Alito is a shoe-in

[umbrella39]

Glad to know that the fanbois champion someone who feels women and blacks are inferior. Or someone who just agreed to such notions to get a job. Either way, major character issues and not someone who needs to be seated on the SC. Congrats. :thumbsup:

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Glad to know that the fanbois champion someone who feels women and blacks are inferior. Or someone who just agreed to such notions to get a job. Either way, major character issues and not someone who needs to be seated on the SC. Congrats. :thumbsup:

I think that's an inaccurate overstatement, and I am no fan of Judge Alito.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Hearings should be disbanded if all they going to do in grandstanding by the senate and trite reponses by the appointee. It is a joke.

No, the Senators responsible for grandstanding and other nefarious conduct ought to be removed by the citizens of their respective states. Biden comes to mind, with his ridiculous 24 minute "statement" and Alito with a mere 6 minutes to answer.

Democrats made real fools out of themselves during these hearings, and the people will remember in November.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Zebo
Hearings should be disbanded if all they going to do in grandstanding by the senate and trite reponses by the appointee. It is a joke.

No, the Senators responsible for grandstanding and other nefarious conduct ought to be removed by the citizens of their respective states. Biden comes to mind, with his ridiculous 24 minute "statement" and Alito with a mere 6 minutes to answer.

Democrats made real fools out of themselves during these hearings, and the people will remember in November.

alito is scum, regardless of how stupid the democrats are

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
alito is scum, regardless of how stupid the democrats are

Yes, yes he is. After all, we ought to be seeking Ginsburg-style nominees who believe the age of consent should be lowered to 12 and that the Constitution perhaps provides for legal polygamy

You'd be wise to read the definition of 'scum' before spouting such nonsense.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Zebo
Hearings should be disbanded if all they going to do in grandstanding by the senate and trite reponses by the appointee. It is a joke.

No, the Senators responsible for grandstanding and other nefarious conduct ought to be removed by the citizens of their respective states. Biden comes to mind, with his ridiculous 24 minute "statement" and Alito with a mere 6 minutes to answer.

Democrats made real fools out of themselves during these hearings, and the people will remember in November.

LOL - did you bother to listen to the Republicans? Sam Brownback was grandstanding the same way. One of the funniest such diatribes I've seen was from Republican Chuck Hegel at the Roberts hearings - he was obviously reading a speech written by his staff, because he was mispronouncing words and obviously didn't understand the legal terms he was misapplying.

I understand you lead an active fantasy life, but all signs point to Democratic gains in the 2006 elections, albeit maybe not huge gains.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Yes, yes he is. After all, we ought to be seeking Ginsburg-style nominees who believe the age of consent should be lowered to 12 and that the Constitution perhaps provides for legal polygamy

You'd be wise to read the definition of 'scum' before spouting such nonsense.

You're lying about Justice Ginsburg, and your statements are libelous.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
alito is scum, regardless of how stupid the democrats are

Yes, yes he is. After all, we ought to be seeking Ginsburg-style nominees who believe the age of consent should be lowered to 12 and that the Constitution perhaps provides for legal polygamy

You'd be wise to read the definition of 'scum' before spouting such nonsense.

Please provide any evidence that the Constitution bars polygamy. Thanks.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Please provide any evidence that the Constitution bars polygamy. Thanks.

Although Pabster is also lying about Justice Ginsburg's views on polygamy, it's never been clear to me why it necessarily has to be illegal, and I certainly don't think anything in the Constitution pertains to it. Honestly I don't care one way or the other.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The news is saying that he will be confirmed; however, the Dems want a couple of more grandstand plays.

Stall the final confirmations and/or create a filibuster.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: DonVito
You're lying about Justice Ginsburg, and your statements are libelous.

No, I'm not. You can find your left-wing "apologist" sites all you want, but the facts remain. Ginsburg claims, just as Clinton, that it is all a matter of "interpretation"...

My interpretation is that she DID support lowering the age of consent, and polygamy. Perhaps you ought to read some of her opinions? Of course, it depends on your interpretation.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: DonVito
You're lying about Justice Ginsburg, and your statements are libelous.

No, I'm not. You can find your left-wing "apologist" sites all you want, but the facts remain. Ginsburg claims, just as Clinton, that it is all a matter of "interpretation"...

My interpretation is that she DID support lowering the age of consent, and polygamy. Perhaps you ought to read some of her opinions? Of course, it depends on your interpretation.

Your "interpretation" is unsupported by anything she said, and is stolen wholesale from Sean Hannity. As it happens I've been an attorney for seven years, and got an "A" in Con Law from the very conservative Calvin Massey, all those years ago. Unlike you, I can see the shades of gray in what she said, and understand that she never, in any sense, supported reducing the age of consent to 12, or said anything positive about polygamy.

As I said, you're knowingly repeating lies, which makes you, in my view, a liar and a cheap shot artist to boot.

 

[Helenihi]

If Alito is a racist scumbag because of CAP, even though he was never really involved with it and doesn't appear to have helped or donated anything to them at any point ever, is Robert Byrd also an evil racist who doesn't deserve his position?

Why is Alito's superficial membership a complete stain on him for the rest of his life, even though there's no other evidence to show he's a racist, but Robert Byrd's past is completely washed over and every democrat acts like it can't even be brought up, yet alone used to defame his character like they have done to Alito.

For those unaware, Robert Byrd, democratic senator from West Virginia, was a local leader of the KKK. He didn't just sign up and forget about it, he actively supported them and was put in a leadership position.

Will the people denouncing Alito do the same to a Senator with a much worse history?

Byrd said in the Dec. 11, 1945, letter -- which would not become public for 42 more years with the publication of a book on blacks in the military during World War II by author Graham Smith -- that he would never fight in the armed forces "with a Negro by my side." Byrd added that, "Rather I should die a thousand times, and see old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels."


Is it just a double standard for people who want to use any excuse to say horrible things about republicans when they know that they're being unreasonable, as evidenced by the fact that they never hold people they like to the same standard?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Helenihi

Is it just a double standard for people who want to use any excuse to say horrible things about republicans when they know that they're being unreasonable, as evidenced by the fact that they never hold people they like to the same standard?

Yeah, pretty much. I'm no fan of Alito's, but all the CAP-based criticism is absurd IMO. I think there are a lot of legitimate things to criticize with this nominee, but CAP isn't one of them.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: DonVito
You're lying about Justice Ginsburg, and your statements are libelous.

No, I'm not. You can find your left-wing "apologist" sites all you want, but the facts remain. Ginsburg claims, just as Clinton, that it is all a matter of "interpretation"...

My interpretation is that she DID support lowering the age of consent, and polygamy. Perhaps you ought to read some of her opinions? Of course, it depends on your interpretation.

Your "interpretation" is unsupported by anything she said, and is stolen wholesale from Sean Hannity. As it happens I've been an attorney for seven years, and got an "A" in Con Law from the very conservative Calvin Massey, all those years ago. Unlike you, I can see the shades of gray in what she said, and understand that she never, in any sense, supported reducing the age of consent to 12, or said anything positive about polygamy.

As I said, you're knowingly repeating lies, which makes you, in my view, a liar and a cheap shot artist to boot.

*pin drop

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Of course he is a shoe-in. He is a good jurist and we need more of them.

I just cringe when I see Ted Kennedy trying to call someone on ethics and such. If the Democrats were half of what they claim to be Kennedy and Mr. KKK Bryd would both be out of the party now.

Every time Kennedy gets up on the soap box all I can think of, "Mary Jo Kepechne has no comment" (sorry for misspelling her name)

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: DonVito
Your "interpretation" is unsupported by anything she said, and is stolen wholesale from Sean Hannity. As it happens I've been an attorney for seven years, and got an "A" in Con Law from the very conservative Calvin Massey, all those years ago. Unlike you, I can see the shades of gray in what she said, and understand that she never, in any sense, supported reducing the age of consent to 12, or said anything positive about polygamy.

You have some arcane obsession with Hannity, don't ya? :laugh: :laugh:

As I said, you're knowingly repeating lies, which makes you, in my view, a liar and a cheap shot artist to boot.

Considering that it is all up to "interpretation", how do you get off labeling me a "liar"? Just because your interpretation differs...

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Just because your interpretation differs...

Your "interpretation" is nonsensical and libelous. I'd bet my life savings you've never actually read the report that you're making such unsubstantiated inferences about.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: DonVito
Your "interpretation" is unsupported by anything she said, and is stolen wholesale from Sean Hannity. As it happens I've been an attorney for seven years, and got an "A" in Con Law from the very conservative Calvin Massey, all those years ago. Unlike you, I can see the shades of gray in what she said, and understand that she never, in any sense, supported reducing the age of consent to 12, or said anything positive about polygamy.

You have some arcane obsession with Hannity, don't ya? :laugh: :laugh:

As I said, you're knowingly repeating lies, which makes you, in my view, a liar and a cheap shot artist to boot.

Considering that it is all up to "interpretation", how do you get off labeling me a "liar"? Just because your interpretation differs...

If it is all interpretation surely he is free to make the interpretation that you are lying. Many many people have a nose for such things. It's why we have words like incredulity and expressions like something is rotten in Denmark. I myself just heard somebody say that I was dead. I just have this gut feeling they are wrong.

 

[DVK916]

It will be a sad day if Altio gets comfirmed. Bush has nominated a Christian/Catholic who would upload catholic law over all else. We need an athiest on the bench, someone who won't give into religious mumbo jumbo.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: zendari

I guess I will keep that in mind then; whenever you comment on something prior to 1969 it must be coming from theleftcoaster or Democratic Underground.

Okay, then, why do you believe Robert Bork is one of the most brilliant men in the United States?

BTW, I think John Roberts is one of the most brilliant men in the United States - do you think I got that from the Democratic Underground?

What the hell is the "leftcoaster"? I've never even heard of it.

Look at his resume pre 1987.

People like you said the Dems would make gains in 2004. Well, I'm sure they'll make the same gains in 2006! :shocked:

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
alito is scum, regardless of how stupid the democrats are

Yes, yes he is. After all, we ought to be seeking Ginsburg-style nominees who believe the age of consent should be lowered to 12 and that the Constitution perhaps provides for legal polygamy

You'd be wise to read the definition of 'scum' before spouting such nonsense.

Please provide any evidence that the Constitution bars polygamy. Thanks.

The word abortion never appears either, let alone the words "right to an" preceding it.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: zendari

I guess I will keep that in mind then; whenever you comment on something prior to 1969 it must be coming from theleftcoaster or Democratic Underground.

Okay, then, why do you believe Robert Bork is one of the most brilliant men in the United States?

BTW, I think John Roberts is one of the most brilliant men in the United States - do you think I got that from the Democratic Underground?

What the hell is the "leftcoaster"? I've never even heard of it.

Look at his resume pre 1987.

People like you said the Dems would make gains in 2004. Well, I'm sure they'll make the same gains in 2006! :shocked:

Ah yes, irrelevant personal attacks in an attempt to disprove statements. "You're wrong about X, therefore everything you say is wrong!"

By the way, anyone who doesn't see the political atmosphere differences between this upcoming election and the one in 2004 needs to open their eyes. Not that it will mean certain victory for Democrats, but we are certainly not just holding the same election, two years later.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Zebo
Hearings should be disbanded if all they going to do in grandstanding by the senate and trite reponses by the appointee. It is a joke.

No, the Senators responsible for grandstanding and other nefarious conduct ought to be removed by the citizens of their respective states. Biden comes to mind, with his ridiculous 24 minute "statement" and Alito with a mere 6 minutes to answer.

Democrats made real fools out of themselves during these hearings, and the people will remember in November.

LOL - did you bother to listen to the Republicans? Sam Brownback was grandstanding the same way. One of the funniest such diatribes I've seen was from Republican Chuck Hegel at the Roberts hearings - he was obviously reading a speech written by his staff, because he was mispronouncing words and obviously didn't understand the legal terms he was misapplying.

I understand you lead an active fantasy life, but all signs point to Democratic gains in the 2006 elections, albeit maybe not huge gains.

I find the Republican behavior at these things even more amusing than the Democrats. The Dems at least have a reason of sorts, they don't all like the nominee...he's not THEIR guy after all. But the Republicans have no real purpose at the hearings, certainly no reason to go on and on in an exercise in mental masturbation. He's their nominee, it's not like they aren't going to vote for him.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

I find the Republican behavior at these things even more amusing than the Democrats. The Dems at least have a reason of sorts, they don't all like the nominee...he's not THEIR guy after all. But the Republicans have no real purpose at the hearings, certainly no reason to go on and on in an exercise in mental masturbation. He's their nominee, it's not like they aren't going to vote for him.

When did the Republican party claim to have a purpose for the hearings? Or, when did they comment that the hearings should be scrapped?

But yes, there doesnt need to be hearings. In the past, they didnt even have the hearings, and now the Democrats have extended the process into what it is today.