News Is Samuel Alito a trustworthy and honest nominee for the Supreme Court?

[rachmaninoff]

[SOLVED] Alito confirmation hearings

Day three of the judicial committee's hearings are in progress, all serious news orgnaizations are televising them live.

Is he medically fit for his post? He seems to suffer from severe memory loss. Either that or he just doesn't like answering questions. I think certain other judicial nominees have acted similarly last year?

 

[ComputerGeek]

Day three of the judicial committee's hearings are in progress, all serious news orgnaizations are televising them live.

What is worse is that no one seems to be calling him out n the fact that he keeps saying "I was saying that because I was applying for the job"

So basically, he is saying that he will say anything he needs to to get a job. So how can we trust what he says to be the truth?

in fact, I think we should dump him right here.

 

[Informal Logic]

In view of Bush's record for appointments, it is reason alone for opposition. What is amusing is the Republican complaint that Democrats have already made up their minds…because the Republicans are so open-minded and are sincerely reviewing Alito’s record?

 

[rachmaninoff]

Hilarious development:

But his wife, Martha-Ann Bomgardner, left the hearing room in tears near the end of a day in which he had been questioned sharply.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., was vouching for her husband's character at the time, and as she left, he said, "Judge Alito, I'm sorry that you've had to go through this. I am sorry that your family has had to sit here and listen to this."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/alito;_ylt=Ai1HDy8oppNX3B8.UwDsvohuCM0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl



Stupid Americans. Putting their stupid democratic processes before family entertainment. How dare they ask a man questions, while his family is watching? Monsters!

 

[rachmaninoff]

Also, a nominee for the "most obvious statement of 2006" award, responding to one of the questions:

If I'm confirmed I'll be myself.

 

[BobG]

If he's being truthful about his recollections of the Princeton group, he must have been pretty desparate to fill up space on his resume.

Seems to me that finding a group that he 'belonged' to and plugging it into his application without having some idea what the group was would be pretty reckless and always had a high risk of embarrassment. Who knows what questions the interviewers might ask - "So, you believe being a bigot is something to be proud of?", "How long have you been a member of the Civil Air Patrol?", "So, you're a pretty adamant Communist?", "So, you're a disabled veteran of WWII? How old were you when you joined?", "When did you first realize you were an African American with sickle cell anemia?", "Why, exactly, did you join the Canadian Association of Polygamists?"

Surely he knew exactly what the group represented when he listed it on his 1985 application. He needs to provide a better answer. I doubt he will. Biden's right about one thing: the confirmation hearings are worthless for evaluating a nominee - they're really only conducted to highlight the Senators.

 

[phcatlantis]

It looks less likely that the Democrats will be able to hold the Gang of 14 together in order to prevent a change of Rule 22. There's no evidence of any Republican senator willing to vote against his confirmation. So long as as my team wins, I don't care how the opposition views the play.

 

[russ_watters]

Biden's right about one thing: the confirmation hearings are worthless for evaluating a nominee - they're really only conducted to highlight the Senators.

Agreed. Alito's doing exactly what he needs to do: sit there and take the abuse they dish out, and answer politely but generally. Confirmation hearings in general aren't about determining if someone is qualified for the job, they are all about finding a way to embarass the side in power into rejecting him. Alito is playing it cool (read: evasive, but cordial) and as a result, the Democrats are unable to stir-up the public outcry they need to get him rejected.

Regarding this alumni association, I have done a little research, but found only vague accusations of racism and sexism. The racism allegations are tied to affirmative action, which is still highly controvertial - and possibly unconstitutional. The sexism allegations stem from nostaligia about Princeton's pre-coed days (Princeton went coed while Alito was there). As a former student in an all-male prep-school that went coed a few years after I graduated, I can attest that debates on the subject are heated. But that has nothing to do with sexism: the culture of a single-sex school is different from a coed school. And I don't think I should need to point out (but I will, of course) that in today's over-the-top PC culture, all male schools (or clubs, for that matter) are deemed sexist and are attacked, while all female schools/clubs are not. That's PC hypocrisy.

An article in the Princetonian: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005/11/18/news/13876.shtml

 

[SOS2008]

The Democrats are simply a minority Party, and responsible citizens in this country realize Supreme Court appointments are another reason we need to balance power in 2006.

Ultimately I suspect the religious right will be disappointed with their efforts to stack the courts. Once a judge has accomplished his/her personal goal of being appointed to the Supreme Court, these judges know they are there for life and no longer answer to anyone. They understand the gravity of their position and in listening to fellow SC judges will often make decisions not expected by supporters. In view of this, it is my guess that there may be some adjustment in regard to Roe v. Wade, but abortion will not be made illegal, nor will the SC allow the U.S. to become a theocracy (i.e., they will continue to uphold separation of church and state, e.g., not allow ID to be taught in public schools). And I would think and hope that if the SC were to make decisions contrary to either of these matters, there would be tremendous public outcry.

So...the extreme fundamentalists will likely find themselves to be the minority that they really are (boo hoo). Now if we can just get them back under the rocks they climbed out from under.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm worried but Bush has lost a lot of clout so hopefully moderates forced a reasonable choice. He does seem to be a good choice as far as his qualifations go, but some of the scholarly testimony given today concerns me. However, I assume that the Dems would take a stand if we were facing a dangerous extremist...hopefully...

 

[loseyourname]

I wouldn't worry too much about these guys. It seems that the very few people out there actually qualified to serve on the Supreme Court take the job very seriously, and rule in accordance with the law and constitution, regardless of what political opinions they may hold in their personal lives. It's important to remember that they are not politicians. I think that's actually part of the reason that the senators have such a difficult time with these confirmation hearings and want answers so badly regarding opinions that people might have expressed when they were in their 20s. It's inconceivable to a politician that someone in public office may make decisions based simply on what their conscience tells them is correct according to a common standard, rather than pandering to some interest group. Like SOS said, once in, they don't have to campaign and don't raise any money, so they're essentially beholden to nobody.

 

[SOS2008]

However, I assume that the Dems would take a stand if we were facing a dangerous extremist...hopefully...

That's the whole point about checks and balances. The Dems are a minority, so their stand will likely boil down to rigorous questioning only. What else can they do? In many ways I find this the more frightening problem. There is no accountability right now on any level.

 

[ComputerGeek]

That's the whole point about checks and balances. The Dems are a minority, so their stand will likely boil down to rigorous questioning only. What else can they do? In many ways I find this the more frightening problem. There is no accountability right now on any level.

They have the Filibuster bomb to throw.

All that wrangling about the appeals court for 2 years, and they end up saving the Filibuster on judicial nominees with THIS GUY as a perfect example of the kind of person they are trying to keep off the bench.

If they do not filibuster, then what was the point?

 

[kyleb]

Also, a nominee for the "most obvious statement of 2006" award, responding to one of the questions:

"If I'm confirmed I'll be myself."

I took that as an admission that he isn't being himself now. ;)

 

[phcatlantis]

They have the Filibuster bomb to throw.

And the Republicans can strike back with the nuclear option.

 

[ComputerGeek]

And the Republicans can strike back with the nuclear option.

The Nuclear option is only for judges, so, what is the point? Let's save the filibuster on Judicial nominations to not use it ever?

BTW.. The Nuclear option is against the Senate rules, but all Cheney needs to do is tell the parliamentarian that he does not have the floor to speak (the guy who will inform the senators of the senate rules) and the vote can go ahead.

It is a very cheap action... but so is calling a voice vote in the house and then claiming the Ya's win when it is clear on C-SPAN that the Ney's did.

 

[phcatlantis]

It is a very cheap action...

That has the desired effect. You play to win.

 

[ComputerGeek]

That has the desired effect. You play to win.

Hay.. yeah... Play the game without following the rules and you will probably win.

Is that the message that moral republicans want to send to america?

 

[phcatlantis]

Hay.. yeah... Play the game without following the rules and you will probably win.

Is that the message that moral republicans want to send to america?

I think the Republicans genuinely believe that changing Rule 22 is within the bounds of fair play, and I think they'd make that case. What remains to be seen is whether or not a sufficiently interested public exists, let alone would approve.

 

[ComputerGeek]

I think the Republicans genuinely believe that changing Rule 22 is within the bounds of fair play, and I think they'd make that case. What remains to be seen is whether or not a sufficiently interested public exists, let alone would approve.

The rules in the senate can only be changed if 67 senators vote to change them... that is what the senate decided long ago and it has been there for a long time.

The parliamentarian is a ref, calling foul and keeping everyone in line with the senate rules, BUT, republicans will be IGNORING the ref to get what they need done, done.
that does not seem to be with in the rules no matter how you look at it.

 

[phcatlantis]

The rules in the senate can only be changed if 67 senators vote to change them...

Sure you can, by raising a point of order regarding the rule's constitionality. If the presiding officer and a simple majority go along with you, then you got your rule change.

The parliamentarian is a ref...

He most certainly isn't. Parlimentarian are simply staff serving at the pleasure of the Senate Majority Leader and House Speakership. They're consultants and nothing more.

BUT, republicans will be IGNORING the ref to get what they need done, done. that does not seem to be with in the rules no matter how you look at it.

Apparantly you and the Republicans have a different idea of what the rules are. So what makes you think your perception of them will ultimately carry the day? After all, its winning that matters, right?

 

[SOS2008]

They have the Filibuster bomb to throw.
All that wrangling about the appeals court for 2 years, and they end up saving the Filibuster on judicial nominees with THIS GUY as a perfect example of the kind of person they are trying to keep off the bench.
If they do not filibuster, then what was the point?

They are too few. If they filibuster it will just end up with the "nuclear option" being invoked by Republicans. That would change senate rules and set precedence going forward. Which is worse?

"Now the Senate has a duty to give Judge Alito a prompt up-or-down vote," Bush said.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-01-14T164416Z_01_N14146081_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH.xml&archived=False

Constitutionally, and in accordance with 200 years + of senate tradition, the Senate does not have a “duty” (or doodie) to give any matter an up or down vote. Especially if they aren't on record for how they vote, but more important is the GOP desire to change the cloture threshold to a simple majority. (Hello! Power Grab! )

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's the whole point about checks and balances. The Dems are a minority, so their stand will likely boil down to rigorous questioning only. What else can they do? In many ways I find this the more frightening problem. There is no accountability right now on any level.

If there were serious problems, at the least the Dems could have started a public campaign based on specific examples of how Alito might be a threat to Constitutional law. You make a good point about the Fillibuster, but if there was ever a time to use every option, now is the time, and they know it. This in fact is what I feared most about a Bush admin - the judges. But I think the first fiasco with good ole whats-her-name was about keeping Bush close to power, which was shot down, and this selection was forced by moderates. Sure, he's a conservative, but I don't really care about that as a part of the big picture. I don't think this is Rove's dream as some extremists claim. If it is and the SC has been compromised, then I will lose hope and we're outta here. Our move to Canada is only temporarily on hold until we see how this all sorts out.

 

[SOS2008]

If there were serious problems, at the least the Dems could have started a public campaign based on specific examples of how Alito might be a threat to Constitutional law. You make a good point about the Fillibuster, but if there was ever a time to use every option, now is the time, and they know it. This in fact is what I feared most about a Bush admin - the judges. But I think the first fiasco with good ole whats-her-name was about keeping Bush close to power, which was shot down, and this selection was forced by moderates. Sure, he's a conservative, but I don't really care about that as a part of the big picture. I don't think this is Rove's dream as some extremists claim. If it is and the SC has been compromised, then I will lose hope and we're outta here. Our move to Canada is only temporarily on hold until we see how this all sorts out.

You aren't the only one asking why the Dems compromised on earlier nominees if they weren't intending to save the filibuster for the "big one." I once felt that if the Republicans exercised the nuclear option it would be damaging in the eyes of their constituents. Unfortunately the constant propaganda for an up-or-down vote has been effective, and even though Bush and the GOP are not particularly popular at this time, I think a filibuster would damage the Dems just as much if not more. I suspect the Dems have come to realize this too, and have decided it would be better to keep their eye on the ball—the 2006 elections.

As you know there was a tremendous amount of inquiry into immigration to Canada after the 2004 elections. If all these people had actually left, the U.S. would have been doomed then and there. This is my country too—why should I have to leave MY country!? I’m staying and fighting. So wha-da-ya say...Wait and vote in 2006 and 2008 before you flee to Canada.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As you know there was a tremendous amount of inquiry into immigration to Canada after the 2004 elections. If all these people had actually left, the U.S. would have been doomed then and there. This is my country too—why should I have to leave MY country!? I’m staying and fighting. So wha-da-ya say...Wait and vote in 2006 and 2008 before you flee to Canada.

In our case its a matter of cycle times and age. Were things to continue to as they had been, my belief is that this won't be a place that I want to live for the rest of the best of my life. And I've been fighting the tide for most of my life now and I'm tired of it. But more than that, if the American people don't value the core American ideals, including that we don't torture, we don't invade other nations without provocation, we don't imprison without legal respresentation, and we don't load the SC with our personal lawyers, to name a few, then I have no use for this place.

You see, it's not like we were invaded, this is what Americans seemed to be choosing, and since this is a Democracy, they can have it. But we couldn't leave right away and were considering other options [Tsu doesn't want to live farther north], and now we are starting to think this may pass - that the true Bush agenda has been stopped without too much permanent damage - and that now, with a little luck we can sink back into the quagmire of US politics. But with many of the attitudes found regarding the use of torture, secret prisons, and most of all, imprisonment without due process, I will always keep the Maple Leaf in sight. I guess you could say that I don't trust my country any more.

Or course a lot of this depends on Bush being impeached. If this admin is allowed to set precedence, we're still screwed I think...

 

[SOS2008]

In our case its a matter of cycle times and age. Were things to continue to as they had been, my belief is that this won't be a place that I want to live for the rest of the best of my life. And I've been fighting the tide for most of my life now and I'm tired of it. But more than that, if the American people don't value the core American ideals, including that we don't torture, we don't invade other nations without provocation, we don't imprison without legal respresentation, and we don't load the SC with our personal lawyers, to name a few, then I have no use for this place.
You see, it's not like we were invaded, this is what Americans seemed to be choosing, and since this is a Democracy, they can have it. But we couldn't leave right away and were considering other options [Tsu doesn't want to live farther north], and now we are starting to think this may pass - that the true Bush agenda has been stopped without too much permanent damage - and that now, with a little luck we can sink back into the quagmire of US politics. But with many of the attitudes found regarding the use of torture, secret prisons, and most of all, imprisonment without due process, I will always keep the Maple Leaf in sight. I guess you could say that I don't trust my country any more.
Or course a lot of this depends on Bush being impeached. If this admin is allowed to set precedence, we're still screwed I think...

I hear you. After 2008, if we are still on the verge of becoming a fascist theocracy, let me know where you and Tsu plan to go and maybe I can tag along. The U.S. will find out what “brain drain” is all about, and then who cares if everything goes to hell in a hand basket because as you say it’s what these people seem to want.

 

[Skyhunter]

That has the desired effect. You play to win.

It is not a game. You are not rooting for your favorite team.

This is the mentality that is destroying this great nation. People voting for a party because it is their favorite.

Alito is way out of the mainstream in his dissents and rulings. The guy is dishonest and untrustworthy. But he is a Republican so he is on the right team, so he will be confirmed.

 

[SOS2008]

People voting for a party because it is their favorite.

Or people voting for a party because they think it's their party. The Republican Party is now the party of radical fundamentalists, neocon imperialists, and big business who are happy to spend your tax dollars into oblivion.

 

[McGyver]

Senator Feinstein's Kinder Style More Successful on Judge Alito

I admit I've never particularly been a big on Senator Diane Feinstein. However, I must give credit where credit is do.

I believe it was during her Wednesday morning questioning of Judge Alito, wherein she set a "warm and supportive tone" in recanting some of Judge Alito's less noteworthy rulings, then kindly posed a line of questioning. Her topics (which I can't recall) were so unexpected, and her tone so kind, that Judge Alito got caught completely off guard. Before he had realized it, he had already truthfully revealed some of his errors and biases. I believe other Senators also pursued these same questions, but none were as successful in getting Judge Alito's cooperation.

The moral of this story: When you approach a person with rederic, anger, and direct accusations - you get an uncooperative witness. Continue, and you can end up with an all out fight.

There is something to be learned here, regardless of what happens in the final Senate vote. We need more calm and reason in U.S. leadership, at a time when key portions of the world have gone irrational. This apporach was the conerstone of India's Muhatmar Ghandi's successful leadership, later influencing Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to employ peaceful resistance in bringing about advances in civil rights.

 

[phcatlantis]

It is not a game. You are not rooting for your favorite team.

Sure it is. It's a high stakes game but a game nonetheless. Not everybody likes the game, but enough people find it enjoyable enough to participate and keep it going. And I identify with politically with my team. Why wouldn't I root for them?

This is the mentality that is destroying this great nation. People voting for a party because it is their favorite.

How is partisan politics destroying this great nation? Or, I should say, what's so bad about identifying with the agents of political ideas you and I find agreeable?

Alito is way out of the mainstream in his dissents and rulings. The guy is dishonest and untrustworthy.

Great. That's Democratic idea, not a Republican one. Get behind them. May the best team win. :D

But he is a Republican so he is on the right team, so he will be confirmed.

And from the Republican point of view, he's trustworth, honesty, and well within whatever we're calling the judicial mainstream. We disagree, great. At least we have this great system for resolving our differences. :D

 

[phcatlantis]

Or people voting for a party because they think it's their party.

Oh, I bet you given polling since 2001 that there at least 10 to 19% of self-identified Republicans who have significant differences with the national party. Perhaps they're rooting for the wrong team. But good thing we pick up enough independants to offset any who leave the camp.

The Republican Party is now the party of radical fundamentalists, neocon imperialists, and big business who are happy to spend your tax dollars into oblivion.

That's one point of view. Another is that the Republican Party is the Party of equal opportunity, prosperity, personal accountability, the strength of traditional values, and the global mission to project democracy around the globe. So maybe commentary on the Sox and Yankees franchises isn't so valuable when come exclusively from Sox and Yankees fans.

 

[phcatlantis]

I admit I've never particularly been a big on Senator Diane Feinstein.

I definitely agree Senator Feinstein was a very congenial participant in the hearings, but...

...Judge Alito got caught completely off guard. Before he had realized it, he had already truthfully revealed some of his errors and biases.

You suggest here that Alito was uncharacteristically truthful during Senator Feinstein's question period. Could you clarify if you mean that he was generally circumspect under questioning by other Senators and specify exactly what you think he was truthful or untruthful about throughout the hearings?

 

[SOS2008]

I believe other Senators also pursued these same questions, but none were as successful in getting Judge Alito's cooperation.

You mean at which point the Republicans pounced upon the tearful wife footage, and boy did they spin that one. And it happened at such an unexplainable moment. You don’t suppose it was some more STAGING? Nonetheless, if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen—what are they doing there anyway? I don’t take my family to work with me.

Your comments about Martin Luther King, Jr. are appropriate on this day.

...but enough people find it enjoyable enough to participate and keep it going.

Get behind them. May the best team win. :D.

I realize you are a troll (“The main motive for a user trolling is to disrupt the community in some way. Inflammatory, sarcastic, disruptive or humorous content is posted, meant to draw other users into engaging the troll in a fruitless confrontation.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Disruptive_trolls) but here goes… Your advice sounds very familiar...Let’s see, Bush has been re-elected, therefore we should support him. Um, what happened to democracy and the right to support the candidate of choice, and why should anyone support Bush’s policies, which are the most asinine in the history of the U.S.? Yeh, we’ll get behind him (with our boot up his arse), and er, um since your party has run up the deficit, you won’t mind picking up the tab to remove our boot.

And from the Republican point of view, he's trustworth, honesty…

Oh yeh, you’re a troll all right. Once again, my thread on “Bush, NOT Trustworthy and Honest” should be in the directory for your easy reference. And since you have only a little more than 50 posts (welcome to PF), perhaps you are unaware that sources are expected, especially for such outrageous claims. Like this one:

But good thing we pick up enough independants to offset any who leave the camp.

That's one point of view. Another is that the Republican Party is the Party of equal opportunity, prosperity, personal accountability, the strength of traditional values, and the global mission to project democracy around the globe.

Equal opportunity is the Dems platform, prosperity--well that's not possible with the current national debt, personal accountability--nope, that's Libertarian, strength of traditional values--fundamentalist propaganda, and democracy around the world--neocon propaganda. Traditional values are taking care of our world and all that is in it (the environment--plants, animals, humanity--the sick and the poor) once again, the Dems platform. Democracy is preservation of freedom and liberty, not torture, prison camps, and NSA spying.

 

[phcatlantis]

I realize you are a troll

Maybe you're a bit touchy on these issues. The humor is intended to relax you. Besides, I'm a funny guy.

Your advice sounds very familiar...

It shouldn't, especially since nothing that follows could possibly be attributed to me.

Let’s see, Bush has been re-elected, therefore we should support him.

God, I hope not. That would be highly undemocratic. Support the team you prefer, or none at all. It makes no difference to me. I prefer the Republicans. I support them.

Oh yeh, you’re a troll all right. Once again, my thread on “Bush, NOT Trustworthy and Honest” should be in the directory for your easy reference.

Funny, I would've figured entitling a thread "Bush, NOT trustworthy and Honest" is a blatant admission of trollhood. How did we come to a point where a relaxed, civil and occasionally humorous presentation of a point of view is considered trolling?

And since you have only a little more than 50 posts (welcome to PF), perhaps you are unaware that sources are expected, especially for such outrageous claims.

Like "Bush is NOT Trustworthy and Honest." I'd invite you back to your own thread to do so. But yes, I agree outrageous claims demand evidence. I hope we'll both do so as we delve deeper into the discussion.

Equal opportunity is the Dems platform...

It's also apparently in the http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf" .

Every day, we strive to fulfill Lincoln’s vision: a country united and free, in which all people are guaranteed equal rights and the opportunity to pursue their dreams. His legacy goes beyond the borders of America. It can be seen in free governments all over the world.

Perhaps, as I've pointed out already, there's little value to assessing a political party's values, interests and world view based on first order analysis of slogans.

...prosperity--well that's not possible with the current national debt...

It is if you define success as a 5 percent unemployment rate, 3 to 4 percent annual growth in GDP, low interest rates, a 3.1 percent increase in civilian wages and record high home ownership.

...personal accountability--nope, that's Libertarian...

What national tax cuts have Libertarians passed recently?

strength of traditional values--fundamentalist propaganda...

I think Republicans prefer the term "traditional values." You disagree, of course. Yet one more reason for you not to support them.

...and democracy around the world--neocon propaganda.

I think Republicans prefer the term "democracy around the world." See above.

Traditional values are taking care of our world and all that is in it. Democracy is preservation of freedom and liberty, not torture, prison camps, and NSA spying.

I think most Republicans would agree that torture is morally reprehensible in a free and democratic society, but would disagree that their President and party leadership believe otherwise. I don't think many would find the case that domestic wiretapping for intelligence purposes and extraordinary renditions are inconsistent with those principles. You obviously disagree. See above.

I look forward to exploring these issues in depth with you.

 

[SOS2008]

<snip>

I don't find you comments humorous, nor do I believe you intended these to be so. Rather I find these to be nothing but canned Republican garbage with lack of real thought on your part. Agreeing to disagree does not dismiss the lack of evidence to support your position (or asserted Republican Party position for that matter--like any Party can put claim on something like "traditional values" as being solely theirs. ).

The original thread on Bush and how he is NOT honest and trustworthy consisted if extensive documentation with links to sources, in which many points are now accepted facts (such as his failure to serve his full term in the National Guard, etc.) A more recent thread can be found on the second page of this section in PF.

 

[phcatlantis]

I don't find you comments humorous, nor do I believe you intended these to be so.

Well, can't win'em all.

Rather I find these to be nothing but canned Republican garbage with lack of real thought on your part.

Right on both points, with reservations on the "garbage" part.

Agreeing to disagree does not dismiss the lack of evidence to support your position (or asserted Republican Party position for that matter--like any Party can put claim on something like "traditional values" as being solely theirs. ).

I'm glad to see we agree on this point as well.

The original thread on Bush and how he is NOT honest and trustworthy consisted if extensive documentation with links to sources, in which many points are now accepted facts (such as his failure to serve his full term in the National Guard, etc.) A more recent thread can be found on the second page of this section in PF.

Here we're going to disagree. The thread reads as a list of personal gripes, many recycled, of PF posters, bloggers, and occasionally mainstream columnists. Citations are sporadic and the whole mess smacks of original research. I'm sure you disagree on these points, but seeing as I've readily conceded that my "Republican garbage" is canned, I invite you to go back to the thread and add some genuine substance to your "left wingnut garbage."

Now do you have anything to say on the Alito confirmation, or do we have nothing more to say to each other?

 

[SOS2008]

Here we're going to disagree. The thread reads as a list of personal gripes, many recycled, of PF posters, bloggers, and occasionally mainstream columnists. Citations are sporadic and the whole mess smacks of original research. I'm sure you disagree on these points, but seeing as I've readily conceded that my "Republican garbage" is canned, I invite you to go back to the thread and add some genuine substance to your "left wingnut garbage."?

I can't speak for posts that aren't my own. I know I provided verbatim quotes, and usually links to credible sources supporting my position. For my original thread on Bush's history, from lying about his D.U.I. to present, I spent a great deal of time researching and documenting everything. Unfortunately that thread has long expired (it's old news here). I feel no compunction to go back and add anything, especially at your behest. All these things are available to anyone who really cares to learn the truth. Bush’s lies are so numerous and obvious, it is absurd to even debate this.

Now do you have anything to say on the Alito confirmation, or do we have nothing more to say to each other?

I've already posted what I have to say about Alito above. Only to reiterate that to have a democracy there needs be at least two differing parties (preferably more parties, and preferably more differentiation). Republican controlled executive, congressional, and judicial branches are hardly democracy. I believe congress will shift more into balance after 2006, and hopefully the executive in 2008 (preferably earlier due to impeachable offenses). Stacking the Supreme Court ultimately will change nothing in regard to abortion being made illegal, or ID being taught in public schools, or any other attempts to erode civil liberties and separation of church and state. The team known as America will prevail. I hope you'll join it.

 

[phcatlantis]

it is absurd to even debate this.

You know. You're right. End of discussion on that point.

Only to reiterate that to have a democracy there needs be at least two differing parties (preferably more parties, and preferably more differentiation).

That doesn't track so well with any definition I can find in the political science literature. Is this your personal view?

Republican controlled executive, congressional, and judicial branches are hardly democracy.

Then why have elections? Why not represent all relevant political perspectives equally? Would that be your view of democracy? Or do you propose something else, maybe statutory limits on the size of a majority a single party can take in a legislature, or number of consecutive terms a single party can be represented in the White House.

I believe congress will shift more into balance after 2006, and hopefully the executive in 2008 (preferably earlier due to impeachable offenses).

That may be a pretty smart bet, especially with a naive constant value and separation between Congressional and Presidential approval ratings could lead up to a 50 vote swing in the House (to the Dems); your guys only need 16 seats to take the majority. It's difficult to weigh the impact of Congressional approval ratings, even by party; neither has risen above 50 percent except in a narrow gate around 9/11. Of course, incumbant reelection is above 95 percent in the House, and 2006 is still a year away with the President's approval rating creeping up towards 50 percent. I'm betting on the Republicans to at least retain their majorities and I'll go on a limb and put the spread at one pickup in Senate seat and ten in than House seats.

Stacking the Supreme Court ultimately will change nothing in regard to abortion being made illegal, or ID being taught in public schools, or any other attempts to erode civil liberties and separation of church and state.

No, I don't imagine overturning Roe v. Wade would lead to the national criminalization of abortion, I'm no authority on the law so I don't pretend to predict how three fifths of a judiciary appointed by Republican presidents will ultimate decide ID's fate in public schools, and I can't find any Republican Party literature advocating the erosion of any of our constitutional rights. I think this is another area where we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The team known as America will prevail. I hope you'll join it.

Already on it, and there's room for more.

 

[Informal Logic]

Christ!

A one party system is usually equated with dictatorship, and a dominant-party system is usually equated with communism. Here is something that may be of interest to you:

In a democracy, a high degree of political legitimacy is necessary, because the electoral process periodically divides the population into 'winners' and 'losers'. A successful democratic political culture implies that the losing parties and their supporters accept the judgment of the voters, and allow for the peaceful transfer of power - the concept of a "loyal opposition". Ideally political competitors may disagree, but acknowledge the other side's legitimate role, and ideally society encourages tolerance and civility in public debate. This form of political legitimacy implies that all sides share common fundamental values. Voters must know that the new government will not introduce policies they find totally abhorrent. Shared values, rather than democracy as such, guarantee that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Proportional_versus_majoritarian_representation

The key here is a legitimate electoral process, and it became obvious after the 2000 and even 2004 elections that reform is needed in the US. Also, the Bush regime has not acknowleged the other side in regard to anything. Another point made is citizens cannot find policies to be totally abhorrent. There are about 50 percent of Americans who view Bush and the GOP as completely unacceptable, most recently manifested in the Abramoff scandal.

And to that point, you may want to view the thread about the 2006 election and predictions.

 

[phcatlantis]

Christ!
A one party system is usually equated with dictatorship, and a dominant-party system is usually equated with communism.

I do believe you just made that up. Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress and the President for a quarter century. The GOP held both houses and the White House three fifths of the interval between the Civil War and the 1936 election. Democratics then controlled the Congress for sixty years. We seem to get by without any serious charge thast we're a dictatorship or a Communist totalitarian. And what country with a ruling Communist government has legally sanctioned alternative parties?

Here is something that may be of interest to you:

Original research on Wikipedia? Who would've thought!

The key here is a legitimate electoral process, and it became obvious after the 2000 and even 2004 elections that reform is needed in the US.

Seems to me that Republican rule is more widely perceived as legitimate than it was in 1861. So what's the big deal?

Seriously, what about intraparty political dynamics? Realignments? The birth and extinction of entire political parties in the process? The political interests of the two major parties today barely resemble the ones they held a century and a half ago, so perhaps partisan evolution--driven by a federalist division of power--adds legitimacy to our electoral process. Of course, all this is idle speculation; but I imagine there's plenty of scholarly literature out there addressing these questions.

There are about 50 percent of Americans who view Bush and the GOP as completely unacceptable, most recently manifested in the Abramoff scandal.

Unfortunately, the bulk of them are concentrated in coastal cities and nearby suburbs, very few of them participate in the all volunteer force, and mosto f them are surrounded by counties full of red-votin', gun-totin' Wolverines. Right?

And to that point, you may want to view the thread about the 2006 election and predictions.

I'll take a look at it. Link?

 

[Informal Logic]

1)I do believe you just made that up.

2) Original research on Wikipedia? Who would've thought!

3) I'll take a look at it. Link?

1) You asked why a system with one party would not be a democracy. I was merely replying to that. Feel free to do some research on one party systems if you believe I made that up.

2) At least I provided a link, which is more than I have seen you do.

3) The thread on 2006 election predictions can be found by scrolling through the menu for this section.

I agree you are trolling - by taking the thread off topic for purposes of fruitless confrontation. I have a policy of ignoring these kinds of posts.

 

[phcatlantis]

1) You asked why a system with one party would not be a democracy. I was merely replying to that. Feel free to do some research on one party systems if you believe I made that up.

Feel free to provide some research to assure me you haven't. But I can assure that I never brought up one party systems. I certainly didn't ask; in fact, I don't think I've asked for authority on any of these issues.

2) At least I provided a link, which is more than I have seen you do.

I didn't know I needed to provide a link to express skepticism. As for your link, how do I know you didn't write up that bit for my edification?

3) The thread on 2006 election predictions can be found by scrolling through the menu for this section.

Scrolling through the whatzit for the whatwhat?

I agree you are trolling - by taking the thread off topic for purposes of fruitless confrontation. I have a policy of ignoring these kinds of posts.

Then start. And God bless you.

 

[Skyhunter]

Sure it is. It's a high stakes game but a game nonetheless. Not everybody likes the game, but enough people find it enjoyable enough to participate and keep it going. And I identify with politically with my team. Why wouldn't I root for them?

Because it is not a game it is real life. Learn what is going on and stop drinking the right-wing koolaide.

How is partisan politics destroying this great nation? Or, I should say, what's so bad about identifying with the agents of political ideas you and I find agreeable?

not partisan politics, mindless politics.

Great. That's Democratic idea, not a Republican one. Get behind them. May the best team win. :D

No, it is not an idea it is a fact. He has frequently been the lone dissenter in 3rd circuit rulings. (Out of the mainstream) He said himself that he opposed abortion just to get hired by the Reagan administration. (dishonest) He stated during his confirmation hearing for the 3rd circuit that he would recuse himself if any cases came before him concerning the Vangaurd group or Smith Barney brokerage. (untrustworthy)

And from the Republican point of view, he's trustworth, honesty, and well within whatever we're calling the judicial mainstream. We disagree, great. At least we have this great system for resolving our differences. :D

See previous examples, and feel free to provide support for your assertions that he is honest and trustworthy.