These are the faces of the constituents who will be forced to grow up without civil rights in the new United States that will be created by this Congress if you and others do not support a filibuster of Samuel Alito. Please do not abandon them!
The Dems have no excuse for not filibustering Alito.
Just voting no - knowing that he will get confirmed is stupid and pointless.
I still want them to filibuster by reading every stupid answer to press questions that Bush has given while in office. That is enough material to keep it going a long while.
"Will grow up without civil rights" What civil rights are you referring to? He already lauded the poorly reasoned but eminently just Brown v. Board of Ed as a great decision. Abortion? There is no federal right to an abortion, and the only reason we're still having this argument thirty years on is because Roe v. Wade was an exceptionally bad decision from a legal standpoint and a tenuous foundation even for those who believe in abortion. Ranting hyperbolically about a jurist who the vast majority of the country finds palatable and mainstream is going to cost the Democrats dearly in November. Go on, torpedo civil discourse and precedent to slow the nomination of someone who will be confirmed anyway. Its the problem with blogs...based on the people you link to and those you read you consider what you think to be a mainstream rather than a fringe position.
Anon Con, It strikes me as rather strange that one so conservative as you are would bother writing to a blog that doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it is - and mainstream at that. Bloggers are making a difference and they are finding the truth. I think you're wrong about November, because the lies and cheating are way too blatant for the people to ignor this time around.
Ranting hyperbolically about a jurist who the vast majority of the country finds palatable and mainstream is going to cost the Democrats dearly in November.
The "mainstream" will be determined by the eventual anwer to the question: Is your life better today than it was the day before George Bush was installed in the White House by the Supreme Court?
That may be in November, or it may be in 2008, but eventually that will be the question.
Frankly, if the majority answer yes to that question (through fair elections), then the "mainstream" deserves what it gets . . . which appears to be approaching Niagara Falls!
Oh, and from now on I'll try to mix in a "parabolic rant" once in a while!
Allow me to add a diabolical rant for AnonCon; what the Hell "vast majority of the country" are you talking about? In addition to his well-publicized opposition to abortion rights (rights which most American's still support), he's argued against Congress' authority to regulate industry via Federal pollution standards, he has argued against Congress' authority to regulate the gun trade (selling machine guns next door to your local junior high is O.K. by Snoop Sammy Sam!), and he's one of the original architects of the "unitary executive" theory, which is the basis for King George listening-in when I call a friend in Morocco! These are NOT positions that most Americans support.
First of all, the fact that you have a site that essentially brings the Webster's definition of the word 'onanism' to life is not something you should be bragging about. I wanted a little debate, which is why I am not prefacing my posts with ad hominem attacks.
When I said the vast majority of the country finds Alito palatable I was not saying they agree with him on each and every judicial ruling he has ever made. The judiciary is not an elected office; so long as the nominee is qualified and competent (and Alito no doubt is both) what more can we ask? Breyer is palatable to the vast majority of the populace, even though many would take exception to a number of his decisions. I disagree with his judicial philosophy but he should have been confirmed because he was, again, qualified and competent.
Being qualified and competent apparently isn't the reason people serve this nation. We have a president who is quite obviously not qualified or competent nor is he even serving this nation. That fact alone makes any thinking person question his choice for the Supreme Court. We need a filibuster!
That was the quintessential copout. You can debate his competence, but as the two-term governor of the second most populous state in the union there were few people more qualified. Deep down you know the filibuster is not about his 'extremism' but simply about the fact that you disagree politically. Ginsburg, who made no secret of the fact that she was not merely left but hard left, deserved and received confirmation. An articulate conservative with a decade and a half on the federal bench deserves no less.
First of all, the fact that you have a site that essentially brings the Webster's definition of the word 'onanism' to life is not something you should be bragging about. I wanted a little debate, which is why I am not prefacing my posts with ad hominem attacks.
This is one of the funnier arguments I've seen lately, given that it prefaced anon con's post!
For those without the inclination to look up the definition of "onanism" from the same dictionary that anon con had to look it up in (luckily, he tells us which one he used!), let's just say it is what obsessed people do when they are compelled to visit certain websites at 3AM!
We shall see what we shall see about Judge Alito. Maybe he will prove to be different than his record indicates. That would be a very pleasant surprise.
The Dems have no excuse for not filibustering Alito.
ReplyDeleteJust voting no - knowing that he will get confirmed is stupid and pointless.
I still want them to filibuster by reading every stupid answer to press questions that Bush has given while in office. That is enough material to keep it going a long while.
"Will grow up without civil rights" What civil rights are you referring to? He already lauded the poorly reasoned but eminently just Brown v. Board of Ed as a great decision. Abortion? There is no federal right to an abortion, and the only reason we're still having this argument thirty years on is because Roe v. Wade was an exceptionally bad decision from a legal standpoint and a tenuous foundation even for those who believe in abortion. Ranting hyperbolically about a jurist who the vast majority of the country finds palatable and mainstream is going to cost the Democrats dearly in November. Go on, torpedo civil discourse and precedent to slow the nomination of someone who will be confirmed anyway. Its the problem with blogs...based on the people you link to and those you read you consider what you think to be a mainstream rather than a fringe position.
ReplyDeleteAnon Con,
ReplyDeleteIt strikes me as rather strange that one so conservative as you are would bother writing to a blog that doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it is - and mainstream at that.
Bloggers are making a difference and they are finding the truth. I think you're wrong about November, because the lies and cheating are way too blatant for the people to ignor this time around.
Ranting hyperbolically about a jurist who the vast majority of the country finds palatable and mainstream is going to cost the Democrats dearly in November.
ReplyDeleteThe "mainstream" will be determined by the eventual anwer to the question: Is your life better today than it was the day before George Bush was installed in the White House by the Supreme Court?
That may be in November, or it may be in 2008, but eventually that will be the question.
Frankly, if the majority answer yes to that question (through fair elections), then the "mainstream" deserves what it gets . . . which appears to be approaching Niagara Falls!
Oh, and from now on I'll try to mix in a "parabolic rant" once in a while!
Allow me to add a diabolical rant for AnonCon; what the Hell "vast majority of the country" are you talking about? In addition to his well-publicized opposition to abortion rights (rights which most American's still support), he's argued against Congress' authority to regulate industry via Federal pollution standards, he has argued against Congress' authority to regulate the gun trade (selling machine guns next door to your local junior high is O.K. by Snoop Sammy Sam!), and he's one of the original architects of the "unitary executive" theory, which is the basis for King George listening-in when I call a friend in Morocco! These are NOT positions that most Americans support.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the fact that you have a site that essentially brings the Webster's definition of the word 'onanism' to life is not something you should be bragging about. I wanted a little debate, which is why I am not prefacing my posts with ad hominem attacks.
ReplyDeleteWhen I said the vast majority of the country finds Alito palatable I was not saying they agree with him on each and every judicial ruling he has ever made. The judiciary is not an elected office; so long as the nominee is qualified and competent (and Alito no doubt is both) what more can we ask? Breyer is palatable to the vast majority of the populace, even though many would take exception to a number of his decisions. I disagree with his judicial philosophy but he should have been confirmed because he was, again, qualified and competent.
Being qualified and competent apparently isn't the reason people serve this nation. We have a president who is quite obviously not qualified or competent nor is he even serving this nation. That fact alone makes any thinking person question his choice for the Supreme Court. We need a filibuster!
ReplyDeleteThat was the quintessential copout. You can debate his competence, but as the two-term governor of the second most populous state in the union there were few people more qualified. Deep down you know the filibuster is not about his 'extremism' but simply about the fact that you disagree politically. Ginsburg, who made no secret of the fact that she was not merely left but hard left, deserved and received confirmation. An articulate conservative with a decade and a half on the federal bench deserves no less.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the fact that you have a site that essentially brings the Webster's definition of the word 'onanism' to life is not something you should be bragging about. I wanted a little debate, which is why I am not prefacing my posts with ad hominem attacks.
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the funnier arguments I've seen lately, given that it prefaced anon con's post!
For those without the inclination to look up the definition of "onanism" from the same dictionary that anon con had to look it up in (luckily, he tells us which one he used!), let's just say it is what obsessed people do when they are compelled to visit certain websites at 3AM!
We shall see what we shall see about Judge Alito. Maybe he will prove to be different than his record indicates. That would be a very pleasant surprise.
ReplyDelete