Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

chrysostom

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    I think that those who wrote the Constitution would agree with Biden and with McConnell who insisted in a floor speech that the vacancy should be filled by the next president.
    Funny that they didn't put it in that way then.

    “The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course the American people should have a say in the court’s direction," he said.
    Except most voting Americans didn't vote for the sitting president. So that's not helpful.

    The press should be the bedrock of our democracy and when I was younger it was.
    I think and thought they should be the watchers. We're the bedrock.

    But what is passing for "truth" today in the mainstream press is not the truth and they know it is not the truth.
    I don't think the press has changed much, except that it stopped giving as many passes to those in power, like JFK in his day.

    But just like the rest of the self-righteous liberals they have decided that the end justifies the means.
    That's funny too. See: Fox News, where America gets its...and the right decrying the left as immoral and unpatriotic so frequently its darn near a mantra.

    I'm glad that you see that and it not only do a disservice to the process but to the United States of America. People down here where I live comment that America is beginning to resemble a banana republic with the way the process has been perverted and how the Obama Justice Department and FBI and the CIA were and are so dishonest!
    Again, how much power do you guys need before you realize how ridiculous you sound playing the victim card with both houses of congress and the presidency in your grasp. And in a short while the Court as well.

    It's just bafflingly funny. And equally sad.

    The decision as to whether or not Bork belonged on the Supreme Court is supposed to be based on one thing. Was he qualified?
    A justice isn't a car mechanic and so his judicial philosophy is in the mix. It will directly bear on his qualification.

    It's like this. Say you were one of the cardinals for the Catholics and it was time to elect a new pope. Someone suggests Father Dunken for the job. He's a priest. He's without a hint of scandal. His piety is without question...but he believes in flagellation. He's just not going to get the job.

    And he was highly qualified but since he believed that the Justices shouldn't legislate from the bench and he was a strict consitutionalist the Democrats attacked his beliefs and didn't follow the laws concerning Bork's qualification.
    No laws were broken in rejecting Bork. Not a one.

    So you think that more should be be considered about a Supreme Court Justice that his or her qualifications?
    I think you appear to believe qualifications is a lot more limited in scope than it is or has been, historically. We'll come back to that in a moment.

    The Republicans only considered the qualifications both of Obama's nominees and should serve as the only way that Supreme Court Justices should be confirmed.
    Actually, they obstructed the first of his nominees that they were able to. Prior to that he had nominated two for the bench, Sotomayor and Kagan.

    Sotomayor was passed by the full senate in Obama's second year, 68-31, with all 31 nays coming from the republicans. Only 6 republicans crossed party lines to vote aye. And if you're counting, the senate republicans lacked the numbers to stop the nominee had those 6 stayed the course. She had received the highest possible endorsement of the American Bar Association and was imminently qualified as a jurist.

    Kagan came up a year later. The vote was 63-37, with all 37 nays coming from republicans. This time only 4 broke ranks. Again, the republicans did nothing noble or bipartisan. A handful who weren't needed in both instances confirmed the president's choice. Kagan received the highest endorsement of the American Bar Association and was also imminently qualified as a jurist.

    So that to the notion that the republicans were better behaved or that purely professional standing was the entirety of qualification.

    And do you agree with Justice Thomas when he said that he was a victim of a high tech lynching?
    No and I found the use offensive because it summoned up the memory of people of color being killed and denied right over their color without any reason attaching to the act. There were serious charges raised against the justice, charges that had nothing to do with his color and were neither unfounded nor unreasoned.

    That those should have been handled differently is something I've long believed, as I do in this case.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life






    Comment


    • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      No laws were broken in rejecting Bork. Not a one.
      It was worse than a crime when the Democrats chose Ted Kennedy of Chappaquiddick fame to tell lies about Robert Bork. "Kennedy said that adding Bork to the Supreme Court would force women into back-alley abortions and black Americans back to segregated lunch counters, adding that with Bork, β€œthe doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is β€” and is often the only β€” protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”

      If Kennedy was held to the same standards which Kavanaugh has been held then Teddy should have gone straight to prison. We read the following about him:

      "On July 1, 1987, Ted Kennedy, then a senator and a leading light within the Democratic Party, took to the Senate floor to denounce Robert Bork, whom Ronald Reagan had just nominated for the Supreme Court."

      Just eight years after Chappaquiddick Teddy was back in the graces of the Democratic Party and even more impressive--a leading light among the Democrats!!!

      Must have made you proud!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
        It was worse than a crime when the Democrats chose Ted Kennedy of Chappaquiddick fame to tell lies about Robert Bork.

        "Kennedy said that adding Bork to the Supreme Court would force women into back-alley abortions and black Americans back to segregated lunch counters, adding that with Bork, “the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”

        If Kennedy was held to the same standards which Kavanaugh has been held then Teddy should have gone straight to prison. We read the following about him:

        "On July 1, 1987, Ted Kennedy, then a senator and a leading light within the Democratic Party, took to the Senate floor to denounce Robert Bork, whom Ronald Reagan had just nominated for the Supreme Court."

        Just eight years after Chappaquiddick Teddy was back in the graces of the Democratic Party and even more impressive--a leading light among the Democrats!!!

        Must have made you proud!
        Made who proud? If you meant that for me you must be high or crazy, my not having at any point said a single, solitary positive thing about Ted Kennedy or even democrats.

        What's the oddest thing about that is that I gave you a few things to chew on in rebutting more than a few points in your last and you pick the one issue that wasn't in it and which I had previously taken the, "I don't know what happened there/only Kennedy knows" road.

        As to what I did contest and provide some background for you to respond to:

        1. The next president should choose bit, which simply isn't the process.

        2. If the American people had a say it wouldn't be good news for Kavanaugh, given most of them voted for someone other than the president.

        3. The mainstream press complaint runs afoul of Fox News, the self-professed place where most Americans get their news and a conservative bastion.

        4. The "banana republic" belief runs into the problem/fact that conservatives control both houses of congress, the presidency, and the Court.

        5. The qualification of justices isn't simply about their judicial competency, because republicans almost to a man opposed previous democratic nominees despite their endorsement by the American Bar Association as being highly qualified (see: Kagan and Sotomayor).

        6. And I took exception to Thomas attempting to play the race card over a hearing about something completely unrelated.
        You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

        Pro-Life






        Comment


        • there there
          only a lawyer can assure you that it is okay to vote for baby killers
          it is settled law
          -but-
          that lawyer cannot explain what the fight is all about
          I can
          a voice crying in the wilderness :chrysost:

          Comment


          • Originally posted by chrysostom View Post
            there there
            only a lawyer can assure you that it is okay to vote for baby killers
            You don't have to be a lawyer to understand the law and the truth here. Every national candidate by both parties has advanced a position of belief in limited abortion rights, separated by degree. And none of those candidates was or will end the practice. Not until most of the American people support the idea.

            it is settled law
            Right. Those of us who want to change that have to change minds and hearts of people or we're living in a fantasy.

            One way to make that change is to expand footholds within the democratic party (where there is actually a pro-life contingent) and by attempting to move republicans into an actual uniform stand (there being a large contingent that support abortion rights).

            What we don't and shouldn't do is mischaracterize people who vote for democratic candidates as baby killers.

            I've set out the figures on how Americans are likely to receive that and it will not help the cause of drawing most of them into a better understanding.


            -but-
            that lawyer cannot explain what the fight is all about
            I can
            You don't need to be a lawyer to understand what this fight is about. But that "what" isn't as simple as abortion rights. If you don't know that you don't understand the politics involved. There's payback for the lost nominee, there's a real fear of Kavanaugh acting as a shield for the current president against charges during his tenure. And there's the fear that the court might disregard Roe, though I think that's mistaken given what it would invite from the public.

            As to the question of abortion and that public, Gallup within this year as:

            29% of Americans support abortion rights under any circumstances.
            20% of Americans oppose abortion rights under any circumstances.
            50% of Americans support abortion rights under some circumstances.

            So more Americans support abortion rights without caveat than oppose it and most Americans support abortion rights in some form.

            Some good news in the polling. Among those who support abortion rights that support appears to largely rest in the first trimester, rapidly dwindling thereafter. By the third trimester 81% of Americans oppose legal abortions and only 13% support it.

            When a woman's life is endangered, abortion rights are favored 83% to 15% a response essentially unchanged since the polling in 2003.
            Rape and incest still has popular support in terms of abortion rights, with 77% for and 21% opposed, up 5% since 2003.
            Child born with life-threatening illness is in third place, with 67% for and 31% opposed, up 7% since 2003.


            On how Americans feel about abortion rights as they currently stand:

            Satisfied as is 37%
            Dissatisfied and want stricter, 22%
            Dissatisfied and want less strict 19%
            Dissatisfied, but want same 10%
            No opinion, 12%

            538 polling from 2017 looked for the party line of demarcation among their respective rank and file, asking if abortion should be legal in most cases or illegal in most cases.

            Republicans came in 65% illegal in most cases to 34% saying it should be legal in most cases.
            Independents came in 38% illegal in most cases to 60% saying it should be legal in most cases.
            Democrats came in 22% illegal in most cases, to 75% saying it should be legal in most cases.
            You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

            Pro-Life






            Comment


            • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
              If you meant that for me you must be high or crazy, my not having at any point said a single, solitary positive thing about Ted Kennedy or even democrats.
              Since you said some outlandish things comparing the Republicans with the Democrats it becomes obvious where you stand and its not with the Republicans. You said:

              Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
              So that to the notion that the republicans were better behaved or that purely professional standing was the entirety of qualification.
              The Republicans were indeed better behaved that the Democrats in regard to the way both treated those nominated for the Supreme Court!

              You even expressed your disgust with the way Kavanaugh was treated during the hearing.
              Last edited by Jerry Shugart; September 30th, 2018, 09:33 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                The sad thing is that conservative and well-qualified judges will hesitate to even want to be nominated for the Supreme Court because they KNOW about the methods the left will employ to try to disqualify them.

                Bork...Thomas...Kavanaugh.

                Any liberal judges will not worry about the process because the Republicans play fair!

                They would never stoop so low as the Dems did during the hearings on Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh.
                What about Roy Moore?

                Well this is fun isn't it?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                  What about Roy Moore?
                  What does he have to do with the Supreme Court?

                  Comment


                  • what about randolph scott?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                      Since you said some outlandish things comparing the Republicans with the Democrats
                      List them. I don't believe I've said one, let alone more than that, but I'm game to consider what you feel is that thing.

                      it becomes obvious where you stand and its not with the Republicans.
                      I went into the nomination and even this latest round of hearings on the public record that I supported his confirmation, our differences on judicial philosophy notwithstanding. I did the same with Gorsuch. I felt the same way about Kagana and Sotomayor. I have had serious differences with all of them, but they were all rated as highly as could be by the American Bar Association and I believe that coupled with the president's pleasure should determine the point absent some intervening concern that goes to their propriety.

                      You said: So that to the notion that the republicans were better behaved or that purely professional standing was the entirety of qualification.
                      Right. Emphasis on the THAT as a dismissive gesture. They've both played politics with the Court for a very long time now. And to say a plague on both their houses is somehow to side with one is unfathomably compromised, Jerry.

                      The Republicans were indeed better behaved that the Democrats in regard to the way both treated those nominated for the Supreme Court!
                      They not only weren't, I've literally demonstrated that they weren't.

                      You even expressed your disgust with the way Kavanaugh was treated during the hearing.
                      Right. Which is hardly siding with the democrats on the committee. The two sides play politics and played it in the hearing, to the detriment of both Ford and Kavanaugh.

                      The only thing that happened to move me from my former position was the choice the nominee made in responding aggressively, evasively and, on at least one topic, dishonestly. It wasn't necessary. He should have either had better counsel or minded the advice, because what he did lost my vote of confidence and if a couple of senators on the republican side feel the same way about that, he lost the chance to continue good work as well.
                      You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                      Pro-Life






                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                        The only thing that happened to move me from my former position was the choice the nominee made in responding aggressively, evasively and, on at least one topic, dishonestly.
                        Where is your proof that he responded dishonestly?

                        And do you deny that Dianne Feinstein acted dishonestly?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                          Where is your proof that he responded dishonestly?
                          In the pudding of his responses, which avoided direct denial on the point of others attestations AFTER he had earlier declared that he was never inebriated to that point. It's that which subsequently caused a couple of people who knew him from college to denounce the effort. You want particulars?

                          And do you deny that Dianne Feinstein acted dishonestly?
                          From what I know she played politics instead of taking the matter directly and immediately to the majority Chair and requesting further investigation and action at that time. I wouldn't characterize that as dishonest, though I would say and have said it's the sort of partisan power play I find beneath the process as it should function.
                          You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                          Pro-Life






                          Comment


                          • I should have locked my thread

                            the fbi is investigating
                            -but-
                            wait
                            wait
                            wait
                            we can't limit the time or scope
                            -and-
                            wait
                            wait
                            wait
                            we need time to review the report
                            a voice crying in the wilderness :chrysost:

                            Comment


                            • morning sickness
                              open with snl
                              skyping again
                              mika is off
                              wait
                              wait
                              wait
                              I didn't get the memo
                              -but-
                              I could have wrote it
                              it is not easy being a baby killer
                              without the lawyers
                              a voice crying in the wilderness :chrysost:

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                                Which is hardly siding with the democrats on the committee. The two sides play politics and played it in the hearing, to the detriment of both Ford and Kavanaugh.
                                The Democrats told one lie after another during the hearings. I am not aware of any the Republicans told in this hearing or in the one for the candidates appointed by the Democrats. Or perhaps you believed Spartacus?

                                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                                From what I know she played politics instead of taking the matter directly and immediately to the majority Chair and requesting further investigation and action at that time. I wouldn't characterize that as dishonest, though I would say and have said it's the sort of partisan power play I find beneath the process as it should function.
                                You call Feinstein's actions as being political but I say that she was plain dishonest in her actions. If she would have played fairly all of this Ford stuff would have never been made public and she knew it.

                                Your response is why I can see that you are not neutral, as you claim. You may actually think that you are but your response proves otherwise to me.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X