Bush's supreme court nominees

[shmokes]

I think that Bush's choices for Supreme Court nominations have been pretty shrewd...not a quality I ever thought I would associate with him.  Thoughts?

[ChadTower]

Someone else chose them.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I doubt it's him, solely, coming up with the ideas. I'm willing to gather he has long discussions with Rove, et al first.

Anyhow, Miers doesn't seem like a great move, so far, since it has completely infuriated his wing-nut base. She was a Democrat before, and donated to Gore in '88!!!! Bush says she's a hardline conservative, and that she won't be changed (a la Souter)...but she apparently already has once in her life, what makes him so sure she won't again? Did he "gaze into her soul?"

Personally, I don't know anything about her, no one does except Bush, so I can't say one way or another if I support her. Having said that though, I don't see how a person can be nominated for such an important (lifetime) appointment with such a crappy resume. But then again, we're talking about Bush cronyism here *cough* Brownie *cough*


mrC

[ChadTower]

It's the best available choice that the Democrats may not filibuster until 2009.  It's a choice that is difficult for them to truly come out and say "screw you no more conservatives", since she WAS a Democrat until recently.

Not qualified enough, but a nicely complex political choice.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Granted. I get the feeling it was intended that she get shut down by the Democrats. That BushCo. wanted them to filibuster her based on her lacking resume', then he'd appoint a true Ultra-Conservative nutjob, after they blew their load. If they tried to filibuster the new nominee, the Repubs could scream, "Obstructionists!!!" and it's be all over the news...but that seems to have backfired since the Dems are mostly imbracing her. (Reid - almost literally)

The hearings should be interesting.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Thoughts?

As for my thoughts on Roberts: the EYES, MAN...they freak me OUT!




mrC

[Goz]

Thoughts?

As for my thoughts on Roberts: the EYES, MAN...they freak me OUT!




mrC

Those eye's... that expression wonder if he's thinking 'Look at the funbags on that hosehound!"

[ChadTower]

The slight danger for Bush here is that she may be a Democrat in Republican's clothing.

[Goz]

One would hope that people are not appointed based on which party they are members of and rather if they use the Constitution and documents like the Declaration of Independance to base their decisions.

[ChadTower]

One would hope, but one would be horribly, horribly mistaken if they did.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

One would hope that people are not appointed based on which party they are members of and rather if they use the Constitution and documents like the Declaration of Independance to base their decisions.

Riiiiiiight.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

So what happens if Harriet really is shot down by the right? Do they fracture? Will this be the first major dissent against their Dear Leader?

Looks like Drudge is leading the charge, how soon before the lockstepping begins. His current headline, "HARRIET MIERS SUPPORTED FULL CIVIL RIGHTS FOR GAYS AND LESBIANS; BACKED AIDS EDUCATION PROGRAMS FOR CITY OF DALLAS".


Doh!


mrC

[ChadTower]

God forbid someone back AIDS education! 

We can send billions to educate Africans, but not people in Texas?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

God forbid someone back AIDS education! 

Well, that might be a deal-breaker for a good portion of Bush's REAL base. At least the part where she *gasp* supported the gayz!!!


mrC

[ChadTower]

That same base sees AIDS education as supporting the gays too.

[shmokes]

One would hope that people are not appointed based on which party they are members of and rather if they use the Constitution and documents like the Declaration of Independance to base their decisions.

I love this business of acting like partisanship is a bad thing or saying, "I vote for the person, not the party."  The fact is, the party tells you a lot about a person.

It's perfectly reasonable for Mr. C to say, "I would never vote for a Republican."  Frankly, when Mr. C votes for a democrat it is probably out of pragmatism more than identifying with the the Democratic party, because he is probably way left of mainstream Democrats but voting for a third party is counterproductive.  When Mr. C votes for a democrat he is usually voting for someone more conservative than he is, but less conservative, of course, than the Republican who is running.  It's going to be that way 9999 times out of 10000.  For Mr. C to vote for a Republican it would pretty much have to mean that the Democrat on the ticket was more conservative than the Republican, otherwise the Republican would do a poorer job representing his views.  That's the way it is for me anyway.  I am far more liberal than almost any Democratic candidate.  It's a virtual impossibility that the political values of the Republican running are going to be closer to my own values than those of the Democrat.  The Republican and Democrat parties aren't just fraternaties. 

Long story short, every Supreme Court justice usees the Constitution and other relevant documents to influence their decisions, but there are multiple ways to interpret the Constitution that are perfectly reasonable.  The whole thing is like 8000 words.  You can read it from beginning to end in under an hour, easy.  It's filled with vagueries -- deliberately.  It's crazy to suggest that President Bush should appoint someone to the Supreme Court who doesn't believe that the Constitution should be interpreted the way he believes that it should be.  He is a very conservative Republican, which says a lot about how he believes the Constitution should be interpreted.  As dumb as I think the guy is, he would have to be a complete moron (much moreso, I mean) to deliberately nominate a liberal to the Court.  If he doesn't believe in a constitutional right to privacy, or limitations on the 2nd Amendment, or affirmative action, or wide 4th Amendment application, etc., why in God's name would or should he put someone on the court that would steer the nation towards all of those things?

[shmokes]

She'll be confirmed.  It won't even be close.

[ChadTower]

I'm surprised that no one has complained that she is white.

[shmokes]

What pisses me off is that she's white.

[ChadTower]

So you are complaining that she is white?

[Stingray]

It's high time we had a gay green woman on the supreme court.

-S

[mr.Curmudgeon]

If he doesn't believe in a constitutional right to privacy, or limitations on the 2nd Amendment, or affirmative action, or wide 4th Amendment application, etc., why in God's name would or should he put someone on the court that would steer the nation towards all of those things?

Because it makes the baby Jesus cry?

Seriously though, nice post. I agree with a good majority of it, but I think the real issue arises when we explore the idea that a president, in his responsibility to govern 100% of the country (not just 51%), should NOT attempt to appoint a justice whose views are more extreme than those he expressed to get elected (not saying that is the case here, since who the hell knows what this woman is about).

The vetting process in congress is sorely lacking with judges, and I think the Robert's hearing set a very bad precedent for obfuscation. For these justices to act like their own personal views would not effect their ruling, well, that's just insulting the intelligence of the American public. We should know HOW they feel about something before granting them a lifetime appointment to one of the most important jobs in the land, if not THEE most important.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I'm surprised that no one has complained that she is white.

What freaks me out more is that she seems to be a 60 yr. old virgin. Yikes!


mrC

[ChadTower]

Good discussion point.   

[Stingray]

I don't know what she looks like. I don't know what a 60 year old virgin looks like. I don't want to know what either looks like.

-S

[ChadTower]

She looks like the librarian at your high school.

[Stingray]

The librarian is actually not bad looking here. You must be thinking of the dean.

-S

[shmokes]

I have a good friend who is the family planning/STD nurse at the Health Dept.  This position lends itself to some pretty uncomfortable moments....for example she had a guy get a full erection and ask her out while she was treating his nether regions for an STD. 

But recently she had the most uncomfortable moment yet.  A guy had to come in for an HIV test for his work.  Part of the process of HIV testing is asking about sexual activity, since you can be infected for six months before your body builds up enough antibodies or whatever to show up on the HIV test.  Anyway, he was a virgin.  This was only about a week ago and when she was filling out his paperwork and wrote 42 in the spot for age she almost wrote 42 virgin (because, of course, she just saw the movie).  She said that when he said that he was still a virgin it just kind of knocked the wind out of her and she didn't know what to say.  She said he was totally normal looking and seemed like just a nice, kind of shy guy.

[ChadTower]

Hint:  he's lying to try and throw the nurse off.

[shmokes]

Throw her off of what?  I don't know.  She talks to a lot of people about sex.  People lie to her about sex all the time.  She felt pretty strongly like the guy was serious.  I don't know why he would say that.  It would be one thing to lie and say he hadn't had sex all year, but EVER?

[ChadTower]

If it's for a job, then he may say anything.  People freak out when medical tests are related to their employment.

It could well be that he thought a positive was possible, so he was starting his case against the test itself.

[DrewKaree]

She said that when he said that he was still a virgin it just kind of knocked the wind out of her and she didn't know what to say.  She said he was totally normal looking and seemed like just a nice, kind of shy guy.

Remember in the good old days where they made you wear arm bands or they had a goiter or some other "brand"?

[shmokes]

Anyway, lying or not I think the most interesting thing about it is how out of all the crazy sex talk she hears, and all the STDs she actually has to see 1st-hand, and of all the paps she performs, THAT is what made her uncomfortable.  And she finds that fact as bizarre as I do.

[jbox]

It's high time we had a gay green woman on the supreme court.

How about her?

[shmokes]

I'd tap that...

[ChadTower]

I'm still interested to know why shmokes is pissed off that a white woman was nominated.

[Stingray]

Do Orion slave girls qualify for the supreme court? If so I say we fill the whole bench with 'em.

-S

[shmokes]

I'm still interested to know why shmokes is pissed off that a white woman was nominated.

You're not serious...

[mr.Curmudgeon]

  (Not Safe For Work/Kids - Swearing/Audio)

...there's a bit about the Supreme Court in there too.
mrC

[ChadTower]

I'm still interested to know why shmokes is pissed off that a white woman was nominated.

You're not serious...

Sure I am.

[Stingray]

  (Not Safe For Work/Kids - Swearing/Audio)

...there's a bit about the Supreme Court in there too.
mrC

That video would be much better if the hot french chick were in it.

-S

[Tiger-Heli]

Do Orion slave girls qualify for the supreme court? If so I say we fill the whole bench with 'em.
-S

Probably at least as much as the latest nominee, from what I'm hearing . . .

[shmokes]

I'm still interested to know why shmokes is pissed off that a white woman was nominated.

You're not serious...

Sure I am.

Well, I'm not.  Look at the post directly above my post about being pissed. 

[ChadTower]

I'm surprised that no one has complained that she is white.

What pisses me off is that she's white.

That is the direct order of the comments.

[Stingray]

Jessica Simpson has a lot of free time on her hands. Lets paint her green and get her name in the hat.

-S

[shmokes]

Exactly....I said it for your benefit.  I was joking.  I'm sorry that nobody is giving you an opportunity to use all the arguments you've pre-readied for the, "Shouldn't a black person be replaced with another black person?" argument.

[PetitMorte]

Did you see, they did a Harriet Miers look-alike contest over on Wonkette?



Senator Palpatine won.

[Stingray]

She looks more like Dr. Pulaski to me.



Oh and I hate you for making me post a picture of Dr. Pulaski.

-S

[ChadTower]

Exactly....I said it for your benefit.

[Stingray]

There are valid points for most points of view on this.

Not mine. My point of view is unbelievably silly.

-S

[DrewKaree]

There are valid points for most points of view on this.

Not mine. My point of view is unbelievably silly.

-S

I agree, thereby making your point of view valid, and somehow turning your argument against itself.  And stop flipping that light switch.

[shmokes]

Exactly....I said it for your benefit.  I was joking.  I'm sorry that nobody is giving you an opportunity to use all the arguments you've pre-readied for the, "Shouldn't a black person be replaced with another black person?" argument.

You can stop trying to express how much smarter you are than everyone else.  I actually wanted to hear what you had to say.  There are valid points for most points of view on this.

Sorry if I jumped to conclusions.  You struck me as jabbing the hornet's nest with a stick.  I don't mean to be an ---uvula---.

[ChadTower]

Fair enough.  I'm actually surprised that it's not a hispanic woman, myself.  I don't particularly care about the issue, but with the explosion in hispanic population in the US, there is a valid argument that a hispanic person should be on the Supreme Court.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Apparently, we need more idiots on the Supreme Court, you know...to represent all the rest of us idiots out here in America. Or that's what is sounds like when this Republican senator defends Miers as the choice. You decide.

"If great intellectual powerhouse is a qualification to be a member of the court and represent the American people and the wishes of the American people and to interpret the Constitution, then I think we have a court so skewed on the intellectual side that we may not be getting representation of America as a whole," Mr. Coats said in a CNN interview."



mrC

[Stingray]

Americans are stupid. We don't need us no smart people makin' all the rules.

-S

[Dartful Dodger]

Less than half of Americans are stupid.

[ChadTower]

Depends on your standards.  Most of the people I encounter are stupid.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Less than half of Americans are stupid.

We call them Bush voters. GORE WON!!!!      bwaaaaahahahahah!

[Dexter]

Getting her stance on abortion should be a priority. The bush regieme could be stacking the bench to get Roe vs Wade overturned.

Any thoughts people??

[ChadTower]

Overturning Roe V Wade isn't nearly as important as the media would have you think.  It's not like it would legalize or make abortion illegal across the board.  All it would do is return that decision to the individual states, yes?

[Havok]

She looks more like Dr. Pulaski to me.



Oh and I hate you for making me post a picture of Dr. Pulaski.

-S

Yeah! Cheesecake!

Errr.... no, not cheesecake...

Beverly Crusher is better looking...

[Daniel270]

She looks more like Dr. Pulaski to me.



Oh and I hate you for making me post a picture of Dr. Pulaski.

-S

Yeah! Cheesecake!

Errr.... no, not cheesecake...

Beverly Crusher is better looking...

"Human Females are so repulsive....."

[Havok]

Klingon chicks have great racks...

[Stingray]

Klingon chicks have great racks...

But terrible teeth.

-S

[ChadTower]

3 million years into deep space, she'd look like the most succulent cheesecake available.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

All it would do is return that decision to the individual states, yes?

That is my understanding. That, and it would be the final nail in the coffin of the GOP. Their viability as a party would be nil. Seriously. Overturning Roe is about the stupidest thing they could do, next to starting a war on false pretenses, and/or outing a CIA agent.

I actually kinda' hope they do it. Their base needs to be exposed for the extremists they are. If they held the 'majority' view, like they imply...why is it they have to hide their views on abortion to get nominated/appointed for anything? Pro-Choice candidates don't hide their views.

Even Bush won't come and say he'd want to overturn Roe. Why is that?


mrC

[ChadTower]

Probably because the guy can't even say he needs to use the toilet without people using it to criticize him.

"Well, that bastard, people are dying and he wants to take a leak."

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Probably because the guy can't even say he needs to use the toilet without people using it to criticize him.

He really does make it too easy.

[ChadTower]

Of course, while everyone is running around saying "why does he need to ask Condi to use the john", they're not making valid criticisms about things that matter.

[Stingray]

Even Bush won't come and say he'd want to overturn Roe. Why is that?

I suppose that it could mean that he isn't as stupid as he seems. He'd have to be at least a little smarter than he seems. Right? Okay, maybe not.

-S

[Dartful Dodger]

Blah, Blah, Blah I'm mad Gore lost.

[ChadTower]

Government:  The New Xtreme Sport

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Of course, while everyone is running around saying "why does he need to ask Condi to use the john", they're not making valid criticisms about things that matter.

Again, "One-Track Chad"...people HAVE been making valid criticisms of "things that matter", myself included. But I also make fun of Bush because he's a blathering idiot. You agree with this, but at the same time you keep getting hung up on the part where people make fun of him. You have this sad, almost sociopathic need to always defend the most vile characters (Foley, Bush, etc) for really no reason other than being argumentative. You focus too much on the personal criticisms (as if they are actually directed at *you*)...and completely avoid the ACTUAL criticisms when they do appear. In fact, it's like this weird, parallel-universe-like, blatant violation of your own idiosyncratic criticism in the first place.

Get over it. People can do BOTH at the same time (criticize policy, and criticize the idiot making them) So, stop defending him, even as you claim you don't like him.

mrC

[ChadTower]

Yep, one track criticism of a behaviour that is not useful.  Criticism and attack without suggestion for improvement or positive action is simply negative hot air and only makes the situation worse, highlighting the fact that the complainer needs to bring everyone else down in order to elevate themself in some manner.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You thought going to war in Iraq exposed them for the extremists they are.  You thought that not finding WsMD was proof that they were extremists.

You seem to think that's over. Bush's approval rating is at 30%...the VAST majority of Americans disapprove of the War in Iraq. So how am I wrong?

Oh, furthermore....One word. Plame.

Keep defending the traitors. Can't wait for indictments. What will you say then?

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Yep, one track criticism of a behaviour that is not useful.  Criticism and attack without suggestion for improvement or positive action is simply negative hot air and only makes the situation worse, highlighting the fact that the complainer needs to bring everyone else down in order to elevate themself in some manner.

What exactly are you talking about? Which issue? Why are you so vague? Could it be that you have no point...Come on Chad...SOLUUUUUTIONS!!!




mrC

[ChadTower]

Solution:

Don't criticize when you don't have a solution or a better way. 

We all know Bush sucks.  We all know the country has gone to crap in the last few years, faster than at any time in the last 50.  Constantly criticizing stupid things only creates useless noise, making it that much harder for constructive ideas to get through.

Doing things like constantly posting bashing posts where there isn't even any possible positive output cannot have any positive outcome.

Keep the signal to noise ratio positive so the useful commentary isn't drowned out by the garbage.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Keep the signal to noise ratio positive so the useful commentary isn't drowned out by the garbage.

You do realize that this is *you*, ChadTower, saying this, right? You aren't known around these parts for being Mister Chipper Care Bear. Just saying.

Furthermore, you started the whole "negative criticism" derail...I simply asked a question, "Even Bush won't come and say he'd want to overturn Roe. Why is that?"

And you answered with an inanity about people criticizing him for using the bathroom. I think there is a valid reason he won't admit to wanting to overturn Roe (if he truly does want to)...and it isn't related to your answer.

mrC

[ChadTower]

I agree with that.  I am not specifically pointing a finger at you, either.  I am simply tired of watching people run around yelling "bush bad bush bad bush bad weeeeeeeeeee", knowing full well that given the chance, 95% of those people couldn't solve their way out of a wet paper bag.

I speak out about a lot of crap, but I also go well out of my way to post positive potential improvements, at least as I see them, to a lot of things.

Plus, I'm funny.   

[Stingray]

Bush bad.

-S

PS: Wheeee!

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Constantly criticizing stupid things only creates useless noise, making it that much harder for constructive ideas to get through.

So we can all assume you're writing the president, sending your solutions directly to the top, eh? 
Otherwise, we're just *gasp* chatting on an arcade forums about politics!!! OH NOES!!!

"I am simply tired of watching people run around yelling "bush bad bush bad bush bad weeeeeeeeeee"

I really think you're overstating this.

I have to ask, you *ARE* you talking about then? Can you provide examples to all this caterwauling? If it's so *EXTREME* you should be able to provide at least 20 examples, right here and now!!!

I mean, come on....get over that part. There *is* such a thing as constructive criticism. It is a form of solution orienteering. I've heard plenty of viable solutions for just about every single issue this country faces. If you can't ignore the things you perceive as "unhelpful", then that is seriously YOUR PROBLEM. Bush, and his administration have made so many horrendous decisions, that have had such an enormously negative impact on the direct day-to-day of people's lives that, sometimes, it's healthy and productive to just get it out of your system.
 
If you're happy not doing that, fine. Stop being such a wet blanket. Lead by example then, and only provide solutions.

mrC

[ChadTower]

Stingray:  You have two more instances until you have exhausted your allotment.

What I am doing is waiting for the next election, since that is my allocated chance to make a difference.

[Dartful Dodger]

You seem to think that's over. Bush's approval rating is at 30%...the VAST majority of Americans disapprove of the War in Iraq. So how am I wrong?

War on Iraq, was started before the election.

The VAST majority Americans voted for BUSH.

There isn't enough space on the arcade controls site to explain how you are wrong.

Hopefully this post explains how your post was wrong.

[Stingray]

The VAST majority Americans voted for BUSH.

Wasn't it something like 52%?

-S

[ChadTower]

Bush won a huge majority of counties, I think, so the popular vote this time was pretty clear.

More than ever, it was choosing between crap and poop.

[Stingray]

51% of the popular vote according to The Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/elections/2004/

-S

[mr.Curmudgeon]

War on Iraq, was started before the election.
The VAST majority Americans voted for BUSH.

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that people can, apparently, change their minds. Not that I expect you to do that or anything...it's pretty clear you're going down with the ship. You zealot.

51% does not equal VAST, nor does it equal a mandate, nor does it equal "political capital", even for the most mathematically challenged individuals. Sorry. It's a sqeaker...and nothing to be proud of. Should have humbled him, but, nah....he's about as thick as a brick.

Hopefully this post explains how your post was wrong.

Nope. Please try again.

mrC

[ChadTower]

51% of the popular vote according to The Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/elections/2004/

-S

So, what that says is that Bush had a 3% margin of victory in the popular vote, with a likely error margin of 75% + some donuts.

Of course, the popular vote is of no relevance in Constitutional terms.

I think it's safe to say that Bush himself won, but the world was going to ultimately lose no matter which candidate won that election.

[DrewKaree]

You seem to think that's over. Bush's approval rating is at 30%

Well NOW how is he gonna win the next election?

I think the real problem no one's addressing is that MrC's message simply isn't getting out to enough people...well, at least the dunce population of voters in the last election.  We's all breedin' lahk ra-bits!  Hyuck!

Keep fighting the fight.  Somehow you'll put the nail in Bush's coffin.  It might take another 3 years, but you'll sure as heck get him out!  w00t!

Seems a perfect thread to add these!

[Stingray]

Of course, the popular vote is of no relevance in Constitutional terms.

Obviously no argument here. I was only arguing about what qualifies as a VAST majority.

-S

[ChadTower]

Even the popular vote is irrelevant as to majority since it itself only represents a minority of Americans.

The majority cannot be determined by a vote until the majority actually votes.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Well NOW how is he gonna win the next election?

Bush is the leader of the GOP....in that context, his popularity and leadership (and lack thereof) matters.

The Republican leaders of BOTH the HOUSE and the SENATE are currently under investigation, one has three indictments against him (DeLay), the other is in trouble for insider trading (of between 3-6 million). Bush's right-hand man, Rove, is directly implicated in a treasonous scandal, outing an undercover CIA agent in retaliation for her husbands efforts in exposing the lies leading up to a war that has, so far, cost us $400 BILLION dollars and 2000 lives. With no end in sight. A top GOP lobbyist is under federal investigation (Abramoff) and has been linked to several murders, as of late. A top GOP lobbyists, directly connected to Abramoff and DeLay has been arrested (Safavian)...

So tell me, does Bush and his administration help or hurt the GOP's chances in 2008?

Somehow you'll put the nail in Bush's coffin.

I think he did that himself with Miers, actually.

It might take another 3 years, but you'll sure as heck get him out!  w00t!

I'd bet he's out before then. I've got champagne chilling in the fridge.


mrC

[Stingray]

It might take another 3 years, but you'll sure as heck get him out!  w00t!

I'd bet he's out before then. I've got champagne chilling in the fridge.

I'm afraid that you're probably wrong about that, but in the event that you are not, I'll be happy to share that champaign.

-S

[ChadTower]

That's part of what I'm talking about.  If things in this country get SO BAD that the President is impeached and forced out of office...

...how the hell is that something worth celebrating?

That is revelling in the downward spiral of our country in order to make yourself feel better.  That is not a good thing.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I'm afraid that you're probably wrong about that, but in the event that you are not, I'll be happy to share that champaign.

I don't want to get too excited here, but rumor around Washington is that he and/or Cheney may be implicated in the Plame case as "unindicted co-conspirators." A sitting president can't be directly indicted, but a Vice President can. If that happens, Bush isn't long for this world. He couldn't survive the political maelstrom with his popularity currently in the toilet.

Think Nixon and Agnew.


mrC

[Stingray]

...how the hell is that something worth celebrating?

Then we'd finally have a good response to BUSH WON!

-S

[ChadTower]

No, you would not.

You would have a response that satisfied you.

I don't find anything good at all with what the US has become in the last few years.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

...how the hell is that something worth celebrating?

It's not. Getting rid of the criminals who caused it certainly would be.

That is revelling in the downward spiral of our country in order to make yourself feel better.  That is not a good thing.

BUSH IS NOT AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JESUS H. CHRIST...seperate the two.

That is the reason for the seething hatred many, including myself, have of this man and his party. I can't see why you can't understand that. I despise him for what he has allowed to happen to my beloved country, during his watch, as well as the decisions he's made to make things worse, and I'd dance on the grave of his administration, once it's over. Healing, then continuing my support of those who'd work to fix it.

mrC

[ChadTower]

BUSH IS NOT AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JESUS CHRIST!!! Seperate the two.

You cannot separate the two.  Bush is the President of the United States of America.  He cannot be removed without permanent damage to the United States, domestically and internationally.  Thus far it has not been proven that he should be removed, no matter what quality of job he has done.  If they find acts for which he can legally be removed, I'm sure he will, but in the process enough damage will be done to the United States that celebrating the events will be akin to Nero fiddling while Rome burned.

Nixon's resignation did tremendous damage to the United States, but it did far less than a series of indictments and trials would have done or would do now. 

It's not just the United States, either.  Corruption, misuse, abuse, this is all being exposed in many of the 20th century's main bodies of power.  Look at what has become of the United Nations.  It's a joke figure head of global reaching corruption where not so long ago it was the standing adjudicator of international law.

Giant beauracracies always eventually stagnante, become corrupt, and eventually fail.  That is what is happening to the United States, and unless we can convince enough people to make a positive contribution rather than a negative one, this downward spiral is only going to accelerate.

[Dartful Dodger]

BUSH IS NOT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JESUS H. CHRIST...seperate the two.

You were wrong about Bush losing because of Iraq, you will be wrong about the Republican party losing because of Bush.

If you want your team to win the next election you need to stop focusing on why the Republican party is a bad choice and focused on why your party is a better choice.

Oh wait, bashing Bush is the only option your team has.

Good luck.

[ChadTower]

If you want your team to win the next election you need to stop focusing on why the Republican party is a bad choice and focused on why your party is a better choice.

That's a solid point in an otherwise unremarkable post from Dartful.

Bring forth a Democratic candidate that does more than pander and point fingers at the Republicans.  "Dems good Repubs bad" doesn't work, hasn't worked the last two elections and likely will not work going forward.

My only viable hope for 2008 is that Mitt Romney runs.  If he can get past the primary without sacrificing too many principles, he will be a strong enough leader to make a positive change in this country.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

BUSH IS NOT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't you wish. He is going to be hung around the necks of every Republican for the next several generations, like the putrid albatross carcass that he is.

If you want your team to win the next election you need to stop focusing on why the Republican party is a bad choice and focused on why your party is a better choice.

(I'm of the opinion that both need to be done, in tandem)...Because it'd be politically retarded to not reference the mistakes made by this administration and it's party. In fact, it's not possible to talk about what you'd do differently, if you can't talk about what has been done *incorrectly*.

Anyhow, right on cue...

"House Democrats are privately planning to accelerate the timing of the release of their platform and the major policies they will promote on the campaign trail next year."

[...]

"The move comes as many in the party have argued that Democrats need to do more than just complain of Republican excesses and the "culture of corruption" they charge the GOP with fostering."

[...]

"An early draft of the agenda outlines the specific initiatives House Democrats will pledge to enact if given control of the House. Leaders have been working on the document for months, and have already started encouraging Members to unify around it and stick to its themes.

Among the proposals are: "real security" for America through stronger investments in U.S. armed forces and benchmarks for determining when to bring troops home from Iraq; affordable health insurance for all Americans; energy independence in 10 years; an economic package that includes an increase in the minimum wage and budget restrictions to end deficit spending; and universal college education through scholarships and grants as well as funding for the No Child Left Behind act.

Democrats will also promise to return ethical standards to Washington through bipartisan ethics oversight and tighter lobbying restrictions, increase assistance to Katrina disaster victims through Medicaid and housing vouchers, save Social Security from privatization and tighten pension laws.

One Democratic leadership aide said Democrats want to roll out their agenda this fall rather than early next year as leaders originally had planned. This aide suggested that the latest string of events -- from the Republican response to Hurricane Katrina, growing concern about the war in Iraq and mounting questions about GOP ethics -- made it clear Democrats must move quickly

[...]

Members on both the left and right of the Caucus seem receptive to a detailed party outline to present to the public and hope party leaders can put something together this election year that will improve their electoral prospects.

But Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.), a leading centrist New Democrat, said no matter what detailed policies Democrats offer up this cycle, they must also make the broader case for why Republicans should no longer be in charge. He said all of the specific proposals will easily fit into that theme that Republicans "are out of touch."

"Democrats fell short in '02 and '04 because we didn't make a compelling case of how Republican policies have allowed American families to lose ground," he said. "We have to make that case."


Dartful, you are free to ignore this information and play stupid, just like you did in 2000 and 2004.

mrC

[DrewKaree]

JESUS H. CHRIST...seperate the two.

It's Jesus Q Christ.  His middle name is Quincy.

Stingray, try not to chuckle the next time you hear someone say "JHC" and you remember this little nugget.  They may think you're laughing at THEM and beat you to within an inch of your life.  Or a pulp, whichever comes second.

That is the reason for the seething hatred many, including myself,

So all this time you were lying when you said you were only saying these things because it was your civic duty to do so? 

I think there is a valid reason he won't admit to wanting to overturn Roe (if he truly does want to)...and it isn't related to your answer.

mrC

That's just more of what Chad's referring to.  Stating something as if you know what goes on in Bush's mind - "There's a valid reason he won't admit" - and only after being pushed on it do you capitulate and throw in the "if he truly does want to".  You're assuming things about the man simply because of your seething hatred.  I, on the other hand, like to assume things because it makes your eyes turn several pretty shades as you become more apoplectic

[Stingray]

JESUS H. CHRIST...seperate the two.

It's Jesus Q Christ.  His middle name is Quincy.

Stingray, try not to chuckle the next time you hear someone say "JHC" and you remember this little nugget.  They may think you're laughing at THEM and beat you to within an inch of your life.  Or a pulp, whichever comes second.

Noted.

-S

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Nixon's resignation did tremendous damage to the United States, but it did far less than a series of indictments and trials would have done or would do now.

I know this. You seem to be arguing that these corrupt politicians should be left in power, simply because to do otherwise would do "tremendous damage to the United States." Somehow, I thing our forefathers would be disgusted with that idea. Are you arguing that Nixon's resignation was more damaging to our democracy than him having his people subvert that very democracy?

As a worse case scenario, it really ---fudgesicle---!ng sucked in Germany after WWII, I'm sure. Some there may have even considered it "tremendously damaging" to the nation's economy and morale...didn't mean it shouldn't have been done.

Giant beauracracies always eventually stagnante, become corrupt, and eventually fail.  That is what is happening to the United States, and unless we can convince enough people to make a positive contribution rather than a negative one, this downward spiral is only going to accelerate.

Convince all the people you want, if you don't speak truth to power your breath is wasted. Carving out corruption, wherever it rears it's ugly head, although painful and damaging in the short term, is an absolute necessity for the long-term strength and stability our country.

We are essentially agreeing, you just don't want to focus on the negative, at all. Ok. Go be a happy, fluffy little cloud of solutions. I won't stop you. Never have.

mrC

[DrewKaree]

Democrats will also promise to return ethical standards to Washington through bipartisan ethics oversight and tighter lobbying restrictions,

So we can look forward to DeLay and Pelosi being on an ethics committee telling others what they should and shouldn't be doing?  And does this mean McCain/Feingold is gonna be "strengthened"?  Pardon me if I'm misunderimpressed

[Dartful Dodger]

Blah blah blah ... I can make a nonsense post that's a page long ... blah blah blah

You can go back to downloading porn and eating chips in front of the tv, because your right. The war in Iraq really ruined the last election for the Republican party, so I'm sure it'll ruin the next one for them too.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

JESUS H. CHRIST...separate the two.

It's Jesus Q Christ.  His middle name is Quincy.

Did not know that.

That is the reason for the seething hatred many, including myself,

So all this time you were lying when you said you were only saying these things because it was your civic duty to do so? 

Prompted into following my civic duty, out of complete disgust over the policies and behavior of an administration and it's leaders. No lie. I don't know a lot of political activists that are motivated by 'happiness toward an administration's policies.'

That's just more of what Chad's referring to.  Stating something as if you know what goes on in Bush's mind - "There's a valid reason he won't admit" - and only after being pushed on it do you capitulate and throw in the "if he truly does want to".  You're assuming things about the man simply because of your seething hatred.

I *did* ask a question though, and I am genuinely curious about other people's perception. Of course I have my own ideas as to why I think he won't publicly announce his stance on Roe V. Wade, and I said as much right above my question. It's not based on my hatred of the man, and your refusal to see it otherwise shows a genuine lack of faith in any answer you may be able to pull from your arse.

This "awwwww, you hate Bush, so I won't acknowledge a valid criticism" crap is really a pathetic defense of the man and his policies and does nothing more than prove to me that I'm on the right path.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You can go back to downloading porn and eating chips in front of the tv, because your right. The war in Iraq really ruined the last election for the Republican party, so I'm sure it'll ruin the next one for them too.

That's all you've got?  I knew I was going to regret, once again, acknowledging your existence on this forum. Can't say I didn't try though. 

And for the record, I eat Jell-O when I'm downloading porn. Makes me HOT!

mrC

[ChadTower]

I know this. You seem to be arguing that these corrupt politicians should be left in power, simply because to do otherwise would do "tremendous damage to the United States."

That is completely outside what I'm trying to say.

Simply put, I think the decline of the US as a whole is more important than any individual administration or President.

[DrewKaree]

Leaders have been working on the document for months, and have already started encouraging Members to unify around it and stick to its themes.

So they need to "unify" and "stick to themes"?  What are these things liberals aren't presently "unified" about?

stronger investments in U.S. armed forces

benchmarks for determining when to bring troops home from Iraq

affordable health insurance for all Americans

energy independence in 10 years

an increase in the minimum wage

budget restrictions to end deficit spending

universal college education through scholarships and grants

funding for the No Child Left Behind act.

ethical standards

tighter lobbying restrictions

increase assistance to Katrina disaster victims through Medicaid and housing vouchers

save Social Security from privatization

tighten pension laws.

Sounds good.  Go Dems Go.  Git R Done.  It'd be nice to know that they weren't "unifying" around something just to win an election, but at least they've realized they were a split party that was going every which way and they needed to rally around several points that up until now, they didn't all believe in.

Hey, that's politics for ya.  You should see what the other side is doing!  Wait'll they vote down Oscar Mayers!

VOTE NO TO HOT DOGS IN '05!

[DrewKaree]

JESUS H. CHRIST...separate the two.

It's Jesus Q Christ.  His middle name is Quincy.

Did not know that.

 

I *did* ask a question though,

See, that's just it.  You asked a question regarding your statement of something you have no possible way of knowing is true unless you're a mind reader.  You stated it as fact, and then asked a question based on your assumption of what you view as "fact".

Big difference between what you want to know, and what's actually known about your assertion of the facts.  See, what it all comes down to is what your definition of "is" is.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Simply put, I think the decline of the US as a whole is more important than any individual administration or President.  The problems in the US are not all caused by Bush alone and the largest of them all existed before Bush Jr or Bush Sr became President.

I'd say the decline of U.S. society has a lot more to do with reality TV, materialism and off-shoring,  more than anything else. Politicans just take advantage of the moment to hasten said decline while they line their own pockets.

That way I see it, politicians can't dramatically change American society, but they can generally influence certain aspects of said society, while in power, which will - in turn - lead individuals en masse to alter society in a specific way. That's their power. Clinton was generally positive with all that he said and did and that sentiment was echoed throughout America. He is still tremendously popular today. Bush, has ruled by fear-mongering, and presented a divisive and negative attitude that is reflected in the popularity of people like Ann Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity...then that, in turn, is reflected throughout American society in general.

I think, because of this, whoever the next president is...they are going to have to have an extremely smart plan to overcome these divides. America can't survive another 4-8 yrs of this kind of politics. We need TRUE bi-partisanship...and I hope to see it from either side. We don't have that now, because BushCo. doesn't want it.


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

See, that's just it.  You asked a question regarding your statement of something you have no possible way of knowing is true unless you're a mind reader.  You stated it as fact, and then asked a question based on your assumption of what you view as "fact".

It's called 'speculation'. I never claimed it as fact, merely opinion.

What would you 'speculate' is the reason Bush won't state a clear and concise stance on whether he wants to see Roe V. Wade overturned? Nor why he doesn't support his nominees to SCOTUS giving a clear and concise statement regarding their stance on same?

I wasn't stating I KNEW his stance, that's the POINT...he won't say. My question is...why?


mrC





mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

That's all you've got?

BUSH WON!!!

That's all I need.

[DrewKaree]

It's called 'speculation'. I never claimed it as fact, merely opinion.

Go back and re-read it.  You can't even figure out what you're saying!  You stated it as fact.  You might wish to find out what speculation means if you believe your statement of what Bush wants to do would fit that definition.  Your OPINION came several posts later as Chad queried you.  I've even quoted it several posts above if you don't feel like reading your own words.  I wouldn't blame you.  Lots of us have a hard time stomaching them

What would you 'speculate' is the reason Bush won't state a clear and concise stance on whether he wants to see Roe V. Wade overturned? Nor why he doesn't support his nominees to SCOTUS giving a clear and concise statement regarding their stance on same?

To address the second part of your question, Darth Vader Ginsberg addressed such questions during her hearings.  Go back and revisit them if you like.  To address the first part of your question, I think it's something he views as a personal choice the law allows.  For all I know, Laura at one time or another had an abortion, and he asked her to.  I didn't vote for him because of his stance on abortion; that's your platform to rail against, not mine.

I wasn't stating I KNEW his stance, that's the POINT...he won't say. My question is...why?

Is there any answer he'd give that you wouldn't cackle with glee at?  He's not changing the law and hasn't even spoken of changing the law.  When he does, I know I can rest assured you'll be the first to let everyone know about it, but until then, I could care less that he DOESN'T address it.  If he said he wanted to change it, you'd be telling us "see, see, I told you so!".  If he said he DIDN'T want to change it, you'd be asking me "how do you feel voting for someone who doesn't believe what you believe in".

There is no reason for him to answer a question that you've already answered for him in spite of not knowing what he believes.  Clearly his view on the issue would have something to do with his religious beliefs, so are you looking for him to convert you with his death-stare hypnotism?  I'd be afraid if I were you too!  He got to a bunch of us last election!

[ChadTower]

Clinton was generally positive with all that he said and did and that sentiment was echoed throughout America.

In the end, Clinton did more damage than he built.

[DrewKaree]

Here, I'll even he'p ya out, Sparky.

States as fact:

Even Bush won't come and say he'd want to overturn Roe. Why is that?


mrC

States as fact YET AGAIN:

"Even Bush won't come and say he'd want to overturn Roe. Why is that?"

States as fact YET AGAIN, but remembers to temper it with an opinion to allow throwing up of hands and saying "who me?" later:

I think there is a valid reason he won't admit to wanting to overturn Roe (if he truly does want to)...and it isn't related to your answer.

mrC

Mebbe give Webster's a quick perusal.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

but he destroyed it with one press conference.  He stood before television cameras and lied to the American public, flat out, without condition.

See...this is where I think the spins starts. Most Americans, time and again, have said - by an overwhelming majority - that they didn't think it was THAT big of a deal. The constant banter from the right, blaming Clinton's ---auto-censored--- for everything since, has taken root. However, it never addresses the reality that Clinton's popularity was 68% during the "impeachment" trial. The American public still doesn't care that Clinton lied about getting a blowjob. Just exactly as much as they did when it was an ongoing 'crisis' and that just pisses off the righties to no end.

ABC News Poll. Latest: Conducted Monday night, August 17, 1998.

"Given what you know about this issue, do you think Clinton should remain in office as president, or should he resign the presidency?"
   Remain in office    68             
   Resign                 28
   No opinion             4

"If he does not resign, do you think Congress should or should not impeach Clinton and remove him from office?"
   Should impeach    25             
   Should not           69             
   No opinion            6


Them's the FACTS!


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Here, I'll even he'p ya out, Sparky.

States as fact:

Even Bush won't come and say he'd want to overturn Roe. Why is that?


mrC

States as fact YET AGAIN:

So, Drew...Did Bush come out and say he'd want to overturn Roe or uphold Roe? If not, why not?

Your not-so-clever gotcha' game isn't working...you still haven't answered the question.
mrC

[shmokes]

It's no secret that Bush opposes Roe.  It takes neither clairvoyance nor wild assumptions.

Bush's stated position is that he will not pursue, but supports a constitutional ban on abortion to overturn Roe if the Supreme Court does not overturn itself (exceptions for Rape/Incest).  He has stated this more than once including on Meet the Press and a news conference on his maiden campaign trip running up to the 2000 election.

He has also stated recently, after a partial birth abortion ban in Nebraska was struck down by the Supreme Court that the abortion issue should be left to state legislatures to decide.  Hmm....didn't Roe have something to say about that?

He also said that Roe v. Wade "will not be overturned until hearts are changed. Until then, we should focus on ways to reduce abortion."  [emphasis added]

A lot of my info comes from the Lexis/Nexis database, which I'm sure few of you can check, but you can find references to it here (and considering the name of the source I don't think it should seem like I'm finding biased sources just to help my argument):

http://www.conservativenews.org/InDepth/archive/199903/IND19990322e.html

You have to take a pretty myopic view of the world to look at President Bush and say that you can't suss his stance on Roe v. Wade until he issues a press release.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Smokes,

You have to take a pretty myopic view of the world to look at President Bush and say that you can't suss his stance on Roe v. Wade until he issues a press release.

Maybe. But it's a myopic view born out of distrust, a distrust developed through years of listening to him speak in code. "Until hearts are changed"? F*ck that...if he's appointing two ultra-conservative judges to SCOTUS who have the inherent intent of overturning Roe V. Wade, based on personal views, as opposed to how they interpret the law..then f*ckin'-A right he better issue a press release stating such, in as clear a wording as possible, what his goal is. (Again, to avoid "Conspiracy Theory Drew's" standard issue avoidance of said issue, I'm *not* saying this is Bush's intent, I am saying his intent with his SCOTUS appointment strategy has yet to be made clear)

If overturning Roe V. Wade by stacking the court with judges is the end goal, then it has nothing to do  "hearts being changed" and is instead nothing short of "activist legislation." The American people are owed an explanation. My more narrow point is this will never be spoken out loud, nor issued as a press release, because, it seems to me, those who'd wish to overturn Roe are in the minority. It is an issue settled by LAW, not personal belief and should only be overturned if there is an interpretation of the law that allows that. If Miers is a evangelical, who is opposed to abortion, and who intends on thwarting that established legislation because she is morally opposed...then I call "bullsh!t" as that is thwarting the will of the people (majority)!

"Bush's stated position is that he will not pursue"...I am making the point that *IF* Bush is appointing a judge whom he knows is intent on overturning Roe on principle, then this statement is a FLAT OUT LIE, since I'd consider that "pursuing."

As for Drew citing Ginsberg's testimony, great! Then there is precedence for nominees sharing their views and there is absolutely NO REASON either of Bush' nominees should not do the same. To hide behind shadowy rhetoric is unacceptable.

Personally, I'm not a single-issue voter and I'm not a heavy hitter on abortion either way. I honestly haven't made up my mind on how I feel about the whole thing. I do, however, know that a significant amount of people HAVE made up their mind and they have every right to know what Bush's true intent is with his judicial appointments.

Anyhow, I'll rest my case for now...and await the confirmation hearing (if Miers even makes it that far) before addressing this issue again.

mrC

[ChadTower]

That's edit #1.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

That's edit #1.

Settle down spaz...90% of my edits are grammar/spelling edits...the remaining 10% are to clarify a point, never to change anything I've said. If that helps you sleep at night.

You weren't one of those annoying little hall monitors in grammar school by any chance were you?

mrC

[ChadTower]

No, but I figured I'd point out, the reason I try to stay away from your stuff is that every time I read it, you come back and edit it, so it gets marked new again, and then we have to try and figure out what you changed meaning we have to read it again, and this tends to happen multiple times on many of your posts.

There is a preview button that can be used to proofread long posts before posting them.  I use it frequently.

[Stingray]

Group hug time again?

-S

[mr.Curmudgeon]

No, but I figured I'd point out, the reason I try to stay away from your stuff is that every time I read it, you come back and edit it, so it gets marked new again, and then we have to try and figure out what you changed meaning we have to read it again, and this tends to happen multiple times on many of your posts.

There is a preview button that can be used to proofread long posts before posting them.  I use it frequently.

I write extremely fast and I often have to publish something before I'm entirely happy with it. I'm in a cube with my boss sitting in the cube next time mine. If I have to get up to do something, or he gets up to grab me for something...I try to get it published since I may not have the time to get back to it.

If it helps you, I'll markup any future edits...if they are made, but I'll try to avoid them on longer posts by writing them in Outlook first, then copying and pasting the text.

Deal?

mrC

[ChadTower]

I'm just one reader.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

We'll, I agree it's bad form...and I'd like to avoid it. I have added an 'edit notation' at the bottom of posts in the past, but I have not been consistent either due to time or circumstance.

I will work to make these edits will be a thing of the past, or where they *do* happen to occur, I'll be more vigilant about notation. There's more than one reader here, probably makes sense to do it anyhow.

I hereby solemnly swear.

mrC
P.S. I've got a big post coming up later...so..hehe...It'll be a nice trial run.

[ChadTower]

P.S. I've got a big post coming up later...so..hehe...

Oh, and limit the obscenities.  Keep the big post instances to yourself.   

[mr.Curmudgeon]

P.S. I've got a big post coming up later...so..hehe...

Oh, and limit the obscenities.  Keep the big post instances to yourself.   

I've developed a warning, with the help of the Food, Drug, and BYOAC Political Discussion Administration, that should help you steer clear of any further issues.   


mrC

[Stingray]

I thought I felt a big post coming on earlier, but it turned out to only be a paint peeler.

-S

[shmokes]

Smokes,

You have to take a pretty myopic view of the world to look at President Bush and say that you can't suss his stance on Roe v. Wade until he issues a press release.

Maybe. But it's a myopic view...

  I haven't read the rest of your post, but based on this I think you misunderstand me.  I'm pretty sure I'm on your side in this.

I'm saying that Drew's viewpoint is myopic.  I'm saying that if someone is chasing you around the room trying to stab you with a hunting knife you should be able to say with confidence that he wants to kill you, even if he hasn't issued a press release explicitly stating as much.

edit:  heh...it just occurred to me that you must think I'm totally crazy posting those quotes in an attempt to show that he doesn't want Roe overturned.

[ChadTower]

But no one has held a Congressional hearing on the intentions of the knife itself.

[shmokes]

I hadn't considered that.

[ChadTower]

Nothing happens in this country without a Congressional hearing.

After the Congressional hearing, nothing happens.

Think about that.  Does that make the hearing irrelevant, or does it mean that in order for nothing to happen we must have a Congressional hearing?

[shmokes]

I type really fast too.....between 80 - 90 wpm pretty consistently.  If I don't edit a post after posting it I guarantee that it will not only have typos but will be missing words entirely.  You can almost always tell what I meant to say thanks to context, but...

So anyway, I have a bad habit of hitting the post button and then immediately reading over my post, which invariably leads to an edit.  Most my edits take place seconds after the initial posting, but these damned boards are so active that I rarely get my edit in before my post has been viewed (if you do, the post won't be marked as having been modified.  Once it's been viewed, though, you can't escape the "last edit" marker).

[ChadTower]

Use the preview button before posting.

Nothing any of us posts is so damn important that a few seconds of extra time means anything.

[shmokes]

Preview buttons are for old ladies and pedophiles.

[ChadTower]

No, I don't think Congressman use the preview button either.

[Stingray]

Preview buttons are for old ladies and pedophiles.

I have no idea why this made me laugh as hard as it did.

-S

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Preview buttons are for old ladies and pedophiles.

HA! (Goes back to composing in Notepad)





mrC

[ChadTower]

Hit the delete button a few times... try some decomposing.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

  I haven't read the rest of your post, but based on this I think you misunderstand me.  I'm pretty sure I'm on your side in this.

I viewed your post as a response to me saying, "Why do you need to ask for Bush's stance (as it concerns SCOTUS nominees), when it can be sussed out from previous statements. But it's clear now, what you are saying. My post still stands though, but I guess it's now more of a response to Drew.

edit:  heh...it just occurred to me that you must think I'm totally crazy posting those quotes in an attempt to show that he doesn't want Roe overturned.

No, I already think of you as totally crazy. The 'Dances with Chipmunks' photo pretty well cinched it.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

This just keeps getting better:

Bush, Today:

President Bush said Wednesday that Harriet Miers' religious beliefs figured into her nomination to the Supreme Court as a top-ranking Democrat warned against any "wink and a nod" campaign for confirmation.

"People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush told reporters at the White House. "Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."



Bush, Oct 4th, 2005:

"President Bush defended Harriet Miers, his nominee to the Supreme Court, Tuesday. "There is no litmus test," Bush said.


Well, at least he's finally being honest. But, unfortunately:


Our United States Constitution, Circa 1787, Article VI:

. . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. . . .


mrC
/shakes head....

[Stingray]

Our United States Constitution, Circa 1787, Article VI:

. . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. . . .

I don't think Bush has ever actually read (or even heard of) that document.

-S

[ChadTower]

That is a misinterpretation.  The religious test refers to a mandated requirement for nomination, not for being part of the overall character evaluation.

They could not mandate that a Chrisitan be nominated.

[shmokes]

That's nonsense.  Mr. C is interpreting it exactly how the Supreme court has interpreted it.  If the director for the EPA in Chicago hired an environmental scientist and publicly stated that one of the qualifications that was considered in hiring him was the man's relious views he would be toast if sued by someone who didn't get the job who was not religious.

Of course nothing will come of it, but holy crap that would be funny if she was confirmed and then the Supreme Court ruled that her appointment was unconsitutional.

[shmokes]

In fact, what would be HILARIOUS would be if a lower court ruled that the appointment was unconstitutional and then the S.C. refused to hear the case (actually I'm pretty sure that this would be one of the few cases where the  S.C. has original jurisdiction, but...)

[mr.Curmudgeon]

They could not mandate that a Chrisitan be nominated.

Given that she, really, has absolutely NO other qualifications...the religious 'evaluation' certainly looks more like a mandate.

Also, he's making a tactic admission that qualified "Aethists, Jews, Mormons, Wiccans, etc" need not apply.

Furthermore, plus his recent statement quite literally shows he was lying when he said he didn't have a "litmus test" for nominees.

It wasn't a smart thing to say, either way.

mrC

[ChadTower]

The directory of the EPA is a different position.

It has not been mandated that Supreme Court nominees be Christian any more than it has been mandated that they be white or female.

I'm sure he was also looking for a woman to replace the departed woman, no one is quoting a similar law saying gender cannot be mandated.

[Stingray]

The job should be given to whoever can hold their hand in a running blender the longest.

-S

[ChadTower]

Dole!

[Stingray]

Okay, nevermind.

-S

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Dole!

Now THAT is funny!

[ChadTower]

The sole criterium was who could hold their hand in a running blender the longest.

Dole would win that, his hand is mostly dead.

[shmokes]

Delete your last post Chad.  Explaining it ruins it.

And it doesn't matter whether it's the POTUS nominating or the director of the EPA hiring.  If it's a federal position it's unconstitutional for a person's religion to be considered.  The Constitution doesn't say, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification....unless it is done by the President."

[DrewKaree]

I thought I felt a big post coming on earlier, but it turned out to only be a paint peeler.

-S

I did feel a big post coming on earlier, but it was actually a little stone.  daisies.  I hate all stones now.

Preview buttons are for old ladies and pedophiles.

I can't believe you think Chad is an old lady.


As for "nonsense", that's nonsense.  There wasn't any test required, Chad nailed it as Bush assessing her as a human being and his belief that her entire life, including her religion, was used in determining if he thought she'd make a good Justice.  He didn't "require" any such thing, he simply stated it was considered, and MrC's right, it WAS stupid to give ANY reasons why he considered her.  It wasn't necessary, and certainly doesn't make me think it was any better of a choice.

I don't want the lady on the bench no matter WHAT her religious beliefs are.  I believe she'll be an embarrasment to the Court.  My only hope is that she's shot down, but thankfully, this looks to be one area where my two incompetent elected officials who sit on the judiciary committe seem to agree with my views.

Tangerine ---daisies---!

*edited to add invectives*

[Daniel270]

She looks more like Dr. Pulaski to me.



Oh and I hate you for making me post a picture of Dr. Pulaski.

-S

Yeah! Cheesecake!

Errr.... no, not cheesecake...

Beverly Crusher is better looking...

"Human Females are so repulsive....."