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 07:07 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 07:10 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 12:07 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 12:46 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 05:45 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 07:11 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 07:16 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 07:27 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 12:03 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 07:12 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 07:17 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 07:20 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 07:22 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 08:17 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 07:23 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 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. I'm Curious How You Would Define Ginsburg And Breyer?
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 07:32 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 07:41 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 07:48 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 01:37 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 12:09 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 07:27 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 07:27 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 07:30 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 07:28 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 07:32 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 08:19 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 07:34 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 08:18 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 08:24 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 08:34 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 08:58 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 09:23 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 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #50
83. Your Condescending Attitude Will Win You No Bonus Points With Me
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 09:58 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 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #83
147. No bonus points? Holy scalding shit!
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 11:59 AM 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 11:21 AM
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 12:00 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 07:39 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 08:16 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 08:27 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 08:38 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 09:52 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 09:55 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 11:23 AM
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 11:50 AM
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 12:02 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 12:04 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 12:38 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 12:48 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 03:34 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 09:08 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 09:24 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 10:06 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 12:01 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 12:08 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 12:11 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 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #160
177. .......
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 05:53 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 12:04 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 04:40 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 09:43 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 09:57 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 07:33 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 07:48 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 07:54 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 07:57 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 08:05 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 08:38 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 08:53 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 09:45 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 09:50 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 09:54 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 09:55 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 02:28 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 09:28 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 09:47 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 09:58 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 10:11 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 10:13 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 10:18 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 10:24 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 08:55 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 09:20 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 09:27 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 09:48 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 09:58 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 10:04 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 10:06 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 10:09 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 10:13 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 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #97
108. Of COURSE you are! Finally the thread makes sense.
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 10:21 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 10:28 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 10:38 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 10:47 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 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #119
120. LOL... OK... I'll admit I brushed right past that inference... since
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 10:51 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 11:05 AM
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 11:09 AM
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 11:16 AM
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 11:19 AM
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 11:25 AM
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 11:28 AM
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 11:36 AM
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 11:37 AM
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 12:01 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 12:06 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 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #156
161. wasn't that after
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 12:13 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 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #161
163. Learn some history...
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 12:18 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 03:38 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 11:50 AM
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 11:57 AM
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 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #146
162. i believe you didn't mean it to be read that way
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 12:15 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 12:26 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 01:53 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 03:45 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