Bush†™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¢†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¬†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¾¢‚¬Å¡‚¢s high court pick likely in for a fight
Democrats are quick to criticize choice of Alito as †™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¢†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¬†™¢¢¬‚¹¢‚¬¦¢¢¬…œtoo radical†™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¢†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¬†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¾¢‚¬Å¡‚¢
Updated: 6:32 p.m. ET Oct. 31, 2005
WASHINGTON - President Bush nominated veteran judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court Monday, seeking to shift the judiciary to the right and mollify conservatives who derailed his previous pick. Ready-to-rumble Democrats said Alito may curb abortion rights and be †™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¢†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¬†™¢¢¬‚¦‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦¢‚¬Å“too radical for the American people.†™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¢†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¬?
Drawing an unspoken contrast to failed nominee Harriet Miers, Bush declared that the appeals court judge †™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¢†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¬†™¢¢¬‚¦‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦¢‚¬Å“has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in more than 70 years.†™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¢†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¬?
Abortion emerged as a potential fault line. Democrats pointed to Alito†™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¢†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¬†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¾¢‚¬Å¡‚¢s rulings that sought to restrict a woman†™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¢†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¬†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¾¢‚¬Å¡‚¢s right to abortion. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Republican who supports abortion rights, said that Alito†™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¢†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¬†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¾¢‚¬Å¡‚¢s views on the hot-button issue †™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¢†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¬†™¢¢¬‚¦‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦¢‚¬Å“will be among one of the first items Judge Alito and I will discuss.†™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¢†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¬?
However, Specter indicated Monday afternoon that he would back Alito†™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¢†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¬†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¾¢‚¬Å¡‚¢s nomination.
Alito†™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¢†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¬†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¾¢‚¬Å¡‚¢s mother shed some light. †™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¢†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¬†™¢¢¬‚¦‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦¢‚¬Å“Of course, he†™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¢†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¬†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¾¢‚¬Å¡‚¢s against abortion,†™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¢†™‚¢‚¢¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¬¦‚¡¢‚¬Å¡‚¬? 90-year-old Rose Alito said of her son, a Catholic.(continues...)
Taken from: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9874588/
Well...apparently this one HAS some related experience, good going Georgie! :gw:
yet ANOTHER Supreme Court nominee
-
x3n
- Posts: 1177
- Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 3:22 pm
-
Fapper
- Rusty Guitar Player
- Posts: 3165
- Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:12 pm
- Location: ɹns ןǝp ɐɔıɹǝɯɐ
- Contact:
I wonder: Are these the same that decide if there is need of recounting votes?
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
AYHJA
- 392
- Posts: 37990
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:25 pm
- Location: Washington, D.C.
- Contact:
At least this guys looks like he might live another 15 or 20 years...That other nominee, man...You couldn't have told me she wasn't on her last...
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
Bot
- Posts: 4503
- Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 7:38 pm
You're all homophobes, yet you don't like Bush? lol
And Fapper, what does your comment have to do with anything? Bush had nothing to do with the judges back in 2000. That would have been Clinton. And Bush clearly won in 2004.
And Fapper, what does your comment have to do with anything? Bush had nothing to do with the judges back in 2000. That would have been Clinton. And Bush clearly won in 2004.
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
Fapper
- Rusty Guitar Player
- Posts: 3165
- Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:12 pm
- Location: ɹns ןǝp ɐɔıɹǝɯɐ
- Contact:
-
trashtalkr
- Sports Guru
- Posts: 7978
- Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:20 pm
- Contact:
I think that he's a pretty good canidate. Alot better than Meiers. I hope he makes it on the bench
"If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the bottom of everything there were only a wild ferment, a power that twisting in dark passions produced everything great or inconsequential; if an unfathomable insatiable emptiness lay hid beneath everything, what would life be but despair?"
Soren Kierkegaard
Soren Kierkegaard
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
AYHJA
- 392
- Posts: 37990
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:25 pm
- Location: Washington, D.C.
- Contact:
-
bd55
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:39 pm
-
trashtalkr
- Sports Guru
- Posts: 7978
- Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:20 pm
- Contact:
No he's not neutral....Roberts isn't even neutral. He just played it like that.
He's a better candidate b/c he has a paper trail, been on a bench before, and he doesn't sway his opinion. You can't say the same about Meiers. Meiers had no experience and was way too close to Bush
He's a better candidate b/c he has a paper trail, been on a bench before, and he doesn't sway his opinion. You can't say the same about Meiers. Meiers had no experience and was way too close to Bush
"If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the bottom of everything there were only a wild ferment, a power that twisting in dark passions produced everything great or inconsequential; if an unfathomable insatiable emptiness lay hid beneath everything, what would life be but despair?"
Soren Kierkegaard
Soren Kierkegaard
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
raum
- Posts: 3944
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:51 am
Alito is a great candidate for the GOP, and ironically, also for the people. He is a powerful man who is not swayed, and he is actually very good at keeping his personal views in context while on the bench.
I personally think the emphasis on the abortion issue is far to prominent. I also think anyone who ACTUALLY believes in the rights for abortion-at-whim not only has no place in a public office, but certainly not in the judicial system.
I say that for these reasons, which actually have more to do with their mentality than the fate of an unwanted fetus:
1. There will always be people that a person does not consider when making decisions in office. it is the thorn in the side of the judicial system. That we have no distinct tests done of the consciousness of the stages of human development (which many would consider inhuman...), It is impossible to say if the fetus is actually "a sentient being," being exterminated for the sole purpose of being a potential unwanted burden. From a technical sense, this violates the premise of every scientific ethic that united the world's Scientific community. Which really means a person who is favoring abortion-at-whim is willing to RISK killing millions noone knows about for the sake of the opinion of the visual public. That should immediately disqualify someone for the bar, as it is the EXACT mentality that has led to the disparaged poverty that strikes at the heart of the American Dream, and remains largely unseen. I could never trust this person to make a decision that was not selfish, as an abortion-at-whim is nothing more than the most selfish act one can perform, which does not by itself make it wrong; but DOES make it incongruent with the mentality of a National citizen. It is against the premise of government to allow the risk of life for the opportunity of others. It violates the very premise of our Nation, which is in its very inception a Skeptical Creationist society, not a Reactionary Evolutionary one. We as a Nation posit that all men (a word that actually was synonymous with "human" in common parlance before the sexual revolution.) are "CREATED EQUAL" not "EVOLVED THE SAME WAY." How would a person who has such little consideration for the unknown and unseen human factor ever have the conviction to repair the station of the governement with every American? Why would they be seeking office? The only reason other than that is to enforce their own psychological predelictions on society. Plain and simple, the reckless "pro-choice" stance allows for a complete lack of responsibility for parents.
I mean if its just because that a fetus is not human that makes abortion-at-whim acceptable, why don't we just allow parents to dispose of their kids before they become three, and begin to develop an ego. We already know that a child begins to develop a sense of self-consciousness around this time that is inclusive of all other humans. So, before this, the child does not implicitly understand it has a place in the much larger scope of all humanity. Technically, that's when they develop the true understanding of their humanity, and before that they are really, in term of mentality "human larvae." So, if parents aren't sure they want to go the children route, they can try it for a few years, and if not, they report the child to a govt. ran facility that processes the undesirables into a means to nourish the empoverished; killing two bird with one stone. Better they at last know for sure before they abandon the prospect of parenting the child, instead of wondering "what if?" and by then, instead of a little lump thrown in the biohazaed container,.. we'd have a new herd animal. OURSELVES :evil:
What a REAL politician would be doing is emphasizing a greater understanding of the importance and responsibility of pro-creation - and the complexity of understanding the mystery of Life... and ENFORCE this understanding so people PUT THEIR FUCKING LIVES IN PERSPECTIVE AND ARE COMPELLED TO EXCELLENCE.
Roberts was not only an excellent candidate, but a entertaining speaker. That woman was a patsy. He dropped her in, to replace the female justice leaving, knowing she would not be suitable. Now he can drop in a capable judge with a strong humanitarian stance developed in American mentality, and no one can say "you didn't even try to find a woman." His polls rose in general and especially with women when he suggested a woman replace a woman. It was like the gratuitous attempt to maintain a pseudo-liberal consideration for gender, before conservatively making a sound decision. Brilliant, but brutal, strategy.
This is not to say that a woman should not be a Supreme court justice. Quite te contrary, but there is no place in this Mysterious Order called the Supreme Court for a gender or ethnic requirement that replaces the significance of judicial experience - and unfortunately rare is the woman or "minority" who has a legal tenure that indicates they are eligible for such a demanding duty as defining the Law of the Nation. Such an entity can not afford a "equal opportunity" mentality.
(Disclaimer: This is not from a specifically "patriotic" stance, as today stands as a significant day in my personal military history, after watching some really powerful patriotic movies, and a few legal dramas. Raum ain't got all right-wing, k?)
vertical,
raum
I personally think the emphasis on the abortion issue is far to prominent. I also think anyone who ACTUALLY believes in the rights for abortion-at-whim not only has no place in a public office, but certainly not in the judicial system.
I say that for these reasons, which actually have more to do with their mentality than the fate of an unwanted fetus:
1. There will always be people that a person does not consider when making decisions in office. it is the thorn in the side of the judicial system. That we have no distinct tests done of the consciousness of the stages of human development (which many would consider inhuman...), It is impossible to say if the fetus is actually "a sentient being," being exterminated for the sole purpose of being a potential unwanted burden. From a technical sense, this violates the premise of every scientific ethic that united the world's Scientific community. Which really means a person who is favoring abortion-at-whim is willing to RISK killing millions noone knows about for the sake of the opinion of the visual public. That should immediately disqualify someone for the bar, as it is the EXACT mentality that has led to the disparaged poverty that strikes at the heart of the American Dream, and remains largely unseen. I could never trust this person to make a decision that was not selfish, as an abortion-at-whim is nothing more than the most selfish act one can perform, which does not by itself make it wrong; but DOES make it incongruent with the mentality of a National citizen. It is against the premise of government to allow the risk of life for the opportunity of others. It violates the very premise of our Nation, which is in its very inception a Skeptical Creationist society, not a Reactionary Evolutionary one. We as a Nation posit that all men (a word that actually was synonymous with "human" in common parlance before the sexual revolution.) are "CREATED EQUAL" not "EVOLVED THE SAME WAY." How would a person who has such little consideration for the unknown and unseen human factor ever have the conviction to repair the station of the governement with every American? Why would they be seeking office? The only reason other than that is to enforce their own psychological predelictions on society. Plain and simple, the reckless "pro-choice" stance allows for a complete lack of responsibility for parents.
I mean if its just because that a fetus is not human that makes abortion-at-whim acceptable, why don't we just allow parents to dispose of their kids before they become three, and begin to develop an ego. We already know that a child begins to develop a sense of self-consciousness around this time that is inclusive of all other humans. So, before this, the child does not implicitly understand it has a place in the much larger scope of all humanity. Technically, that's when they develop the true understanding of their humanity, and before that they are really, in term of mentality "human larvae." So, if parents aren't sure they want to go the children route, they can try it for a few years, and if not, they report the child to a govt. ran facility that processes the undesirables into a means to nourish the empoverished; killing two bird with one stone. Better they at last know for sure before they abandon the prospect of parenting the child, instead of wondering "what if?" and by then, instead of a little lump thrown in the biohazaed container,.. we'd have a new herd animal. OURSELVES :evil:
What a REAL politician would be doing is emphasizing a greater understanding of the importance and responsibility of pro-creation - and the complexity of understanding the mystery of Life... and ENFORCE this understanding so people PUT THEIR FUCKING LIVES IN PERSPECTIVE AND ARE COMPELLED TO EXCELLENCE.
Roberts was not only an excellent candidate, but a entertaining speaker. That woman was a patsy. He dropped her in, to replace the female justice leaving, knowing she would not be suitable. Now he can drop in a capable judge with a strong humanitarian stance developed in American mentality, and no one can say "you didn't even try to find a woman." His polls rose in general and especially with women when he suggested a woman replace a woman. It was like the gratuitous attempt to maintain a pseudo-liberal consideration for gender, before conservatively making a sound decision. Brilliant, but brutal, strategy.
This is not to say that a woman should not be a Supreme court justice. Quite te contrary, but there is no place in this Mysterious Order called the Supreme Court for a gender or ethnic requirement that replaces the significance of judicial experience - and unfortunately rare is the woman or "minority" who has a legal tenure that indicates they are eligible for such a demanding duty as defining the Law of the Nation. Such an entity can not afford a "equal opportunity" mentality.
(Disclaimer: This is not from a specifically "patriotic" stance, as today stands as a significant day in my personal military history, after watching some really powerful patriotic movies, and a few legal dramas. Raum ain't got all right-wing, k?)
vertical,
raum
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |