politics: what i don't get... (rant)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() |
Buttercup ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() 7 out of the 9 justices on SCOTUS were appointed by Republicans. Republicans are constantly whining about the "liberal" Court. They appointed these Justices. Shut up already! They're your appointees! It chaps my ass when these people appoint Justices and expect party loyalty from the Justices. That's anathema to the American Way. The Justices should be loyal to the Constitution, first, foremost, and always. So sick of this whining from the right about their own appointees. /rant |
|
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Oh no...a thread on politics! This should be interesting! |
![]() ![]() |
Buttercup ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() We keep it pretty civil on the board, even when we disagree. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Did you hear the Dear Snookems notes between HarrietWhoCantSpellMiers and W? I think her nomination is just a ploy to give Roberts two votes. From the not so civil side of the discussion. TW |
![]() ![]() |
Got Wahoo? ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Politicians, whether Rebublican or Democrat, are pretty much scum bags in my mind - just two sides of the same dirty, power hungry and insecure coin. I'm sure there are some of them that are ok, I've just never had the occasion to hear of one. |
![]() ![]() |
Giver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Republicans claim the justice's ideology "drifts" over time. Whatever. They should quit their bitching... |
|
![]() ![]() |
Giver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I second that, but it is interesting. If it gets not-so-civil anywhere, it's in the threads with relatively not so confrontational topics... Renee - 2005-10-12 10:37 AMWe keep it pretty civil on the board, even when we disagree. |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Damn liberal SOG. (j/k) |
![]() ![]() |
Giver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() This was on cnn.com this morning: U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers told George W. Bush in a 1997 birthday card that he was "the best governor ever" and, in a separate note to her boss, said she hoped his twin daughters recognize their parents are "cool." It didn't say if she added "bff" and dotted her i's with hearts. Later in the article, there was this: Bush wrote back to wish Miers a happy 52nd birthday, telling her that he appreciated her friendship and to "never hold back your sage advice." He ended with a postscript: "No more public scatology." I don't even know what to make of that. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() I can't think about politics - I'm too distracted by Jim's crotch shot! |
![]() ![]() |
Giver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() (excellent! my strategy is working...) If I could have just worn a speedo in HS debate... newbiedoo - 2005-10-12 11:32 AM I can't think about politics - I'm too distracted by Jim's crotch shot! |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() run4yrlif - 2005-10-12 11:35 AM (excellent! my strategy is working...) If I could have just worn a speedo in HS debate... newbiedoo - 2005-10-12 11:32 AM I can't think about politics - I'm too distracted by Jim's crotch shot! he he...crafty aren't you? Ok, sorry Renee - done - not hijaking...just thought it funny all the discussion about civility while eye to eye with someone's package! Back to regularlarly scheduled debating.... |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() According to James Dobson on Focus on the Family and his conversation with Karl Rove, she got the nomination out of default---no one else wanted it! They didn't want to put themselves or their families through the harrassment that comes along with such a nomination. So yeah, we're not getting the best nominee, but that's understandable, dont' you think? Would YOU want to be nominated for the Supreme Court? Have reporters trying find out every stupid thing you've ever said or done?---looking at birthday cards that you sent to a FRIEND years ago? Maybe checking out what you posted on public forums such as this? I think I lead a pretty decent life, but I wouldn't want to go through that scrutiny. We've all done stupid things at one time or another. Wouldn't you hate for that to come back and haunt you 30 years later? I give her credit for having the guts to accept the nomination at all. |
![]() ![]() |
Giver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Bettylou - 2005-10-12 11:44 AMAccording to James Dobson on Focus on the Family and his conversation with Karl Rove, she got the nomination out of default---no one else wanted it! Wow...that doesn't sound like a very party-line thing for Rove to say, since W. says she's absolutely the best person for the job. |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() It was supposed to be a "private" conversation between Rove and Dobson, but then it got leaked. (by one of Dobson's "close friends"---and by his tone it sounded like it might not be a close friend anymore!) Dobson didn't like the rumor mill, so he got Rove's permission to go public with the conversation and actually talked about it on his Focus on the Family program today. If anyone is really interested, the transcript is at this link: http://www.family.org/welcome/press/a0038214.cfm Edited by Bettylou 2005-10-12 12:18 PM |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Renee - 7 out of the 9 justices on SCOTUS were appointed by Republicans. Republicans are constantly whining about the "liberal" Court. They appointed these Justices. Shut up already! They're your appointees! Good point. Then again... if Robert Bork hadn't been "borked"... then Anthony Kennedy would not sit on the Scotus... then critics of a justice's drift would not have one particular judge to criticize... Edited by dontracy 2005-10-12 12:25 PM |
|
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() It is perfectly understandable that if you elect someone that you would choose someone who shares your ideals. The important thing is that the justices must make their decisions based on law, not beliefs. And please remember, Democrats whine just as loud when things don't go their way. If you see a problem and don't whine (speak up, complain) you don't have a right to complain later. |
![]() ![]() |
Buttercup ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Michele, The story I heard on Meet The Press (Sunday morning) was that Dobson was the one shooting off his mouth: MR. RUSSERT: Here's what's concerning to many people, and this is from E.J. Dionne's column in The Washington Post. "Rather mysteriously, [Dr. James] Dobson"--of Focus on the Family--"who was briefed on the nomination by Bush's chief lieutenant, Karl Rove, told [Fox News]: `I do know things that I am not prepared to talk about here.' He was equally cagey with The New York Times: `Some of what I know I am not at liberty to talk about.' The intrigue whetted the curiosity of Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), who said that `if the White House gives information to James Dobson, that information should be shared equally with the U.S. Senate.'" And here's what they are reporting Dobson explained on his radio show http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9673338/: On a radio show being broadcast Wednesday, Dobson said he discussed Miers with Rove on Oct. 1, two days before her nomination was announced. Dobson said Rove told him “she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life..." Oh, and here's another bit of hypocrisy I find amusing http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9579343/: MR. RUSSERT: Pat Robertson, however, said that it is important that--evangelical beyond the Court. It seems as if Republicans are saying it's now important to use religion as opposed to when Catholicism was brought up with John Roberts; conservatives said, "That's not fair game." Edited by Renee 2005-10-12 1:00 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() The way I understand it is that all the stuff that they were saying on the talk shows about how Dobson "had a secret" was just that basically Dobson knew who the nominee was before anyone else because Karl Rove told him (in a private conversation). I think Rove's motives were that he was trying to get support from the conservative religious community before the nomination was made public. Dobson's mistake was in telling other religious leaders what he knew ahead of time and then it got leaked and made into something bigger than it was. And "religious leaders" can be as hateful and dodgy as politicians when it comes to handling power and the publicity. I don't always agree with Dobson, and some of the others are just kind of "out there"--- I guess it's kind of interesting because some people will follow a public figure like Dobson---or even Rush Limbaugh---like sheep---without thinking for themselves. So Rove (and probably others like him) were probably trying to get to the leaders and help shape public opinion before it ever went public. That's just politics as usual, whether you're conservative or liberal. I go back to my original post, though. Who the heck would ever want to accept the nomination knowing what kind of hell you would have to go through in the process? |
![]() ![]() |
Giver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Bettylou - 2005-10-12 1:17 PM Who the heck would ever want to accept the nomination knowing what kind of hell you would have to go through in the process? That process goes on for everyone from POTUS to SCOTUS to your local school board, though. Every politician knows it's part of the game, but it doesn't seem to stop them. So why would it be so hard for someone to accept a nomination here and now? |
![]() ![]() |
Buttercup ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Michele, I'm not terribly impressed with the collective intellect of politicians. Really, if you had spent your career as an appellate judge, would it be such a feat to run circles around these clowns? It would require one to be courageous about one's convictions and to be equally steadfast in saying nothing that would tip your hand about just what those convictions are. No, it's not for the faint of heart but I don't think appellate judges are know to be faint of heart. The heart of this matter is that some conservatives want Roe v Wade to be overturned. They want the President to stack the SCOTUS with judges committed to overturn Rove v Wade. If not for Roe v Wade, would the SCOTUS appointment generate so much rancor and friction? |
|
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() It's Roe vs. Wade, but it's also things like allowing prayer in school and the 10 commandments in the courthouse and nativity scenes on public squares and evolution vs. creationism and assisted suicide and all those ethical issues. And you are right in that the nominee should be given sufficient scrutiny for such a life-long appointment. However, in the process reporters (and others) will rummage through your attic and basement and bring up every conversation that you ever had a a cocktail party, comments you made in e-mails, and comments you made in birthday cards and try to paint you one way or the other. There have been people in my life who would take my words and try to twist them around on me and try to make it seem as though I meant something that I didn't. I know how uncomfortable that can be in a private conversation. I can't imagine how gut wrenching that would be to endure in the national media. In my opinion, that is why the level of leadership (city councils and school boards included, but primarily national and state level) has decreased over time. It's because many good and decent people don't want to subject themselves (or their family and friends) to that type of abuse... |
![]() ![]() |
Giver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() You hit the nail on the head. It's all about legislating (but or course the Court isn't supposed to legislate..wink wink) religious dogma. Bettylou - 2005-10-12 1:37 PMIt's Roe vs. Wade, but it's also things like allowing prayer in school and the 10 commandments in the courthouse and nativity scenes on public squares and evolution vs. creationism and assisted suicide and all those ethical issues. |
![]() ![]() |
Buttercup ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Good points, Michele. The Texas Republican Party makes no secret of the fact that they consider separation of church and state to be a "myth." (it's listed in their party platform on their website). They want to refashion our government into a theocracy and flush our Jeffersonian Democracy down the toilet. They're revolutionaries of the worst sort - religious revolutionaries. Michele, I have to wonder how much attention Ms. Miers' "cool" comments about Bushie would receive if we actually had a judicial record on which to focus. If all they have to focus on is birthday cards to get a glimmer of insight into the woman... Edited by Renee 2005-10-12 1:51 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Renee - 2005-10-12 1:48 PM Again, you're probably right about that. But like I said before, the ones with a judicial record didn't want to endure the meida hell. Miers is like your back-up date to the prom. The one you ask when you're desperate because everyone else said no. That being said, we might have a better candidate if Bush didn't feel that he had to be PC and appoint a woman. Maybe the best (or at least better) candidate in this case would be a man. |
|