticed this "mainstream" candidate wants to overturn the right of a woman to control her own body.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. what the Hell did you expect?
Bush made it crystal clear that any nominee of his would oppose Roe v Wade. Yet 33% of pro choice voters voted for him anyway. Guess what, you need to bitch at them, not this pro lifer who still voted for Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #25
32. I AM bitching at them.
Just because it was inevitable that Boobya would nominate a pro-preg fascist, doesn't mean that the nomination shouldn't be fought.

And, if a Democratic President were to nominate a pro-pregger I'd be calling for a filibuster to block it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
30. It would happen anyway. How many of Clinton's nominees never even made it
to the floor?

And, quite frankly, unless we protect our rights and keep fanatics and Bush loyalists out of office, we will never have a Democratic President again.

I don't want a Supreme Court that has its first loyalty to Bush and its second to the conservative agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #30
35. all his Supreme Court nominees did
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #35
38. And how many liberals were nominated and approved?
Imagine him nominating someone who was openly left wing.

And to take it a step further, imagine him nominating someone with little experience as a judge, someone who he owed political favors to, and whose only real reputation was as a party loyalist hack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #30
41. And how many of those who got blocked by the GOP
were non-white and/or female? Jesse Helms announced openly that he didn't want a black judge on the Fourth Circuit Court.

For that matter, you might recall the case of Bill Lann Lee, whose appointment as civil rights czar was blocked by the Republicans because he pledged in his hearing that he would uphold existing civil rights laws....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
37. Pro-choice is by definition "mainstream"
because most Americans support abortion rights. Wanting to criminalize abortion once more (which is what Roberts wants, apparently) is therefore by definition outside of the mainstream. He may be mainstream for conservatives, but not for America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RatRacer Donating Member (176 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #37
145. Well, that depends
At least according to this CBS News poll, the country is rather evenly divided and most favor more restrictions on it than there are currently:

Abortion should be allowed in all cases: 25%
Allowed, but with greater restrictions than there are now: 14%
Allowed only in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother: 38%
Allowed only to save the life of the mother: 15%
Never allowed: 3%

So, only 25% think the current situation with regard to abortion is the right one and 75% think there should be more restrictions placed on it at the very least. 56% would favor restricting it to at least rape, incest or the life of the mother, if not more restrictive than that.

A Gallup poll has it a little less detailed but it breaks down like this:
Always legal: 25%
Sometimes legal: 55%
Always illegal: 20%

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

Now, there is some encouraging news in that most people don't want RvW overturned, but that is consistent with the numbers. It seems that people want it in place so that abortions are legal in some cases, but you can't get around the fact that most people don't line up with the views of NARAL or NOW on this issue.

There are several polls, worded differently that give a somewhat mixed picture, but my overall impression is that the country is pretty evenly divided over this, so based on this issue alone, I don't think you could call Roberts out of the mainstream or say that pro-choice (as it's playing out right now or as supported by abortion-rights interest groups) is the mainstream.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strawman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
44. Whether I want it or not, they will filibuster if they can in the future
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 10:51 AM by Strawman
That's just the way it is now. They country is narrowly divided and Congress is more partisan than any time in memory. If you think people like Rick Santorum are going to say "Aw shucks you gave us a conservative last time, so we'll give you a liberal pro choice judge this time" even though the balance of SCOTUS is at stake, you're living in a fantasy world.

Still, I'm not saying they should definitely filibuster. Only if he is too conservative. They need to learn more about this guy. He's kind of a blank slate. Maybe that's not a bad thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
47. The Election was very close. Half the country can;t be ignored.
If Bush and the republicans had won an overwhelming mandate, you might have a point. But at best, Bush squeaked out a victory (if that) and the Congressional elections were also close.

And of those who voted for Bush and GOP Congresscritters, a large percentage would not go along with the far right wing agenda. Many voted their fears, or because the Democrats once again failedf to really stand for anything.

So hmore than alf the country can't be ignored in things like the SC nominees.

Even if we lost, the issues and principles here shoulod be made clear by a real fight. Two words is all you need to do that. FEDERALIST SOCIETY.

Surrender does not lead to victory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zomby Woof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
49. He IS a Bork, Thomas, Scalia
Just because he may have a sunnier disposition is no excuse to soften our views on his actual stances on the issues. I say we 'Bork' the fucker!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
52. When you become a woman and see your rights taken away...
I'll listen to you. When we KNOW without a doubt that this justice is opposed to a woman's right to choose (even though he says what he HAS to say, that he will uphold the written law), it would be INSANE not to object vehemently to the nomination.

But then again, it's only women's rights at stake. Thanks for your support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #52
56. Right - say that to a guy w/ a pink triangle avatar.
Because gays aren't threatened by this at all and have no idea what it means to not have legal recource.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #56
57. Right, and suddenly I'm not GAY?!?
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 10:35 AM by Misunderestimator
:rofl:

On edit... that pink triangle doesn't give him carte blanche to cavalierly decide to risk OUR civil rights. He SHOULD however be concerned as a gay man that any judge who would be against women's rights will most definitely be against gay rights too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #57
59. Then I'd expect you to know better than to say such things.
And reproductive rights are far from the only thing at risk here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #59
61. Say WHAT things? He should be concerned about gay rights too...
I know I am... ANOTHER reason that this person should be filibustered.

What's your point here? What did I say that was SO offensive to a gay man? That he should care about women's rights? Oh, dear lord... so sorry that those words are SO offensive to a man.

I'm ALWAYS AMAZED at the few gay men I've run across who do not support women's rights. But I guess it shouldn't surprise me given the numbers of men in the Log Cabin Republicans. All that together convinces me that this bigotry is a GENDER thing... it has NOTHING to do with homosexuality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #61
63. Oh sorry - now I don't support women's rights (despite the fact that I
always HAVE, despite the fact I have two daughters, despite the fact that I contribute to Planned Parenthood, and I could go on).

Please do not mistake someone's position on handling a nominee for being a log fucking cabin republican.

And to answer your question about what was offensive: it was the suggestion that a gay man doesn't know what it means to have rights taken away, or that he is not himself at risk with this nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #63
72. I was talking about the OP, not you... unless you're saying that
you are opposed to women's rights? I didn't that yet from your responses. Ad unless you're gay, I don't see how you COULD have misinterpreted my post to be saying that YOU don't support women's rights. :shrug:

The Log Cabin Republican reference was an analogy... Read it again, I did not say that gay men who do not support women's rights are Log Cabin Republicans. But you know that.

As for your answer to my question... Bullshit. If I offended him by insinuating that he did not know what it's like to have rights taken away, it's because he doesn't seem to understand how this nominee will be working to take our rights away.

Also... what rights have gay people lost? I wasn't aware that we had gained any of the rights we've never had. Did we lose something recently that I wasn't aware of?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #72
82. I am gay. And I support abortion rights. But that doesn't mean I
think there's much chance of opposing THIS nominee.

Bush chose well - a conservative with dem allies, with exceptional technical qualifications and a short paper trail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #82
88. There may not be much chance of succeeding in the opposition...
but it does NOT mean that we should just roll over and take it. Bush chose well in the respect that he can sneak this by a whole lot of people who are more than willing to sell out women's rights. You're right about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #88
92. This is one front in the war - it is not the whole war.
And once more, this is not only about women's rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #72
96. Have you heard of the Lawerence decision
this is the third time I have mentioned it? It is at least as likely that it will fall thanks to Roberts as Roe v Wade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #96
98. All the more reason that this makes no sense to me at all that anyone
would roll over and accept this nominee without objection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #98
105. What does "roll over" mean to you?
There are a range of options - vote for the nominee, vote against, filibuster, threaten filibuster.....

What is roll over in this case?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #105
106. Rolling over is accepting the nominee without objection...
not just voting against... but vehemently objecting would be nice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #106
128. Now we're getting somewhere.
And I pretty much agree.

But there are a lot of calls to FIGHT this or to NOT ROLL OVER and very little detail about what that means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #96
111. Well
There are still five Lawrence votes on the Court..

Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens, and Kennedy...


And I don't think there is a precedent in legal history for a major ruling to be overturned in such a short timespan...

It took sixty or so years to overturn Plessey v Ferguson.....

And there is no sentiment in the country to throw two men or two women in the hooskow for having sex with one another....

And you still need a case for the Court to hear...

That means you would need one of the thirteen or so states that had sodomy laws to make an actual arrest and then see that arrest held up through the appellate courts and then the Supreme Court offering a writ of certiorari and actually overturning it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #111
114. Lawerence overturned Bowers which was only 17 years old at the time
There is a fairly famous DP case where in one year it was decided one way and the very next it was decided the other way. I will try to find that one. If I recall it had to do with victim impact statements. Both Roe and Lawerence are in some degree of trouble (both had 6 to 3 votes) but I think Lawerence is actually more vulnerable not less due to its newness. New cases can hardly be called settled law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #114
115. I Don't See It....
There weren't many sodomy arrests pre Lawrence....

You need an arrest to start the process....



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #115
133. There were many people denied rights due to sodomy laws
pre Lawerence. In custody cases it was argued that homosexual parents were repeat felons and thus unfit (FL, MS, VA), in MS I had to sign a contract to teach which specificly required me to not engage in sodomy. These laws have uses that you wouldn't believe. They also could overturn it in an unrelated case, say gay people who got evicted by a religious landlard in a state with a gay rights law. The idea that sodomy is against the law was used in MA to try to undermine that state's gay rights law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #52
74. It isn't only women's rights at stake
but frankly the people who deserve the blame here are the pro choicers and the LGBT voters who voted for Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #74
76. AND How many of those people are here on DU?!?
If it's not only women's rights at stake, what the HELL are you lobbying for here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #76
90. reality
and people realizing when we need to be caring about these issues. It is purely insane to think that a nominee is going to be filibustered simply because he isn't in favor of Roe v Wade. It is even more insane to think he would be filibustered for not supporting Lawerence. Elections matter. Bush won. Barring Roberts having ethical problems or being way worse than he currently appears to be in regards to the issues, he will be confirmed. And the fault for that lies not with spinless Democrats but traitorous pro choicers and traitorous LGBT voters. If you are pro choice and you know someone who also is and voted for Bush, then you need to be haranging them, not me. I did my part. I swallowed my considerable differences of both style and substance and voted for and worked for Kerry. I did so for the Court above all else. But we lost. This is what happens when you lose.

I sincerely hope that these people learn their lesson, but they never will if instead of being honest about this, we blame spinless Democrats for not filibustering him. Roberts is the natural consequence of Bush's reelection. People expecting a Senate minority to save us from those consequences are being both unrealistic in the short term, and foolish in the long term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #90
95. You wrote this OP... so YOU are the one I'm addressing...
I don't know a single gay person who is not pro-choice (except for a few here... :eyes:) or any gay person who voted for Bush. So I cannot harangue them.

You wrote a thread, and I disagree with you. Therefore, I posted a response to your thread. Don't try to deflect this and make everything the fault of traitors who voted for Bush. This is about an ANTI-women's rights nominee. A filibuster, whether successful or not, would at LEAST establish where Democrats stand. To not oppose this nominee would be to passively agree that risking women's rights is A-OK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #95
100. I notice you didn't address pro choicers who voted for Bush
I suspect you might know a few of those, just like I know a few of the LGBT voters who did. Funny how you consistantly edit my posts in your response but just can't stand it when others do the same thing to you. So a direct question for which I would like a direct answer. Do you not know a single pro choicer who voted for Bush?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #100
104. No, I don't know any pro-choicers who voted for Bush.
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 11:15 AM by Misunderestimator
Why do you keep trying to deflect this to something other than the point that we should oppose this man?

On edit... I have no idea what you are talking about with edits... :shrug:

I DO NOT KNOW A SINGLE PRO CHOICER WHO VOTED FOR BUSH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #104
109. I don't mean literal edits
but putting words in other's mouths (like what you were doing to MJ before). As to the other, I find it beyond difficult to believe that you don't know a single pro choice Bush voter. You may not think that you do, but I really bet you do. In any case, you can do what I did, which is write LTTE to (in your case pro choice) LGBT newspapers as well as the personal touch. I would like nothing better than to see a much different justice than this one, but I also am a realist. Bush's win entitles him to this pick. If the pro choice majority in this country wants pro choice Supreme Court justices then it needs to vote for pro choice Presidents. It shouldn't count on flukes to save their asses. Had Bork not been about as scary as they come, Roe V Wade likely would have been overturned before now. That was an enormous break for us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #109
113. Yeah, I got that... afterward... since I did NOT put words in anyone's
mouth, I was confused about what you meant though.

I DO NOT KNOW ONE SINGLE PERSON ON THIS EARTH WHO IS PRO-CHOICE AND WHO VOTED FOR BUSH!!

Do you think I'm a liar?

Back to the filibuster... Since it is VERY clear that you are AGAINST a woman's right to choose, I understand why you don't care. For me, a filibuster would demonstrate the position that Democrats should represent. Doing so may convince voters to install Democratic candidates in the mid-terms. I know this contrary to your objectives, but it is not contrary to mine.

Apparently your desire to limit a woman's right to choose supercedes the "threat" you feel regarding the Lawerence thing (even though that law was hardly ever used against anyone, and when it was was struck down).

If abortion rights are taken away, you can bet that you won't find people breaking that law as blithely as you and I break those sodomy laws regularly. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #113
117. Have you talked to any of the several gays and lesbians that lost
children or professional licences on the grounds of those sodomy laws you so blithely dismiss? Virginia, Florida, and Mississippi have used those laws within the last decade to deny homosexual parents contact with their natural born children (on the grounds that such parents are felons). I also, in that long ago year of 1996, signed a teaching contract in Mississippi that specificly required that I obey a sodomy law. No, most sodomy laws weren't routinely enforced, though both cases that made it to the SC were real cases and not fake ones. In Bowers, the defendent was arrested for sodomy after the police broke in on a warrent. He was kept for that until the police found evidence of another charge. In Lawerence, a malicious neighbor called police claiming to have heard a gun shot and the police arrested Lawerence for sodomy. So while rare, sodomy arrests are hardly unheard of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #117
118. Why do you keep up this argument... You never answer me...
why you are not opposed to this nominee if you are sincerely so worried about the anti-sodomy laws. It makes no sense. You use it as an argument to say that you are somehow as, or even more, affected by this person becoming a SC justice, while saying that we shouldn't oppose him. Makes no sense.

It's YOU who is blithely dismissing both women's rights AND gay rights. Fascinating to say that I am doing that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #118
121. Because, in the future, when a democratic President
nominates a nominee who favors same sex marriage, or overturning sodomy laws, or regulating the enviroment, I don't want him or her to see the nominee filibustered by the spiritual decendent of Jesse Helms. What goes around, comes around. Regardless of how liberal or not people believe that Breyer and Ginsburg are, they are undeniably pro choice as well as pro Lawerence. If we decide it is OK to filibuster justices we don't like, rest assured they will do it to.

I also want there to be some consequence that can be pointed to for those traitors. So that maybe, just maybe, next time they will vote the right way. One of the chief reasons that abortion has been a losing issue for Democrats as of late, is that so many pro choice voters feel free to vote for Bush assuming either that he doesn't really mean it when he says he is pro life or that we will protect them from the errors of their ways. To a lesser extent, this problem exists for gay rights. Even if, by some miracle, we could manage to both defeat Roberts and get someone who favors Lawerence and Roe, then what. We will be right back here again in 2010 if these people don't change their ways. I would rather the consequences be felt now, when there might be some ability to save the Court if we get lucky in regards to either Scalia or Thomas, than later when nothing will save us. We are probably in huge trouble either way, but if these people wake up before 2008 and Renquist holds out long enough for us to keep Bush from naming his replacement, then even with Roberts we can keep this from ruining us. But if we somehow manage to nail Roberts and then Bush puts in a stealth nominee we may well see these people vote Republican in 2008 and have Republican replacements for Ginsburg, Stevens, Renquist, and maybe even Kennedy. The we would be well and truely fucked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #121
123. I think it would be enough to invoke a draft to convince people that
they voted for the wrong person. Risking the rights of half the population because of who was elected makes no sense to me. ESPECIALLY since the half whose rights are being taken away voted in the majority for KERRY. Men are the ones that voted in the majority for Bush.

By your logic, we should take away men's rights as punishment for who THEY elected, instead of punishing the majority of women who did NOT elect him, and the EXTREME majority of gays who did not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #123
126. Actually I have stated repeatedly a draft might be just the thing
to wake people up. We actually have a draft now, only we draft those who have already finished serving by not letting them out (stop loss orders). I think it would be bad public policy but it is likely to be better public policy than the current war.

That said, I actually prefer, as I wrote in my post, that people realize now that these rights are actually at stake and that the only time to address this is during Presidential elections. Because if that message doesn't get recieved then the rights will be lost for the forseeable future.

Further, if we are destined to lose them in any instance, then I would rather it be now, when it is possible to undo the loss, than after 2008, when it will be impossible.

The time to take care of this was 2000. Providence gave us 2004 and that became the real time to take care of this. We had better really take care of this in 2008 and the only way I can see us doing that, is by losing now. Nothing else seems to get it across to those traitors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Misunderestimator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #126
129.  You didn't address why we are punishing women when the majority
of women voted AGAINST Bush.

It's easy for you to play around with women's rights because you are anti-choice... the Lawerence thing has NO comparison and is not nearly as big a threat to your civil rights.

Why do you glide by 2006? Only presidential elections are important to you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #129
132. Lawrence and Roe are inextricably linked, as are many other
civil rights isses.

I am not anti choice - I am vehemently pro-choice. But on THIS nominee at THIS time I don't think we can do much but object.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #129
138. 2006 is immensly important
though aside from money I can't do much (no Senate race, three heavily gerrymandered districts in my area). Heck, if the lesson can be learned now, then great. But only Presidents get to pick justices. 2008 is the election where the SC will be either saved a little, saved a lot, or totally ruined. For the purpose of the SC 2006 isn't that important. For the purposes of legislation and more importantly investigation, it is vital.

I would rather see no one punished. But unless and until, the pro choicers and LGBT voters who vote for Bush and other Republicans stop doing so, we will all be punished. If there is some other way to get them to stop voting this way, then it is all good. But, I honestly haven't seen it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boredtodeath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
55. The answer is so simple
Try this, dsc:

Because the president is supposed to represent ALL Americans, whether or not they voted for him.

The White House isn't a platform upon which to launch the ideology of the fundamentalist Christian ideas of "democracy." It is the place where all Americans are honored, represented and heard.

Bush doesn't only work for his voters. He works for all Americans. Or he's supposed to.

But, since your buddy Lieberman recommended this guy, you want the voice of millions of Americans to be shut out of the process.

Sorry, dsc, if it takes a filibuster to be heard, we shall have a voice in this process. All. Americans.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #55
60. Great - how many dems do you think will filibuster this nominee?
Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boredtodeath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #60
66. All of them but Joe Lieberman
And, of course, the possibility of Biden who can never be counted on to act like a Democrat.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #66
69. Really? You REALLY think every dem but those 2 will filibuster?
I didn't think there'd be much to make me laugh about this topic. I was wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoSheep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
78. The election was stolen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DistressedAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
87. Like Freeps Say, "Bush Won. Get Over It.!
Do you really believe that they will return the favor someday?

I do not buy what you are selling here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Montauk6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
101. Your premise is flawed, sir.
THEY'RE GONNA DO IT ANYWAY!!!!!!!

How many times do we have to keep getting slapped in the face before it sinks in that they only reciprocate with malice whether we approach the table with an olive branch or a gun?

(sorry to yell, dsc)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
122. I say filibuster the hell out of this. Three more years of pug
and Rehnquist will probably die and those others aren't exactly young.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
131. hmmm....aren't you "pro-life?"
that wouldn't have anything to do with your post, would it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #131
140. I am also gay
and I mention us too. Or did you forget to read that part? Also I do mention being pro life several places on this thread. Or did you not read those either?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #140
142. no...i replied to your original post
and no, i haven't read any other posts, and i don't intend to.
i know you are gay, but i fail to see what that has to so with my question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
152. Frankly, we need to fight anyone
he IS NOT a mainstream conservative. He is far right, he supports torture, and he does not truly believe that Roe v. Wade is settled law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Nov 21st 2014, 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC