Skip to content
BOL Conferences
Learn More - Click Here!

Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Thread Options
#361981 - 05/20/05 07:25 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
straw Offline
Power Poster
straw
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
Quote:

Quote:

So 10 nominees is a whole class? I think you are dialing up the rhetoric a little aren't you? The exact number of judicial appointments escapes me at the moment, but something over 90% of nominees have been approved. If that is systematic, the democrats are doing a piss-poor job of if.




I hope you realize that we are talking about appeals court nominees. They aren't blocking circuit court appointments, but the higher courts. And yes, that is a class. If you aren't aware of this, I suggest a little more research before getting involved in the debate.


Quote:

Or the skeptic would say that Frist's presidential ambitions have him courting the far-right and christian coalition, thereby prohibiting a compromise. This offer is not a compromise, since the rules could be changed again, at any time. The democrats have said let these nominees go through, allowing the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. This is what the fight is over.




Then they should let the nominees go through, and there will be no need to change the rules. The Republicans will not change the rules if cloture is approved on the current nominees. If the Dems want to keep their powder dry for a Supreme Court nominee, do it. The Republicans can't stop them.

Quote:

If a compromise is made, each side needs to give up something. What are the republicans giving up in making this generous offer. They get their way, and if they don't, they will take their ball and go home.




The Republicans would be promising to provide the same treatment to Democratic nominees in the future. Again, what would you have the Republicans give up, other than the ability to block future nominees without a vote?

Quote:

Actually, with 45 conservative senators, the WH needs only 5 more to vote yes on any candidate. With sufficient political pressure and arm twisting, this is not that difficult and an extremist nominee could be approved.




Yes, and since it's been so easy for the Republicans to hold together a majority for the simple proposition of an up-or-down vote, I'm sure it would be just as simple to get recalcitrants like Lincoln Chafee to vote to confirm a serious conservative like Robert Bork.

Quote:

And conversly, if there are 45 conservative senators, how could a liberal nominee be approved. Again, a compromise would be needed to find a nominee acceptable to both sides.




You don't get it - NO ONE is acceptable to the Dems unless they favor abortion on demand, affirmative action, gay marriage. They go to the lengths (considered by the bench to be unethical) of asking nominees how they would rule in particular situations. Why? Because it is the one branch of government where liberalism can be enforced without the support of the people.




Once again the escalated rhetoric. No one is acceptable to democrats. Just a short list of Supreme Court nominees consented to by a democratic senate

Chief Justice Rhenquist (chief justice appointment)
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
Sandra Day O'Connor

I don't think even you can argue that these are flaming liberal justices who favor abortion on demand, affirmative action, gay marriage (although they have not opined on this yet, my guess is they disfavor).

Perhaps this is the republican point of view; that compromise is impossible because the other side is inflexible; perhaps this is the justification that allows the republicans to PREACH to the great injustice done to these fine candidates.

An injustice that was practiced by Republicans before, as X points out with his democrat quotes arguing the today's republican point.

One can find republican senators from the day arguing exactly what the democrats argue today.

Up and down vote wasn't important for democratic nominees.

Jokerman, why didn't the republican senate allow the vote and simply vote no, on the record? Why didn't they allow every Senator to stand up and vote yea or nay for each nominee. Because they were afraid of the political fallout from the up or down vote then.

Return to Top
Chat! - BOL Watercooler
#361982 - 05/20/05 07:29 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
°X° Offline
Power Poster
°X°
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,332
WOOHOO
Here is the history of the filibuster:

Filibuster and Cloture
Using the filibuster to delay or block legislative action has a long history. The term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s, when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill.

In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew in numbers, however, revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.
In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, he threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate.

Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as "cloture." The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, until cloture was invoked after a fifty-seven day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or sixty of the current one hundred senators.

Many Americans are familiar with the filibuster conducted by Jimmy Stewart, playing Senator Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra's film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but there have been some famous filibusters in the real-life Senate as well. During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers." Long once held the Senate floor for fifteen hours. The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
____

NO WHERE DOES THE CONSTITUTION MENTION FILIBUSTER

Return to Top
#361983 - 05/20/05 07:30 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Anonymous
Unregistered

Quote:

National polls show the abortion debate evenly divided. However, the majority of Americans however oppose any system that favors one group over another (as Affirmative Action does). Most favor one that favors equality for everyone.

And the vast majority of Americans are opposed to Gay Marriage - making about 70% of Americans Homophobes according to you.




Check your numbers, Skippy.

Polling Report

Return to Top
#361984 - 05/20/05 07:30 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
zaibatsu Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
Quote:

Let's get past all of the silly discussions and get to the bottom line:

Without discussing filibusters, why shouldn't a president's judicial nominees be allowed up or down votes by our elected representatives?





Do our elected representatives give up and down votes on everything a President ask for? No, and the constitution doesn't provide for it; however, it does here. Please ask informed questions.

Would we need a judiciary committee then or just have the President give a name and have a vote immediately? These nominees are out of the judiciary committee so that question is moot and can be discussed at another time about nominees hung up in committee without a vote (BTW: I think they deserve a vote there too). Of course, the constitution does not provide for a judiciary committee, but, like I said, we can discuss that another time. Again, an informed question please.

Do you want any investigation or is that Presidential perogative?The issue is the current nominees that are being filibustered. These candidates have already been investigated. Please ask an informed question.

Do you really want life time appointments voted on in this way?Yes, but your questions make assumptions that are just not factual. Are you that misinformed or just trying to avoid answering the question. Do I have to spell everything out in my question. I thought the educated audience here would understand that these filibustered nominees are now out of the judicial committee, have been investigated, must be voted on according to the constitution (unlike other things the President might ask the Congress for like say a ham and cheese on rye). Now, can we get back to discussing why these nominees do not deserve a filibuster-free vote.

Again, the process creates a need for compromise, something the far-right and far-left seem less and less interested in. Why is there a need for a compromise among a few powerful Congressmen when the judiciary committee has sent these for a vote? I see no room for compromise.

The process forces centrist positions to come through, including centrist jurists who are neither radical left or radical right. The judiciary committee and the vote of the Congress is supposed to do this and does. Please name me the "radical" this filibuster is keeping from office. If you do, please back it up with facts. Thanks.

Do you want radical jurists from either side sitting on the bench for 20, 30 40 years swinging from left and right field?No, and a system without filibuster will prevent this unless we vote radical leftists or rightists into office--and if we've done that, then apparently a radical judiciary would represent us well. A filibuster does nothing but allow a party to force the other party to accept their unspoken litmus test. In this case that litmus test is abortion. Load your gun with facts next time you challenge me to a shoot out

Thanks for your time and attention (and I hope you don't mind my poking fun at you)
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city

Return to Top
#361985 - 05/20/05 07:34 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

Once again the escalated rhetoric. No one is acceptable to democrats. Just a short list of Supreme Court nominees consented to by a democratic senate

Chief Justice Rhenquist (chief justice appointment)
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
Sandra Day O'Connor




Which of these would not be filibustered by the current Senate?

Quote:

I don't think even you can argue that these are flaming liberal justices who favor abortion on demand, affirmative action, gay marriage (although they have not opined on this yet, my guess is they disfavor).




And it's been 15 years since the last one was appointed (Thomas), and he had 40-some votes against him. Had the Dems been using the filibuster against nominees back then, I guarantee you that he would not have been confirmed.

Quote:

An injustice that was practiced by Republicans before, as X points out with his democrat quotes arguing the today's republican point.
.
One can find republican senators from the day arguing exactly what the democrats argue today.




Not one of them was supportive of using the filibuster. Now, many of those nominees didn't have majority support, but I AGREE WITH YOU. We should reach an agreement to give all nominees an up or down vote, and accept the political consequences of those votes. I suggest you start contacting Democratic senators and convey your belief.

Return to Top
#361986 - 05/20/05 07:36 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

Chief Justice Rhenquist (chief justice appointment)
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
Sandra Day O'Connor

I don't think even you can argue that these are flaming liberal justices who favor abortion on demand, affirmative action, gay marriage (although they have not opined on this yet, my guess is they disfavor).




Actually, I could argue that about O'Connor (at least as it regards abortion and AA).

Return to Top
#361987 - 05/20/05 07:37 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Anonymous
Unregistered

Quote:

Quote:

abortion on demand, affirmative action, gay marriage.




What do you find so offensive about these things? I can only assume that you are a homophobe, female and are looking for a job.





Got bad news for you: Even in the most liberal of states, like Oregon, in 2004 Gay Marriage bans passed easily. I suppose the whole world is full of homophobes.

Gay-marriage bans bulldozed to victory in all 11 states that voted on the measure: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah.

Return to Top
#361988 - 05/20/05 07:41 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
zaibatsu Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
I don't give a rat's hind end about what happened to Abe Fortus or Abe Vigoda. I don't care how the Democrats, the Republicans, or the Whigs acted years ago. Forget discussing ancient history and the use of filibuster. The question still has not been answered as to why judicial nominees who are now out of committee should be denied an up or down vote.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city

Return to Top
#361989 - 05/20/05 07:41 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Anonymous
Unregistered

Quote:

Quote:

National polls show the abortion debate evenly divided. However, the majority of Americans however oppose any system that favors one group over another (as Affirmative Action does). Most favor one that favors equality for everyone.

And the vast majority of Americans are opposed to Gay Marriage - making about 70% of Americans Homophobes according to you.




Check your numbers, Skippy.

Polling Report




Checked them - and you were right, there were more recent numbers out.

"55 percent, say such marriages should be illegal. Instead it suggests a public judgment that the issue doesn't merit pre-empting the states and amending the U.S. Constitution.

Compared to same-sex marriage, this poll finds a closer division in public views on gay civil unions — 51 percent opposed, but 46 percent in favor. "

Source: http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html

It still makes the majority of Americans homophobes according to you.

Return to Top
#361990 - 05/20/05 07:42 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Anonymous
Unregistered

Quote:

Please name me the "radical" this filibuster is keeping from office. If you do, please back it up with facts. Thanks.




Priscilla Owen....

Priscilla Owen

More about Priscilla

Return to Top
#361991 - 05/20/05 07:45 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
zaibatsu Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

National polls show the abortion debate evenly divided. However, the majority of Americans however oppose any system that favors one group over another (as Affirmative Action does). Most favor one that favors equality for everyone.

And the vast majority of Americans are opposed to Gay Marriage - making about 70% of Americans Homophobes according to you.




Check your numbers, Skippy.

Polling Report




Checked them - and you were right, there were more recent numbers out.

"55 percent, say such marriages should be illegal. Instead it suggests a public judgment that the issue doesn't merit pre-empting the states and amending the U.S. Constitution.

Compared to same-sex marriage, this poll finds a closer division in public views on gay civil unions — 51 percent opposed, but 46 percent in favor. "

Source: http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html

It still makes the majority of Americans homophobes according to you.





You are forgetting about the ACLU and their ilk who are pre-empting the states and taking the gay marriage bans to federal courts. Do you also condemn their actions like you do those who are seeking a Constitutional Amendment? Groups are seeking a Constitutional Amendment merely to protect against these groups that are using the judiciary as a branch of their activist organizations?
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city

Return to Top
#361992 - 05/20/05 07:46 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
zaibatsu Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
Quote:

Quote:

Please name me the "radical" this filibuster is keeping from office. If you do, please back it up with facts. Thanks.




Priscilla Owen....

Priscilla Owen

More about Priscilla




I ask you a serious question and you quote a leftist organization like People for the UnAmerican Way? You certainly have me laughing.


Between 1998 And 2004, People For The American Way Voters Alliance Gave $478,711 (99.3%) To Democrats And $3,500 (0.7%) To Republicans.

2004: $10,000 Total -- $10,000 (100%) to Democrats $0 (0%) to Republicans.
2002: $154,700 Total -- $154,700 (100%) to Democrats $0 (0%) to Republicans.
2000: $174,776 Total -- $172,276 (99%) to Democrats $2,500 (1%) to Republicans.
1998: $139,235 Total -- $138,235 (99%) to Democrats $1,000 (1%) to Republicans. (The Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 7/17/04)

Tell you what--you find me an unbiased source to read about Priscilla Owens and I'll read it. Good grief.
Last edited by Obi Wan Zaibatsu; 05/20/05 07:50 PM.
Return to Top
#361993 - 05/20/05 07:49 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Anonymous
Unregistered

Find your own source, I refuse to go to Fox Not-the-News.

Return to Top
#361994 - 05/20/05 07:50 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Anonymous
Unregistered

FIFTH CIRCUIT NOMINEEE PRISCILLA OWEN:
A RECORD OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND QUESTIONABLE ETHICS
Priscilla Owen was nominated and defeated in two successive Congresses, but President Bush recently nominated
her a third time. On the Texas Supreme Court, Justice Owen has consistently attempted to make law, rather than
interpret it, and has engaged in and defended questionable ethical practices.
AN EXTREME CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST
• Priscilla Owen joined the Texas Supreme Court in 1994 with a new group of conservatives packaged by Karl
Rove, who served as her paid campaign consultant. The New York Times reported, “Justice Owen is
considered by legal analysts in Texas to be among the most conservative members of the Texas Supreme
Court, which, in turn, is considered one of the nation’s most conservative supreme courts.” The Minneapolis
Star Tribune noted, “Even her conservative colleagues have commented on her habit of twisting the law to fit
her hyperconservative political views.” The San Antonio News Express found that “her record demonstrates a
results-oriented streak that belies supporters’ claims that she strictly follows the law.” The Houston
Chronicle concluded that she is “less interested in impartially interpreting the law than in pushing an agenda.”
ROUTINELY BACKS CORPORATIONS AGAINST WORKER AND CONSUMER PROTECTIONS
• Justice Owen reliably votes to throw out jury verdicts favoring workers and consumers against corporate
interests and dismisses suits brought by workers for job-related injuries, discrimination and unfair employment
practices. She has cast many such votes in dissent, with even her conservative colleagues – including former
colleagues, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Senator John Cornyn – finding for the injured parties. If
Justice Owen’s views had become law: employees would have to endure almost limitless abusive behavior from
their bosses to maintain a valid lawsuit; a teenager paralyzed in a car accident due to a faulty restraint system
would not have been allowed to sue in Texas courts; a vacuum cleaner manufacturer that failed to conduct a
background check before hiring a salesman with a history of sexual misconduct could not be held liable for the
salesman’s on-the-job rape of a prospective customer; the Texas civil rights statute would require an employee
to carry the near impossible burden of proving that discrimination was the exclusive reason for her dismissal,
rather than a “motivating factor”; and a developer could have bypassed a city’s water quality laws on the
grounds that they infringed on its constitutional rights. In the water pollution case, the court’s majority stated:
“Most of Justice Owen’s dissent is nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric and thus merits no response.”
A LAW-MAKING ACTIVIST, NOT A LAW-INTERPRETING JUDGE, IN ABORTION CASES
• Prior to her original nomination, in each of the many cases that came before her involving Texas’ Parental
Notification Act, Justice Owen voted against allowing a minor to obtain an abortion without notifying her
parents, often ignoring the law’s explicit exceptions. In one case, she advocated requiring a minor to show an
awareness of the “philosophic, moral, social and religious arguments that can be brought to bear” before
obtaining judicial approval for an abortion without parental consent. The statute contains no such requirement.
• Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, when he was one of Justice Owen’s colleagues on the Texas Supreme
Court, criticized Justice Owen in another case for attempting to re-write the parental notification statute, calling
her dissent “an unconscionable act of judicial activism.”
ENGAGED IN AND DEFENDED ETHICALLY QUESTIONABLE PRACTICES ON THE COURT
• Justice Owen has taken campaign contributions from law firms and corporations, including Enron and
Halliburton, and then, without recusing herself, ruled in their favor when their cases came before her.
• After an investigation by a district attorney and a ruling by the Texas Ethics Commission, the Texas
Supreme Court revised its practice of allowing law clerks to accept money during their clerkships from their
future law firm employers, including those litigating before the court. Justice Owen nevertheless defended
the practice and dismissed the matter as a “political issue dressed up as a good government issue.”

Return to Top
#361995 - 05/20/05 07:50 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

You are forgetting about the ACLU and their ilk who are pre-empting the states and taking the gay marriage bans to federal courts. Do you also condemn their actions like you do those who are seeking a Constitutional Amendment? Groups are seeking a Constitutional Amendment merely to protect against these groups that are using the judiciary as a branch of their activist organizations?




How quickly would 70% of Americans support a Constitutional amendment if that Nebraska decision holds up? Or if the Supreme Court would separately (and probably correctly, to be honest) rule that the Constitution doesn't allow one state to not recognize a gay marriage from another state?

Return to Top
#361996 - 05/20/05 07:52 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

Fox Not-the-News.




Is this the best they can come up with over at DU?

Return to Top
#361997 - 05/20/05 07:54 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
zaibatsu Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
Quote:

FIFTH CIRCUIT NOMINEEE PRISCILLA OWEN:
A RECORD OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND QUESTIONABLE ETHICS
Priscilla Owen was nominated and defeated in two successive Congresses, but President Bush recently nominated
her a third time. On the Texas Supreme Court, Justice Owen has consistently attempted to make law, rather than
interpret it, and has engaged in and defended questionable ethical practices.
AN EXTREME CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST
• Priscilla Owen joined the Texas Supreme Court in 1994 with a new group of conservatives packaged by Karl
Rove, who served as her paid campaign consultant. The New York Times reported, “Justice Owen is
considered by legal analysts in Texas to be among the most conservative members of the Texas Supreme
Court, which, in turn, is considered one of the nation’s most conservative supreme courts.” The Minneapolis
Star Tribune noted, “Even her conservative colleagues have commented on her habit of twisting the law to fit
her hyperconservative political views.” The San Antonio News Express found that “her record demonstrates a
results-oriented streak that belies supporters’ claims that she strictly follows the law.” The Houston
Chronicle concluded that she is “less interested in impartially interpreting the law than in pushing an agenda.”
ROUTINELY BACKS CORPORATIONS AGAINST WORKER AND CONSUMER PROTECTIONS
• Justice Owen reliably votes to throw out jury verdicts favoring workers and consumers against corporate
interests and dismisses suits brought by workers for job-related injuries, discrimination and unfair employment
practices. She has cast many such votes in dissent, with even her conservative colleagues – including former
colleagues, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Senator John Cornyn – finding for the injured parties. If
Justice Owen’s views had become law: employees would have to endure almost limitless abusive behavior from
their bosses to maintain a valid lawsuit; a teenager paralyzed in a car accident due to a faulty restraint system
would not have been allowed to sue in Texas courts; a vacuum cleaner manufacturer that failed to conduct a
background check before hiring a salesman with a history of sexual misconduct could not be held liable for the
salesman’s on-the-job rape of a prospective customer; the Texas civil rights statute would require an employee
to carry the near impossible burden of proving that discrimination was the exclusive reason for her dismissal,
rather than a “motivating factor”; and a developer could have bypassed a city’s water quality laws on the
grounds that they infringed on its constitutional rights. In the water pollution case, the court’s majority stated:
“Most of Justice Owen’s dissent is nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric and thus merits no response.”
A LAW-MAKING ACTIVIST, NOT A LAW-INTERPRETING JUDGE, IN ABORTION CASES
• Prior to her original nomination, in each of the many cases that came before her involving Texas’ Parental
Notification Act, Justice Owen voted against allowing a minor to obtain an abortion without notifying her
parents, often ignoring the law’s explicit exceptions. In one case, she advocated requiring a minor to show an
awareness of the “philosophic, moral, social and religious arguments that can be brought to bear” before
obtaining judicial approval for an abortion without parental consent. The statute contains no such requirement.
• Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, when he was one of Justice Owen’s colleagues on the Texas Supreme
Court, criticized Justice Owen in another case for attempting to re-write the parental notification statute, calling
her dissent “an unconscionable act of judicial activism.”
ENGAGED IN AND DEFENDED ETHICALLY QUESTIONABLE PRACTICES ON THE COURT
• Justice Owen has taken campaign contributions from law firms and corporations, including Enron and
Halliburton, and then, without recusing herself, ruled in their favor when their cases came before her.
• After an investigation by a district attorney and a ruling by the Texas Ethics Commission, the Texas
Supreme Court revised its practice of allowing law clerks to accept money during their clerkships from their
future law firm employers, including those litigating before the court. Justice Owen nevertheless defended
the practice and dismissed the matter as a “political issue dressed up as a good government issue.”




OK, that's better. Now, I get no source at all. Thanks, that certainly cleared that up. I am not asking for FOX News. But People for the UnAmerican Way doesn't even hide its bias--in fact, it was created for it. Do you even bother to read both biased sides' arguments and then read purportedly independent sources--I do. I, gasp, even read CBS and New York Times. But you refuse to read or watch FOX. What flavor was the Koolaid?
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city

Return to Top
#361998 - 05/20/05 07:55 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Anonymous
Unregistered

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, when he was one of Justice Owen’s colleagues on the Texas Supreme
Court, criticized Justice Owen in another case for attempting to re-write the parental notification statute, calling
her dissent “an unconscionable act of judicial activism.”


That's one of your own calling her out! It is virtually a unanimous opinion that she is a conservative activist. And, Bush is using her to fan the flames. If a liberal judge that was as far left as she is far right was brought before the Senate, that judge would be shot down as well. What's the debate? You believe she isn't a conservative activist?

Return to Top
#361999 - 05/20/05 07:55 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

A LAW-MAKING ACTIVIST, NOT A LAW-INTERPRETING JUDGE, IN ABORTION CASES




This is really through-the-looking-glass stuff.

Anon, what is Justice Owen's rating from the American Bar Association?

Return to Top
#362000 - 05/20/05 07:56 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Anonymous
Unregistered

Quote:

What flavor was the Koolaid?




My God, you're so mature! I would've loved to have you in my philosophy classes....you would have been soooooo easy.

Return to Top
#362001 - 05/20/05 07:57 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
zaibatsu Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
Quote:

Find your own source, I refuse to go to Fox Not-the-News.




People for the American Way is not a source. They are an interest group. Getting your news about Republican nominees from them is like getting news about Israel from Al Jazeer. Come on dude, I have worked with many, much less biased interest groups and they ALL twist the truth--yes, on the left and the right. If this is where you get your truths, I see no reason to continue this discussion.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city

Return to Top
#362002 - 05/20/05 08:01 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Anonymous
Unregistered

Quote:

I see no reason to continue this discussion.




Good riddence! One down!

Return to Top
#362003 - 05/20/05 08:02 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
zaibatsu Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
Quote:

Quote:

What flavor was the Koolaid?




My God, you're so mature! I would've loved to have you in my philosophy classes....you would have been soooooo easy.




That was one mildly humorous line among the many lines I posted. Not surprised you focused in on that--is it because otherwise my comments are unassailable? Care to address the remainder of my posts. No?

Philosophy class? You think you learned about life and how to discuss debate in a philosophy class full of 20 somethings with no real life experiences. How old are you?

Dude, you've got a lot to learn. Come back when your ears have dried.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city

Return to Top
#362004 - 05/20/05 08:02 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

That's one of your own calling her out! It is virtually a unanimous opinion that she is a conservative activist. And, Bush is using her to fan the flames. If a liberal judge that was as far left as she is far right was brought before the Senate, that judge would be shot down as well. What's the debate? You believe she isn't a conservative activist?




Drink some more Kool-Aid, anon.

Quote:

Few things in life are 100 percent certain, but this one is: Alberto Gonzales was not calling Priscilla Owen, or any other colleague, a judicial activist. On this point there was never one iota of intra-court confusion. My colleagues and I knew that Justice Gonzales was not targeting anyone personally but making a point of personal principle — because I interpret this imprecise statute a certain way, it would be a personal act of judicial activism to let my subjective ideology trump my detached interpretation. His concurring opinion characterized what he believed he would be doing if he interpreted the statute to mean something other than what he thought it meant, even though his interpretation may have been “personally troubling to [him] as a parent.”
...
Justice Gonzales never suggested anywhere to anyone that Owen was legislating rather than adjudicating, and he has repeatedly clarified that he never believed or intimated otherwise. He put an exclamation point on it earlier this year in sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee: “My comment about judicial activism was not focused at Judge Owen,” and “the words that have been used as a sword against Judge Owen” have been distorted.
...
Bottom line: The Left’s allegation that Gonzales accused Owen of unprincipled activism spins his words 180 degrees and is patently false. I was there, and the facts are hostile witnesses. But the charge — repeated 24/7 by liberal interest groups and a compliant, soundbite-craving media — has acquired urban-myth status.




— Greg Abbott is attorney general of Texas and a former justice on the Texas supreme court.

Return to Top
#362005 - 05/20/05 08:04 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
zaibatsu Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
Quote:

Quote:

I see no reason to continue this discussion.




Good riddence! One down!




Good riddance? Do you fear me? I thought you'd love to get me in your "philosophy class"? I read you philosophy class comment after I said I there was no reason to continue. If you've thrown down the gauntlet, I willingly step into your class professor. Get it on....
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city

Return to Top
Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5