Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hillary appeases the kooks

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

  • Hillary appeases the kooks

    [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif[/img]

    what a "moderate".

  • #2
    IN

    Comment


    • #3
      QUOTE(dooz @ Sep 23 2005, 09:03 AM) Quoted post

      [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif[/img]

      what a "moderate".
      [/b][/quote]

      She is no moderate...that's for sure - although she is trying to pose as one.

      I'll vote Republican if the Dems are stupid enough to nominate her in 2008.
      Go Cards ...12 in 13.


      Comment


      • #4
        Putting aside the fact that so far this guy is probably pulling a Scalia, do you really want a Senate that unanimously rubber-stamps whoever Mr Hero picks?
        Damn these electric sex pants!

        26+31+34+42+44+46+64+67+82+06 = 10

        Bring back the death penalty for corporations!

        Comment


        • #5
          QUOTE(dredbyrd @ Sep 23 2005, 12:44 PM) Quoted post

          Putting aside the fact that so far this guy is probably pulling a Scalia, do you really want a Senate that unanimously rubber-stamps whoever Mr Hero picks?
          [/b][/quote]

          What in his background makes you think he is an ultra conservative?

          If he is moderate and has the credentials...why shouldn't he be confirmed with a strong vote.

          He mostly likely will be anyway so what's Hillary's objection to him other playing to the left?
          Go Cards ...12 in 13.


          Comment


          • #6
            Why the whining about the fact that some Dems aren't going to vote for Roberts confimation? This is the right of the senate and has been invoked almost since day one. And why the assumption that it only happens on GOP nominees? Republicans blocked Abe Fortas in his bid to be approved as chief justice under the Johnson administration. Clinton refused to nominate his first choice in 93-94 (Bruce Babbitt) after GOP senators from the Western states threatened him with an almost impossible approval process.

            There's a reason that the constitution established three distinct bodies and numerous checks and balances between them. Senatorial approval of Supreme Court nominees is simply one of those.

            QUOTE
            The history of presidents’ battles with senators over nominations to the Supreme Court goes back to 1795, when the Senate rejected George Washington’s nomination of John Rutledge to serve as chief justice.

            [/b][/quote]

            http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8616433/
            Sponsor of Alex Pieterangelo.

            ..."I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." George Best

            Comment


            • #7
              QUOTE(dooz @ Sep 23 2005, 09:03 AM) Quoted post

              [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif[/img]

              what a "moderate".
              [/b][/quote]

              Thought this was about right:

              To figure out how people are going to come down, you simply need to look at several factors. . .

              1 Any Democrat considering a run for President in 2008 is going to vote "No". No one wants the next Howard Dean nipping at their heels.

              2 Any Democrat seriously considering leading a filibuster of the next nominee and planning to keep the gang of fourteen on board is going to vote "Yes". Voting "No" on Roberts would allow, in fact almost require, the Republican G14 members to break ranks under pressure ("Come on, de Wine, this guy even voted "No" on Roberts!"). Conversely, voting "Yes" on Roberts strengthens the Democrat's argument with the seven Republicans who will matter ("Listen guys, I'm reasonable, I even voted for Roberts. But Judge Hitler really is an exceptional circumstance!").


              That accounts for Clinton and Biden voting "No", and for Byrd and possibly Leahy voting "Yes" (Byrd being one of the G14, and Leahy the ranking member on the Judiciary committee, both well positioned to lead a filibuster).

              Furthermore:


              3 Any senator genuinely concerned about Senatorial process and commity is likely to vote "Yes". That's because Roberts did appear, did answer questions (if not as specifically as some would have liked), and nothing has emerged to disqualify him from the post. The reasons for voting him down are that you believe he lied under oath (always a possibility) or you believe there is some skeleton in the missing Bush administration papers that would disqualify him but that hasn't been leaked in some form already. Those are positions that can be held by a partisan player, but not by a collegiality-oriented Senator concerned about maintaining the integrity of senatorial process. I put Feingold, and possibly Leahy in this camp.


              4 Senators from Red States will likely vote "Yes" -- why lose their jobs over a symbolic vote?
              Dude. Can. Fly.

              Comment


              • #8
                QUOTE(hkyfan @ Sep 23 2005, 01:05 PM) Quoted post


                QUOTE
                The history of presidents’ battles with senators over nominations to the Supreme Court goes back to 1795, when the Senate rejected George Washington’s nomination of John Rutledge to serve as chief justice.

                [/b][/quote]

                [/b][/quote]

                Yeah, but in the Senate's defense, Rutledge didn't answer even 1 question about Roe v Wade.
                Dude. Can. Fly.

                Comment


                • #9
                  QUOTE(TTB @ Sep 23 2005, 11:47 AM) Quoted post

                  QUOTE(dredbyrd @ Sep 23 2005, 12:44 PM) Quoted post

                  Putting aside the fact that so far this guy is probably pulling a Scalia, do you really want a Senate that unanimously rubber-stamps whoever Mr Hero picks?
                  [/b][/quote]

                  What in his background makes you think he is an ultra conservative?

                  If he is moderate and has the credentials...why shouldn't he be confirmed with a strong vote.

                  He mostly likely will be anyway so what's Hillary's objection to him other playing to the left?
                  [/b][/quote]

                  Because I don't buy it that he was just a hired gun doing his far-right (really, really far right advocacy) work for the Reagan administration.

                  This guy sounds just like Scalia in his hearings and I fully expect him to act like Scalia as a Supreme.
                  Damn these electric sex pants!

                  26+31+34+42+44+46+64+67+82+06 = 10

                  Bring back the death penalty for corporations!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    QUOTE(dvyyyyyy @ Sep 23 2005, 01:05 PM) Quoted post

                    Thought this was about right:

                    To figure out how people are going to come down, you simply need to look at several factors. . .

                    1 Any Democrat considering a run for President in 2008 is going to vote "No". No one wants the next Howard Dean nipping at their heels.


                    4 Senators from Red States will likely vote "Yes" -- why lose their jobs over a symbolic vote?

                    [/b][/quote]

                    Ding!
                    Go Cards ...12 in 13.


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      QUOTE(dooz @ Sep 23 2005, 09:03 AM) Quoted post

                      [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif[/img]

                      what a "moderate".
                      [/b][/quote]

                      I got you down Dooz for when Roberts casts his first abortion vote.
                      From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death.

                      For more than 20 years I have endeavored-indeed, I have struggled-along with a majority of this Court, to develop procedural & substantive rules that would lend more than the mere appearance of fairness to the death penalty endeavor.


                      I feel morally and intellectually obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment has failed.

                      The path the Court has chosen lessens us all. I dissent.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        QUOTE(TTB @ Sep 23 2005, 12:40 PM) Quoted post

                        QUOTE(dooz @ Sep 23 2005, 09:03 AM) Quoted post

                        [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif[/img]

                        what a "moderate".
                        [/b][/quote]

                        She is no moderate...that's for sure - although she is trying to pose as one.

                        I'll vote Republican if the Dems are stupid enough to nominate her in 2008.
                        [/b][/quote]

                        Her husband was FAR more moderate than this President is, as for her is there any chance you really know?
                        It's all posturing for the run in 08.
                        Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          QUOTE(ppg shg @ Sep 25 2005, 10:08 AM) Quoted post

                          QUOTE(dooz @ Sep 23 2005, 09:03 AM) Quoted post

                          [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif[/img]

                          what a "moderate".
                          [/b][/quote]

                          I got you down Dooz for when Roberts casts his first abortion vote.
                          [/b][/quote]

                          Yes, because we wouldn't want women to lose the right to execute their babies any time they feel like it. Abortion rights...one of our nation greatest problems. Meanwhile Americans go to China and Russia and the rest of the world to find babies to adopt.




                          FTR...I don't really want Roe v Wade overturned but the issue gets WAY to much attention. Unless the mother's life is at risk, the child is a consequence of rape or the child is severely handicapped....what is SO damn bad about having a baby. If a woman doesn't want to get pregant...she should keep her panties on.
                          Go Cards ...12 in 13.


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            QUOTE(TTB @ Sep 25 2005, 10:21 AM) Quoted post

                            QUOTE(ppg shg @ Sep 25 2005, 10:08 AM) Quoted post

                            QUOTE(dooz @ Sep 23 2005, 09:03 AM) Quoted post

                            [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif[/img]

                            what a "moderate".
                            [/b][/quote]

                            I got you down Dooz for when Roberts casts his first abortion vote.
                            [/b][/quote]

                            Yes, because we wouldn't want women to lose the right to execute their babies any time they feel like it. [/b][/quote]

                            I got you down too.
                            From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death.

                            For more than 20 years I have endeavored-indeed, I have struggled-along with a majority of this Court, to develop procedural & substantive rules that would lend more than the mere appearance of fairness to the death penalty endeavor.


                            I feel morally and intellectually obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment has failed.

                            The path the Court has chosen lessens us all. I dissent.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              QUOTE(TTB @ Sep 25 2005, 10:21 AM) Quoted post

                              QUOTE(ppg shg @ Sep 25 2005, 10:08 AM) Quoted post

                              QUOTE(dooz @ Sep 23 2005, 09:03 AM) Quoted post

                              [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif[/img]

                              what a "moderate".
                              [/b][/quote]

                              I got you down Dooz for when Roberts casts his first abortion vote.
                              [/b][/quote]

                              Yes, because we wouldn't want women to lose the right to execute their babies any time they feel like it. Abortion rights...one of our nation greatest problems. Meanwhile Americans go to China and Russia and the rest of the world to find babies to adopt.




                              FTR...I don't really want Roe v Wade overturned but the issue gets WAY to much attention. Unless the mother's life is at risk, the child is a consequence of rape or the child is severely handicapped....what is SO damn bad about having a baby. If a woman doesn't want to get pregant...she should keep her panties on.
                              [/b][/quote]

                              QUOTE
                              Unless the mother's life is at risk, the child is a consequence of rape or the child is severely handicapped[/b][/quote]
                              And if the right would try to pass a bill with those qualifications they would have a hard time not getting it passed.
                              The problem is that those exceptions are not ok with the republican parties base.
                              Bill offered to sign such a bill, but the right wouldn't change the language to include "if a woman's health is at risk"
                              Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X