or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › No Filibuster for you!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

No Filibuster for you!

post #1 of 126
Thread Starter 
CNN

Quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Democratic filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito -- led by Massachusetts Democratic Sens. John Kerry and Edward M. Kennedy -- was defeated 72-25 Monday, all but assuring Alito's appointment to the high court.

That is what you call being shut down.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2 of 126
Good -- although they would have tried to filibuster Mother Theresa. The whole Alito nomination had gotten downright surreal -- and very phony.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #3 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Good -- although they would have tried to filibuster Mother Theresa. The whole Alito nomination had gotten downright surreal -- and very phony.

Well there was no filibuster of Roberts, so unless you think Roberts is better than Mother Theresa...

Alito is a conservative activist. To replace O'Connor with him is going to genuinely change the court. The concerns of liberals about him are far from phony. Of course Nick will say it's just because he's a white male.

Something I heard the other day: A majority (5 members) of the court will now be Catholic. And 4 of them are the conservative wing of the court. I'm not sure what that means, but I thought it was interesting.
post #4 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Something I heard the other day: A majority (5 members) of the court will now be Catholic.

That ought to be enough to freak out every evangelical in the country!


How does the line go....."Methodists are Baptists who can read, and Roman Catholics are Methodists who got degrees"

.....?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #5 of 126
Goodbye Roe. Back to the dark times.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #6 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
Goodbye Roe. Back to the dark times.

The "dark times" of democratically deciding whether to make abortion legal?

That is simply too horrible to consider.

(Besides, if BRusell's polls are right, you have nothing to worry about.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #7 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
The "dark times" of democratically deciding whether to make abortion legal?

That is simply too horrible to consider.

Should we democratically decide if a black guy counts as 3/5th of a person? Sorry, I consider abortion an inalienable right...just as it is the right of every person to be counted as a whole.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #8 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
Goodbye Roe. Back to the dark times.

The dark times when murdering babies was not celebrated. Put a pair of panties on a terrorists head and you latte sippers have a fit. Murder thousands of babies a year for selfish convenience and you are happy. Thank goodness the people are reclaiming this great land.
Moe has left the building
Reply
Moe has left the building
Reply
post #9 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Should we democratically decide if a black guy counts as 3/5th of a person? Sorry, I consider abortion an inalienable right...just as it is the right of every person to be counted as a whole.

Yes, but as time moves on BR, we will look back on pro-aborts, the same way we look back at the Saturday afternoon lynch mobs of the early 20th century.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #10 of 126
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Alito is a conservative activist. To replace O'Connor with him is going to genuinely change the court. The concerns of liberals about him are far from phony.

The concerns are phony because there is no Constitutional nor even procedural/traditional basis for nominating judges with the same ideological background. This mime is nothing more than the minority party attempting justify their unjustifiable actions. They have turned confirmation hearings into smear sessions.

We should welcome the changing of a court that gives us decisions like Kelo.

Quote:
Of course Nick will say it's just because he's a white male.

I didn't know that only white males treasured the concept of private property.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #11 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
The concerns are phony because there is no Constitutional nor even procedural/traditional basis for nominating judges with the same ideological background.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

Yes. Thank you for saying it.
post #12 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Yes, but as time moves on BR, we will look back on pro-aborts, the same way we look back at the Saturday afternoon lynch mobs of the early 20th century.

Doubtful.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #13 of 126
He's an activist judge. Plain and simple.

And his confirmation is proof that Republicans are hypocrits of the highest order.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #14 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

Yes. Thank you for saying it.

I thought conservatives were all about the status quo.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #15 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
The "dark times" of democratically deciding whether to make abortion legal?

There is nothing democratic about unelected, directly appointed judges. No citizen voted for them, and no election was held to approve or dissaprove of their appointment. They are not subject to renewed authority, as they are not subject to re-election (for which they would need to be elected first).
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #16 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
I thought conservatives were all about the status quo.

Well I don't know about "conservatives"...but as for myself, I was getting tired of this assumption that Sandra Day O'Connor needed to be replaced by either:

a) another woman, or
b) some other "minority"

and...

had to have the same ideological bent as opposed to...you know...just selecting the best judge available.

Now I'm not saying Alito is the best judge available but these other criteria were just plain annoying, transparent and stupid.
post #17 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
There is nothing democratic about unelected, directly appointed judges. No citizen voted for them, and no election was held to approve or dissaprove of their appointment. They are not subject to renewed authority, as they are not subject to re-election (for which they would need to be elected first).

And thank God for that.
post #18 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
[B]The concerns are phony because there is no Constitutional nor even procedural/traditional basis for nominating judges with the same ideological background. This mime is nothing more than the minority party attempting justify their unjustifiable actions. They have turned confirmation hearings into smear sessions./B]

That's true, there is no precedent for nominating ideological judges. The best example is that a Republican president appointed Warren, who presided over the most liberal court in US history. That non-ideological tradition changed with the Reagan administration and nominees like Bork, Thomas, and now Alito.

And guess which party is the only party to ever filibuster a Supreme Court justice?
post #19 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
That's true, there is no precedent for nominating ideological judges.

Ummm...I think you (either accidentally or intentionally) misunderstood what Nick was saying. Let me repeat it for you:

Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
there is no Constitutional nor even procedural/traditional basis for nominating judges with the same ideological background [as those being replaced]
post #20 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
The dark times when murdering babies was not celebrated. Put a pair of panties on a terrorists head and you latte sippers have a fit. Murder thousands of babies a year for selfish convenience and you are happy. Thank goodness the people are reclaiming this great land.

Mmm, yes, good thing the child welfare/adoption system in the USA is so lacking in red tape, properly managed, adequately funded and not overburdened with too many children already!

(I have a few family members and in-laws who all adopted from other countries because of the inadequacies of the US system)

And in case you were wondering, no, I don't believe the Government can tell a person what they can and can't do with their body.

<Edit due to posting before thinking>
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #21 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by iPoster
There is a promising stem cell therapy that could cure my currently incurable bodily malfunction using stem cells grown from my own marrow, but I would have to pay to go to another country to have it done...

Why is that? Is stem cell research illegal in the U.S.? Specifically stell cell "therapy" using one's one bone marrow?


Quote:
Originally posted by iPoster
because we all know God hates people who cure diseases and save lives using stem cells!

Whew. Just don't even know what to say to that.
post #22 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Ummm...I think you (either accidentally or intentionally) misunderstood what Nick was saying. Let me repeat it for you:

No I understood, and even gave the example of Eisenhower nominating Warren. What I don't understand is how you or Nick can defend Bush's choice of Alito by claiming there's no precedent of nominating judges for ideological reasons. I honestly don't get it. Isn't that exactly what Bush has done? So are you saying the precedent Nick mentioned is a good thing or not?
post #23 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
No I understood, and even gave the example of Eisenhower nominating Warren, and then saying that all changed when Reagan started nominating conservative ideologues like Bork.

I still think you don't get what he was saying. It wasn't about appointing ideologues or not, but about whether replacing an outgoing justice with someone with the same/similar ideology is some kind of requirement or not.

Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
What I don't understand is how you or Nick can defend Bush's choice of Alito by claiming there's no precedent of nominating judges for ideological reasons. I honestly don't get it.

Well, I am not defending Bush's nomination of Alito and, from Nick's post, I don't think he was either (though he may be in other posts, which is fine). But he was pointing out the truth that there is no constitutional (or other) requirement that the incoming nominee somehow be an ideological "match" for the outgoing justice. It's not really so hard to understand.
post #24 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
CNN



That is what you call getting rid of your civil liberties.

Nick

I corrected the mistake in your post.
Your Welcome.
post #25 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
And thank God for that.

Thank who? Never heard of him.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #26 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Yes, but as time moves on BR, we will look back on pro-aborts, the same way we look back at the Saturday afternoon lynch mobs of the early 20th century.

It's funny that you mention that since the courts (UNELECTED HOMOSEXUAL LIBERAL COMMUNIST ATHEISTS!) were the vanguard of the black equality movement.

When you knife the baby don't be surprised when the baby dies.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #27 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
It's funny that you mention that since the courts (UNELECTED HOMOSEXUAL LIBERAL COMMUNIST ATHEISTS!) were the vanguard of the black equality movement.

When you knife the baby don't be surprised when the baby dies.

Not exactly, the Dred Scott........wait a minute -- you're being sarcastic!

?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #28 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Why is that? Is stem cell research illegal in the U.S.? Specifically stell cell "therapy" using one's one bone marrow?

Whew. Just don't even know what to say to that.

Sorry, wrote that in a hurry, I should have specified that if certain religious groups had their way, it probably would be illegal. The procedure I have been researching is being researched here in the US, but the actual injection of the cells AFAIK is done overseas, for whatever reason, political or technical.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #29 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Yes, but as time moves on BR, we will look back on pro-aborts, the same way we look back at the Saturday afternoon lynch mobs of the early 20th century.

don't get your hopes up.
post #30 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Outsider
I corrected the mistake in your post.
Your Welcome.

How is it exactly that the Senate voting in a manner that, well they are legally entitled to to end a filibuster "getting rid" of anyone's civil liberties?



Oh...right...it isn't.
post #31 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by iPoster
it probably would be illegal.

Just so we are clear and specific, the "it" you are referring to is embryonic stem cell based research.

Quote:
Originally posted by iPoster
The procedure I have been researching is being researched here in the US, but the actual injection of the cells AFAIK is done overseas, for whatever reason, political or technical.

But surely not for legal reasons.

I am truly sorry to hear that a medical procedure that will cure you is presently unavailable to you here in the U.S. and that you do not have the means to get that treatment overseas. I hope this is not a life-threatening or terminal illness.
post #32 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I still think you don't get what he was saying. It wasn't about appointing ideologues or not, but about whether replacing an outgoing justice with someone with the same/similar ideology is some kind of requirement or not.



Well, I am not defending Bush's nomination of Alito and, from Nick's post, I don't think he was either (though he may be in other posts, which is fine). But he was pointing out the truth that there is no constitutional (or other) requirement that the incoming nominee somehow be an ideological "match" for the outgoing justice. It's not really so hard to understand.

Oh, duh, you're right, I didn't get that. Of course Bush doesn't have to appoint someone ideologically the same as O'Connor. All I meant when I said that was that his nomination will certainly change the court.

On the other hand, I think it is true that ever since Reagan, court nominees have been more ideological. It's perhaps not a coincidence that this period also followed Roe v. Wade.
post #33 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
When you knife the baby don't be surprised when the baby dies.

Now...I'm just wondering...was that an inadvertent poor choice of words or a deliberate poor choice of words?
post #34 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
The dark times when murdering babies was not celebrated. Put a pair of panties on a terrorists head and you latte sippers have a fit. Murder thousands of babies a year for selfish convenience and you are happy. Thank goodness the people are reclaiming this great land.

It is the people that are, as you put it, murdering their babies, or didn't you know this?

More abortions happen per capita in Red States...

It is a social issue.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #35 of 126
CC:

It can't be a poor choice of words -- since it's not a 'baby' if its head is still in the birth canal!

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #36 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
All I meant when I said that was that his nomination will certainly change the court.

This is probably true.

Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
On the other hand, I think it is true that ever since Reagan, court nominees have been more ideological.

I don't know...but that's because...well I don't know. I'll take your word for it at this point.

Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
It's perhaps not a coincidence that this period also followed Roe v. Wade.

Possibly, or possibly because of a change in tenor of politics generally over the past 30-35 years.
post #37 of 126
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
It is the people that are, as you put it, murdering their babies, or didn't you know this?

And, somehow, that makes it OK?

Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
More abortions happen per capita in Red States...

And this has what to do with the price of tea in China?

Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
It is a social issue.

And a moral one.
post #38 of 126
Because ending debate on this will result in someone being confirmed that has disdain for Americans in general. Someone who doesn't think there should be limits on executive power. I mean we already have a president that doesn't think laws passed in 1978 matter anymore.

A man who consistantly sides with corporations against regular people.

A man who is unsympathetic to disabled, minorities and women.

The Democrats are spineless idiots for letting this grade-A douche bag get confirmed to the highest court in the land.
post #39 of 126
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
That's true, there is no precedent for nominating ideological judges. The best example is that a Republican president appointed Warren, who presided over the most liberal court in US history. That non-ideological tradition changed with the Reagan administration and nominees like Bork, Thomas, and now Alito.

And guess which party is the only party to ever filibuster a Supreme Court justice?

You know I am seldom impolite to someone as cool as you BRussell, but that seriously is pure bullshit. FDR threatened the Supreme Court into an ideological change with his court packing scheme. Could you ever first imagine Bush having three unanimous decisions rendered against his policies, threatening to create a 15 member Supreme Court so he could stack it with his own judges, and then having many of the same decisions suddenly pass 5-4 a mere two years later? That is exactly what FDR did.

FDR eventually ended up appointing 8 Supreme Court judges and no one has EVER changed the court more quickly and ideologically than he.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #40 of 126
Why don't we provide all pregnant women with the best healthcare possible for free, monetary reimbursement for lost potential wages at a minimum of 2x minimum wage, and create and maintain an adoption/orphanage program that has real accountability built in?

In addition, since people are going to have sex regardless of whether they can support or want children, create a real sex education program that includes discussion of, *gasp*, contraception.

Or don't the butt plugged too tightly prolifers want to solve the problems that lead people to want abortions or to abandon newborns?
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › No Filibuster for you!