Bush picks Samuel Alito

[yesdachi]

Bush picks Samuel Alito (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9874588/)

WASHINGTON - President Bush, stung by the rejection of his first choice, on Monday nominated conservative appeals court judge Samuel Alito to replace moderate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in a bid to reshape the Supreme Court and mollify his political base.

“Judge Alito has served with distinction on that court for 15 years, and now has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in more than 70 years,” Bush said, drawing an unspoken contrast to his first choice, Harriet Miers.

IMO a better choice.~:)

[solypsist]

Alito to the right

[Devastatin Dave]

Good choice. How do I know? Because the libs are already bitching...

Simple equation... Good for America = Bad for Liberals, Bad for America = Good for Liberals.

[Redleg]

God dammit, why does he not just pick Brown?

$5 says there'll be a stink about this one, too.

Probably because Brown has turned it down... ~:cool:

[Redleg]

Oh? I never heard about that.

So, who's got more info on this Alito guy?

I don't remember reading about it in the media - but its pure spectulation that I have not only read about - but its where I am leaning toward because of the Meir's nomination.

[Lazul]

Good choice. How do I know? Because the libs are already bitching...

Simple equation... Good for America = Bad for Liberals, Bad for America = Good for Liberals.

you saying american liberals are self-destructive and self-hating?... well thats intresting, heh.

[Devastatin Dave]

you saying american liberals are self-destructive and self-hating?... well thats intresting, heh.
Yes and unfortunately because of their selth loathing, they cause misery and failure to the societies that their parasite like ideals attatch too.

[Lazul]

Yes and unfortunately because of their selth loathing, they cause misery and failure to the societies that their parasite like ideals attatch too.

you americans are scary... :eeeek:

[Devastatin Dave]

you americans are scary... :eeeek:
Not as scary as people that believe its OK to kill the unborn, homosexuality is not a perversion but normal, and its not racist to deny people certain rights and privilidges because of their skin pigment in order to right some percieved historical wrong. That's scary.

[Kanamori]

If he keeps his liberalness or conservativeness out of his rulings, and he is intelligent, bravo. I care more about him conserving precedence which is correct and overturning that which is incorrect more than anything else.

[Red Harvest]

you americans are scary... :eeeek:

Many Americans find the kind of views being expressed here by DD scary as well. Apparently Sparta is now the model for the right wing. ~:rolleyes:

[Lazul]

Not as scary as people that believe its OK to kill the unborn, homosexuality is not a perversion but normal, and its not racist to deny people certain rights and privilidges because of their skin pigment in order to right some percieved historical wrong. That's scary.

I was more thinking of the whole self-hating self-destructive feelings so many americans have, atleast acording to you. I mean, pretty many over there are liberals... dont go shoot each other now due to self-hatred. :hide:

[PanzerJaeger]

$5 says there'll be a stink about this one, too.

Youre right, but this time it will split directly down party lines, which is good for the president in consolidating his fracturing base.

Divide and Conquer.. conservatives may have had a bad summer but we're still much more powerful than liberals and this will be a rallying point.

[Red Harvest]

Divide and Conquer.. conservatives may have had a bad summer but we're still much more powerful than liberals and this will be a rallying point.
Divide and conquer has certainly been the central theme to this Administration. The country is more divided now than I have ever seen it.

As to who this will really be a rallying point for...I think this will only further drive away moderate/independent support. So it might prove a rallying point for conservatives, and yet also for a broader opposition. It's not like conservatives were going to vote other than GOP anyway.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The press and the libs have resorted to calling him Scallito. It seems hes cut from exactly the same cloth as Scallia. Id have to say that makes him fine in my book.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

W00t, New Jersey pride!

[solypsist]

Youre right, but this time it will split directly down party lines, which is good for the president in consolidating his fracturing base.

Divide and Conquer.. conservatives may have had a bad summer but we're still much more powerful than liberals and this will be a rallying point.

considering everything else, i suppose the Cons need something to rally around.

Libby indicted
Rove still under investigation
DeLay arrested and charged
Frist under investigation
Iraq failing, no end in sight
Bin Laden still not caught
Record debt
Social Security privatization dead

enjoy the the nomination of a judge (who still hasn't been confirmed).

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Libby indicted
Rove still under investigation
DeLay arrested and charged
Frist under investigation
Iraq failing, no end in sight
Bin Laden still not caught
Record debt
Social Security privatization dead


And yet we still grow stronger. Muwhahahah. Despite the best attempts of the ,libs and the press. This nomination has united the base. This is whats really scaring the Dems. Maybe if they could come up with some kind of real plan for America other than that you just underlined they would have a chance in hell of getting elected again.

[Crazed Rabbit]

considering everything else, i suppose the Cons need something to rally around.



Libby indicted
Rove still under investigation
DeLay arrested and charged
Frist under investigation
But none actually convicted, and I doubt any (perhaps Libby) will be.


Iraq failing, no end in sight
Failing? Hardly. They just approved, via popular vote, their constitution and are moving ever closer to an independent democracy. We are winning.


Bin Laden still not caught
But pursued and nigh on powerless to plan terrorist attacks.

Record debt
What do you expect when fighting two wars?

Social Security privatization dead
Hmm. Perhaps a semi-legitimate one. I guess 1 out of 7 isn't bad.

Odd, isn't it, that none of these supposed set backs for Bush are actually Democratic perogatives. Odd too that the difficulties in the war on terror are considered a set back for the conservatives-does that mean that the leftists want these set backs?


enjoy the the nomination of a judge (who still hasn't been confirmed).
Guess who controls the Senate? Guess who's going to force Alito down the unwilling throats of the dems, despite how loud they whine?

Crazed Rabbit

[Lehesu]

I find it amusing that the far-right has so much pull over George Bush. Whereas the previous trend in political movement has been towards the center, nowadays, each party caters the far-right or far-left. Unfortunantly, the vocal minority, and that is exactly what the far-ends of the spectrum are, don't speak for the entire population, and certainly not for the entire political consituency. Assuming that Bush's approval rating doesn't go up in the next several months, and I'm a Republican official, I start considering "Abandon ship, abandon ship!"

@Crazed Rabbit, each of those things Soly listed are problems, no matter how much you sugar-coat it. 1 out of 7? I think not. A senior official in the White House gets indicted for obstruction of justice and several others are under investigation and its not a big deal? Back where I come from, we call that kind of activity a threat to democracy.

[Red Harvest]

I find it amusing that the far-right has so much pull over George Bush. Whereas the previous trend in political movement has been towards the center, nowadays, each party caters the far-right or far-left. Unfortunantly, the vocal minority, and that is exactly what the far-ends of the spectrum are, don't speak for the entire population, and certainly not for the entire political consituency. Assuming that Bush's approval rating doesn't go up in the next several months, and I'm a Republican official, I start considering "Abandon ship, abandon ship!"

Crazed Rabbit, each of those things Soly listed are problems, no matter how much you sugar-coat it. 1 out of 7? I think not. A senior official in the White House gets indicted for obstruction of justice and several others are under investigation and its not a big deal? Back where I come from, we call that kind of activity a threat to democracy.
They are already doing the rats from a sinking ship routine. They will use him as convenient, but they started distancing themselves shortly after Katrina. They've got to figure out how to salvage the mid term elections. Timing is on their side since they have plenty of time for damage control.

It boils down to whether the Democrats can assemble a new powerbase. The only thing the conservatives have going for them is that the GOP has been able to succeed at defining the Democrats in recent election cycles.

Soly was right, 7 for 7. And the current GOP practices are very much a threat to democracy. The veil is being slowly lifted and more people are beginning to realize that.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I find it amusing that the far-right has so much pull over George Bush. Whereas the previous trend in political movement has been towards the center,

Your falling for the libs and the presses propoganda. What yu call the far right is in actuality mainstream america.~D In fact Bush has done much to alienate himself from his base and were dragging him and the congress into doing what they were elected to do. We are the majority now and that makes us the mainstream.

[Red Harvest]

Your falling for the libs and the presses propoganda. What yu call the far right is in actuality mainstream america.~D In fact Bush has done much to alienate himself from his base and were dragging him and the congress into doing what they were elected to do. We are the majority now and that makes us the mainstream.
Look! I found the Iraqi Information Minister! He's taken over Gawain's body and turned him into a shameless cheerleader for the extreme right! :cheerleader: :elephant: :cheerleader: :elephant:

[Reverend Joe]

I'm going to stop reading these threads...

...as soon as I stop finding delight in watching train wrecks. :jester:

[solypsist]

I'm confused. The "libs and the press" made the US invade Iraq? made Frist suspiciously sell off his stock? made DeLay launder that money, among other things?


And yet we still grow stronger. Muwhahahah. Despite the best attempts of the ,libs and the press. This nomination has united the base. This is whats really scaring the Dems. Maybe if they could come up with some kind of real plan for America other than that you just underlined they would have a chance in hell of getting elected again.

But you're right on the Dems not having a plan.

[Reverend Joe]

Quote removed- its relevance is a little too obscure.

[solypsist]

Your falling for the libs and the presses propoganda. What yu call the far right is in actuality mainstream america.~D In fact Bush has done much to alienate himself from his base and were dragging him and the congress into doing what they were elected to do. We are the majority now and that makes us the mainstream.

so a 29% presidential approval rating and 57% against the Iraq invasion rating is mainstream. ~:joker:

[Red Harvest]

I just get tickled by the assertion of the "far right", "far left" or any other extreme being touted as the "mainstream."

Plurality vs. majority comes to mind here... ~;p

[Red Harvest]

Your falling for the libs and the presses propoganda. What yu call the far right is in actuality mainstream america.~D In fact Bush has done much to alienate himself from his base and were sic dragging him and the congress into doing what they were elected to do. We are the majority now and that makes us the mainstream.
I didn't realize "Libertarians" had become the majority. :inquisitive: :lost:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I didn't realize "Libertarians" had become the majority.

Im speaking of conservatives and you well know it.


so a 29% presidential approval rating and 57% against the Iraq invasion rating is mainstream.

Its amazing with the media blitz its that high. Watch for a rebound now with this nomination.


I'm confused. The "libs and the press" made the US invade Iraq? made Frist suspiciously sell off his stock? made DeLay launder that money, among other things?


No you listed their attempts.


I'd be hard pressed to find anyone within ten miles of where I live who shares your views. Even when I lived in South Dakota--a decidedly conservative state--your "Mainstream" would be more like "Kids, stay away from that guy."


So the people there are pro abortion, pro big governent ,pro gun contro;and anti religous? ~:confused: And you call them conservatives?

[Reverend Joe]

https://img471.imageshack.us/img471/1659/zorba0as.png
https://img301.imageshack.us/img301/4236/communism6ea.gif

[solypsist]

back on topic:


I'm kind of suprised the religious right prefers him to Myers... after all, he's a catholic and she was a southern baptist irc.

Myers would owe so much more for her appointment, and she would be ready and willing to follow conservative politicians off the deep end. I think Alito is going to buck the religious right where it counts, and rule based on reason rather than partisanship

[Crazed Rabbit]

You may have noticed that a lot of the criticism from the right had to do with cronyism.

Here's the pic I'm looking for:

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-donk.gif

Just change the date a bit and bam! there ya go.

Crazed Rabbit

[Seamus Fermanagh]

back on topic:

I'm kind of suprised the religious right prefers him to Myers... after all, he's a catholic and she was a southern baptist irc.

Myers would owe so much more for her appointment, and she would be ready and willing to follow conservative politicians off the deep end. I think Alito is going to buck the religious right where it counts, and rule based on reason rather than partisanship

So Catholicism is ir-religious in what way? :knight:

What most of the right wing wants is a judge who will rule on the law and on a fairly grounded and more "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution.

Harry Miers may well have been just such a judge, we cannot know. What most conservatives were annoyed by is the choice of a relative unknown -- despite the presence of accomplished and verifiable originalists such as Alito.

As to your "deep end" reference. We've been there. Since Reagan we've been dragging the soggy carcasses of our left wing-nut sibs out of that murk for decades. Once we've dragged you to where you can stand on your own, don't expect CPR -- this end of the pool is a self help class, not a safety hammock run by wonks. If you don't survive the cold water of reality, we'll try to keep a few of you around as museum displays.

[Xiahou]

back on topic:


I'm kind of suprised the religious right prefers him to Myers... after all, he's a catholic and she was a southern baptist irc.

Myers would owe so much more for her appointment, and she would be ready and willing to follow conservative politicians off the deep end. I think Alito is going to buck the religious right where it counts, and rule based on reason rather than partisanship
All we ever want in a judge is one that will rule on the Constitution as it's written. It shouldn't matter if they're Catholic, Jewish, Protestant-whatever. If their religion(or lack of) will impact their rulings then they are unqualified to be a judge. Alito appears to have a sound track record of sticking to the Constitution and not making crap up to fit his political agenda.



Divide and conquer has certainly been the central theme to this Administration. The country is more divided now than I have ever seen it.You don't think that division has anything to do with Democratic obstructionism? Take for example the confirmation vote of Ginsburg(96-3), who was inarguably outside the 'mainstream', to that of the almost universally liked Roberts.

[Divinus Arma]

considering everything else, i suppose the Cons need something to rally around.

Libby indicted
Rove still under investigation
DeLay arrested and charged
Frist under investigation
Iraq failing, no end in sight
Bin Laden still not caught
Record debt
Social Security privatization dead

enjoy the the nomination of a judge (who still hasn't been confirmed).

Okay. I can play this game. You have just provided a list of headlines and issues that you believe create serious problems for the Republican Party. Some of these are subjective and are based on left-wing hyperbole and conjecture. I will grant you that because it is epidemic, but I will call it when I see it.

Now, there is something I want point out here that I hope you will look at with objectivity. If you take away the left-wing "frame" that this list is seen through, then none of these items indicate problems with the party platform.

I'll elaborate. The only thing that truly drives politics today is money and the party's stance on an issue. This collectively forms the party message and how that message is delivered.

Let's go down your list.


Libby Indicted.
Yes. For covering up a non-crime. The leak was non-criminal according to the definitions within the federal statute. Please ask me if you need me to provide facts for reference because I know that the mainstream press does not provide that information (they instead just focus on the indictment and scream conspiracy). I am not saying that Libby was right or wrong. I am saying that what he did was cover up something non-criminal. It would be like lieing to your wife about looking at a comic book when she thinks its porn. Well, she is still mad and she wants to get the moral high ground so she screams at you for lieing.


Rove still under investigation
This is simply a desperate act of the minority party. To be objective, the Republican Party has used ambitious prosecutors too. Remember Ken Starr? My point is this: Look at it for what it is, not for what is presented. President Clinton was Impeached in the House of Representatives for lying under oath. But I know that this is only gloves-off politics. It does not represent a serious problem within the Republican Party platform.


Delay Arrested and Charged.
If he is a criminal, then he should be punished. It could be political heavy-hitting, or it could be that DeLay is a crook. Let's be objective and wait until we get the truth. But again: Does this show a problem with the party platform? No.


Frist under investigation
Crime? Or Gloves-off politics? A media frenzied accusation alone is politically damaging. It says nothing of the party platform. It only shows the very aggressive and desperate nature of Washington politics.


Iraq failing, no end in sight
I am calling a spade a spade. This is subjective opinionbased on a desire for American failure. It is true. The left wants America to lose in Iraq. If we win and it helps our national security strategy and foreign policy, then the Republican Party Platform will be hugely successful. This is a genuine Party Platform issue with opposing views by the two parties. How you see the war in Iraq depends on which party you favor or which media you filter your information through. If you use a mass-media filter, then you will receive profit-motivated information. Death and failure are gripping and generate a profit returning audience. Success and peace are boring. Have you seen a headline that was written optimisticly? Again, this is a party platform issue. It will be spun either as winning or losing based on party affiliation or information filter. What do you see? Do you see: America reaches the 2,000 Death Toll and its climbing ...or do you see: American military success has resulted in less deaths than compared with any other long-term war in American history. Do you see suicide bombers or a free people going to an open election for the first time ever? Do you see a civil war coming or do you see the slow and painful process of a newly forming democracy? Do you see passionate Iraqis or angry Iraqis?


Bin Laden still not caught
This a global issue. Not a Republican Issue. And again, this is worded to spin. Do you see Bin Laden still not caught, or Bin Laden still running and hiding for his life? These are word games, they do not speak to a problem with the Party Platform.


I am kind of bored so I won't go on. If you want to say you ware right because I didn't address the last two, fine. You win, I am too bored to keep going.

My point is this: The Republican Party PLATFORM is more appealing to the mainstream then ever before. It is a unifying and effectual platform that is growing.

Look at some issues that divide the Democratic Party:

Taxes:
(a) People want to keep their money rather than give it away.
(b) Why take a bigger slice of pie when you can just bake a bigger pie?People realize that having more money means they can save it or spend it, both of which helps the economy. Consumption is a powerful engine, and saving stimulates the economy through loans, business expansion, new opportunities, ect. Nobody saves their money under a mattress.
(c) People do not trust the Government to be efficient with tax money. The government has no competition. Therefore, bureaucracy has no reason to innovate or improve efficieny.

Abortion:
The Democratic Party claims to represent minorities and women. They claim the Republican Party is a white male christian party. But look at Catholic Hispanics and black Baptists. These are huge portions of the Democratic Party but they directly conflict with the pro-Abortion crowd. This party platform is naturally divisive based on who dems are targeting.

Labor:
Pro union or pro immigrant? These two groups are in direct conflict with one another. Illegal immigrants do not just farm our fields. They now work in manufacturing and low-skill industry. The unions have a problem with this. (note: I am also pissed at the businesses who support illegals, so don't spin that out there. Many republicans are angry about this because the party platform does not support illegal immigration).

Israel:
The democratic party traditionally draws jewish-americans. Yet lately, the party platform has been very pro-palestinian and anti-israeli. Who should the Democrats support: Jews or palestinain sympathizers? Jews or those that wish a less supportive American role, the isolationists?


The Republican Party does not have these problems because, generally, the base is united under the same principles of states rights, lower taxes, smaller government, and greater civil liberties.

People confuse civil liberties with things like homosexual marriage, drug use, etc. The benefits of homosexual marriage are tax and administrative benefits only. Administrative befits such as tax breaks are granted by tax code and legal definitions. Administrative benefits have nothing to do with liberty. You are free to sodomize and love whomsoever you wish. Currently, tax breaks are given to married men and women becuase it promotes a traditional social structure. America was founed on the family. It is the Core of American civilization. The social structure of American civilization would fundamentally change forever if we were to equalize homosexuality, polygamy, and beastiality with a heterosexual marriage. Our children would grow up in a new world where they would have to decide whether to marry steve or jane. We are called conservatives, because we believe in slow social change. We have a social value system that, generally, has not changed in 200+ years. It has worked well for so long, we should be respectful and wary in making permanent alterations.

And this is why the Democratic Party appeals to many young people. They like to buck trends and throw off the old mold. That is fine, but it should be done slowly with eyes open, not instantly.

[Divinus Arma]

On the religious/ethnicity/gender judge topic.

Who cares what color they are, how they pray, and what hangs or does not hang between the legs?

Seasmus and Xiahou are spot on. We want someone who will closely interpret the letter of the law. Nothing more.

Soly, your comments that he may buck the religious right are exactly why he should and will be confirmed.

Who cares about RoevWade? That is small potatos. Just one issue. There are far more important issues out there.

[solypsist]

they just don't seem to do well in certain american judiciary and presidential positions. maybe it's because (i'm just guessing here) they reputedly answer to a "higher power" than the constitution (ie. the pope).

we've had one catholic president, ever. there have only been 3 catholic judges on the supreme court, ever.




So Catholicism is ir-religious in what way? :knight:

[solypsist]

i do not just believe they are problems for the republican party -they are serious problems for the republican party.

oh, and i forgot katrina and brownie on my list.



Okay. I can play this game. You have just provided a list of headlines and issues that you believe create serious problems for the Republican Party.

[Red Harvest]

i do not just believe they are problems for the republican party -they are serious problems for the republican party.

oh, and i forgot katrina and brownie on my list.
You also forgot about energy prices.

[Divinus Arma]

i do not just believe they are problems for the republican party -they are serious problems for the republican party.

oh, and i forgot katrina and brownie on my list.

You didn't even read my post.

editted: directed to remove darth soly picture.

0o
_

[Xiahou]

You also forgot about energy prices.
I thought that was because of peak oil. :laugh: ~:joker:

[Crazed Rabbit]

No, it's not because of anything so ridden with facts as peak oil and supply and demand but a nefarious scheme by the Bushitlerburton administration to help his friends in big oil.

Crazed Rabbit

[Red Harvest]

I thought that was because of peak oil. :laugh: ~:joker:
Yep, and we've been caught completely unprepared as a nation. ~:rolleyes:

Don't worry though, some economists expect energy demand and pricing to ease, because they also expect that present levels are going to trigger a global recession. Recessions usually aren't considered good for incumbent parties.

[Divinus Arma]

But wait...

I thought we went to war for oil. So shouldn't we have an excess? Why is the United States paying for Iraqi oil? Why don't we just take their oil as compensation for rebuilding their country? Better yet, why don't we just take it?

[Xiahou]

Don't worry though, some economists expect energy demand and pricing to ease, because they also expect that present levels are going to trigger a global recession. Recessions usually aren't considered good for incumbent parties.
Dont know about you, but my gas prices are more than $1/gal cheaper than after Katrina. Much cheaper and SUVs are gonna start looking like a good idea again. ~D


there have only been 3 catholic judges on the supreme court, ever.Not by my count- Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Taney, and White. Looks like 6. And if you count former Catholics, it's more like 11.

[yesdachi]

Who cares about RoevWade? That is small potatos. Just one issue. There are far more important issues out there.
IMO I don’t think there are many more important issues out there than Roe v. Wade and I think a lot of people would agree with me. However, I do believe that Alito will follow presadence(sp) in many cases.

Side note: IIRC O’Connor was the deciding vote on 65% of all tied votes. So he could definitely be an influential force in this country.

[Divinus Arma]

IMO I don’t think there are many more important issues out there than Roe v. Wade and I think a lot of people would agree with me. However, I do believe that Alito will follow presadence(sp) in many cases.

Side note: IIRC O’Connor was the deciding vote on 65% of all tied votes. So he could definitely be an influential force in this country.



Or perhaps he will end up the serious conservative hardliner and Roberts will become the swing vote...

Either way we win.

[Sjakihata]

Zorba this is better than train accidents ~;p

[PanzerJaeger]

Odd too that the difficulties in the war on terror are considered a set back for the conservatives-does that mean that the leftists want these set backs?

And thats the rest of the story.. :bow:

[Divinus Arma]

You win, huh?

When the power of the federal government is diminished and the strength of local and state government is empowered, I win. When our most basic liberties are aggressively protected, I win. When by virtue of law I can do as I please with no harm to others, I win. When the federal govt sells parts of itself to the private sector or deregulates industries, I win. When social values that have built this country are upheld but scrutinized with integrity instead of ambiguity, I win. When the constitution is interpreted strictly to the letter without speculation, I win. When the constitution is applied to modern concepts instead of the other way around, I win. When judges regulate their own power and refuse to turn decisions into law, I win.

And some people would agree that they win, too. And if enough of us feel that making this philosophy into reality is winning, then whomever supports this philosophy wins.


Isn't that the wrong mentality?
You claim to support American federalism. I think you are known for tossing that word about, actually. You claim to support business interests at the expense of government bureaucracy. If you support business at all, then you know that competition is the very heart and soul of the entrepreneurial spirit.


This country is not about imposing your morality on others--which is exactly what both parties want to use the Supreme Court for.

You are wrong. Roe vs wade: the Texas majority created a law virtually banning abortion except for emergencies. The Roe v. Wade decision resulted in a de-facto ban on outlawing abortions. They used the bench to allow abortions, instead of using the legislature. Conservatives want to limit the self-granted power of judicial review. Liberals want to use it to make laws. They cannot win in the legislature, so they use the bench as their last refuge for making laws against the majority will.


This country is about letting the people decide. We need people who will put these decisions back in the hands of the states, and people contained therein.

That is exactly what I have written. That is exactly what conservatives want. Beware the liberal in conservatives clothing. They will scream on social restrictions while taxing us to the hilt or by expanding bloated federal discretionary budgets.


I'm pro-abortion, but I'd feel alot better about an anti-abortion decision if it was reached at the state level instead of an all-consuming federal decision.

Thus you should support the nomination of Alito. This is what conservatives want.

[Xiahou]

so a 29% presidential approval rating and 57% against the Iraq invasion rating is mainstream. ~:joker:
Is that a typo? ~:confused:

[solypsist]

you're right. i misread this article which says "John Roberts Would Be Only Fourth Catholic on Supreme Court" (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/7/27/155324.shtml) and then listed some as being comprehensive. in fact it only lists the current Catholics.



Not by my count- Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Taney, and White. Looks like 6. And if you count former Catholics, it's more like 11.

[Kanamori]

a desire to impose morality that rivals anything

I am willing to bet that Alito will let legislation slide that does that, and I know for a fact that Scalia has.
:duel:


You are wrong. Roe vs wade: the Texas majority created a law virtually banning abortion except for emergencies. The Roe v. Wade decision resulted in a de-facto ban on outlawing abortions. They used the bench to allow abortions, instead of using the legislature. Conservatives want to limit the self-granted power of judicial review. Liberals want to use it to make laws. They cannot win in the legislature, so they use the bench as their last refuge for making laws against the majority will.

If you look at the Court, and those who concurred, you will find that they weren't all liberals. In fact, I am still very surprised that Burger and Stewart concurred, and I would very much agree w/ Rehnquist's dissent in Roe v. Wade. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey O'Connor essentially made the case that Rehnquist said would have to be made, completely disregarding the privacy charade by arguing under the "liberty" bit in the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Xiahou]

I am willing to bet that Alito will let legislation slide that does that, and I know for a fact that Scalia has. I'd love some examples.

[TinCow]

I'm about as socially liberal as they come and I've gotta admit I haven't seen much evidence that Alito would inject his personal beliefs into his decisions. The worst 'evidence' that has been put forward is that one line from Planned Parenthood. I read his entire dissent just now on Westlaw and I've gotta say I agree with him. His dissent is direct application of SCOTUS interpretation to the case and I see no reason to think it has anything to do with personal beliefs.

Again, I'm a very liberal guy but I will be mightily upset if the Dems try to block him without more compelling evidence that he isn't suited to the position.

[Reverend Joe]

But wait...

I thought we went to war for oil. So shouldn't we have an excess? Why is the United States paying for Iraqi oil? Why don't we just take their oil as compensation for rebuilding their country? Better yet, why don't we just take it?

That's not a bad idea...

Also, anyone with half a brain knows we didn't go to war over oil. (don't get excited- more leftist rhetoric coming up. :jester:) We went to war:

1. Because Bush thought it was a good move for his popularity.
2. As a way of finishing papa Bush's business.
3. Because Rumsfeld wants to be named the Padishah of Iraq, and it is a springboard for our invasion of Saudi Arabia, so that Cheney can be named Al-Khalifah.

[yesdachi]

But wait...

I thought we went to war for oil. So shouldn't we have an excess? Why is the United States paying for Iraqi oil? Why don't we just take their oil as compensation for rebuilding their country? Better yet, why don't we just take it?
I’m inclined to agree. There is not nearly enough pillaging going on anymore. I have heard great stories of solders sending back the spoils of war during WWII but none of my friends have sent me back anything from Iraq, not even one lousy barrel of oil.~;)

[Kanamori]

I'd love some examples.

From Barnes v. Glen Theater, a part of Scalia's concurrence: "The First Amendment explicitly protects 'the freedom of speech [and] of the press' -- oral and written speech -- not 'expressive conduct.' ... But virtually every law restricts conduct, and virtually any prohibited conduct can be performed for an expressive purpose -- if only expressive of the fact that the actor disagrees with the prohibition. ... It cannot reasonably be demanded, therefore, that every restriction of expression incidentally produced by a general law regulating conduct pass normal First Amendment scrutiny, or even -- as some of our cases have suggested, see e.g., United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (1968) -- that it be justified by an "important or substantial" [p577] government interest. ... In [Texas v. Johnson, Tinker etc.], we explicitly found that suppressing communication was the object of the regulation of conduct."

That is BS, it is semi-reasonable but it is still BS. I don't know how anyone could get horny off of strippers if it wasn't communication of some sort.. He let the law slide, because he was OK w/ it.

In Denver Telecommunications v. FCC: "Though §10(b) by no means bans indecent speech, it clearly places content based restrictions on the transmission of private speech by requiring cable operators to block and segregate indecent programming that the operator has agreed to carry. Consequently, §10(b) must be subjected to strict scrutiny and can be upheld only if it furthers a compelling governmental interest by the least restrictive means available. See Sable, 492 U. S., at 126. The parties agree that Congress has a "compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well being of minors" and that its interest "extends to shielding minors from the influence of [indecent speech] that is not obscene by adult standards." Ibid. See Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 639 (1968) (persons "who have th[e] primary responsibility for children's well being are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid discharge of that responsibility"). Because §10(b) is narrowly tailored to achieve that well established compelling interest, I would uphold it. I therefore dissent from the Court's decision to the contrary."

from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3735/is_199701/ai_n8744096/pg_4

"Section 10(b) of the 1992 Act authorizes the FCC to prescribe rules that will require programmers to inform cable operators if the programming is indecent under FCC regulations and to require 'cable operators to place' such material on a 'single channel' and 'to block such single channel unless the subscriber requests access to such channel in writing.' Id. 10(b), 106 Stat. at 1486 (amending 612 of the 1934 Act at 47 U.S.C. 532) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 532(j)). The FCC defined indecent material as descriptions or depictions of 'sexual or excretory activities or organs in a patently offensive manner as measured by contemporary community standards for the cable medium.'"

Section 10(b) was not narrowly tailored, in fact, there were lockboxes, v-chips and what-not that allowed the state to meet its compelling interest w/o being as restrictive as section 10(b).


I'm about as socially liberal as they come and I've gotta admit I haven't seen much evidence that Alito would inject his personal beliefs into his decisions. The worst 'evidence' that has been put forward is that one line from Planned Parenthood.

It is speculation on my part.

[Red Harvest]

Dont know about you, but my gas prices are more than $1/gal cheaper than after Katrina. Much cheaper and SUVs are gonna start looking like a good idea again. ~D
LOL, I doubt that they are going to look like a "good idea again." Besides, folks are going to need to find some money to pay the higher electric rates...they are shooting up again. Takes time for the utilities to move rates (regulatory restrictions), but the nat. gas outages were severe and are sending rates into new territory. In Dec. local rates here will hit about $0.15/KWH (there notification arrived a week or so ago) from 0.11 at present and about 0.09 last year...and 0.06 the year or so before that. For the Northeasterners fuel oil will be high this winter.

Of course, you've only taken a superficial look at gas prices: there was little doubt that gas prices *in the U.S.* would spike when refineries were knocked off line during peak driving season while oil prices were also high. (It is about 70 cents per gallon cheaper here now.) But it was also easy to see that they would recede once things came back. And I also recall mentioning that oil prices were likely to ease, because of the drop in demand as the result of the hurricane effects (not to mention the end of peak driving season.)

Don't mistake short term bumps and dips for long term trends. The competing long term drivers are still in place. Economic slowdown is one likely outcome.

[Xiahou]

Kanamori, in the first example, I totally agree with Scalia in that the government can constitutionally regulate certain behavior.


I agree that the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be reversed. In my view, however, the challenged regulation must be upheld, not because it survives some lower level of First-Amendment scrutiny, but because, as a general law regulating conduct and not specifically directed at expression, it is not subject to First-Amendment scrutiny at all.

On its face, this law is not directed at expression in particular. As Judge Easterbrook put it in his dissent below: ``Indiana does not regulate dancing. It regulates public nudity. . . . Almost the entire domain of Indiana's statute is unrelated to expression, unless we view nude beaches and topless hot dog vendors as speech.'' Miller v. Civil City of South Bend, 904 F. 2d 1081, 1120 (CA7 1990) (Easterbrook, J., dissenting). The intent to convey a ``message of eroticism'' (or any other message) is not a necessary element of the statutory offense of public indecency; nor does one commit that statutory offense by conveying the most explicit ``message of eroticism,'' so long as he does not commit any of the four specified acts in the process.I invite anyone interested in reading the entire opinion to do so here (http://home.att.net/~saran/barn_c1.htm)- you can't rationally call his position BS based on pre-selected excerpts.

Im not very familiar with the FCC case, so I'll hold off on that for now.

[Kanamori]

Those are the parts of the quote that are relevant to my point. He says that it can be restricted because stripping is not expressive communication. I say that stripping is expressive communication, because it obviously elicits some idea or concept in my head, namely, "wow, that's hot."


The intent to convey a ``message of eroticism'' (or any other message) is not a necessary element of the statutory offense of public indecency; nor does one commit that statutory offense by conveying the most explicit ``message of eroticism,'' so long as he does not commit any of the four specified acts in the process.

If I remember correctly off the top of my head, this is Rehnquist. The intent of the law is not to restrict speech, that may be so, but it certainly does restrict it.

I can agree w/ Rehnquists argument that the same message can be expressed w/ "pasties or g-strings" if this truly is Scalia talking, I only hold his other argument as incorrect.

and a link (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-124.ZC.html) to Denver Telecommunications

Edit=My recollection was incorrect, I found the portion I was looking for in Scalia's opinion and moved on. Yet, the purpose of the law, since we are talking about purpose, was to keep the unwilling from viewing nudity. When going into a strip club, you are obviously looking for nudity and unoffended by it. It is not invasive indecency.

[Xiahou]

If I remember correctly off the top of my head, this is Rehnquist.This (http://home.att.net/~saran/barn_op.htm) was Renquist's opinion.


I can agree w/ Rehnquists argument that the same message can be expressed w/ "pasties or g-strings" if this truly is Scalia talking, I only hold his other argument as incorrect.

and a link (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-124.ZC.html) to Denver Telecommunications

Edit=My recollection was incorrect, I found the portion I was looking for in Scalia's opinion and moved on. Yet, the purpose of the law, since we are talking about purpose, was to keep the unwilling from viewing nudity. When going into a strip club, you are obviously looking for nudity and unoffended by it. It is not invasive indecency.Let me refer to Scalia's opinion again.


The purpose of Indiana's nudity law would be violated, I think, if 60,000 fully consenting adults crowded into the Hoosierdome to display their genitals to one another, even if there were not an offended innocent in the crowd. Our society prohibits, and all human societies have prohibited, certain activities not because they harm others but because they are considered, in the traditional phrase, ``contra bonos mores,'' i.e., immoral. In American society, such prohibitions have included, for example, sadomasochism, cockfighting, bestiality, suicide, drug use, prostitution, and sodomy. While there may be great diversity of view on whether various of these prohibitions should exist (though I have found few ready to abandon, in principle, all of them) there is no doubt that, absent specific constitutional protection for the conduct involved, the Constitution does not prohibit them simply because they regulate ``morality.''
Again, I don't see the flaw in that argument. Things can be illegal even if all participants are consenting. For example, I couldnt kill and eat someone just because they agreed to it.~D

[Kanamori]

OK I'll give that it is wrong to view nudity in public places where only consenting adults have the ability to see it. Why wouldn't it be wrong to have nude people in your home??? It is not just that they just happen to be consenting adults, only consenting adults can see it in a strip club. And, nudity cannot be compared to those things. they are illegal regardless of where they happen. the idea that it is acceptable in some places implies a difference.

[Xiahou]

Its still the same as the Hoosierdome argument- a stripclub is a public establishment, even if all who enter consent to what's inside. You can disagree with the law, but that doesnt make it unconstitutional. Its not a free speech issue.

If people dont like the law, by all means, campaign against it- but they shouldnt expect the courts to overrule the legislature on their behalf.

[Kanamori]

in all of the examples, they are banned outright, nudity is not. so, it is not the act of being nude that the state has deemed to be bad. what is it then? the only reason it is banned in public is so that other people have the choice of not seeing it. stripping of the sort in the case is non-invasive.


the easiest way to destroy the argument made in my edit would be to simply show it w/ what i said above it: "I can agree w/ Rehnquists argument that the same message can be expressed w/ "pasties or g-strings" if this truly is Scalia talking, I only hold his other argument as incorrect."

I have to abadon either position.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

they just don't seem to do well in certain american judiciary and presidential positions. maybe it's because (i'm just guessing here) they reputedly answer to a "higher power" than the constitution (ie. the pope).

we've had one catholic president, ever. there have only been 3 catholic judges on the supreme court, ever.

Inaccurate guess.

Sadly, the Catholic faith has been targeted nearly as harshly as the Jewish faith here in the USA (though I recognize anti-semitism is far larger concern globally). Less than 130 years ago many US Catholics were routinely denied non-menial jobs, could not obtain life insurance, and local town councils passed ordinances or played zoning games to make it difficult for us to build churches. Tamany Hall and its Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago counterparts were -- in some ways -- an attempt to use the power of the vote to change such rampant discrimination. Even so, it took years to make inroads. The first Catholic to secure the nomination of a major party, Al Smith, went down in defeat to Herbert Hoover despite the political damage done to the Republicans during the Teapot Dome scandal less than 5 years previously. Why? Because too many voters thought he would "bring the Pope over on a battleship." ~:rolleyes:

Protestant mis-understandings about the Catholic faith continue to this day. I have, myself, been queried as to why we "worship Mary" -- which has never been the case. I sometimes fear that some protestant sects' knowledge of the Catholic church stopped with the protests of Martin Luther, and that they haven't bothered to update them. Most of the world, and most protestants, have moved forward.

Given the long history of canon law and adjudication, the famed teaching and argumentative skills of the Society of Jesus, and the noble service provided in all branches of government and the armed forces by Catholics, it is hard to view anything in Catholicism that would limit the abilitis of a US citizen of that faith from performing any civil duty. To believe that to be so is to perist in an errant belief in the face of demonstrable fact.

Sadly, it is still chic to "take shots" at the Catholic church even to this day. Religion in general comes under fire with some frequency, but (and this may be personal sensitivity) Holy Mother Church seems to come in for more than its share.

So, if your views of the Holy Father are based on his role in MTW, you still have a ways to go.

[solypsist]

yes i admitted that in this post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=971832&postcount=61)



Inaccurate guess.

[Major Robert Dump]

I still say Miers was a sacrificial lamb, a PR stunt to look like bipartisanship.