Judge Alito Victorious in Judiciary Committee

[Starbuck1975]

ya but the difference is that the republicans are selling their souls to big buisiness.

The Democratic Party takes in as much if not more from corporate donors...Republicans make up the brunt of their campaign revenues from private donors.

All politicians have sold their souls to their respective special interests.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Genx87


Oh in your world we are taking the court from the far left then lmao.
You people and your extremes.

No, it just right of center and going further to the right in a few weeks (when do they vote?). The court hasn't been left in a long time. Not that what you said even makes sense of follows from anything I said. Think more, type slower.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Genx87


Oh in your world we are taking the court from the far left then lmao.
You people and your extremes.

No, it just right of center and going further to the right in a few weeks (when do they vote?). The court hasn't been left in a long time. Not that what you said even makes sense of follows from anything I said. Think more, type slower.

Let me get this straight, the court voted 5-4 in favor before and it is right of center, when it votes 5-4 against similar things it is far right.

nice rhetoric

/clap

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Is anyone in this forum even aware that this is the FIRST TIME that a Supreme Court Confirmation Vote
went ENTIRELY by Party Lines ?

In each and every vote in the past, throughout our nations history, at least one member of a party broke ranks
and either voted for or voted against a candidate - there's NEVER been a Lockstep Vote before.

I am so dissapointed in the Senate and their lack of open thinking, especially the GOP and it's ham-handed
'every vote for the party' mentality - they are discarding the good of society just to have their way.
This 'Power of the Mass-Block' will backfire on them big time, and they're going to regret what they did . . .
paybacks are hell - they're gonna suffer.

That's nothing new. And you don't even have to look that far back in history to find a Dem example of that. Daschle ran the Dems in the senate with an iron fist. During the judicial confirmation fiasco a few years ago it was well documented that there were Dems who, if not for Daschle's pressure, would have happily broke rank with their party to confirm Dubbya's judges rather than march in lock-step with the filibusters. Talk about a lack of open thinking.

There is no hero party here. In my view they are both wrong. Congress has turned into a great big power grab/penis measuring contest. Neither side seems interested in working for the the American public anymore. A few senators have given up on the idea of working for the country and focused on working for their constituants (Uncle Ted comes to mind) but other than that...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Don't be naive and repeat talking points. A 15 year old Court of Appeals recommendation does not mean he gets a pass for a much more important appointment. They don't need a specific talking point reason to vote against him, they find he is much more to the right of O'Connor and that in itself will move the court to the right. They have no reason to support that kind of shift. He also has a history of being pro-corporation, anti-abortion, pro-executive power, etc. What good reason is there for a liberal to vote for him?

Stating a fact is equivalent to repeating talking points, huh? Genius.

If he's so dangerous, why did they support him previously, even if for a lesser post, without reservation? It's a pretty straightforward question.

Originally posted by: Genx87
Bunch of Crap, the propoganda from the left works on some people I see.

Overturning Roe v Wade doesnt outlaw abortion, it sends it back to the states to decide if Abortion is legal or not within their borders.

The Pro-abortion crowds has spewed this lie so much people really believe if Roe v Wade is overturned abortions become illegal overnight.

Many states have kept these laws on the books such that abortion would be illegal overnight (with exceptions) if it were overturned - about 35 IIRC.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Todd33
I wonder why the Republicans goose step and rubber stamp him. It was a party line vote, the Dems have no reason to vote for someone they don't think belongs on the SC.

BTW there is a leadership thread that is awaiting your update as the OP.

How many Democrats voted against Clinton's SCOTUS appointments? Or were they rubberstamping?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Todd33
I wonder why the Republicans goose step and rubber stamp him. It was a party line vote, the Dems have no reason to vote for someone they don't think belongs on the SC.

BTW there is a leadership thread that is awaiting your update as the OP.

How many Democrats voted against Clinton's SCOTUS appointments? Or were they rubberstamping?

For that matter... how many Republicans voted against Clinton's appointments? Or threatened filibuster?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Todd33
I wonder why the Republicans goose step and rubber stamp him. It was a party line vote, the Dems have no reason to vote for someone they don't think belongs on the SC.

BTW there is a leadership thread that is awaiting your update as the OP.

How many Democrats voted against Clinton's SCOTUS appointments? Or were they rubberstamping?

For that matter... how many Republicans voted against Clinton's appointments? Or threatened filibuster?

None. You know why? Because Clinton went to the Republican leadership in the Senate and ask THEM to give HIM a list of names that they would deem suitable.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Todd33
I wonder why the Republicans goose step and rubber stamp him. It was a party line vote, the Dems have no reason to vote for someone they don't think belongs on the SC.

BTW there is a leadership thread that is awaiting your update as the OP.

How many Democrats voted against Clinton's SCOTUS appointments? Or were they rubberstamping?

For that matter... how many Republicans voted against Clinton's appointments? Or threatened filibuster?

Link

Pgs CRS-38 through CRS-40 show the committee votes and also the full Senate votes from Reagan through now.
Only Bork was a reject - by the panel as well as the Senate.
Bush withdrew Harriet Meyers at the demand of Right Wing Republican Activists.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Todd33
I wonder why the Republicans goose step and rubber stamp him. It was a party line vote, the Dems have no reason to vote for someone they don't think belongs on the SC.

BTW there is a leadership thread that is awaiting your update as the OP.

They unanimously supported him when he was appointed to the US Court of Appeals. What's the huge difference that they went from full support to zero support?

The fact that you had to ask that question belies your Limbaugh mentality.


As for the OP, nice troll for the "your own input"

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: zendari
How many Democrats voted against Clinton's SCOTUS appointments? Or were they rubberstamping?

For that matter... how many Republicans voted against Clinton's appointments? Or threatened filibuster?

None. You know why? Because Clinton went to the Republican leadership in the Senate and ask THEM to give HIM a list of names that they would deem suitable.

What?!

You mean the CLENIS went and did the RIGHT thing and actually used the Senate to consent and advise?

The hell you say!

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
The fact that you had to ask that question belies your Limbaugh mentality.


As for the OP, nice troll for the "your own input"

In any of your 55,000+ posts, have you ever stated anything resembling an actual thought? You throw in so many random 'insults' or made-up words that I doubt anyone here has any idea wtf you're actually trying to say.

That said, I'll give you another chance. What's the huge difference that caused them to go from full support at the federal appeals level to zero support at the USSC level?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
The fact that you had to ask that question belies your Limbaugh mentality.


As for the OP, nice troll for the "your own input"

In any of your 55,000+ posts, have you ever stated anything resembling an actual thought? You throw in so many random 'insults' or made-up words that I doubt anyone here has any idea wtf you're actually trying to say.

There's a dozen for the bitter post of the troll you are.

That said, I'll give you another chance. What's the huge difference that caused them to go from full support at the federal appeals level to zero support at the USSC level?

Let's start with this: How long ago was it that Alito was first nominated? Then, continue trying to think about what might have caused a change in attitude toward Alito (try to keep in mind, oh, actual decisions he's made in that elapsed time as well as other writings).

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
The fact that you had to ask that question belies your Limbaugh mentality.


As for the OP, nice troll for the "your own input"

In any of your 55,000+ posts, have you ever stated anything resembling an actual thought? You throw in so many random 'insults' or made-up words that I doubt anyone here has any idea wtf you're actually trying to say.

That said, I'll give you another chance. What's the huge difference that caused them to go from full support at the federal appeals level to zero support at the USSC level?

How many federal appeals judges are there? Is the scrutiny the same as the SC? Did anything happen in those 15 years? You ask such a seemingly simple question, yet you know the answer before you start. And yes, what you are parroting is a RNC talking point, I've seen it all over the web and repeated on TV by right wing pundits.

Don't forget some of the senior senators were bitten in the butt by a moderate looking fellow name Scalia.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: zendari
I wonder why the obstructionist Democrats took it upon themselves to delay the inevitable.

You posted all of that, something we've already heard on every radio and TV outlet, and the best you can do is ask a really stupid question like that? OK. I'm convinced. You really are the child that WAS left behind. :roll:

 

[umbrella39]

Not surprising that Alito, the champion of white male privilege, gets such support with the OP and the other fanbois.

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Not surprising that Alito, the champion of white male privilege, gets such support with the OP and the other fanbois.

Tell that to Teddy K. :laugh:

 

[Starbuck1975]

Not surprising that Alito, the champion of white male privilege, gets such support with the OP and the other fanbois.

Not surprising that some of you are unable to evaluate Alito's candidacy in an objective manner.

 

[nageov3t]

I said this in another thread...

I think at this point, everyone recognizes that the entire confirmation process is political theater.

on the one hand, Democrats could find pictures of Alito in a nazi uniform eating live kittens while wiping his ass with the bill of rights and he'd still get confirmed; on the other hands, Dems can't just play WoW on their laptops during the hearings or give Alito some oral pleasure like the Republicans at the risk of pissing off their base.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
Let's start with this: How long ago was it that Alito was first nominated? Then, continue trying to think about what might have caused a change in attitude toward Alito (try to keep in mind, oh, actual decisions he's made in that elapsed time as well as other writings).

I asked you a question. You answer it.

Originally posted by: Todd33
How many federal appeals judges are there? Is the scrutiny the same as the SC? Did anything happen in those 15 years? You ask such a seemingly simple question, yet you know the answer before you start. And yes, what you are parroting is a RNC talking point, I've seen it all over the web and repeated on TV by right wing pundits.

Don't forget some of the senior senators were bitten in the butt by a moderate looking fellow name Scalia.

My 'talking point' is a fact, period. I found it on a short list of facts about Alito's career. Why is it so offensive to you?

Sure, the scrutiny is less for an appeals judge, but there should have still been scrutiny. If he's really terrible as they say, then someone in the Dems probably should have picked up on that from his years of judging experience. Or did he wait until he was on the appeals court to make all his mind-boggling decisions? Or did the Dems just 'rubber-stamp' him?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Let's start with this: How long ago was it that Alito was first nominated? Then, continue trying to think about what might have caused a change in attitude toward Alito (try to keep in mind, oh, actual decisions he's made in that elapsed time as well as other writings).

I asked you a question. You answer it.

Originally posted by: Todd33
How many federal appeals judges are there? Is the scrutiny the same as the SC? Did anything happen in those 15 years? You ask such a seemingly simple question, yet you know the answer before you start. And yes, what you are parroting is a RNC talking point, I've seen it all over the web and repeated on TV by right wing pundits.

Don't forget some of the senior senators were bitten in the butt by a moderate looking fellow name Scalia.

My 'talking point' is a fact, period. I found it on a short list of facts about Alito's career. Why is it so offensive to you?

Sure, the scrutiny is less for an appeals judge, but there should have still been scrutiny. If he's really terrible as they say, then someone in the Dems probably should have picked up on that from his years of judging experience. Or did he wait until he was on the appeals court to make all his mind-boggling decisions? Or did the Dems just 'rubber-stamp' him?

They don't even talk about his record. They talk about CAP and 1980s memos which incidentally predate his 1990 hearings. :laugh:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Not surprising that Alito, the champion of white male privilege, gets such support with the OP and the other fanbois.

Not surprising that some of you are unable to evaluate Alito's candidacy in an objective manner.

We have. We've seen that Alito wants to overturn Roe v. Wade; supports a unitary executive; is a pro-corporate whore; etc. What else is there to know about the prick?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Let's start with this: How long ago was it that Alito was first nominated? Then, continue trying to think about what might have caused a change in attitude toward Alito (try to keep in mind, oh, actual decisions he's made in that elapsed time as well as other writings).

I asked you a question. You answer it.

No, you're trolling with the Limbaugh/Hannity talking points.

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I said this in another thread...

I think at this point, everyone recognizes that the entire confirmation process is political theater.

on the one hand, Democrats could find pictures of Alito in a nazi uniform eating live kittens while wiping his ass with the bill of rights and he'd still get confirmed; on the other hands, Dems can't just play WoW on their laptops during the hearings or give Alito some oral pleasure like the Republicans at the risk of pissing off their base.

Oh, my. Did you even watch those hearings? They tried so desperately to throw everything and anything at him and got nowhere. The best part about the whole process is they made themselves to look like even bigger jackasses. :beer:

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Todd33
I wonder why the Republicans goose step and rubber stamp him. It was a party line vote, the Dems have no reason to vote for someone they don't think belongs on the SC.

BTW there is a leadership thread that is awaiting your update as the OP.

How many Democrats voted against Clinton's SCOTUS appointments? Or were they rubberstamping?

Anyone?