Reddy Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 according to Cheney: This is scary This may destroy 200 years of tradition in the senate just to get an extra 10 judges appointed... I personally just think this is disgusting. Nothing like this has ever happened before, why does Cheney think he can manipulate the way politics have been since the country's creation? what are you guys' thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sec159row2 Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 QUOTE(Reddy @ Apr 22, 2005 -> 01:54 PM) according to Cheney: This is scary This may destroy 200 years of tradition in the senate just to get an extra 10 judges appointed... I personally just think this is disgusting. Nothing like this has ever happened before, why does Cheney think he can manipulate the way politics have been since the country's creation? what are you guys' thoughts? why don't we vote on such important positions? and then give judges such carte blance??? presidents know they can extend their legacy thru judges, so why do they have that authority... btw, I don't agree with what most of the democratic senators do anyway, but in the same breath I don't think the president should have this authority... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 She sounds like a real advocate for the people: The following organizations have taken an official position on this nominee: Organization Position ADA Watch/National Coalition for Disability Rights Opposes Advocates for the West Opposes AFL-CIO Opposes Alabama Environmental Council Opposes Alliance for Justice Opposes Alliance for Retired Americans Opposes American Association of University Women Opposes American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Opposes American Lands Alliance Opposes American Planning Association Opposes American Rivers Opposes Americans for Democratic Action Opposes Americans United for Separation of Church and State Opposes Amigos Bravos Opposes Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law Opposes Black Women Lawyers of Los Angeles Opposes Buckeye Forest Council Opposes California Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League Opposes California Association of Black Lawyers Opposes California Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO Opposes California League of Conservation Voters Opposes California National Organization for Women Opposes California Women's Law Center Opposes Californians for Alternatives to Toxics Opposes Center for Medicare Advocacy Corporation Opposes Chinese for Affirmative Action Opposes Citizens Coal Council Opposes Clean Air Council Opposes Clean Water Action Opposes Clean Water Action Council Opposes Coalition of Labor Union Women Opposes Coast Alliance Opposes Committee for Judicial Independence Opposes Committee for the Preservation of the Lake Purdy Area, AL Opposes Community Rights Counsel Opposes Congressional Black Caucus Opposes Defenders of Wildlife Opposes Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. Opposes Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund Opposes Earthjustice Opposes EarthWINS Opposes Endangered Species Coalition Opposes Environmental Defense Center Opposes Environmental Law Foundation Opposes Equal Justice Society Opposes Equality California Opposes Families USA Opposes Feminist Majority Opposes Friends of Hurricane Creek, AL Opposes Friends of the Earth Opposes Georgia Center for the Law in the Public Interest Opposes Gray Panthers Opposes Great Rivers Environmental Law Center Opposes Hurricane Creekkeeper Opposes John Muir Project Opposes Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. Opposes Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the Bay Area Opposes Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Opposes Legal Momentum Opposes Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund Opposes Mineral Policy Center Opposes NAACP Opposes NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Opposes National Abortion Federation Opposes National Association of Women Business Owners - San Francisco Chapter Opposes National Bar Association Opposes National Center for Lesbian Rights Opposes National Committee to Preserve Social Secuity and Medicare Opposes National Council of Jewish Women Opposes National Council of Jewish Women - California Opposes National Council of Jewish Women - Los Angeles Opposes National Council of Women's Organizations Opposes National Employment Lawyers Association Opposes National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association Opposes National Health Law Program Opposes National Organization for Women Opposes National Partnership for Women and Families Opposes National Senior Citizens Law Center Opposes National Urban League Opposes National Women's Law Center Opposes National Women's Political Caucus - California Opposes Natural Heritage Institute Opposes Natural Resources Defense Council Opposes New Mexico Environmental Law Center Opposes Northwest Environmental Advocates Opposes Oilfield Waste Policy Institute Opposes Omni Center for Peace, Justice and Ecology Opposes Pacific Institute for Women's Health Opposes People for the American Way Opposes Planned Parenthood Federation of America Opposes Planned Parenthood Golden Gate Opposes Planned Parenthood Los Angeles Opposes Progressive Jewish Alliance Opposes Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice Opposes San Francisco La Raza Lawyers Association Opposes SEIU Local 99 Opposes Service Employees International Union Opposes Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States Opposes Sierra Club Opposes Sierra Club Southern California Opposes Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project Opposes Stonewall Democratic Club, Los Angeles Opposes Union for Reform Judaism Opposes Unitarian Universalist Project Freedom of Religion Opposes Valley Watch, Inc. Opposes Washington Environ mental Council Opposes Western Land Exchange Project Opposes Western Law Center for Disability Rights Opposes Wild Alabama Opposes WildLaw Opposes Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles Opposes Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance Project Opposes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Apr 22, 2005 -> 02:25 PM) She sounds like a real advocate for the people: The following organizations have taken an official position on this nominee: Organization Position ADA Watch/National Coalition for Disability Rights Opposes Advocates for the West Opposes AFL-CIO Opposes Alabama Environmental Council Opposes Alliance for Justice Opposes Alliance for Retired Americans Opposes American Association of University Women Opposes American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Opposes American Lands Alliance Opposes American Planning Association Opposes American Rivers Opposes Americans for Democratic Action Opposes Americans United for Separation of Church and State Opposes Amigos Bravos Opposes Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law Opposes Black Women Lawyers of Los Angeles Opposes Buckeye Forest Council Opposes California Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League Opposes California Association of Black Lawyers Opposes California Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO Opposes California League of Conservation Voters Opposes California National Organization for Women Opposes California Women's Law Center Opposes Californians for Alternatives to Toxics Opposes Center for Medicare Advocacy Corporation Opposes Chinese for Affirmative Action Opposes Citizens Coal Council Opposes Clean Air Council Opposes Clean Water Action Opposes Clean Water Action Council Opposes Coalition of Labor Union Women Opposes Coast Alliance Opposes Committee for Judicial Independence Opposes Committee for the Preservation of the Lake Purdy Area, AL Opposes Community Rights Counsel Opposes Congressional Black Caucus Opposes Defenders of Wildlife Opposes Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. Opposes Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund Opposes Earthjustice Opposes EarthWINS Opposes Endangered Species Coalition Opposes Environmental Defense Center Opposes Environmental Law Foundation Opposes Equal Justice Society Opposes Equality California Opposes Families USA Opposes Feminist Majority Opposes Friends of Hurricane Creek, AL Opposes Friends of the Earth Opposes Georgia Center for the Law in the Public Interest Opposes Gray Panthers Opposes Great Rivers Environmental Law Center Opposes Hurricane Creekkeeper Opposes John Muir Project Opposes Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. Opposes Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the Bay Area Opposes Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Opposes Legal Momentum Opposes Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund Opposes Mineral Policy Center Opposes NAACP Opposes NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Opposes National Abortion Federation Opposes National Association of Women Business Owners - San Francisco Chapter Opposes National Bar Association Opposes National Center for Lesbian Rights Opposes National Committee to Preserve Social Secuity and Medicare Opposes National Council of Jewish Women Opposes National Council of Jewish Women - California Opposes National Council of Jewish Women - Los Angeles Opposes National Council of Women's Organizations Opposes National Employment Lawyers Association Opposes National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association Opposes National Health Law Program Opposes National Organization for Women Opposes National Partnership for Women and Families Opposes National Senior Citizens Law Center Opposes National Urban League Opposes National Women's Law Center Opposes National Women's Political Caucus - California Opposes Natural Heritage Institute Opposes Natural Resources Defense Council Opposes New Mexico Environmental Law Center Opposes Northwest Environmental Advocates Opposes Oilfield Waste Policy Institute Opposes Omni Center for Peace, Justice and Ecology Opposes Pacific Institute for Women's Health Opposes People for the American Way Opposes Planned Parenthood Federation of America Opposes Planned Parenthood Golden Gate Opposes Planned Parenthood Los Angeles Opposes Progressive Jewish Alliance Opposes Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice Opposes San Francisco La Raza Lawyers Association Opposes SEIU Local 99 Opposes Service Employees International Union Opposes Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States Opposes Sierra Club Opposes Sierra Club Southern California Opposes Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project Opposes Stonewall Democratic Club, Los Angeles Opposes Union for Reform Judaism Opposes Unitarian Universalist Project Freedom of Religion Opposes Valley Watch, Inc. Opposes Washington Environ mental Council Opposes Western Land Exchange Project Opposes Western Law Center for Disability Rights Opposes Wild Alabama Opposes WildLaw Opposes Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles Opposes Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance Project Opposes Based on that they pass my litmus test. They need to be approved and post-haste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 (edited) American Rivers OPPOSES I OPPOSE! YEAH GET THAT b**** OUT OF HERE Edited April 22, 2005 by CrimsonWeltall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted April 22, 2005 Author Share Posted April 22, 2005 forget the nominee for a sec, this is about Cheney and the Republicans destroying the freedom of speech in the senate. its simply disgusting - and this really shouldnt be a partisan issue either because this is destroying 200 years of PARTISAN speech in the senate... regardless of whether you like the nominee or not, no one should be in favor of eliminating the filibuster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 they are not eliminating the filibuster, they are eliminating the filibuster on JUDICIAL NOMINEES, which are NOT to be a super majority vote - which is directly in the constitution when a super majority is called for. Nominations on judicary is NOT one of those. The democrats have found a way to circumvent a straight up or down vote by using this procedure, which has not happened in 200 years. I posted on here the other day, this whole f***ing government of ours needs blown up and started over. They are all self-serving f***s. Two party system is killing us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted April 22, 2005 Author Share Posted April 22, 2005 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Apr 22, 2005 -> 03:44 PM) they are not eliminating the filibuster, they are eliminating the filibuster on JUDICIAL NOMINEES, which are NOT to be a super majority vote - which is directly in the constitution when a super majority is called for. Nominations on judicary is NOT one of those. The democrats have found a way to circumvent a straight up or down vote by using this procedure, which has not happened in 200 years. I posted on here the other day, this whole f***ing government of ours needs blown up and started over. They are all self-serving f***s. Two party system is killing us. i'll drink to that last part... ugh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 I can't say it any better than Schumer did here: Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said the White House "has stepped over the line by interfering with the Senate to reduce checks and balances." "The White House has always wanted to reduce the Senate's power and the fact that Vice President Cheney is encouraging this abuse of power should strengthen the Senate's resolve to resist," Schumer said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 (edited) QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Apr 22, 2005 -> 03:25 PM) She sounds like a real advocate for the people: The following organizations have taken an official position on this nominee: Yeah, if this is one example of Cheney's "nominees who are well qualified and broadly supported," then I'd hate to see the opinions on those nominees without such a groundswell of support. Edited April 22, 2005 by FlaSoxxJim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Apr 22, 2005 -> 02:44 PM) they are not eliminating the filibuster, they are eliminating the filibuster on JUDICIAL NOMINEES, which are NOT to be a super majority vote - which is directly in the constitution when a super majority is called for. Nominations on judicary is NOT one of those. The democrats have found a way to circumvent a straight up or down vote by using this procedure, which has not happened in 200 years. I posted on here the other day, this whole f***ing government of ours needs blown up and started over. They are all self-serving f***s. Two party system is killing us. IIRC, McCain has been against this tactic of eliminating the filibuster as well in his comments that the Congress is not going to be Republican forever and this could really come back to bite them on the ass hard as a political party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Apr 22, 2005 -> 03:51 PM) Yeah, if this is one example of Cheney's "nominees who are well qualified and broadly supported," then I'd hate to see the opinions on those nominees without such a groundswell of support. She's a black female lawyer without the support of either the NAACP or the NOW. She's a real winner I bet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Apr 22, 2005 -> 02:55 PM) She's a black female lawyer without the support of either the NAACP or the NOW. She's a real winner I bet. You dont get it do you? These are organizations who are not there to promote issues of blacks and women, they are there to promote a leftist agenda and thats about all. The fact that they do it under the guise of helping blacks and women is shameful. The NAACP is also the same organization who called Clarance Thomas an "Uncle Tom". This judge should wear a lack of support from these organizations as a badge of honor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Apr 22, 2005 -> 04:02 PM) You dont get it do you? These are organizations who are not there to promote issues of blacks and women, they are there to promote a leftist agenda and thats about all. The fact that they do it under the guise of helping blacks and women is shameful. The NAACP is also the same organization who called Clarance Thomas an "Uncle Tom". This judge should wear a lack of support from these organizations as a badge of honor. I'm sorry, I didn't know you were such an expert on those organizations. Maybe you could enlighten us with some of your in-depth research, which could perhaps back up your moronic, paranoid, blanket comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Apr 22, 2005 -> 03:02 PM) You dont get it do you? These are organizations who are not there to promote issues of blacks and women, they are there to promote a leftist agenda and thats about all. The fact that they do it under the guise of helping blacks and women is shameful. The NAACP is also the same organization who called Clarance Thomas an "Uncle Tom". This judge should wear a lack of support from these organizations as a badge of honor. So none of those groups are interested about the issues around which they have been formed? I doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Apr 22, 2005 -> 03:09 PM) I'm sorry, I didn't know you were such an expert on those organizations. Maybe you could enlighten us with some of your in-depth research, which could perhaps back up your moronic, paranoid, blanket comments. Calling Clarence Thomas an "Uncle Tom" is not a "moronic, paranoid, blanket comment"? I dont know who has more credibility issues the NAACP with their petty, stupid personal attacks or you. You can pucker up and kiss my ass......b****. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted April 22, 2005 Author Share Posted April 22, 2005 nuke we all realize you're 'anti-liberal' but you dont need to be so flaming about it... seriously... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Apr 22, 2005 -> 03:10 PM) So none of those groups are interested about the issues around which they have been formed? I doubt it. The point I'm trying to make is that they've outlived their usefullness and the agenda's they now promote ( affirmative action and other forms of preferential treatment for women and minorities ) now run contrary to the premises they were founded on which was equal rights and protections for all. If they held true to their ideals they would be gushing over a black woman who has made it this far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 (edited) QUOTE(Reddy @ Apr 22, 2005 -> 03:13 PM) nuke we all realize you're 'anti-liberal' but you dont need to be so flaming about it... seriously... I didn't start the flaming here but I'm more than happy to respond in kind. At least Kip can debate without resorting to personal attacks and you dont see me talking nasty to him. Edited April 22, 2005 by NUKE_CLEVELAND Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted April 22, 2005 Author Share Posted April 22, 2005 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Apr 22, 2005 -> 04:12 PM) You can pucker up and kiss my ass......b****. my point... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 QUOTE(Reddy @ Apr 22, 2005 -> 03:18 PM) my point... I didn't start the flaming here but I'm more than happy to respond in kind. At least Kip can debate without resorting to personal attacks and you dont see me talking nasty to him. My point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Apr 22, 2005 -> 04:12 PM) Calling Clarence Thomas an "Uncle Tom" is not a "moronic, paranoid, blanket comment"? I dont know who has more credibility issues the NAACP with their petty, stupid personal attacks or you. You can pucker up and kiss my ass......b****. You're a hypocritical douchebag. You started this by claiming "you just don't get it, do you?" Like I need a schmuck like you telling me what I get and don't get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Apr 22, 2005 -> 03:20 PM) You're a hypocritical douchebag. You started this by claiming "you just don't get it, do you?" Like I need a schmuck like you telling me what I get and don't get. You're absolutely right.......it's patently obvious that you don't get it so there's no need whatsoever for me to talk about it further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 Kids... I'll tun this car..., er, thread right around and we can just go home... Play nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 ^^^^^^^^ Yea, that. There's some good points in here, and IMO some people don't get it. Probably not anyone in particular in this thread, but there are some who don't. Like, say, most likely our whole politicized form of f'ed up government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.