board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web
It is currently Thu 18 Oct , 2018 8:27 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat 02 May , 2009 8:12 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: The real world
Oh, now I get it after you explained. Thank you for that CG.

You took general remarks aimed at any person who feels they are personally worthy of being the recipient of White Entitlement to apply to yourself. I wonder why you would be so quick to take offense at that when I never mentioned you but anyone who was merely feigning outrage but actually a hypocrite?

Perhaps the gentleman doth protest too much?

Again, I ask that this worthy thread not be the subject of bickering and personal carping. Lets talk about the issue of the Supreme Court and the upcoming decision of President Obama to replace David Souter.

_________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 02 May , 2009 8:13 pm 
Insolent Pup
User avatar

Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Posts: 5381
Location: Many Places
Apparently, CG can dish it, but can't take it.

Quote:
According to ABC news, Obama may be interested in picking someone who has never even been a judge. Back under Bush when the name "Janice Rogers Brown" was brought up some said that she was completely unqualified because she hadn't been a judge long enough. Actually the "hadn't been a judge long enough" was dropped when mentioned on this board to make it appear that the only objection for the experts was that she wasn't qualified at all even though the experts said that she was qualified in every way except for experience. I wonder if those who insisted that Brown was completely unqualified due to insufficient experience would say to an Obama pick with no experience...


Quote:
YOU said that my "recent" concern for character instead of skin color was a sickening hypocrisy.


Fact of the matter here is: very little debate has been had on the subject, so let's ignore the he said, she said cock n balls, and discuss some damn choices.

_________________
The 11/3 Project


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 03 May , 2009 5:15 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 15 Aug , 2005 3:48 am
Posts: 3348
Location: Planet Earth
sauronsfinger wrote:
Perhaps the gentleman doth protest too much?


The very first post after I comment on the minority tango, you comment on it. Coincidence? Certainly.

And when I was a kid my siblings would walk into a room and start reciting nasty names, but when called on it they would say "I wasn't calling you that, I was just saying those words."

"Protest too much"? It looks like I won my bet. You really can't come out and make your accusations of racism clearly where they can be quickly and easily refuted. But if you insinuate them - "only racists say what you just said but I didn't call you a racist" - you are safe from refutation, aren't you?

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:
Apparently, CG can dish it, but can't take it.


How is commenting on a judge whose only problem an impressive but short track record the same as commenting on a prospective judge on the basis of "he or she fills these politically correct check boxes and that makes the person qualified."?

_________________
It is a myth that coercion is necessary in order to force people to get along together, but it is a persistent myth because it feeds a desire many people have. That desire is to be able to justify hurting people who have done nothing other than offend them in some way.

Last edited by Cenedril_Gildinaur on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 03 May , 2009 10:51 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: The real world
Conservative interest groups and Republicans are already lining up to oppose the nominee of President Obama before they even have a nominee named.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/con ... 05-01.html" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

part of the article

Quote:
A group of more than 50 conservative groups held a conference call early Friday to begin plotting strategy, sources on the call said.

"You're already having chatter between conservatives on who is going to be the nominee, what type of nominee is going to be put forward by President Obama," said Brian Darling, the Heritage Foundation's Senate director and a former top Judiciary Committee staffer.

Groups like the American Center for Law & Justice, the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary and the Committee for Justice will all prepare background research on potential nominees, setting up the eventual, inevitable attacks on the nominee as a left-wing extremist.

Those groups are gearing up for the first time since helping doom the nomination of former White House counsel Harriet Miers in President Bush's second term and replacing her with Samuel Alito.

"We'll be organized. We're more organized than ever before," said Jay Sekulow, the prominent conservative lawyer who heads the American Center for Law & Justice. "The reality is we've got quite a challenge here with a Democratic Senate that's virtually filibuster-proof."


This next article is written by a law school dean who warns about the dangers in a pick for the President and the Court:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 96306.html" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

a portion of it

Quote:
First, don't think that the selection is irrelevant because President Obama is certain to replace a liberal justice with another liberal, leaving the "balance" on the Court intact. Even if justices only came in two flavors, with no other differences than the L or C label, having a justice ten or fifteen or twenty years younger makes a huge difference in the expected composition of the Court ten or fifteen or twenty years from now.


Second, the whole notion of "balance" is fundamentally off target. Justices don't fit simple, bipolar patterns. Justices Scalia and Thomas, for instance, disagree vigorously over questions of deference to administrative agencies. Justices Breyer and Ginsburg part company over critical aspects of intellectual property rights. In its 2002 decision in Verizon v. FCC, Justice Breyer wrote the lone dissent - joined only by Justice Scalia. Justice Souter, despite the liberal label, wrote opinions such as MGM Studios v. Grokster (2005) and Bell Atlantic v. Twombly (2007) that have been applauded by most of the conservative business community.


Justices differ along many dimensions. They take different approaches to interpretation, lean in different directions on issues of administrative law, criminal law, federalism, national security power, and individual rights. Even within a broadly defined category, justices will differ. At bottom, law is complicated and the threads that run through it form patterns far more complex than any set of labels can hope to capture - which is equally true for the judges themselves.


Beyond the cross-cutting substantive and methodological divisions, justices have different personalities and different strengths. Some are gregarious, some diffident, some sharper writers, others better grounded in practical judgment. These at times have greater impact than commonly attributed ideological affinities. Justice Souter is an incrementalist, uncomfortable with grand theory, and profoundly disconnected from many aspects of social life that help shape other justices' views. In the end, neither the work of the Court nor assessments of prospective justices' performance on it are as simple as pundits and politicians make them seem.


Third, think beyond today. The politics of judicial appointments always is framed in immediate terms. But the issues that define a justice's legacy often are entirely invisible at the time he or she is appointed. A majority of the Court that decided Roe v. Wade (1973), for example, consisted of justices appointed by Presidents Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Franklin Roosevelt - none selected with an eye to deciding cases on abortion rights. What can be foreseen is the general difference that particular approaches to deciding cases will bring and the difference that having justices of intellectual depth, judicial temperament, and congeniality will make for how the Court does its work. Those concerns, not the predicted outcome of any particular vote, should guide both the President and the Senate.







CG - please be and adult here and keep to the thread subject. There is no "bet" between anyone here but you with your own self and it was a false one based on a lie that you told yourself. I have absolutely no problem with telling you directly what I think of your positions on the issues and have done so thousands of times.

Yet again, for times beyond numbering, you rephrase, you reword, you reinterpret, you reframe, you twist what was said, you pervert what was said, you outright change what was said into a straw man and rail against it.

Quote:
"only racists say what you just said but I didn't call you a racist" - you are safe from refutation, aren't you?


Either please show me where I said that or please kindly retract it like a gentleman.

And lets stick to the subject of the thread.

Others are beginning to notice.

from TED

Quote:
Apparently, CG can dish it, but can't take it.


Please stop this personal attack and discuss the thread subject.

_________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 03 May , 2009 4:11 pm 
Insolent Pup
User avatar

Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Posts: 5381
Location: Many Places
Fair enough.

I don't understand this strategy by conservative law groups. Did liberal groups draw up these strategies before George Bush named anyone? They destroyed Harriet Myers, so I guess they don't care which president makes the selection, but which selection is made.

_________________
The 11/3 Project


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun 03 May , 2009 4:25 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: The real world
TED
I think this strategy is partly motivated by the internal struggle to claim the heart and future of the Republican Party. The right wing groups associated with this have to know the numbers in the Senate and the odds against them are very very long indeed. But this is mostly about staking out their ground in the Party, marking their territory, and showing that they were there to fight back against the big bad socialists attempt to take over the nation.

In doing that they will build their membership lists, build a bank account since nothing motivates the flow of money like political lubrication in a idealogical fight, and gain a higher profile for their own organizations and personalities who lead those organizations.

Here is a pretty good article which explains that politics and other factors have been part of a SC selection for a long long time now. The idea that it was always some sort of merit system based solely on the best and the brightest is simply not supported by the historical record.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 96325.html" target="_blank

a part of it

Quote:
Abraham Lincoln nominated justices from Ohio, Illinois and Iowa with an eye on his reelection. President Taft elevated Edward White to chief justice in part because it was thought White's Confederate past symbolized cohesion. Franklin Roosevelt factored Wiley Rutledge and William O. Douglas' western background into his decision.

"People thought region or state of origin had to do with interests that should be represented on the court," said Mark Tushnet, a Supreme Court historian at Harvard Law School. "At the time those things were not called identity politics, but I don't think there is any difference between those interests and today."

Richard Nixon was the last president to consider region a defining factor. He nominated South Carolina's Clement Haynsworth and reached deep into the fracturing Democratic South. The senate killed the nomination over civil rights concerns. Nixon told advisor Harry Dent, "I want you to go out this time and find a good federal judge further south and further to the right." Florida's G. Harrold Carswell followed. Carswell had supported segregation. His bid failed as well. Nixon, always the rhetorical pugilist, termed the senate's actions "regional discrimination."

_________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 05 May , 2009 11:52 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: The real world
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/a ... ation.html" target="_blank

The article takes the point of view that the naming of Republican Senator Sessions to head the effort against the eventual nominee is exactly what is wrong with the Republican party right now. If the nominee turns out to be a minority female, we have another white Southern male attempting to slam the door in her face. You have to wonder who makes up these strategic decisions for the Republicans.

_________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 06 May , 2009 12:00 am 
Insolent Pup
User avatar

Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Posts: 5381
Location: Many Places
What if the decision is a old white man... what will those same Republicans do.

_________________
The 11/3 Project


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 06 May , 2009 6:16 am 
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
User avatar

Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 8258
Location: Gibraltar
How about Sarah Palin? She's as qualified for the job as she is for the VP post.

_________________
Image
Screenshot from the upcoming ROTK: EEE. PJ, I love ya and all you've done to put us Tolkien geeks into the mainstream, but this crosses a line.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat 09 May , 2009 10:36 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: The real world
http://blogs.abcnews.com/legalities/200 ... e-for.html" target="_blank

Three leading candidates have emerged among the six being vetted.

Senator Hatch is claiming one of the three has "a problem"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22229.html

_________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon 25 May , 2009 1:17 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: The real world
Politico has a good analysis about the upcoming nominee.... they say its less about the result and more about the fight that the conservatives badly want to energize their own growing sense of impotence:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22914.html

_________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 26 May , 2009 12:42 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: The real world
CNN is reporting this morning that President Obama has decided upon Sonia Sotomayor as his selection for the US Supreme Court. The official announcement comes at 10:15 AM Eastern time.

This is a pick which was advocated by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel for several weeks now. It puts an experienced Appeals Court judge on the Court and dares the Republican conservatives to mount a national campaign against the first Hispanic nominee. The politics of it all are pure genius and it is easy to see why it appealed to Emanuel.

Hispanics voted 2 to 1 for Obama last fall and are only growing in political strength. If the Republicans mount any sort of united campaign against Sotomayor, they risk alienating the Hispanic voters even further and putting them firmly in the Democratic column for some time to come.

Repubicans in the Senate knew they had virtually no chance of stopping any nominee of President Obama but that was not their sole intent. Now, it seems that Emanuel and Obama have dared them to bet the ranch in opposing Sotomayor. Pure political genius.

_________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 26 May , 2009 12:51 pm 
sauronsfinger wrote:
CNN is reporting this morning that President Obama has decided upon Sonia Sotomayor as his selection for the US Supreme Court. The official announcement comes at 10:15 AM Eastern time.

This is a pick which was advocated by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel for several weeks now. It puts an experienced Appeals Court judge on the Court and dares the Republican conservatives to mount a national campaign against the first Hispanic nominee. The politics of it all are pure genius and it is easy to see why it appealed to Emanuel.

Hispanics voted 2 to 1 for Obama last fall and are only growing in political strength. If the Republicans mount any sort of united campaign against Sotomayor, they risk alienating the Hispanic voters even further and putting them firmly in the Democratic column for some time to come.

Repubicans in the Senate knew they had virtually no chance of stopping any nominee of President Obama but that was not their sole intent. Now, it seems that Emanuel and Obama have dared them to bet the ranch in opposing Sotomayor. Pure political genius.



So is it the best person for the job or more "win at any cost politics", even if it isn't what's best for the country?


freddy


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue 26 May , 2009 12:56 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: The real world
Freddy - she is very well qualified and highly respected. The first Presdient Bush thought enough of her to nominate her to the Appeals Court.

_________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 26 May , 2009 1:35 pm 
I said nothing about her qualifications, I simply asked if she was the best person for the job or was it politcal as usual. BTW, you chastize the Republicans before they even question her and the Democrats attacked EVERY minority that Bush put forth. Neither side can claim they don't play politics when it comes to this.

Again, based on your post above on how Pres. Obama and his right hand man (my words) Rahm Emmanual are challenging the Reps to go after her. Is she the best person for this position or is it a political decision?

freddy


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue 26 May , 2009 3:58 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 9:28 pm
Posts: 4336
Location: The real world
In reality, this is a political decision made by political people in a political environment that will go through a politicized process and will have political impact and effects. To ignore that is to ignore the reality of it all.

Everything I hear about Judge Sotomayor says she is very well qualified in many ways for this position.

_________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 26 May , 2009 3:58 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 13 Dec , 2004 9:07 pm
Posts: 328
Freddy, I imagine it's both. There's a significant pool of qualified jurists that could be chosen, and then from that point on it's a political choice. Always is, under any administration, Republican or Democrat. She certainly is qualified, has significant credentials in her law career before appointment as an appellate judge.

They were talking on NPR this morning about a case where she followed the "letter of the law" over empathy. In this case, apparently a plane went down far enough out that the passengers' families got lower payouts than if the plane went down closer to the U.S. Sotomayor refused to allow the higher payouts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 26 May , 2009 4:00 pm 
Legendury speller
User avatar

Joined: Mon 14 Mar , 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 1208
Location: US of A
Here is a record of notable cases Sotomayor has ruled on. Interestingly several of her cases that were appealed to the Supreme Court were overturned. I disagree with her stance on the New Haven Firemen case.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/ ... =hpmostpop

And one of the most irritating things about the news about her so far is how the media is portraying her. It is not Judge Sotomayer graduate of Harvard and Yale. Or Judge Sotomayer experienced federal Judge. It's Judge Sotomayer, Hispanic! and Female!

We may have a federal holiday celebrating Martin Luthor King Jr. and most major cities have a street named after him but as far as living by his dreams about his children living in a nation where people are judged by their character not the color of their skin we just throw his words behind us.

_________________
"When people don't believe in you, you have to believe in yourself. "
Pierce Brosnan

"Please don't disillusion me. I haven't had breakfast yet." Card


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 26 May , 2009 4:34 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon 13 Dec , 2004 9:07 pm
Posts: 328
RELStuart, it's well and good to be gender and racially neutral when our institutions reflect our society. The current SCOTUS with its predominance of white males does not reflect our society. I don't want old white men deciding these issues--I want a court that reflects all perspectives, all members of the society.

I work in law--I'm a female lawyer--and if you think gender bias is no longer there, I have plenty of ammo stored up for you. :suspicious:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 26 May , 2009 4:46 pm 
SF, you proved my point in your last post. For the past eight years all I have heard was how the Reps were playing politics and so on. Now that the shoe is on the other foot you made it very clear that the Dems are playing politics just as the Reps did and you say that you dislike them (Reps) for it. I would like to see some honest reflection from the left that says "You know what, we play politics just as well as the other side."


freddy


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group