FlaSoxxJim Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 09:24 PM) Yea, the f***ing bumper sticker to the organization had on it "we are racial, bigoted assholes who profile against minorities of all kinds... future supreme court nominees need not apply..." and Alito signed right up to become a part of a huge ass witch hunt 30 years later. GMAFB. :rolly No. He signed right up because he's a racial (and sexist), bigoted asshole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 09:40 PM) So if this was some pointless organization he joined, why did he feel it was important enough to include it on later job applications? Well, when it's Ed Meese you are trying to impress. . . Until Ashcroft/Gonzalez, I didn't think it was possible an Attorney General could wipe his ass with the Constitution anymore than Meese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 09:15 PM) yea, i really think they're nitpicking at this point. the Dem senators are just trying to show their "base" that they fought this nomination. Thats all........and they will fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 10:21 PM) No. He signed right up because he's a racial (and sexist), bigoted asshole. Thats what your side says about all conservatives. Why should Alito be any different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 I expect a 55-45 vote on this. Party line. And if the Dems wanna say "Hell No," that's fine. I just don't expect a filibuster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 10:27 PM) I expect a 55-45 vote on this. Party line. And if the Dems wanna say "Hell No," that's fine. I just don't expect a filibuster. I agree. They try and filibuster Alito and the gloves come off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 08:31 PM) I agree. They try and filibuster Alito and the gloves come off. Ok, now this one is in all seriousness...what exactly can the Republicans do beyond what they've already done except for the nuclear option, which they'd do in response to a filibuster anyway? They're already passing bills in the middle of the night, totally rewriting bills in conference committees, holding votes open for many times the usual voting period, preventing any sort of investigations of anything they've done from moving forward, and saying that any question other than "Iraq war, great idea or greatest idea?" gives aid and comfort to the enemy. What else can they do? And if they do that, are they willing to tolerate the shutting down of the Senate in response? Even as a minority, don't underestimate the power that the Senate rules give to each side - remember Harry Reid's invoking of Rule 21 (I think that was the number)? There are a dozen procedural tricks that each side can use to totally hamstring the other if it comes to that, but almost none of them are ever employed. So what exactly can the Republicans do to "Take the gloves off"? Sending the Democrats to Gitmo? Anywho, almost certainly a moot point because I can't imagine the Dems being able to hold together a filibuster on this nominee, if the best thing they can throw at him is "Oh, back in college 30 years ago you joined this stupid group and you put it on a resume 20 years ago." Oh, and to the person who said 55-45...I have 1 word for you...Lieberman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Yeah, I take that back. His base is not happy with him and there is a primary challenger for Lieberman. Not viewed as serious but because the CT primary tends not to draw independents, it could be bad for Lieberman. He's then said that he would run as an Independent. That would be a f***ed up situation because between him, Weicker, a Dem nominee and a GOP nominee, it could be a very weird election. Especially if the Dem establishment comes back to support Lieberman - which is a possibility. The move to replace the Joementum is coming from the grassroots and not from the DNC power structure - so who knows what would happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 04:21 AM) No. He signed right up because he's a racial (and sexist), bigoted asshole. I'm glad you know the man personally and can make that WONDERFUL, INSIGHTFUL comment about him. Again, GMAFB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 07:41 AM) I'm glad you know the man personally and can make that WONDERFUL, INSIGHTFUL comment about him. Again, GMAFB. Your words, not mine. GMAFB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 01:20 PM) Your words, not mine. GMAFB. Do you wanna piece of me? I'll take you back to the woodshed... GMAFB. I do have one serious question, to turn the conversation back to abortion, you know, the lightning rod issue... I've said before that Roe v. Wade is NOTHING but a political hack law that Dems and Repubs spend millions and millions of dollars on, and really, neither party wants to see it overturned for that very reason. Now, let's think about this, though. If Roe v. Wade gets overturned, what happens? It doesn't mean that abortion is illegal!! WHAT A CONCEPT! It cracks me up how everyone just assumes that. All that simply means is that the STATES will determine their own law... which is the way it should be anyway. Interesting slant? Just curious what you think about that (no matter what your belief on the ISSUE is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 05:39 PM) I certainly wouldn't want to – if I had been a member of a campus anti-diversity organization, that is. :rolly If 30 years ago I was an active member of the KKK, you don't think that knowing this today would shed the tiniest bit of light on where my ideologies lie? Congress can't ask nominees anything about an aything that a nominee might potentially have to rule on in the future, so they are stuck looking at past rulings, briefs, and opinions, and also these sorts of forks in the paper trail. But, in the spirit of full disclosure: 30 years ago I was a card carrying member of the both the KISS Army and Friends Of Old Marvel. Yessireee, I got a closetfull of skeletons. So, are you comparing Alito's involvement with CAP to the KKK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 10:21 PM) No. He signed right up because he's a racial (and sexist), bigoted asshole. You really believe that? But, Byrd is the conscience of the Senate now? He's reformed? :rolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 10:21 PM) No. He signed right up because he's a racial (and sexist), bigoted asshole. Tell it the ABA. Well qulaified!!!!!!! Enough said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :finger :finger :finger :finger :finger :finger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted January 12, 2006 Author Share Posted January 12, 2006 QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 10:38 AM) Tell it the ABA. Well qulaified!!!!!!! Enough said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :finger :finger :finger :finger :finger :finger And let me add .... :finger :finger :finger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 10:27 PM) I expect a 55-45 vote on this. Party line. And if the Dems wanna say "Hell No," that's fine. I just don't expect a filibuster. I'm guessing at least 59. Pryor, Nelson(NE.), Lieberman, Landrieu. Possibly Lincoln, Nelson(Fla.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 04:40 PM) And let me add .... :finger :finger :finger :finger :finger :finger :finger :finger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 05:33 AM) Now, let's think about this, though. If Roe v. Wade gets overturned, what happens? It doesn't mean that abortion is illegal!! WHAT A CONCEPT! It cracks me up how everyone just assumes that. All that simply means is that the STATES will determine their own law... which is the way it should be anyway. Interesting slant? Just curious what you think about that (no matter what your belief on the ISSUE is). But, if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, what would be out there to stop the Republicans from seeking a national ban? In the short term it would fall to the states yes, but if the Republicans still held solid majorities in the House and Senate, and could get a few of the pro-life Democrats in the Senate to vote for cloture, it could very easily happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted January 12, 2006 Author Share Posted January 12, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 11:10 AM) But, if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, what would be out there to stop the Republicans from seeking a national ban? In the short term it would fall to the states yes, but if the Republicans still held solid majorities in the House and Senate, and could get a few of the pro-life Democrats in the Senate to vote for cloture, it could very easily happen. Then the will of the voter will rule. What a concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 09:31 AM) Then the will of the voter will rule. What a concept. "Looked at another way, the present Senate is the product of three elections, those of 2000, 2002, and 2004. In those elections, the total vote for Democratic senatorial candidates, winning and losing, was 99.7 million; for Republicans it was 97.3 million. The forty-four-person Senate Democratic minority, therefore, represents a two-million-plus popular majority—a circumstance that, unless acres trump people, is at variance with common-sense notions of democracy. So Democrats, as democrats, need not feel too terribly guilty about engaging in a spot of filibustering from time to time." New Yorker. I just always find that interesting...more voters for the Democrats for the Senate, but based on how the state lines are drawn, the Republicans wind up with a solid Senate majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted January 12, 2006 Author Share Posted January 12, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 11:36 AM) New Yorker. I just always find that interesting...more voters for the Democrats for the Senate, but based on how the state lines are drawn, the Republicans wind up with a solid Senate majority. The states lines are carved in stone. The candidates within a state have nothing to do with a neighboring state. How do you explain the House? Excepting Texas, of course. Pulling that one out of your arsenal before you fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 12:36 PM) New Yorker. I just always find that interesting...more voters for the Democrats for the Senate, but based on how the state lines are drawn, the Republicans wind up with a solid Senate majority. Stupid Great Comprimise ensuring stupid small states rights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 09:38 AM) The states lines are carved in stone. The candidates within a state have nothing to do with a neighboring state. How do you explain the House? Excepting Texas, of course. Pulling that one out of your arsenal before you fire. I'll toss that one right up to Democratic ineptness, with only a hint of gerrymandering right now, as you note. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted January 12, 2006 Author Share Posted January 12, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 11:44 AM) I'll toss that one right up to Democratic ineptness, with only a hint of gerrymandering right now, as you note. Agreed. Texas, some gerrymandering. The other 49 states, democratic ineptness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 08:33 AM) Do you wanna piece of me? I'll take you back to the woodshed... GMAFB. I do have one serious question, to turn the conversation back to abortion, you know, the lightning rod issue... I've said before that Roe v. Wade is NOTHING but a political hack law that Dems and Repubs spend millions and millions of dollars on, and really, neither party wants to see it overturned for that very reason. Now, let's think about this, though. If Roe v. Wade gets overturned, what happens? It doesn't mean that abortion is illegal!! WHAT A CONCEPT! It cracks me up how everyone just assumes that. All that simply means is that the STATES will determine their own law... which is the way it should be anyway. Interesting slant? Just curious what you think about that (no matter what your belief on the ISSUE is). Laike Balta said, there is no reason to think it would be left up to the states for very long. If the powers that be are willing to consider a constitutional ban on gay marriage then or course a constitutional ban on abortion would be dearer still to the anti-abortion powers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts