| Author |
Message |
    
darrensager
Citizen
Username: Darrensager
Post Number: 272
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 11:57 pm: | 
|
Tom. I think that Michael had the right idea. The point of it all is that the Dems are putting up John yet again to be the patsy for a losing battle. Will John ever learn?
Also some things in life we'll always find humor in, and they will never go out of style. Are you saying we should forget about things that happened in our country less than two years ago on a political front? I haven't forgotten about what happened in 2001. Why should I forget about John Kerry? Also remember, whats old is new again.
How can you not look at those and not laugh? They're classics. I love the football shot. 
Also Kudos to Monster who put this movie poster in the virtual cafe area under "A story of two cowboys"
  |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 565
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 9:29 am: |
|
Tom-
The funny thing is the sleeping "conservative brethen" continue to win one election after another...
So that means your team keeps losing to sleeping "conservative brethen"...
Doesn't put you or them in a positive light...
Start a Revolution or shut the hell up...
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5091
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 10:35 am: |
|
For pete's sake, Nohero, get a clue. Sure Nixon played one end against the other to win the presidency (and he wasn't a conservative no matter how Reingold tries to reason that he was). The fact that just sits on your plate there is that it was Democrats filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Nor did I link today's Democratic Party to that filibuster. Today's Democratic Party is still big on Great Society type cures that have arguably hurt the very population they claimed to have wanted to help. Don't worry. That group hasn't quite figured it out yet, though they're beginning to see the light. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 2949
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 11:57 am: |
|
Barak Obama hit Dems yesterday for relying too much on narrow technical and procedural tricks to try to get things done, instead of having a clear and broad vision.
And he has a website "under construction" that is for an "Official Blog and Daily Campaign Diary"--hmmm, and he does not have a Senatorial reelection campaign for at least 4 more years......wonder what Daily Campaign Diary they are thinking about here? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5092
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 12:25 pm: |
|
I saw that too. Obama says Democrats should have opposed Alito on the basis of 'values.' Love to see them try to pull that off. |
darrensager
Citizen
Username: Darrensager
Post Number: 278
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 5:19 pm: |
|
 |
Haight-Strawbury
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 6712
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 5:33 pm: |
|
It's over, no filibuster.
cloture invoked....(60 votes needed/got 72).
There's nothing like being on the ocean!
|
malone
Citizen
Username: Malone
Post Number: 301
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 6:09 pm: |
|
How did our two "distinguished" senators vote? I know they were going to vote no tomorrow. |
malone
Citizen
Username: Malone
Post Number: 302
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 6:11 pm: |
|
er, I know they are going to vote no tomorrow. |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 505
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 7:14 pm: |
|
New Jerseyans should be proud. Frank Lautenberg and Bob Menendez stood up for civil rights, civil liberties and the separation of powers and voted against cloture. |
darrensager
Citizen
Username: Darrensager
Post Number: 280
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 7:16 pm: |
|
I love those guys!  |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3127
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 7:35 pm: |
|
I am very proud of them, and of Kennedy, who showed what being a Kennedy means. |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14500
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 8:02 pm: |
|
It's all just a bunch of grandstanding with no downside. Yawn.
P.S. Being a Kennedy means getting away with murder. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5004
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 8:43 pm: |
|
"It's all just a bunch of grandstanding with no downside." Well, you are probably right, for two reasons -
First, as to the "grandstanding" part - while there may have been enough votes for a filibuster (if all of the "No" votes on Alito went along), there was no prospect of ultimately converting enough Senators to the "No" side. A prolonged filibuster would have resulted in paralysis with respect to the Supreme Court (a branch of government in its own right, despite the attitude of the current Administration towards the courts). So, there was disagreement among the opponents of Judge Alito, as to whether to use the filibuster.
As for the "no downside" part - alas, you may be correct there, as well. Let's see what kind of decisions and reasoning come forth from soon-to-be Justice Alito, let's see how folks feel about the state of the law about three years from now, and let's see if there will be any I-told-you-so's. |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14504
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 8:50 pm: |
|
You forgot one. |
cmontyburns
Citizen
Username: Cmontyburns
Post Number: 1718
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 9:35 pm: |
|
"Frank Lautenberg and Bob Menendez stood up for civil rights, civil liberties and the separation of powers and voted against cloture."
I feel so warm inside. A vote against cloture! Not since the Montgomery bus boycot has such a decisive blow been struck in the name of civil rights.
(Remind me again how keeping people from voting is somehow a DEFENSE of civil rights?) |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 507
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 9:46 pm: |
|
cmontyburns,
The principle involved in filibustering a Supreme Court nomination is that the nomination is too important to be decided by a simple majority vote. Thus if 41 Senators oppose the nomination -- and maintain the filibuster -- the President is required to make another appointment that is not unacceptable to 9 less than half the Senate. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 618
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 10:17 pm: |
|
Heck, why don't we just amend the constitution and have the Senate pick a SC replacement. What were our forefathers thinking when they allowed the top elective position in our government to make such a choice. Perhaps we could have a panel of the last four living losing Presidential candidates to make the nomination. Once again, the Dems prove themselves to be the party of talk and no action. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5005
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 10:29 pm: |
|
"What were our forefathers thinking when they allowed the top elective position in our government to make such a choice." Well, technically, the President nominates, but Justices take office "with the Advice and Consent" of the Senate.
So, the founders allowed the President to nominate, but made it a Constitutional requirement that the Senate has to agree with the choice, before a Justice takes office.
Don't be taken in by the view of the current Administration, regarding Presidential power. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4290
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 10:32 pm: |
|
Or of the current majority party in the senate, which feels its job is to just sit up and say "yes sir!" |
Kant, I.
Citizen
Username: Parkingsux
Post Number: 291
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 10:35 pm: |
|
Anyhow, I look forward to the senate's confirmation tomorrow.  |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 509
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 10:38 pm: |
|
Southerner,
Not all Dems are all talk and no action. Here are 24 (plus 1 independent) that took action today:
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR) |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1471
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 7:31 am: |
|
Not many Red State Dems on that list. Their vote won't hurt them locally. Red Staters Evan Bayh wants to be prez and Harry Reid had no choice plus Nevada is more pink than red. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5097
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 10:44 am: |
|
Democrats dealt a bipartisan defeat on the filibuster. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 583
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 11:01 am: |
|
72-25..enough said...
Start a Revolution or shut the hell up...
|
cmontyburns
Citizen
Username: Cmontyburns
Post Number: 1719
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 11:17 am: |
|
Not quite. Vote is 58-40 right now.
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 585
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 11:53 am: |
|
Cmontyburns-
no I mean't the final vote among Democrats not to fillibuster....
Start a Revolution or shut the hell up...
|
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1475
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 1:04 pm: |
|
So most Democrats voted against an a candidate that even liberals said was well qualified.
If in the future President Hillary Clinton ( sorry that was tough to type) presents a well qualified Supreme Court Nominee , how should the Republican controlled Senate ( that was easy to type) treat her?
If you follow the Dems treatment of Alito, they should vote against all of them. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 778
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 1:12 pm: |
|
Guy - actually they have a better strategy. When Clinton was pres they didnt even let them out of committee. They 'blue carded' them and left them off the list.
I am sure that if the dems were in control of the senate the same fate would have befallen Alito. There is a huge difference between being 'well qualified' in terms of knowing the law, bench experience and education with how you would conduct yourself once you sit on the SCOTUS. Alito was not forthcoming and his record showed a pattern of voting against the common man and for the large corporation, for expanded presidential powers and an alarming trend of being in the minority and therefore seemingly out of touch with what the majority of judges consider to be constitutional.
So now he will be on the court and his opinions will be what they will. Time will tell. |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1476
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 1:40 pm: |
|
Hoops , we are talking about treatment of Supreme Court nominees by the opposing party.
Republicans treated Breyer and Ginsburg quite well. |
Eponymous
Citizen
Username: Eponymous
Post Number: 46
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 2:52 pm: |
|
Guy said:
"So most Democrats voted against an a candidate that even liberals said was well qualified."
Tough to be more unqualified there, isn't it: "Liberals"? I heard plenty of liberals say Alito was not well qualified and at least 25 of them voted yesterday to keep him from becoming a justice (assuming that Guy will classify all filibustering Dems as liberals).
I should think that one could respect the position of someone who doesn't believe Alito is the right person for the job and so votes against him, but who also believes that a SCOTUS nominee is entitled to a vote and that the party controlling the Senate should get its way in this matter.
WRT how the other party treats nominees, Orrin Hatch claimed in his autobiography to have suggested both nominees to Clinton. (Both were also moderates, unlike Alito.) The relevant text is excerpted here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200601090002.
(BTW, it sure would be nice if :-) resulted in a little smiley automatically, instead of the long-winded code used instead.) |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1477
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 3:25 pm: |
|
I think the conversation went like this.
Clinton: Knock Knock
Hatch: Who's there?
Clinton: Orin
Hatch: Orin who?
Clinton: Orin't you glad I asked which liberal judge you hate the least?
I found the quote from his book:
....Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals....I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.
}
|
I. Kant
Citizen
Username: Parkingsux
Post Number: 293
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 3:48 pm: |
|
Souter, and I hope he's thrown out of his house head first..... property rights - you got any bud?  |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 622
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 8:20 pm: |
|
Paul,
There are some true lib Dems out there after all as your list suggests. These guys did indeed provide action to follow their talk. While I disagree with their vote I respect their position to their cause. As your list shows Paul, liberalism is severally the minority in this country. If true libs espoused true liberal ideas as these guys did they would rarely win national elections (as has been the case). The politically savvy libs understand this which is why they voted yes. They realize in order to win nationally they must appear to be closer to the middle. Paul, I respect your position but I am glad your position is the minority view on governmental affairs. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 604
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 8:06 am: |
|
Ummm....seems Sam got confirmed yesterday...
At the risk of appearing jejune, what is it that Muntz (the bully) on the Simpson says all the time?
Oh yeah...
HAHA!
Start a Revolution or shut the hell up...
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4299
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 12:05 pm: |
|
Quote:There is always a pick-up game of Kick the Democrats going on somewhere. But something about the Alito confirmation—the pathetic and apparently surprising inability of 45 Democratic senators to stop 55 Republicans from approving anyone they want—seems to have made the game suddenly a lot more popular.
...
The official illustration of the Kick the Democrats movement is a map of the United States, showing huge swaths of red with just a few tiny accents of blue. Of course this gives an unrealistic advantage to big states with few people. But then so does our electoral system. The deeper flaw is the assumption that everybody in red states is red and ditto the blues. A map showing red and blue people, not states, would look a homogenous purple. John Kerry got 43 percent of the vote in states that went for George Bush, and Bush got 45 percent in Kerry states. Liberals are not nearly so rare and so culturally isolated as the official map would suggest. This is little comfort to Democrats when it comes to the math of winning elections. But it does suggest that endless self-flagellation about their values and beliefs may not be the best strategy for turning things around.
Michael Kinsley |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 625
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 12:12 pm: |
|
How long until the Dems attack the Electoral College system? I think if they lose 2008, the attack will be on. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4300
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 1:27 pm: |
|
In 2000 the GOP anticipated the opposite of what happened, that Bush would win the popular vote but lose the electoral college, and they had plans in place to attack the legitimacy of it. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5116
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 1:54 pm: |
|
tom -- any proof of that? |
mtierney
Citizen
Username: Mtierney
Post Number: 899
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 4:00 pm: |
|
I watched the Virginia governor's Democratic response and, on the whole, I liked his delivery. (Notwithstanding an eyebrow that seemed about to leap off his face.)
Being a Dem in another life, I had hoped I would hear some real ideas. No such luck. However, something familiar struck me - his "there has to be a better way" comment which he used throughout his talk.
Later, one of the cable news guys said the line was the campaign slogan used by Robert Redford "The Candidate." The film won AAs for best story and best screenplay. Also the film is said to be the one which inspired Dan Quayle to enter politics!
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4305
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Quote:Bush Set to Fight An Electoral College Loss
By Michael Kramer,
New York Daily News November 1, 2000
Quietly, some of George W. Bush's advisers are preparing for the ultimate "what if" scenario: What happens if Bush wins the popular vote for President, but loses the White House because Al Gore's won the majority of electoral votes?
...
[W]hat if Gore wins such crucial battleground states as Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania and thus captures the magic 270 electoral votes while Bush wins the overall nationwide popular vote?
"The one thing we don't do is roll over," says a Bush aide. "We fight." How? The core of the emerging Bush strategy assumes a popular uprising, stoked by the Bushies themselves, of course.
In league with the campaign - which is preparing talking points about the Electoral College's essential unfairness - a massive talk-radio operation would be encouraged. "We'd have ads, too," says a Bush aide, "and I think you can count on the media to fuel the thing big-time. Even papers that supported Gore might turn against him because the will of the people will have been thwarted."
Local business leaders will be urged to lobby their customers, the clergy will be asked to speak up for the popular will and Team Bush will enlist as many Democrats as possible to scream as loud as they can. "You think 'Democrats for Democracy' would be a catchy term for them?" asks a Bush adviser.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10501
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 5:50 pm: |
|
The fix was in for Breyer and Ginsburg and I have no doubt Orin Hatch played the role he says he did.
However, they still got worked over pretty well in the hearings. In addition, they were nominated to replace similarly liberal judges as I recall and that takes some of the urgency out of the situation.
Alito is replacing a swing vote on the court, so feelings are going to run much higher on both sides. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 956
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 11:36 pm: |
|
What was the conventional wisdom regarding Judge O'Connor when Ronald Ray-Gun appointed her?
TomR |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10503
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 7:37 am: |
|
I think she was viewed as a mainline Goldwater/Regan conservative. The fact that she was the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court helped her nomination I believe. I really don't remember the hearings. I think they weren't as harsh as Bork or Thomas. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 958
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 3:07 pm: |
|
Bob,
Thanks. The question was retorical, but thanks.
TomR |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page