Why filibuster?

Mandy · 28th January 2006, 05:58 AM

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry has urged his Democratic colleagues to unite and filibuster Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, but senators from both sides of the aisle said Friday that isn't going to happen.

What does Kerry think he will accomplish with this attempt at a filibuster?

Even the Dems have agreed that the numbers just aren't there for this to succeed.

webfusion · 28th January 2006, 06:00 AM

Maybe Mr Kerry just wants to hear himself talk.

Ed · 28th January 2006, 06:01 AM

Originally Posted by Mandy

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry has urged his Democratic colleagues to unite and filibuster Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, but senators from both sides of the aisle said Friday that isn't going to happen.

What does Kerry think he will accomplish with this attempt at a filibuster?

A run in 2008. Why do any of these clowns do anything?

bob_kark · 28th January 2006, 06:07 AM

They need votes in the next election. They're not really going to recieve many by rolling over every time for the big bad Republicans.

Manny · 28th January 2006, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by Mandy

[b]What does Kerry think he will accomplish with this attempt at a filibuster?

It will be vastly amusing to me, personally. So there's that.

Mark · 28th January 2006, 08:48 AM

I am always amused at how outraged Republicans get if the Democrats even try to resist them.

How they can be the party in control of all 3 branches of government and still feel picked on is amazing.

Vagabond · 28th January 2006, 10:34 AM

They wanna look like David taking on Goliath and get sympathy. The fillbuster is pointless. The time to fight Bush was before he got elected now it's useless. Even granting they put Alito out he would just nominate somebody else just as bad or worse. It's not going to make any difference except maybe in the minds of a few stupid people, who might vote.

Nyarlathotep · 28th January 2006, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Mandy

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry has urged his Democratic colleagues to unite and filibuster Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, but senators from both sides of the aisle said Friday that isn't going to happen.

What does Kerry think he will accomplish with this attempt at a filibuster?

Even the Dems have agreed that the numbers just aren't there for this to succeed.

Yeah, but in politics, appearances count more than reality. Talking of a filibuster makes it appear that they are doing something. They hope this appearance will help them down the road with their base.

jj · 28th January 2006, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by Mandy

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry has urged his Democratic colleagues to unite and filibuster Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, but senators from both sides of the aisle said Friday that isn't going to happen.

What does Kerry think he will accomplish with this attempt at a filibuster?

Even the Dems have agreed that the numbers just aren't there for this to succeed.

My suspicion is that he wants to drive the Senate to change the rules to show just how naked the power grab by the Republicans is.

Thing is, it won't do any good until people see through the Repugnican dishonesty and vote their concience instead of their terror, and I see, based on what we see here where mostly well-informed people post, no hope of that in the near future.

TragicMonkey · 28th January 2006, 02:57 PM

Maybe he just doesn't think Alito would make a good addition to the Supreme Court?

Mycroft · 28th January 2006, 03:01 PM

Other than Alito being a conservative, is there anything wrong with him?

jj · 28th January 2006, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Maybe he just doesn't think Alito would make a good addition to the Supreme Court?

Well, if that's what he thinks, he should consider doing something effective?

TragicMonkey · 28th January 2006, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Other than Alito being a conservative, is there anything wrong with him?

What worries some is his track record: he seems to side with the government rather too often. This seems dangerous in a Supreme Court justice, since part of his function would be to operate as a check and balance to the other branches of government. Can we trust him to judge cases on their merits, or will he be biased towards the government? Given his evasiveness in answering questions, and the track record of the administration which nominated him, I wouldn't extend the benefit of the doubt when it comes to trust. It's too important a position to take it on faith that this time, it's going to be okay.

TragicMonkey · 28th January 2006, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by jj

Well, if that's what he thinks, he should consider doing something effective?

Such as?

Manny · 28th January 2006, 03:18 PM

Well, 'becoming president' would have worked nicely.

TragicMonkey · 28th January 2006, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by manny

Well, 'becoming president' would have worked nicely.

But probably not something he can manage in the time remaining.

AnotherSillyAlias · 28th January 2006, 04:00 PM

It's interesting to see what's happening politically around the world. I believe there is a sort of pendulum effect and it seems to cover most countries at pretty much the same time. America has made a giant lurch to the right and, unfortunately, religious fundamentalism seems to be on the increase.

In Oz we lurched to the right about 10 years ago and they're still in favour although I think I've detected some hopeful signs that the swing could be on the way back. Fortunately religious fundamentalism, although it exists, is not such a problem here.

Canada seems to have just recently marched that way as well.

I think that, in some years to come, I don't know when exactly, things will swing the other way and left leaning governements will, once again, get the upper hand.

[Obligatory Disclaimer: The above are opinions only, not statements of fact.]

casebro · 28th January 2006, 04:12 PM

Doesn't a filibuster work by delaying any actual progress while the talkng drones on, until the end of a session? How long til the end of this session- August? Seems more likely that talking about as filibuster is about all that the dems can do to look pro-active at all to their constituants.

CapelDodger · 28th January 2006, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by AnotherSillyAlias

It's interesting to see what's happening politically around the world. I believe there is a sort of pendulum effect and it seems to cover most countries at pretty much the same time.

Economic or political philosophies become fashionable across the (Western) world, but they never work as intended. Disenchantment meets a new, opposing theory which has not yet had a chance to fail and the pendulum swings. It's a good thing, to my mind.

WildCat · 28th January 2006, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by casebro

Doesn't a filibuster work by delaying any actual progress while the talkng drones on, until the end of a session? How long til the end of this session- August? Seems more likely that talking about as filibuster is about all that the dems can do to look pro-active at all to their constituants.

There hasn'r been a good old-fashioned filibuster like that in many years. Now they just declare a filibuster and nothing else can happen until they get their 60 votes.

Ziggurat · 28th January 2006, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Given his evasiveness in answering questions, and the track record of the administration which nominated him, I wouldn't extend the benefit of the doubt when it comes to trust. It's too important a position to take it on faith that this time, it's going to be okay.

Due to the way the Senate operates now, candidates pretty much HAVE to be evasive. And the "track record of the administration" argument would apply to every single candidate they could possibly put forward. And it shouldn't take too much thinking to figure out that an argument which works against basically any candidate Bush might nominate simply isn't going to fly.

In terms of his track record on bias towards government, rather than believing special interest groups which can pick out and misrepresent specific cases quite easily, I prefer to rely upon his actual co-workers, namely other judges, lawyers who have presented before him, and clerks who have worked for him. And those have pretty much been unanimously positive, including from democrats.

TragicMonkey · 28th January 2006, 05:26 PM

Look, I answered what I think. I'm not telling you what you should think. You want to trust him? Go right ahead. Maybe you don't have to worry about the things he might do. Some of us have to, and do.

Bob Klase · 28th January 2006, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by AnotherSillyAlias

It's interesting to see what's happening politically around the world. I believe there is a sort of pendulum effect and it seems to cover most countries at pretty much the same time. America has made a giant lurch to the right and, unfortunately, religious fundamentalism seems to be on the increase.

In Oz we lurched to the right about 10 years ago and they're still in favour although I think I've detected some hopeful signs that the swing could be on the way back. Fortunately religious fundamentalism, although it exists, is not such a problem here.

Canada seems to have just recently marched that way as well.

I think that, in some years to come, I don't know when exactly, things will swing the other way and left leaning governements will, once again, get the upper hand.

[Obligatory Disclaimer: The above are opinions only, not statements of fact.]

I think you're right. When one side/party holds the power they start moving further and further to the extreme. At some point they move far enough that average people, many who never vote (because "both sides are equally bad") realize that both sides are not equally bad anymore and start voting. Then it starts moving back to the center and eventually the other side gets power. Before long they're moving further and further to the other extreme.

I see it as a natural check and balance (althought one that doesn't always work).

Jocko · 28th January 2006, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by Mark

I am always amused at how outraged Republicans get if the Democrats even try to resist them.

That's not outrage, that's hysterical laughter at what democrats call "resistance." I, for one, can't wait for Kerry and Kennedy to throw themselves under the bus. Viva resistance! Although, as far as those two clowns go, I'd rate them at about half an ohm combined.

NoZed Avenger · 29th January 2006, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

What worries some is his track record: he seems to side with the government rather too often.

Do you have any specific decisions in mind? I didn't get a chance to review much at the time of the hearings.

Ed · 29th January 2006, 01:06 PM

The thing that swung me to Alito was the panel of current and retired appelete judges that came out for him. There was one black dude that characterized himself as a liberal activist and said that if he had the slightest doubt about Alito he would not be there. Said it a couple of times, much to the chagrin of that drunken, murdering oaf Kennedy.

I have no problem with a justice that strictly interprets the Constitution. Maybe our legislators ought to take a course in constitutional law before they start writing laws.

TragicMonkey · 29th January 2006, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

Do you have any specific decisions in mind? I didn't get a chance to review much at the time of the hearings.

Interesting reading.

http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upl...e130_23216.pdf

However, since it's from the ACLU, at least half the people reading this post will reject it automatically, with the majority of those not even clicking on the link to do so.

Ed · 29th January 2006, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Interesting reading.

http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upl...e130_23216.pdf

However, since it's from the ACLU, at least half the people reading this post will reject it automatically, with the majority of those not even clicking on the link to do so.

Interesting. I find that the notification rule was discussed at some length during his hearings. If I recall correctly there was a change in the SCOTUS rulings between his decision and the eventual overturn by them. The strip search thing is a lot more complicated than a bullet point lets on. They fail to mention the 3 or 4 other abortion cases where he ruled for the plaintiff.

TragicMonkey · 29th January 2006, 02:25 PM

Some of the immigration decisions seem a bit odd. False tax returns are a deportable offense, but vehicular homicide while DUI isn't? The Iranian woman he admits will be persecuted if deported to Iran and pursues her belief in equality for women, but asylum was denied on the basis that she can simply avoid persecution by complying with oppressive Iranian law. And what's the deal with the decision about that Chinese couple? Marriage is so special that the guy gets treated differently than he would have been had he been married.

The constant assumption of "good faith" in the matter of warrants, prison officials, and government agencies is fairly alarming. And the jury selection and job discrimination cases...what's with this attitude that if the defendant can come up with a nondiscriminatory explanation for an action, evidence to that explanation's being a pretext is overruled?

NoZed Avenger · 30th January 2006, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Interesting reading.

http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upl...e130_23216.pdf

However, since it's from the ACLU, at least half the people reading this post will reject it automatically, with the majority of those not even clicking on the link to do so.

Thanks -- bookmarked it - read the summary and will have to look at the rest off the clock (still at work). I tlooks like he went for the ACLU's position is some cases, and against it in others. Primarily, their complaint is with his abortion positions (as his record on free speech and exercise of religion is noted as positive). I will look at the cases, but am afamilair with the "strip search" case and their initial summary at least is a bit misleading regarding the actual issue and position.

Thanks for the link; I'll try to leave something substantive by tomorrow evening.

Cylinder · 30th January 2006, 02:51 PM

The cloture motion for the Alito nomination just passed 75-25. I suppose at least some of the D's are winners, since those who voted against cloture satisfied their base without the national exposure of filibustering a nominee with a good favorable rating.

And yes, Feinstein was bullied.

NoZed Avenger · 30th January 2006, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

And the jury selection and job discrimination cases...what's with this attitude that if the defendant can come up with a nondiscriminatory explanation for an action, evidence to that explanation's being a pretext is overruled?

I can shed some light on that. From memory, there was a fairly significant expansion on the evidence allowed in these cases (for employees) in the early to mid 90's. Older case law set rigid limits on the evidence allowed, and that position was simply the law. Cases started eroding that bright line rule during the period where you see alito's dissent in Glass, for example. so here I would initally guess -- subject to me actually reading the case, which could be helpful -- that his opinion in those cases simply followed what had been the established precedent.

NoZed Avenger · 31st January 2006, 08:50 AM

I spent a while last night looking at a fraction of the opinions. I was only able to look over a few cases and some related authority cited in them - I focused on the abortion question, since a lot of the concern is expressed there, especially about Casey, I am sure.

A brief review of the first few cases -- along with a review of Glass to make sure my memory on the employment law question was correct -- makes me think this: I'll admit to only a superficial go through, but it seems to me that in both areas, Alito's decisions are extremely concerned with following SC precedent, as opposed to expanding on earlier decisions. In fact, his reliance on precedent and the strict adherence to it means, IMO, that the decisions being looked at actually tell us very little about his actual ideology.

Perhaps I am engaging in too much pattern-seeking here (but then again, perhaps the ACLU is doing the same). I don't see anything that causes me to think that we are on the verge of "returning to the 19th Century" (to paraphrase Senator Kennedy) or rolling back civil rights -- especially given what I view as expansive decisions on personal expression.

The ACLU was on the opposite side on several of the decision that they cite, but disagreement with the ACLU does not automatically make me suspicious. In 1976, it would have, but not in the last 10-15 years.

I'll try and look more over the next couple of days.

Lurker · 31st January 2006, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by Vagabond

Even granting they put Alito out he would just nominate somebody else just as bad or worse.

See, that is why I was supporting Meirs 100%. I figured it was the best we liberals could hope for from Bush and I was right. Alito is worse (IMO) than Meirs. I wished the Dems had tried to rush her confirmation.

Lurker

TragicMonkey · 31st January 2006, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by Lurker

See, that is why I was supporting Meirs 100%. I figured it was the best we liberals could hope for from Bush and I was right. Alito is worse (IMO) than Meirs. I wished the Dems had tried to rush her confirmation.

Do buy into the theory that she was never a serious nominee, but was meant to draw the fire? That her lack of qualifications was meant to make Alito's qualifications look even better? I thought that sounded awfully conspiracy-ey at first, but now, I'm not so sure. It does seem decidedly odd that Bush would bother with Meirs when he could have just nominated Alito to start with.

(PS: Is that how she spells her name? She's faded from the news so quickly that I've forgotten! It looks wrong to me for some reason.)

Mark · 31st January 2006, 11:48 AM

Time for a brief history lesson, I think:

Quote:

With respect to judicial nominations, the most effective tactic in opposition has been to bottle them up in committee. In the later years of the Clinton presidency, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was controlled by Republicans, did not hold hearings for as many as 60 of his nominees, according to Democrats. They argue that this refusal to even consider President Clinton's nominees was just as effective in blocking them as a filibuster

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4575047

My, how Republicans' opinions change when their guy is in office.

Cecil · 1st February 2006, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

There hasn'r been a good old-fashioned filibuster like that in many years. Now they just declare a filibuster and nothing else can happen until they get their 60 votes.

That's so boring. There was a really fun filibuster in Ontario about 10 years ago, though. The Conservative government wanted to amalgamate the suburbs of Toronto with the city to create a "mega-city"; the other two parties (NDP and liberals) were strongly opposed to this. They hatched a plot to add over 11,000 amendments to the bill - they proposed that for every street in the Greater Toronto Area, the residents of that street should have a community meeting on the issue.

Each and every one of the 11,000 amendments had to be read aloud and voted on. That session of the legislature lasted 10 days, the members sleeping in shifts.

The transcripts are online , stretching from section L176B to L176AE. Makes for some interesting reading, oddly enough.

*Smacks thread back on topic again*

Art Vandelay · 1st February 2006, 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by Mark

I am always amused at how outraged Republicans get if the Democrats even try to resist them.

How they can be the party in control of all 3 branches of government and still feel picked on is amazing.

Except that they're not. And you still haven't answered that question you promised to answer.

Originally Posted by jj

My suspicion is that he wants to drive the Senate to change the rules to show just how naked the power grab by the Republicans is.

What power grab?

Quote:

Thing is, it won't do any good until people see through the Repugnican dishonesty and vote their concience instead of their terror, and I see, based on what we see here where mostly well-informed people post, no hope of that in the near future.

What dishonesty? And aren't you a hypocrite, accusing someone else of dishonesty, after your repeated lies?

Art Vandelay · 1st February 2006, 11:37 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Interesting reading.

http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upl...e130_23216.pdf

However, since it's from the ACLU, at least half the people reading this post will reject it automatically, with the majority of those not even clicking on the link to do so.

I clicked on it, but I guess my computer rejected it, because all I see is a blank page.

BPSCG · 2nd February 2006, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

What worries some is his track record: he seems to side with the government rather too often.

Alito Sides With Missouri Inmate on Death Row

Quote:

WASHINGTON -- New Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito split with the court's conservatives Wednesday night, refusing to let Missouri execute a death-row inmate contesting lethal injection.

Quote:

...Taylor's appeal ... argued that Missouri's death penalty system is racist. Taylor is black and his victim was white. He filed the appeal on Tuesday, the day that Alito was confirmed by the Senate.

Walked right into that one, didn't you...?

28th January 2006, 05:58 AM	#1
Mandy Student Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 35	Why filibuster? WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry has urged his Democratic colleagues to unite and filibuster Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, but senators from both sides of the aisle said Friday that isn't going to happen. What does Kerry think he will accomplish with this attempt at a filibuster? Even the Dems have agreed that the numbers just aren't there for this to succeed.
Mandy Student Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 35

28th January 2006, 06:00 AM	#2
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	filibuster means a lot of talking about nothing... Maybe Mr Kerry just wants to hear himself talk.

28th January 2006, 06:01 AM	#3
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Originally Posted by Mandy WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry has urged his Democratic colleagues to unite and filibuster Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, but senators from both sides of the aisle said Friday that isn't going to happen. What does Kerry think he will accomplish with this attempt at a filibuster? A run in 2008. Why do any of these clowns do anything?
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

28th January 2006, 08:44 AM	#5
Manny Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 3,295	Originally Posted by Mandy [b]What does Kerry think he will accomplish with this attempt at a filibuster? It will be vastly amusing to me, personally. So there's that.
Manny Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 3,295

28th January 2006, 08:48 AM	#6
Mark Former Spinal Tap Drummer Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,529	I am always amused at how outraged Republicans get if the Democrats even try to resist them. How they can be the party in control of all 3 branches of government and still feel picked on is amazing.
	__________________ "Give me immortality or give me death!"---The Firesign Theatre

28th January 2006, 06:07 AM	#4
bob_kark Person of Hench Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Globalist H.Q., 25th floor, 5th room on the right. Posts: 4,113	They need votes in the next election. They're not really going to recieve many by rolling over every time for the big bad Republicans.

28th January 2006, 10:34 AM	#7
Vagabond Professor of Human Nature Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: St. Louis Posts: 818	They wanna look like David taking on Goliath and get sympathy. The fillbuster is pointless. The time to fight Bush was before he got elected now it's useless. Even granting they put Alito out he would just nominate somebody else just as bad or worse. It's not going to make any difference except maybe in the minds of a few stupid people, who might vote.
	__________________ "Happy is he that has the pure truth in him. He will regret no sacrifice that keeps it." "Viewed from the summit of reason, all life looks like a malignant disease and the world like a madhouse." Goethe

28th January 2006, 11:09 AM	#8
Nyarlathotep Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 7,514	Originally Posted by Mandy WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry has urged his Democratic colleagues to unite and filibuster Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, but senators from both sides of the aisle said Friday that isn't going to happen. What does Kerry think he will accomplish with this attempt at a filibuster? Even the Dems have agreed that the numbers just aren't there for this to succeed. Yeah, but in politics, appearances count more than reality. Talking of a filibuster makes it appear that they are doing something. They hope this appearance will help them down the road with their base.
	__________________ Why stay sane in a sick world?

28th January 2006, 02:13 PM	#9
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,513	Originally Posted by Mandy WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry has urged his Democratic colleagues to unite and filibuster Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, but senators from both sides of the aisle said Friday that isn't going to happen. What does Kerry think he will accomplish with this attempt at a filibuster? Even the Dems have agreed that the numbers just aren't there for this to succeed. My suspicion is that he wants to drive the Senate to change the rules to show just how naked the power grab by the Republicans is. Thing is, it won't do any good until people see through the Repugnican dishonesty and vote their concience instead of their terror, and I see, based on what we see here where mostly well-informed people post, no hope of that in the near future.
	__________________ The Power to Quit

28th January 2006, 02:57 PM	#10
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,086	Maybe he just doesn't think Alito would make a good addition to the Supreme Court?
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

28th January 2006, 03:01 PM	#11
Mycroft High Priest of Ed Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 16,105	Other than Alito being a conservative, is there anything wrong with him?
	__________________ Surely Israel is the party to blame? -a_unique_person I do have Mycroft on ignore, he is pretty much the Matt Giwer of your side. -a_unique_person Palestinian Refugees

28th January 2006, 03:02 PM	#12
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,513	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey Maybe he just doesn't think Alito would make a good addition to the Supreme Court? Well, if that's what he thinks, he should consider doing something effective?
	__________________ The Power to Quit

28th January 2006, 03:09 PM	#13
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,086	Originally Posted by Mycroft Other than Alito being a conservative, is there anything wrong with him? What worries some is his track record: he seems to side with the government rather too often. This seems dangerous in a Supreme Court justice, since part of his function would be to operate as a check and balance to the other branches of government. Can we trust him to judge cases on their merits, or will he be biased towards the government? Given his evasiveness in answering questions, and the track record of the administration which nominated him, I wouldn't extend the benefit of the doubt when it comes to trust. It's too important a position to take it on faith that this time, it's going to be okay.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

28th January 2006, 03:10 PM	#14
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,086	Originally Posted by jj Well, if that's what he thinks, he should consider doing something effective? Such as?
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

28th January 2006, 03:18 PM	#15
Manny Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 3,295	Well, 'becoming president' would have worked nicely.
Manny Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 3,295

28th January 2006, 03:20 PM	#16
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,086	Originally Posted by manny Well, 'becoming president' would have worked nicely. But probably not something he can manage in the time remaining.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

28th January 2006, 04:00 PM	#17
AnotherSillyAlias Vortex of Despair Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Sheep country, Eastern Oz Posts: 1,585	It's interesting to see what's happening politically around the world. I believe there is a sort of pendulum effect and it seems to cover most countries at pretty much the same time. America has made a giant lurch to the right and, unfortunately, religious fundamentalism seems to be on the increase. In Oz we lurched to the right about 10 years ago and they're still in favour although I think I've detected some hopeful signs that the swing could be on the way back. Fortunately religious fundamentalism, although it exists, is not such a problem here. Canada seems to have just recently marched that way as well. I think that, in some years to come, I don't know when exactly, things will swing the other way and left leaning governements will, once again, get the upper hand. [Obligatory Disclaimer: The above are opinions only, not statements of fact.]
	__________________ "It's not that sicence doesn't agree so I ignore it, it's that I know what science knows, but also what is beyond science, so therefore, I also know when it is wrong" - Kilik -

28th January 2006, 04:12 PM	#18
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,795	Doesn't a filibuster work by delaying any actual progress while the talkng drones on, until the end of a session? How long til the end of this session- August? Seems more likely that talking about as filibuster is about all that the dems can do to look pro-active at all to their constituants.
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,795	__________________ Please pardon me for having ideas, not facts. Some have called me cynical, but I don't believe them. It's not how many breaths you take. It's how many times you have been breathless that counts.

28th January 2006, 04:16 PM	#19
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 16,744	Originally Posted by AnotherSillyAlias It's interesting to see what's happening politically around the world. I believe there is a sort of pendulum effect and it seems to cover most countries at pretty much the same time. Economic or political philosophies become fashionable across the (Western) world, but they never work as intended. Disenchantment meets a new, opposing theory which has not yet had a chance to fail and the pendulum swings. It's a good thing, to my mind.
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

28th January 2006, 05:03 PM	#20
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,066	Originally Posted by casebro Doesn't a filibuster work by delaying any actual progress while the talkng drones on, until the end of a session? How long til the end of this session- August? Seems more likely that talking about as filibuster is about all that the dems can do to look pro-active at all to their constituants. There hasn'r been a good old-fashioned filibuster like that in many years. Now they just declare a filibuster and nothing else can happen until they get their 60 votes.

28th January 2006, 05:18 PM	#21
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,199	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey Given his evasiveness in answering questions, and the track record of the administration which nominated him, I wouldn't extend the benefit of the doubt when it comes to trust. It's too important a position to take it on faith that this time, it's going to be okay. Due to the way the Senate operates now, candidates pretty much HAVE to be evasive. And the "track record of the administration" argument would apply to every single candidate they could possibly put forward. And it shouldn't take too much thinking to figure out that an argument which works against basically any candidate Bush might nominate simply isn't going to fly. In terms of his track record on bias towards government, rather than believing special interest groups which can pick out and misrepresent specific cases quite easily, I prefer to rely upon his actual co-workers, namely other judges, lawyers who have presented before him, and clerks who have worked for him. And those have pretty much been unanimously positive, including from democrats.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

28th January 2006, 05:26 PM	#22
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,086	Look, I answered what I think. I'm not telling you what you should think. You want to trust him? Go right ahead. Maybe you don't have to worry about the things he might do. Some of us have to, and do.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

28th January 2006, 06:12 PM	#23
Bob Klase Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Largo, FL Posts: 2,833	Originally Posted by AnotherSillyAlias It's interesting to see what's happening politically around the world. I believe there is a sort of pendulum effect and it seems to cover most countries at pretty much the same time. America has made a giant lurch to the right and, unfortunately, religious fundamentalism seems to be on the increase. In Oz we lurched to the right about 10 years ago and they're still in favour although I think I've detected some hopeful signs that the swing could be on the way back. Fortunately religious fundamentalism, although it exists, is not such a problem here. Canada seems to have just recently marched that way as well. I think that, in some years to come, I don't know when exactly, things will swing the other way and left leaning governements will, once again, get the upper hand. [Obligatory Disclaimer: The above are opinions only, not statements of fact.] I think you're right. When one side/party holds the power they start moving further and further to the extreme. At some point they move far enough that average people, many who never vote (because "both sides are equally bad") realize that both sides are not equally bad anymore and start voting. Then it starts moving back to the center and eventually the other side gets power. Before long they're moving further and further to the other extreme. I see it as a natural check and balance (althought one that doesn't always work).

28th January 2006, 06:49 PM	#24
Jocko Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, Chicago... it's a toddling town. Posts: 5,463	Originally Posted by Mark I am always amused at how outraged Republicans get if the Democrats even try to resist them. That's not outrage, that's hysterical laughter at what democrats call "resistance." I, for one, can't wait for Kerry and Kennedy to throw themselves under the bus. Viva resistance! Although, as far as those two clowns go, I'd rate them at about half an ohm combined.
	__________________ You claimed that a turd is a turd. I clearly demonstrated that some turds are gold. You're wrong, Jocko. KOA proving me "wrong."

29th January 2006, 12:59 PM	#25
NoZed Avenger Bitter Whiner Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11,313	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey What worries some is his track record: he seems to side with the government rather too often. Do you have any specific decisions in mind? I didn't get a chance to review much at the time of the hearings.
	__________________ [This Space Available. PM for Rates.]

29th January 2006, 01:06 PM	#26
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	The thing that swung me to Alito was the panel of current and retired appelete judges that came out for him. There was one black dude that characterized himself as a liberal activist and said that if he had the slightest doubt about Alito he would not be there. Said it a couple of times, much to the chagrin of that drunken, murdering oaf Kennedy. I have no problem with a justice that strictly interprets the Constitution. Maybe our legislators ought to take a course in constitutional law before they start writing laws.
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

29th January 2006, 01:18 PM	#27
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,086	Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger Do you have any specific decisions in mind? I didn't get a chance to review much at the time of the hearings. Interesting reading. http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upl...e130_23216.pdf However, since it's from the ACLU, at least half the people reading this post will reject it automatically, with the majority of those not even clicking on the link to do so.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

29th January 2006, 01:43 PM	#28
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey Interesting reading. http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upl...e130_23216.pdf However, since it's from the ACLU, at least half the people reading this post will reject it automatically, with the majority of those not even clicking on the link to do so. Interesting. I find that the notification rule was discussed at some length during his hearings. If I recall correctly there was a change in the SCOTUS rulings between his decision and the eventual overturn by them. The strip search thing is a lot more complicated than a bullet point lets on. They fail to mention the 3 or 4 other abortion cases where he ruled for the plaintiff.
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

29th January 2006, 02:25 PM	#29
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,086	Some of the immigration decisions seem a bit odd. False tax returns are a deportable offense, but vehicular homicide while DUI isn't? The Iranian woman he admits will be persecuted if deported to Iran and pursues her belief in equality for women, but asylum was denied on the basis that she can simply avoid persecution by complying with oppressive Iranian law. And what's the deal with the decision about that Chinese couple? Marriage is so special that the guy gets treated differently than he would have been had he been married. The constant assumption of "good faith" in the matter of warrants, prison officials, and government agencies is fairly alarming. And the jury selection and job discrimination cases...what's with this attitude that if the defendant can come up with a nondiscriminatory explanation for an action, evidence to that explanation's being a pretext is overruled?
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

30th January 2006, 02:39 PM	#30
NoZed Avenger Bitter Whiner Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11,313	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey Interesting reading. http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upl...e130_23216.pdf However, since it's from the ACLU, at least half the people reading this post will reject it automatically, with the majority of those not even clicking on the link to do so. Thanks -- bookmarked it - read the summary and will have to look at the rest off the clock (still at work). I tlooks like he went for the ACLU's position is some cases, and against it in others. Primarily, their complaint is with his abortion positions (as his record on free speech and exercise of religion is noted as positive). I will look at the cases, but am afamilair with the "strip search" case and their initial summary at least is a bit misleading regarding the actual issue and position. Thanks for the link; I'll try to leave something substantive by tomorrow evening.
	__________________ [This Space Available. PM for Rates.]

30th January 2006, 02:51 PM	#31
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,860	The cloture motion for the Alito nomination just passed 75-25. I suppose at least some of the D's are winners, since those who voted against cloture satisfied their base without the national exposure of filibustering a nominee with a good favorable rating. And yes, Feinstein was bullied.
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

30th January 2006, 02:52 PM	#32
NoZed Avenger Bitter Whiner Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11,313	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey And the jury selection and job discrimination cases...what's with this attitude that if the defendant can come up with a nondiscriminatory explanation for an action, evidence to that explanation's being a pretext is overruled? I can shed some light on that. From memory, there was a fairly significant expansion on the evidence allowed in these cases (for employees) in the early to mid 90's. Older case law set rigid limits on the evidence allowed, and that position was simply the law. Cases started eroding that bright line rule during the period where you see alito's dissent in Glass, for example. so here I would initally guess -- subject to me actually reading the case, which could be helpful -- that his opinion in those cases simply followed what had been the established precedent.
	__________________ [This Space Available. PM for Rates.]

31st January 2006, 08:50 AM	#33
NoZed Avenger Bitter Whiner Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11,313	I spent a while last night looking at a fraction of the opinions. I was only able to look over a few cases and some related authority cited in them - I focused on the abortion question, since a lot of the concern is expressed there, especially about Casey, I am sure. A brief review of the first few cases -- along with a review of Glass to make sure my memory on the employment law question was correct -- makes me think this: I'll admit to only a superficial go through, but it seems to me that in both areas, Alito's decisions are extremely concerned with following SC precedent, as opposed to expanding on earlier decisions. In fact, his reliance on precedent and the strict adherence to it means, IMO, that the decisions being looked at actually tell us very little about his actual ideology. Perhaps I am engaging in too much pattern-seeking here (but then again, perhaps the ACLU is doing the same). I don't see anything that causes me to think that we are on the verge of "returning to the 19th Century" (to paraphrase Senator Kennedy) or rolling back civil rights -- especially given what I view as expansive decisions on personal expression. The ACLU was on the opposite side on several of the decision that they cite, but disagreement with the ACLU does not automatically make me suspicious. In 1976, it would have, but not in the last 10-15 years. I'll try and look more over the next couple of days.

31st January 2006, 10:40 AM	#34
Lurker Illuminator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 4,187	Originally Posted by Vagabond Even granting they put Alito out he would just nominate somebody else just as bad or worse. See, that is why I was supporting Meirs 100%. I figured it was the best we liberals could hope for from Bush and I was right. Alito is worse (IMO) than Meirs. I wished the Dems had tried to rush her confirmation. Lurker
Lurker Illuminator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 4,187

31st January 2006, 10:44 AM	#35
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,086	Originally Posted by Lurker See, that is why I was supporting Meirs 100%. I figured it was the best we liberals could hope for from Bush and I was right. Alito is worse (IMO) than Meirs. I wished the Dems had tried to rush her confirmation. Do buy into the theory that she was never a serious nominee, but was meant to draw the fire? That her lack of qualifications was meant to make Alito's qualifications look even better? I thought that sounded awfully conspiracy-ey at first, but now, I'm not so sure. It does seem decidedly odd that Bush would bother with Meirs when he could have just nominated Alito to start with. (PS: Is that how she spells her name? She's faded from the news so quickly that I've forgotten! It looks wrong to me for some reason.)
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.