Yep, Lousiana Democrat Senator put Owen over the top.
I am a Saint next to the Senators, I should be a shoe in landslide victory in 2008
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,586
- 986
- 126
I just read up on her and she's freaking scary to say the least. A Federalist? Come on! She's out there...waaay out there.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,586
- 986
- 126
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Originally posted by: Zebo
By the Repubs not killing the option provides hope for the liberal; They actually may become a majority. The Repubs did not want to cut their throats in the future (if ever)
But the Dems will need to get a better platform and be able to communicate it to the general public.
Until the Dems can show that they stand FOR something and that option is better than what the opposition presents, they will be a minority.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
I just don't understand the fillibuster (screw sides) it's not anywhere in the const, should be illegal and is unconstitutional as far as I'm concerned. And for 120 years been used by minority in senate to freeze out legislation and nominees majority wants just like the const call for..
You know full well, conjur, that CsG has never admitted to any error- he just parrots the party line. When you go so far as to quote Gonzales' written opinion, Gonzales specifically refers to "the dissenting opinions" as judicial activism- Gonzales later denies he meant Owen, even though his statement includes her in the general case.
Apparently, in retrospect, Gonzales can attempt to claim he only meant the other dissents, not Owen's- which is, naturally, extremely disingenuous at best, but something CsG can latch onto. If Gonzales didn't mean to include Owen at the time he wrote the opinion, I'm sure he would have said so- but he didn't, but now he says he apparently meant to, or forgot, and err, uhh, yeh......
I rather suspect that if the other dissents were read, what we'd find is that there's little to no difference from Owen's in relation to the term "judicial Activism", "results oriented" activism, pretty much putting the lie to the whole song and dance routine...
But, apparently, Gonzales is perfectly happy to attempt to split hairs, and CsG perfectly pleased to believe that it's not one of those dreaded flipflops after all...
Apparently, in retrospect, Gonzales can attempt to claim he only meant the other dissents, not Owen's- which is, naturally, extremely disingenuous at best, but something CsG can latch onto. If Gonzales didn't mean to include Owen at the time he wrote the opinion, I'm sure he would have said so- but he didn't, but now he says he apparently meant to, or forgot, and err, uhh, yeh......
I rather suspect that if the other dissents were read, what we'd find is that there's little to no difference from Owen's in relation to the term "judicial Activism", "results oriented" activism, pretty much putting the lie to the whole song and dance routine...
But, apparently, Gonzales is perfectly happy to attempt to split hairs, and CsG perfectly pleased to believe that it's not one of those dreaded flipflops after all...
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Or perhaps the left is perfectly happy attempting to smear a nominee by taking quotes out of context and only presenting partial statement and or clarifications. All the while ignoring the reasoned dissent written in this case. Oh well, suit yourself - if she is extreme and just got a confirmation vote - then you on the left have set the bar pretty high for what you can use the filibuster against.
CsG
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
In this country you should NEVER have to worry when you step into a court room if you are stepping into a republican or democrat court. Especially at the Federal level. We can worry now. Kthx.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Dear god, please tell me you are kidding. Learn about the filibuster HERE
Its called unlimited debate and its been around for a long time. Also there is a way to end a filibuster, called cloture. Both of which are rules that have been around since the 1840's. The entire point of having this power, is to keep the majority in check. Otherwise what would be the point of going to work if you were a minority in the Senate?
And on a side note, have you actually read the Constitution? Check out Section 5 Clause 2: "Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."
This means they can make their own rules. Just because the word filibuster is not in the Constitution does not mean it is unconstitutional.
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Or perhaps the left is perfectly happy attempting to smear a nominee by taking quotes out of context and only presenting partial statement and or clarifications. All the while ignoring the reasoned dissent written in this case. Oh well, suit yourself - if she is extreme and just got a confirmation vote - then you on the left have set the bar pretty high for what you can use the filibuster against.
CsG
Hey Cad, have YOU actually read the opinion by Justice Gonzales? I quote it for you (from Lexis Nexis) from In re Doe, 19 S.W.3d 346:
The dissenting opinions suggest that the exceptions to the general rule of notification should be very rare and require a high standard of proof. I respectfully submit that these are policy decisions for the Legislature. And I find nothing in this statute to directly show that the Legislature intended such a narrow construction. As the Court demonstrates, the Legislature certainly could have written section 33.033(i) to make it harder to bypass a parent's right to be involved in decisions affecting their daughters. But it did not. Likewise, parts of the statute's legislative history directly contradict the suggestion that the Legislature intended bypasses to be very rare. Thus, to construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism.
The wording HAS NOT been edited only the footnotes and references to other cases have been removed. Now CsG I would love for you to read all of it and tell me when Justice Genzolas says "The dissenting opinions" (and as we know Owen was one of the dissenting justices) that he is not referring to all of the dissenting opinions.
This is not a smear tactic, it is what he said. If you want to try and say that he was talking about the 2 other justices and not Owen your crazy and I can't help you. Wake up man and stop telling people to read something that you obviously have not read.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Or perhaps the left is perfectly happy attempting to smear a nominee by taking quotes out of context and only presenting partial statement and or clarifications. All the while ignoring the reasoned dissent written in this case. Oh well, suit yourself - if she is extreme and just got a confirmation vote - then you on the left have set the bar pretty high for what you can use the filibuster against.
CsG
Hey Cad, have YOU actually read the opinion by Justice Gonzales? I quote it for you (from Lexis Nexis) from In re Doe, 19 S.W.3d 346:
The dissenting opinions suggest that the exceptions to the general rule of notification should be very rare and require a high standard of proof. I respectfully submit that these are policy decisions for the Legislature. And I find nothing in this statute to directly show that the Legislature intended such a narrow construction. As the Court demonstrates, the Legislature certainly could have written section 33.033(i) to make it harder to bypass a parent's right to be involved in decisions affecting their daughters. But it did not. Likewise, parts of the statute's legislative history directly contradict the suggestion that the Legislature intended bypasses to be very rare. Thus, to construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism.
The wording HAS NOT been edited only the footnotes and references to other cases have been removed. Now CsG I would love for you to read all of it and tell me when Justice Genzolas says "The dissenting opinions" (and as we know Owen was one of the dissenting justices) that he is not referring to all of the dissenting opinions.
This is not a smear tactic, it is what he said. If you want to try and say that he was talking about the 2 other justices and not Owen your crazy and I can't help you. Wake up man and stop telling people to read something that you obviously have not read.
:roll: Again, there were three dissenting opinions and 3 dissenting votes. Owens was on her own with her dissent. Have you even read it? Does it make sense that he was talking about her in his statement in light of what she stated in her dissent? Yeah, didn't think so. But hey, believe the DNC talking points memo if you wish...but don't even try to claim I have not read them - I've read them and it's clear he was speaking of the other dissenting opinions.
*shrug*
CsG
Still dancing, CsG? Apparently so.
There were 3 dissenting opinions. Abbott based his on the idea that the legislature really intended for the law to mean something other than what it said, while Hecht and Owen challenged the plaintiff's ability to make an informed decision. Since Gonzales used the plural term, "opinions", he must have been referring to at least two of the dissents. Hecht and Owen make the same argument, merely in different terms. So if Gonzales disagreed with Hecht, then he obviously also disagreed with Owen, and his remarks at the time reflect that disagreement. Gonzales actually did this twice, first in confirming the majority opinion, and in going even further, adding an opinion of his own containing even stronger language.
http://faculty.smu.edu/tmayo/doe.htm
All of which merely belabors the point- the clear bias and circular reasoning employed by the dissenters in rendering their opinions. They oppose abortion, period, and aren't prepared to set aside that judgement when ruling on a matter where the legislature clearly intended for abortion to be allowed under certain conditions, and even under the condition of judicial bypass of parental consent. No plaintiff can possibly meet the dissenting Justices' criteria, which is obviously not the intention of the law as written. As the court majority points out, if the legislature wants the law to be different, then it can be amended to reflect their true intent, even placing an outright ban on juvenile abortion if they so desire. Yet that has not occurred in the intervening years- apparently, the majority ruled on the statute in a manner consistent with the will of the legislature, while the anti-abortion activists on the court attempted unsuccessfully to impose their own agenda on the residents of Texas...
There were 3 dissenting opinions. Abbott based his on the idea that the legislature really intended for the law to mean something other than what it said, while Hecht and Owen challenged the plaintiff's ability to make an informed decision. Since Gonzales used the plural term, "opinions", he must have been referring to at least two of the dissents. Hecht and Owen make the same argument, merely in different terms. So if Gonzales disagreed with Hecht, then he obviously also disagreed with Owen, and his remarks at the time reflect that disagreement. Gonzales actually did this twice, first in confirming the majority opinion, and in going even further, adding an opinion of his own containing even stronger language.
http://faculty.smu.edu/tmayo/doe.htm
All of which merely belabors the point- the clear bias and circular reasoning employed by the dissenters in rendering their opinions. They oppose abortion, period, and aren't prepared to set aside that judgement when ruling on a matter where the legislature clearly intended for abortion to be allowed under certain conditions, and even under the condition of judicial bypass of parental consent. No plaintiff can possibly meet the dissenting Justices' criteria, which is obviously not the intention of the law as written. As the court majority points out, if the legislature wants the law to be different, then it can be amended to reflect their true intent, even placing an outright ban on juvenile abortion if they so desire. Yet that has not occurred in the intervening years- apparently, the majority ruled on the statute in a manner consistent with the will of the legislature, while the anti-abortion activists on the court attempted unsuccessfully to impose their own agenda on the residents of Texas...
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Actually Owens' dissent was based on procedural grounds if you would educate yourself on her dissent. Where in here dissent did she address statutory interpretation? Where did she say anything about the burden of proof? How about the bypasses being rare?
Exactly - she didn't. Thus the claims that Gonzales was talking about her dissent is absurd.
But hey, keep twisting away - it's not like it matters. She's been confirmed and the bar is set
CsG
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter