Libertarians, moderates, liberals and ...
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Thursday, February 9, 2006 15:20
VIEWED: 6399
PAGE 5 of 8
BAD CHOICE is simply subjective, and not beholden to any quantified fact. You don't like Bush, so you don't like Alito. Merely your personal opinion. ( typing it in caps doesn't make it any more real )
You ignored the relevent comments I made, and responded w/ inane insults. Nothing in your post suggest any form of logic, so I'll pass on your reccomendation. Generally when one responds w/ out addressing any specifics and heads straight into name calling, they don't know what they're talking about. You are a prime example. Thanks 
Quote:I never met Hitler. Seems he lied fairly well, but also wasn't afraid to tell the truth..or at least what he thought. Either way, he doesn't rate very high in my mind. Einstein , to my knowledge, wasn't much into magic, so I am unaware of what he conjured. He did, however, dabble in conjecture, about a great many things. Mostly in physics, I guess
BTW AU, Hitler was a MAN who lied well.
Einstein was a MAN who conjured well.
Bush and his gang are MEN and WOMEN, not shiny examples of Saint-like humanity to be thrust upon a pedestal and worshipped.
(if you already knew that, sorry, you just make it sound as if you didn't...)
But unlike me, Einstein was very good at math.... even for a patent clerk. He proved things w/ math that most had never dreamed. " They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Now THAT'S projection if I ever saw it.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So Auraptor, since I followed the thread of your discussion and brought up what I thought were legitimate points- do you have anything to say to ME?
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor:
I thought I'd be a little more specific about you projecting your very own deficiencies on others.
Quote:You said:
Auraptor
You ignored the relevant comments I made, and responded w/ inane insults. Nothing in your post suggest any form of logic, so I'll pass on your recommendation. Generally when one responds w/ out addressing any specifics and heads straight into name calling, they don't know what they're talking about. You are a prime example. Thanks
Quote:But since you didn't cite ANY facts to back this up, it's difficult to discuss.
Auraptor
1. Judge Alito comes in with the most experience of any nominee in over 70 years.
Then you said:
Quote:To which SignyM VERY specifically responded:
Auraptor,
The A.B.A ... thinks very highly of Alito, twice now awarding him with their highest rating ... “well qualified”
Quote:Now, nowhere in that post is there ANY name calling, not even a personal comment about you. It was all very topical and objective.
SignyM
And, what that "well qualified" means is....
He hasn't taken any bribes, or been dishonest (except in several cases where he should have recused himself but didn't).
the ABA also noted three areas of concern:
1) "a tendency for stridency to enter into Alito's written decisions, especially dissents"
2) a concern that his "personal beliefs have entered into his judicial decision-making" and...
3) "a concern about whether or not the results of the nominee's judicial decision tend to favor identifiable categories of litigants and reflect a bias"
You on the other hand call people 'silly', 'inane', 'insulting', and, in so many words, 'ignorant.' You accuse them of not responding to your arguments and going 'immediately' into name-calling which really is a total lie.
N'est-pas?
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The affidavit was improperly written because it allows searches of others in the house.
Nevertheless, it was signed by a judge and the officers who served it had no reason to believe it was not valid.
Quote:
But it is also clear that the reason to search occupants was as potential purchasers or as places of concealment for the drug dealer. But the DRUG DEALER WASN'T HOME. The only people there was the mom and her daughter. Neither was purchasing drugs bc the dealer wasn't home, and neither was acting as a mule bc the dealer wasn't home.
This is quite an assumption. Mom didn't know that her hubby (boyfriend, whatever) was dealing drugs out of their home? Didn't know where they were stashed when he wasn't there? Sort of a credulity stretch.
But That's all really beside the point. What really amazes me is that you actually expect that a Republican President would even consider nominating a Liberal (or even Centerist)Supreme Court Justice. Do you know of any Democratic Presidents who have ever nominated a Conservative just to make the Republicans happy? Huh?
Alito may not line up with your philosophy (or mine for that matter, although I wouldn't mind having a machinegun or two around the house), but he does have solid credentials and experience as a jurist, if not the kind you'd like.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Auraptor, you've got to look at the big picture. I've interviewed and ranked probably hundreds of professionals by now. You learn to differentitate between one skill and another. I've alos testified against very smart scientists who twisted data to argue their case. I know lawyers. What I've learned is that it's possible to have someone brilliant, persuasive, knowledgeable, even-tempered, and financially honest who is aiming in the wrong direction.
Define wrong direction as it relates to what we're talking about here. How do we really know how a judge will rule in the future?
rue/signym - I'll start by answering you 2 as one, to keep things simple.
Quote:
But since you didn't cite ANY facts to back this up, it's difficult to discuss.
Yeah, that Alito was the most experienced nominee in 70 some years was mentioned several times over the past few weeks, I didn't think it needed any citation. Not sure what there is to discuss on this issue. It pretty much speaks for itself. A minor point, either way.
Per the concerns about Alito from the ABA, I guess he's no John Roberts...err...not perfect.
Quote:No explanation as to why? Left at that, it seems to me they weren't major concerns in the least. Except it was the 2nd time in 15 years that the ABA felt compelled to rate Alito as well qualified.
None of these were fully resolved in the ABA's investigation.
Seriously, we can waste as much time as you'd like debating this, and it won't change a damn thing. Alito is going to be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, likely by Tuesday. It may be a year,2, or 5 years before we have any idea of what all this really means, after we've seen his rulings.
Bush campaigned to bring the courts back from the far Left toward the centre With Roberts and Alito, he's made good on that promise. In my book, that's a + for Bush. ( He needs them, as I also have several -'s for him as well. )
I'm in favor of the nominee, and that pretty much sums it up. Those who feel so inclined to tell me I'm in danger of losing this or that freedom will doubtless do so, no matter what I say. My reply is not only do I disagree w/ that view, but that I find nothing in the way of evidence which in any way would support that claim. Much ado about nothing.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Gorram double post. 
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Except he was in the minority most of the time. Now, what if I were working as say an analytical chemist, and I claimed to have EXPERIENCE. But it turned out almost all of my results were wrong. Would that make me qualified?
solid credentials and experience
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fletch,
I'm not sure Alito is an 'activist judge.' The idea was a very neocon one that there is such a thing, so I don't support that, but still, Alito's history seems very flipfloppy to me.
I'm not his spokesperson, he's not the best man for the job, but I think he's the best man we're likely to get out of this administration.
Rue,
Yeah, this is the part that worries me. I don't think this gives him any power to create that, Spector and Byrd both said they were concerned but didn't think that Alito really believed that. I guess I'm still kind of undecided on the Alito thing. Maybe there should be more debate. O'Connor isn't going anywhere.
On the plus side, Alito is actually highly qualified, and not a totally corrupt flunkie. On the minus side, he's got some bizarre ideas. I think we need a little time out to think about it. Maybe a vote on extending the debate. I don't think a Kerry/Kennedy filibuster is going to accomplish anything but to ressurect the nuclear option, which is what I think this filibuster is intentionally designed to do. But we have time. Let Alito defend the spots on his record, or apologize for them, and prove that this isn't an indication of future performance. I mean, it's not like Bush has nominated Jack Abramoff or Tom Delay.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor, Geezer, DT, I give you this analysis:
Quote:www.consortiumnews.com/2006/011106.html
The “unitary executive” applies as well to the President’s authority to interpret laws as he sees fit, especially in areas of national security where right-wing lawyers argue that the commander-in-chief powers are “plenary,” which means “absolute, unqualified.”
So, when Alito assured the Senate Judiciary Committee that no one, not even the President, is “above the law,” that palliative answer had little meaning since under the “unitary” theory favored by Alito the President effectively is the law.
Since his days as a lawyer in Ronald Reagan’s White House, Alito has pushed this theory. At a Federalist Society symposium in 2001, Alito recalled that when he was in the Office of Legal Counsel in Ronald Reagan’s White House, “we were strong proponents of the theory of the unitary executive, that all federal executive power is vested by the Constitution in the President.”
In 1986, Alito advocated the use of “interpretive signing statements” by presidents to counter the judiciary’s traditional reliance on congressional intent in assessing the meaning of federal law.
Under Bush, “signing statements” have become commonplace and amount to his rejection of legal restrictions especially as they bear on presidential powers. A search of the White House Internet site finds 101 entries for the word “unitary” in Bush’s statements and other official references.
In December 2005, for instance, Bush cited the “unitary” powers of the Presidency when he signed the McCain amendment, which prohibited cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. In a “signing statement,” Bush reserved the right to bypass the law by invoking his commander-in-chief powers.
“The Executive Branch shall construe {the torture ban} in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power,” the signing statement read.Alito has argued that a powerful executive is what the Founding Fathers always intended.
....In a speech in 2000, he {Alito} said that when the U.S. Constitution was drafted in 1787, the framers “saw the unitary executive as necessary to balance the huge power of the legislature and the factions that may gain control of it.”
Scholars, however, have disputed Alito’s historical argument by noting that the framers worried most about excessive executive powers, like those of a king, and devised a complex system of checks and balances with the Legislature in the preeminent position to limit the President’s powers.
I tried to condense it, but there is more to this anlysis. Please look it up. This is not a small matter. Judge Alito has been consistent on his view of Unitary Executive from at least 1985 to present. If you want to look for a conspiracy (a group of people so close they "breathe together") it's on this issue. Roberts has strongly come out in favor of a unitary exectuve, and so has Scalia. Thomas (who has almost never written an opinion but always follows Scalia's lead, is an intellectual and moral disgrace to the Supreme Court, and a Supreme example of affirmative action gone wrong) has opined in favor of Unitary Executive and will vote with Scalia (as he always does). So four out of nine Supreme Court Justices- or potential Supreme Court Justices- agree on Unitary Executive.
When you combine Unitary Executive with the current Aministration's views of habeus corpus (not relevant), search warrants (not needed), FOIA (ignore), torture (useful), dissent (unpatriotic) and the First Ammendment (subvert) this becomes a frightening picture. A few years from now will I be asking- again- where were the libertarians? If I am, don't you think it's a little too late to find out that we've just created a tyranny of the Executive Branch?
DT- A little more time to consider is exactly what Bush DOESN'T wa
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME