ANCFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:42 pm

Didn't take long to find another nominee . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/31/scotus.bush/index.html





And following the lead of some other A-Netters . . .

These make no gawddamn sense at all . . . .


Will & Grace, Worst Sitcom Ever? by Bofredrik 2005-10-28 20:19:33
New Year In Rio De Janeiro: Who Will Be There? by Hardiwv 2005-10-13 16:38:51
Hallowennie....Is Almost Here...What Will You Be? by Vaporlock 2005-10-14 03:15:43

[Edited 2005-10-31 13:42:52]
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
CPH-R
Posts: 6064
Joined: Thu May 03, 2001 5:19 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:52 pm

Oh, this should be fun Big grin
 
MidnightMike
Posts: 2810
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:07 am

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:58 pm

Quote:
Legal experts consider the 55-year-old Alito so ideologically similar to Justice Antonin Scalia that he has earned the nickname "Scalito."

Amazing how CNN gets away with this crap, his nickname is actually, Scalito-Lite and he earned that nickname because he is considered a liberal-Scalito, don't get me wrong, he will still lean toward conservative issues, but, not at conservative as the news piece would have you believe.
NO URLS in signature
 
rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:15 am

Sounds good from what I've read so far....In terms of credentials anyway.

[Edited 2005-10-31 16:22:19]
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:20 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Thread starter):
These make no gawddamn sense at all . . .

 checkmark  yes 
Crye me a river
 
MidnightMike
Posts: 2810
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:07 am

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:20 am

Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 2):
Quote:
Legal experts consider the 55-year-old Alito so ideologically similar to Justice Antonin Scalia that he has earned the nickname "Scalito."

Amazing how CNN gets away with this crap, his nickname is actually, Scalito-Lite and he earned that nickname because he is considered a liberal-Scalito, don't get me wrong, he will still lean toward conservative issues, but, not at conservative as the news piece would have you believe.

Boy did I jump the gun here, I misread the "Scalito" part, shame on me, what an arse I am...
NO URLS in signature
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:22 am

Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 2):
Amazing how CNN gets away with this crap, his nickname is actually, Scalito-Lite and he earned that nickname because he is considered a liberal-Scalito

Really, Mike? Here's the current front of http://www.foxnews.com

You notice on the headline of the story: "Senate Democrats already coming out against experienced judge nicknamed 'Scalito' for similarities to Justice Scalia; GOP solid in praise for nominee."

So don't turn it into a typical conservative CNN hate-fest. Fox said the same thing.

So, Bush's real nominee is a white, conservative male? Gee, how shocking. And if he's anywhere Scalia, he should be denied a post on the bench. Once again, Bush makes a choice only for a small portion of the U.S., not one that represents a majority of Americans.

Bush The Divider shows up again.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:29 am

This looks like it could go two ways.

Either he'll get a bumpy but eventually successful confirmation, or there could even be another Miers type fracture in the Republican ranks. The howling extreme right might want to further flex their muscle and push for someone who is even further down the happy road.

Either way the endgame is nowhere in plain sight, as always happens when Turd Blossom is scripting the show. The pressure is now on the Democrats to fall into a pattern of passive resistance or have a really rabid third candidate shoved into the fray, as the current extreme wing of the Republicans will not accept any form of compromise. The new nominee could go through on a 'lesser of two evils' ticket.

The hearings should be interesting.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:39 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 6):
Bush The Divider shows up again.

Common man, even you must see the set up here...
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:48 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 6):
Once again, Bush makes a choice only for a small portion of the U.S., not one that represents a majority of Americans.

Last time I checked, white men are pretty popular in the U.S. and don't always follow the stereotype of only being concerned with themselves.  bigthumbsup 
Crye me a river
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:49 am

Alito isn't all that scary. And his opinions - even the very conservative ones - are a damned sight better and gracefully written than the rubbish that Scalia writes and that Cons. trot out as the zenith of judicial thought (more revisionist piffle, but I digress).

Yet, it appears that his nomination went through only after the Concerned Women of America (more like the Conservative Witches of America) blessed the nomination.

That having been said, his views in Casey will create a firestorm. He was the sole justice who believed that a spousal notification requirement be maintained in the Pennsylvania Abortion laws, EVEN if the wife had been a victim of spousal abuse.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
MidnightMike
Posts: 2810
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:07 am

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:53 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 6):
Really, Mike? Here's the current front of http://www.foxnews.com

Falcon

You are tooo late, I already attacked myself, HA!  Smile
NO URLS in signature
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:57 am

Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 11):
Falcon

You are tooo late, I already attacked myself, HA!

You did, didn't you.

Not used to looking for someone attacking THEMSELVES.

You're off the hook, then.  Wink
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
TPASXM787
Posts: 1667
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:31 am

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:59 am

From what I read he has a good bit of judiciary expereince, a big step up from Miers. The hearings should be interesting though I think that he will make it through. I hope he does as I think the next nominee will have drank even more kool-aid.
This is the Last Stop.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:00 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 6):
So, Bush's real nominee is a white, conservative male? Gee, how shocking. And if he's anywhere Scalia, he should be denied a post on the bench. Once again, Bush makes a choice only for a small portion of the U.S., not one that represents a majority of Americans.

Bush The Divider shows up again.

This is what happens when you win an election, Falcon - you get to nominate people to the bench. Republicans usuall nominate conservatives, and Democrats usually nominate liberals. No big surprise there. While I would have liked to have seen Bush nominate a woman or a minority, in the end, what I care about most is that the nominee has the requisite experience and intellect to sit on the Supreme Court. Alito has already been confirmed for the Appellate Court, and unless there is something in his judicial record that suggests he is unfit for the Court, he should be confirmed.

We are likely going to have a democrat in the White House in 2009. Supreme Court justices are going to leave the Court, and that President will be able to nominate liberal jurists to fill those vacancies. What's the big deal?

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 7):
Either he'll get a bumpy but eventually successful confirmation, or there could even be another Miers type fracture in the Republican ranks. The howling extreme right might want to further flex their muscle and push for someone who is even further down the happy road.

It will be hard to fracture the republican party on this one. Alito isn't the most conservative choice Bush could have made, and Bush supposedly vetted Alito with the critics of Miers. I believe Alito was appointed to the Appeals Court by Bush 41 - making it hard for republicans to break ranks when the democrats threaten filibuster. And with regard to the latter, if Frist holds his ranks together, the democrats have a choice - filibuster the nomination and risk the republicans overriding the filibuster. Which they can do.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15455
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:04 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 6):
So, Bush's real nominee is a white, conservative male? Gee, how shocking.

Because we all know that Bush, who has more minorities in his cabinet than just about anyone ever, hates minorities  Yeah sure.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:22 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 15):
se we all know that Bush, who has more minorities in his cabinet than just about anyone ever, hates minorities

And unlike his predecessors, Bush puts minorities and women in charge of the heavyweight cabinet posts like State, Justice, and Treasury. Not HUD, Transportation, or HHS, like his predecessors largely did.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:23 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 14):
Alito isn't the most conservative choice Bush could have made, and Bush supposedly vetted Alito with the critics of Miers. I believe Alito was appointed to the Appeals Court by Bush 41 - making it hard for republicans to break ranks when the democrats threaten filibuster. And with regard to the latter, if Frist holds his ranks together, the democrats have a choice - filibuster the nomination and risk the republicans overriding the filibuster. Which they can do.

Alito was nominated by Bush 41, but this was before Alito became the sole dissenter in Planned Parenthood v Casey, in which he upheld the spousal consent provision (a rather broad provision that would have demanded that women, irrespective of spousal battery, separation, etc., notify their husbands of their intent to have an abortion). The Supreme Court knocked off this provision, in which they reviewed briefs that stated that 90% of all married women in PA made abortion decisions with their spouses, and that a majority of those who didn't did so because of fears of extreme spousal recrimination. Thus, the Supremes (as well as the Appellate court) found this requirement too burdensome.

There are at least 4 Republican Senators who will find Alito's Casey decision troubling - Snowe, Collins, Chaffee, Specter - may not vote to confirm him, or in the absence of that, they will certainly refrain from approving an end of the filibuster.

If Frist (who has his own problems) threatens to overthrow the filibuster, he will be basically hanging the GOP on this issue.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15455
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:23 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 16):
Bush puts minorities and women in charge of the heavyweight cabinet posts

Amen. I wonder what Falcon would say if he nominated Clarence Thomas part deux?
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
TPASXM787
Posts: 1667
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:31 am

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:31 am

I agree with the above. To state that this is a nomination because he's a white male is ludicrous...but Bush doesn't like black people and he blew up the levee in NO remember?
This is the Last Stop.
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:43 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 16):
And unlike his predecessors, Bush puts minorities and women in charge of the heavyweight cabinet posts like State, Justice, and Treasury. Not HUD, Transportation, or HHS, like his predecessors largely did.

As usual your understanding of which agencies are important is in the toilet, as are your facts.

Your crappy facts corrected
Madeleine Albright - Secretary of State under CLinton (FEMALE).
Janet Reno - Attorney General (FEMALE (we think  Smile)
John Snow and Paul O'Neill - Secretary of Treasury under GWB (both white males, and definitely not women or racial minorities).

Your crappy understanding of US Agencies corrected
HHS - the single most powerful domestic Agency in the United States controlling nearly 75% of all domestic products - human drugs and all foods for example. HHS never was, and is not, considered to be a "minor" agency, like DOT, for instance.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:48 am

Quoting TPASXM787 (Reply 19):
To state that this is a nomination because he's a white male is ludicrous

I agree.
This nomination has nothing to do with the fact that Alito is a white male. If GWB and his ultra-con minions had their way, we would be seeing Janice Rodgers Brown as the nominee. The last time I checked, Justice Brown was neither white, nor male.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
stlgph
Posts: 9176
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:19 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:08 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 16):
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 15):
se we all know that Bush, who has more minorities in his cabinet than just about anyone ever, hates minorities

And unlike his predecessors, Bush puts minorities and women in charge of the heavyweight cabinet posts like State, Justice, and Treasury. Not HUD, Transportation, or HHS, like his predecessors largely did.

you all forget they are just secretaries.
if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:10 am

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 20):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 16):
And unlike his predecessors, Bush puts minorities and women in charge of the heavyweight cabinet posts like State, Justice, and Treasury. Not HUD, Transportation, or HHS, like his predecessors largely did.

As usual your understanding of which agencies are important is in the toilet, as are your facts.

Ah, just as I expected - Liberal spin. When it comes to issues of health, transportation, and housing, those cabinet agencies are indeed important. But when it comes to national defense, security, and finance issues, HHS, Transportation and HUD don't have much - if any - impact. And last time I checked the order of succession, I didn't see HUD, HHS, or Transportation near the top. By contrast, when the newly post of DHS Secretary was created, I do believe it was placed well above older Cabinet posts in that order.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 20):
Your crappy facts corrected
Madeleine Albright - Secretary of State under CLinton (FEMALE).
Janet Reno - Attorney General (FEMALE (we think )
John Snow and Paul O'Neill - Secretary of Treasury under GWB (both white males, and definitely not women or racial minorities).

Where did I say Bush's predecessor NEVER appointed minorities and females to the more prestigious posts? I think it is YOU that needs to get your facts straight.

But since you want to talk numbers, let's. Clinton - one white woman - Albright - to State. No minorities. Bush - one black male, and one black female. Treasury - I do believe the current Secretary of the Treasury is a Hispanic male, and I don't remember Clinton appointing anyone other than a white male to that post. Justice - first Hispanic Attorney General. Yes, Clinton appointed a woman (what's with the snide comment about her sexuality - did you have a problem with it?) - a woman that was largely outside the Clinton inner circle the entire time she was in office.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 20):
HHS - the single most powerful domestic Agency in the United States controlling nearly 75% of all domestic products - human drugs and all foods for example. HHS never was, and is not, considered to be a "minor" agency, like DOT, for instance.

 rotfl  This has to be one of the funniest things I've read on this board in a long time. Yes, HHS has an incredible impact on health and food issues. However, when they tangle with State on foreign policy issues relating to health, or Justice on legal issues relating to health, they invariably lose. I know, because I've been on the "winning" side of several of those internal debates.  biggrin 
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:20 am

Such a shame, it could've been Janice Rogers Brown.

Oh wait, she actually knows and follows the Constitution, unlike this administration.
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:34 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 23):
I think it is YOU that needs to get your facts straight.

Cut the crap and your spin and get your own facts straight. Lawyers who lie about facts usually get FIRED from their posts. Lawyers who lie and then lie about their lies, even if their prior statements say otherwise, usually go persona non grata.

THis is what you said:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 16):
And unlike his predecessors, Bush puts minorities and women in charge of the heavyweight cabinet posts like State, Justice, and Treasury. Not HUD, Transportation, or HHS, like his predecessors largely did.


Your facts are BS.

1. GWB never nominated a sexual/racial minority to head treasury.

2. GWB's predecessor (Clinton) nominated women to head State and Justice contrary to what you state.

Don't try and pass off your BS to gullible members of this forum, because there are plenty of us on here who can expose charlatans.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 23):
But since you want to talk numbers, let's. Clinton - one white woman - Albright - to State. No minorities. Bush - one black male, and one black female.

I'm not talking numbers, and never did.
GWB wins in the numbers game, hands down, because numbers don't lie.
I'm just telling you that your statements in Post # 16 are bogus.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 23):
However, when they tangle with State on foreign policy issues relating to health, or Justice on legal issues relating to health, they invariably lose.

Your statement here once again exposes your nonsense for what it is. The issues on which HHS has tangled with Defense or the DOJ have precious little do do with who is who in the pecking order, rather than what the issues are, and who is the occupant of the White House.

[Edited 2005-10-31 18:36:03]
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
Thumper3181
Posts: 240
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 1:50 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:55 am

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 26):
Lawyers who lie about facts usually get FIRED from their posts.

And Lawyers who twist the facts are successful and rich. Lets face generally speaking lawyers come in somwhere between used car salesman and The New York Times when it comes to sleeze.

The fact is it does not matter whether he nominates a white male or a purple martian. The liberals where going to scream bloody murder either way unless the nominee happened to be a Ruth Bader Ginsberg clone.

Let Alito be judged on whether he is qualified for the job. Not by his skin color or his ideology. The democrats lost the election. That was the time for Americans to decide if they wanted a President who would nominate constructionists or not.
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:57 am

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 26):
1. GWB never nominated a sexual/racial minority to head treasury.

Not to split hairs but aren't men technically in the minority in the US. I thought out demographics gave women as slight edge in population. Therefore, a "sexual minority" would be a male nominee.  Wink

That being said, Jay's point is well taken.

========

Now, I'm of the opinion that the real shift in the court will come through a reinterpretation of the commerce clause. Abortion gets a lot of press because of the political attention both sides pay to it, but if you really wanted to see a fundamental shift in how government affects the lives of everyday Americans, think of what the US would look like if 90% of the Congressional legislation that was enacted suddenly became unconstitutional due to a reinterpretation of the commerce clause.

Though I'm sure many of you already know this, I'm also sure many of you don't know that Congress has to find a specific grant of power within the constitution in order to enact a law. Specific grants include (among other things) the power to create a postal system, to raise an army, to coin money and to regulate interstate commerce.

Throughout the later half of the 20th century, the court has gone along with an ever expanding interpretation of what "interstate commerce" means. At one point it was held that a farmer in the Midwest who grew corn for his own consumption was subject to regulation under Congress's interstate commerce powers because the corn he grew meant that he wouldn't be buying corn from someone else and the aggregate effect of this would be to affect the interstate movement of goods. Most of these commerce clause decisions are also 5-4 so any sort of movement on this issue could substantially invalidate much of Congress's power.

You might be surprised to learn that much of the anti-discrimination legislation passed by Congress finds its only support under the commerce clause.

While everyone is focused on abortion, I think that there's a very real possibility that we could see a tremendous shift in the court and the role of the federal government in our daily lives.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:58 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 14):
It will be hard to fracture the republican party on this one. Alito isn't the most conservative choice Bush could have made, and Bush supposedly vetted Alito with the critics of Miers. I believe Alito was appointed to the Appeals Court by Bush 41 - making it hard for republicans to break ranks when the democrats threaten filibuster. And with regard to the latter, if Frist holds his ranks together, the democrats have a choice - filibuster the nomination and risk the republicans overriding the filibuster. Which they can do.

I don't think you have managed to grasp the point I was putting up for discussion.

Miers fractured the Republican front. There is every possibility that the same fracture could appear if sufficient numbers of extremists decide they want a prime wingnut on the bench. However this looks like it could be a power play with the candidate chosen being offered as a one-size-fits-all option, and the threat hanging over Congress of a more extreme political candidate being the third pick due to that pressure.

I'm looking for strategy here and that stands out. Turning the hard right on the Democrats is one way to get a conservative confirmed. Nobody wants to get into the filibuster situation and the much-vaunted 'nuclear option' as that is a denial of democracy which no party wants to have levelled at it. Using a more direct approach and applying the wingnut lever to Democrats is a subtle but smart move.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15455
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:03 am

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 26):
Lawyers who lie and then lie about their lies, even if their prior statements say otherwise, usually go persona non grata.

And then there are lawyers like Jaysit, that just spend 22 hours a day on airliners.net  rotfl 
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:07 am

CBS REPORTER TO WHITE HOUSE: ALITO 'SLOPPY SECONDS?'
Mon Oct 31 2005 11:26:56 ET

CBSNEWS Chief White House correspondent John Roberts described the President’s selection of Judge Samuel Alito as “sloppy seconds” during today’s press gaggle with White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.

John Roberts: “So, Scott, you said that -- or the President said, repeatedly, that Harriet Miers was the best person for the job. So does that mean that Alito is sloppy seconds, or what?”

Scott McClellan: “Not at all, John.”

Sloppy seconds” is described in the United Kingdom’s A Dictionary of Slang as:

Noun: “A subsequent indulgence in an activity by a second person involving an exchange of bodily fluids. This may involve the sharing of drink, or more often it applies to a sexual nature. E.g. ‘I’m not having sloppy seconds, I want to shag her first.’”

Developing...

Hillarious! Big grin
I'll find the link.
Bring back the Concorde
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:12 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 28):
You might be surprised to learn that much of the anti-discrimination legislation passed by Congress finds its only support under the commerce clause.

Yes, but it is unlikely that a court more conservative than the existing one will defy stare decisis and overthrow some of the landmark cases. The current court has cut back some of the power of the commerce clause anyways, leaving only the few landmark cases. A justice like Alito is unlikely to toss out commerce clause applications.

The only real red flag with respect to Alito - as I see it - is the spousal consent dissent in Casey. Yes, he has given other meat to the Dems to be concerned about, but those decisions are more tempered, and fall firmly within the realm of conservative jurisprudence. His Casey dissent, however, can provide enough grist to keep this nomination stalled for quite awhile.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:18 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 29):
And then there are lawyers like Jaysit, that just spend 22 hours a day on airliners.net

Oh look !

Mona's stalking me once again.

And getting her numbers wrong. Poor Mona. Mona has problems with numbers. She thinks that her 3 inches are 8 inches.

Poor, poor Mona.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12498
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:31 am

Alito was chosen as to opinions he has written (including dissinting ones) on a number of criteria - here is the checklist
 checkmark  Opposition to liberal access to abortion
 checkmark  Against the rights of employees
 checkmark  Against certain anti-business enviromental laws
 checkmark  Against personal legal and privacy rights

While Alito is very qualified in a technical way (on the 3rd Cir. Ct. of Appeals) and a well established legal career before then, he will be deeply opposed by the real people - not the richest 10% types - for his beliefs expressed in his opinions that hurt the majority of Americans.
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:34 am

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 31):
A justice like Alito is unlikely to toss out commerce clause applications.

I don't think one judge will be enough, but I think that Alito & Roberts together along with a reinvigorated Scalia could from a good base to shift the court's thinking.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
GuitrThree
Posts: 1940
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:54 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:34 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 6):
So, Bush's real nominee is a white, conservative male? Gee, how shocking. And if he's anywhere Scalia, he should be denied a post on the bench. Once again, Bush makes a choice only for a small portion of the U.S., not one that represents a majority of Americans.

Bush The Divider shows up again.

Help me out here Falcon. Bush wins the election by over 4 million votes, and he appoints someone who represents, as you say, "only a small portion of the U.S.," and that's not right. Candidate should be denied.

While Clinton, who also won the Presidency, rightly so, nominated Ginsburg. Yes, the Ginsburg that said prostitution should be legal, women and men should have to spend time together in the same jail cells, voted in 1996 to limit the scope of death penalties involving Anti-Terrorism [Ramdass v. Angelone], voted to oppose lengthening of prison sentences no matter how dangerous the criminal [Garner v. Jones], and restricted the rights of police officers to apply "probable cause" searches of a suspect that flees [Illinois v Wardlow], among other criminal friendly ACLU leaning cases.

So, are you saying that Bush doesn't have the right to nominate a conservative but Clinton had the right to nominate a liberal? Or is it that you simply believe in the things Ginsburg does, and think that the "vast majority" of Amercia believes in extreme rights for criminals also. Hum. Help me out here...

[Edited 2005-10-31 19:37:04]
As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:37 am

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 25):
1. GWB never nominated a sexual/racial minority to head treasury.

Oops, my bad - I was thinking of the Secretary of Commerce - who is a Hispanic, I believe.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 25):
2. GWB's predecessor (Clinton) nominated women to head State and Justice contrary to what you state.

Where did I say "Clinton never nominated women to head State and Justice?" Answer - I didn't. Since you apparently didn't read what I said, let's take a look to see how I supposedly made the statement you now attribute to me.

"And unlike his predecessors, Bush puts minorities and women in charge of the heavyweight cabinet posts like State, Justice, and Treasury. Not HUD, Transportation, or HHS, like his predecessors largely did."

Hmm - anyone see an explicit reference to Bill Clinton here? I certainly don't. And I do believe I said predecessors - plural, just in case you missed it. I also said these predecessors "largely" appointed women and minorities to the aforementioned second tier cabinet posts. How can you fairly construe this to be a claim that they have never appointed women and minorities to the first tier posts?

I'm also curious about your non-explanation for taking a pot shot at Janet Reno. What does her sexual preference have to do with anything we've been talking about? Or do you think making gratutious and irrelevant personal comments about someone makes you look more intelligent?

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 25):
Your statement here once again exposes your nonsense for what it is. The issues on which HHS has tangled with Defense or the DOJ have precious little do do with who is who in the pecking order, rather than what the issues are, and who is the occupant of the White House.

I never said the issues on which HHS and other tangle have anything to do with each agency's position in the order of succession. Here is what I said in that regard.

"This has to be one of the funniest things I've read on this board in a long time. Yes, HHS has an incredible impact on health and food issues. However, when they tangle with State on foreign policy issues relating to health, or Justice on legal issues relating to health, they invariably lose. I know, because I've been on the "winning" side of several of those internal debates."

I don't see anything here that would suggest the conclusion you've reached.

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 28):
Miers fractured the Republican front. There is every possibility that the same fracture could appear if sufficient numbers of extremists decide they want a prime wingnut on the bench. However this looks like it could be a power play with the candidate chosen being offered as a one-size-fits-all option, and the threat hanging over Congress of a more extreme political candidate being the third pick due to that pressure.

Your scenario is indeed possible. But the reason the extreme right was able to derail the Miers nomination is that mainstream Republicans had to hold their nose to support her, and with the current choice, I suspect the mainstream republicans will tell the right wing to go stuff themselves if they try to go for a third candidate.

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 28):
Nobody wants to get into the filibuster situation and the much-vaunted 'nuclear option' as that is a denial of democracy which no party wants to have leveled at it. Using a more direct approach and applying the wingnut lever to Democrats is a subtle but smart move.

Agree with you here. The democrats will lose the current battle should they filibuster, but it would be a defeat for both parties in the long run.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:47 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 36):
Where did I say "Clinton never nominated women to head State and Justice?" Answer - I didn't. Since you apparently didn't read what I said, let's take a look to see how I supposedly made the statement you now attribute to me

That wasn't what you were called on.

You were called on your incorrect statement.

You stated this statement up on reply 16, that has not "supposedly been attributed to you," but is yours for all to see.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 16):
And unlike his predecessors, Bush puts minorities and women in charge of the heavyweight cabinet posts like State, Justice, and Treasury. Not HUD, Transportation, or HHS, like his predecessors largely did

Clinton is a Bush predecessor, he put women in charge of "heavyweight positions like State and Justice." Bush did not put a woman in charge of the treasury, but put woman and racial minorities in charge of Justice and State.

You were factually incorrect. I called you on it. In the future, check your facts.

End of story.

Now lets get back to the Alito discussion.

I think we all agree that GWB does not racially discriminate against minorities and women.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:36 am

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 37):
That wasn't what you were called on.

You are correct. But your response suggested that I was comparing Bush's record to only Clinton's, and that is simply NOT the case.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 37):
You were factually incorrect. I called you on it. In the future, check your facts.

You keep stating that my facts were not correct. Since I never said Bush's predecessors ONLY appointed women and minorities to second tier positions, how were my "facts" wrong?

However, I can see why you want to drop this particular discussion. After all, once you've slurred a decent public servant - with no explanation for why it was a relevant comment - it's no wonder you want to get back to Alito.

[Edited 2005-10-31 20:40:04]
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15455
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:23 am

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 32):
She thinks that her 3 inches are 8 inches.

Um ok there chief  Silly! The fact still remains that you're a "lawyer" and you're constantly in the top 10 posters here. I'd tell you to get a life but...well...what's the point. We know you're not capable.

[Edited 2005-10-31 21:34:08]
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:30 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 30):
John Roberts: “So, Scott, you said that -- or the President said, repeatedly, that Harriet Miers was the best person for the job. So does that mean that Alito is sloppy seconds, or what?”

I would pull the guy's White House Press Corps pass for that. How disgustingly disrespectful...

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 33):
Alito was chosen as to opinions he has written (including dissinting ones) on a number of criteria - here is the checklist
Opposition to liberal access to abortion
Against the rights of employees
Against certain anti-business enviromental laws
Against personal legal and privacy rights

Spin any faster, and you will achieve liftoff!
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
B744F
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:52 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:48 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 15):
Because we all know that Bush, who has more minorities in his cabinet than just about anyone ever, hates minorities

Cool, lets just make up stuff!!

Condy was appointed because she has an oil tanker named after her and is a friend in the corporate oil world. We all saw how well Powell worked out, he was another old friend of the right wing though who got disgusted with their policies that you still blindly support

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 35):
Help me out here Falcon. Bush wins the election by over 4 million votes, and he appoints someone who represents, as you say, "only a small portion of the U.S.," and that's not right. Candidate should be denied.

We are talking about the first election. The second one, wow, Bush got the slim majority of about half of the half of the eligible voters

[Edited 2005-10-31 21:50:17]
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:57 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 38):
You are correct. But your response suggested that I was comparing Bush's record to only Clinton's, and that is simply NOT the case.

Cut the crap.
I just called you on an incorrect statement, and corrected you by providing you the only example of where one of GWB's predecessors appointed women to head State and Justice. And my response didn't need to suggest anything. It just showed that your comment was incorrect.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 38):
You keep stating that my facts were not correct. Since I never said Bush's predecessors ONLY appointed women and minorities to second tier positions, how were my "facts" wrong?

"And unlike his predecessors, Bush puts minorities and women in charge of the heavyweight cabinet posts like State, Justice, and Treasury."

THere you go. 2 lies in one sentence. Hallelujah.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 39):
The fact still remains that you're a "lawyer" and you're constantly in the top 10 posters here

Thank you for bringing the latter "fact" to my attention, Mona. You make a great stalker. I also love how you bend over and relish how my posts screw you over. After all, you keep coming back for more.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 38):
However, I can see why you want to drop this particular discussion. After all, once you've slurred a decent public servant - with no explanation for why it was a relevant comment - it's no wonder you want to get back to Alito.

Spare me the pathos.
This thread is about Alito, not your foolish defense of your incorrect statements.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:12 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 40):
I would pull the guy's White House Press Corps pass for that. How disgustingly disrespectful...

You'd support the wholescale clamp down of freedom of the press if it shows your blessed Boy King to be the dimwitted liar he is. Alas, we still have freedom of the press.

Maybe GWB shouldn't have gone around making the comment that Miers was the most qualified person for the job, especially since it was obvious that there were thousands more qualified than she was.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 35):
Bush wins the election by over 4 million votes, and he appoints someone who represents, as you say, "only a small portion of the U.S.,"

Spin those stats, baby. Let's look at this in perspective. Bush toom 51% of the vote. He won by over 3 million votes, because we had the highest number of voters turning out for a presidential election in our history.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 35):
Yes, the Ginsburg that said prostitution should be legal, women and men should have to spend time together in the same jail cells, voted in 1996 to limit the scope of death penalties involving Anti-Terrorism [Ramdass v. Angelone], voted to oppose lengthening of prison sentences no matter how dangerous the criminal [Garner v. Jones], and restricted the rights of police officers to apply "probable cause" searches of a suspect that flees [Illinois v Wardlow], among other criminal friendly ACLU leaning cases.

Spare me the crap.
Just to rebut your very first allegation, Ginsburg said no such thing, contrary to what Manuel Miranda has been trotting out in the WSJ. She made an academic point in a journal in which she was stating that "some [in the US] have made the argument that prostitution should be legal as is done in many European countries," but she did not advocate it.
Don't go around quoting secondary sources such as Miranda who have been widely discredited.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15455
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:20 am

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 42):
You make a great stalker.

I don't stalk people with STDs. Sorry. Maybe if you didn't take that last trip to the bath house I'd be interested. You're still a valid human being though. No you're not I'm just kidding, you're an abominable succubus. But don't mind me, I don't want to interrupt your "legal work". And by that I mean screaming like a child to anyone and everyone on airliners.net.  rotfl 

[Edited 2005-10-31 22:22:44]
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:20 am

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 43):
You'd support the wholescale clamp down of freedom of the press if it shows your blessed Boy King to be the dimwitted liar he is. Alas, we still have freedom of the press.

Bull. If you will recall, I was among the first to say that Miers should be rejected.

The White House Press Corps is on the front lines in one of the most important news sources in the world. News agencies should be sending experienced reporters who know how to behave. You may not like the president, but you have to respect the office and those around it. The "sloppy seconds" comment was crass and out of place.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:32 am

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 42):
Cut the crap.
I just called you on an incorrect statement, and corrected you by providing you the only example of where one of GWB's predecessors appointed women to head State and Justice. And my response didn't need to suggest anything. It just showed that your comment was incorrect

In my original post, I did not single out Clinton by name, and your response which included Clinton could certainly be read to suggest I was comparing Bush to Clinton. Which I wasn't.

You have an interesting preoccupation with scatological references.


Quoting Jaysit (Reply 42):
"And unlike his predecessors, Bush puts minorities and women in charge of the heavyweight cabinet posts like State, Justice, and Treasury."

THere you go. 2 lies in one sentence. Hallelujah.

No. You keeping missing the very important and relevant qualifier I used in my original post - "largely." Which I specifically inserted in reflection of the fact that Bush's predecessors also appointed some women and minorities to first tier positions.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 42):
Spare me the pathos.
This thread is about Alito, not your foolish defense of your incorrect statements.

No pathos intended. Just curious about how in a thread about Alito, you thought it relevant to smear Janet Reno.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 43):
Let's look at this in perspective. Bush toom 51% of the vote. He won by over 3 million votes, because we had the highest number of voters turning out for a presidential election in our history.

It matters not what Bush's margin of victory was. He is the President, and gets to nominate people to fill Supreme Court vacancies. I don't recall reading anything in the Constitution about appointing justices based on the margin of victory in a Presidential election.

Why the left is so wrapped around the axle on this is a real puzzle. There is going to be a democratic president someday, and he or she will appoint liberal candidates to the bench. Does the left really want to be making an argument that may very well come back and bite them in the ass?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15455
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:33 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 46):
You have an interesting preoccupation with scatological references.

No surprises there  Silly
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:54 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 46):
In my original post, I did not single out Clinton by name, and your response which included Clinton could certainly be read to suggest I was comparing Bush to Clinton. Which I wasn't.

Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.

Given that Clinton was the only predecessor of GWB who actually appointed women to State and Justice, your defense is a poor one.

Its just more scat, and not of the shoobie doo doop doop variety.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 46):
It matters not what Bush's margin of victory was. He is the President, and gets to nominate people to fill Supreme Court vacancies. I don't recall reading anything in the Constitution about appointing justices based on the margin of victory in a Presidential election.

It doesn't.
I just pointed out a fact. Another person brought up the margin of victory argument.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 46):
Just curious about how in a thread about Alito, you thought it relevant to smear Janet Reno.

Smear? She's a mannish lookin' gal.
My off-color comment never implicated her sexuality. You did.
You also seem to see that as a smear. As a gay man, I don't consider being a lesbian (assuming that Reno even is one) to be anything to be ashamed of. Perhaps, you do.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 46):
No. You keeping missing the very important and relevant qualifier I used in my original post - "largely."

Then you should have qualified that in the first sentence. You did not. You said:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 16):
And unlike his predecessors, Bush puts minorities and women in charge of the heavyweight cabinet posts like State, Justice, and Treasury. Not HUD, Transportation, or HHS, like his predecessors largely did.

Your comments as read together are: a. None of Bush's predecessors appointed a woman/minority to State, Justice, or the Treasury; and b. His predecessors - who never appointed women/minorities to the aforementioned high profile agencies as stated in phrase (a) - largely appointed them to HUD, transportation or HHS (since there are othe agencies other than the aforementioned ones).

I'm quite well versed in lobbying tricks. So, forgive me for not being impressed.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: Bush Will Nominate Samuel Alito

Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:44 am

Dear moderators: No.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Calder, GrahamHill, Tugger and 18 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos