I think the diversity argument presented in that CNN article most definitely doesn't apply here! The history of recess appointments has no effect on the fact that I vehemently disagree with Charles Pickering and his recess appointment.
Hey, but at least the timing is good with MLK day and all. What a way to celebrate!
I think the diversity argument presented in that CNN article most definitely doesn't apply here! The history of recess appointments has no effect on the fact that I vehemently disagree with Charles Pickering and his recess appointment.
You need to consider the long term view Shawn.
The courts should have a diversity of views which means, surprise, those that you don't happen to agree with. A diversity of people does not insure a diversity of views. Only someone who is racist would assume that just because someone's skin color is different, that their views are as well.
As for vehmently disagreeing with Charles Pickering and his recess appointment, you would have to convince people that your view is worth changing the Constitution to protect. The process is there and is used to bring in people that a small minority in Congress has been obstructing. Practically every president has used it. It has sometimes been used to promote some very capable people who otherwise would not have gotten to where they did.
The point is would you honestly wish to close the means that gave us Warren and Marshall just to avoid the Pickering you disagree with?
Liberals hate this stuff mostly because it helps put a halt to the judicial fiats that they've come to rely on to enact measures they couldn't pass via the legislature.
You truly unique in your lack of vision at times Shawn.
The courts should have a diversity of views which means, surprise, those that you don't happen to agree with. A diversity of people does not insure a diversity of views. Only someone who is racist would assume that just because someone's skin color is different, that their views are as well.
As for vehmently disagreeing with Charles Pickering and his recess appointment, who cares what you think. The process is there and is used to bring in people that a small minority in Congress has been obstructing. Practically every president has used it. It has sometimes been used to promote some very capable people who otherwise would not have gotten to where they did.
The point is would you honestly wish to close the means that gave us Warren and Marshall just to avoid the Pickering you disagree with?
Nick
Who cares? We're here to discuss each other's views. If you don't care, then you shouldn't be here discussing.
As for the skin color comment, it was YOU that brought up the point that the courts have been 'diversified' through this loop hole. Does that mean you're a racist or something? Or do you just believe that you believe the appointments of Warren and Marshall were racist appointments?
Yes, the courts should have a diversity of views, and no that doesn't have anything to do with skin color. But not even judges are supposed to let their personal views effect their decisions. I guess there's some serious questions about Pickering's ability to separate the two.
But not even judges are supposed to let their personal views effect their decisions. I guess there's some serious questions about Pickering's ability to separate the two.
Who cares? We're here to discuss each other's views. If you don't care, then you shouldn't be here discussing.
As for the skin color comment, it was YOU that brought up the point that the courts have been 'diversified' through this loop hole. Does that mean you're a racist or something? Or do you just believe that you believe the appointments of Warren and Marshall were racist appointments?
Yes, the courts should have a diversity of views, and no that doesn't have anything to do with skin color. But not even judges are supposed to let their personal views effect their decisions. I guess there's some serious questions about Pickering's ability to separate the two.
Well I edited that at Shawn's request. Had a harder edge to it than it read to me. I clarified what I meant with regard to it in the edit.
As for your second paragraph, I have no idea what you are even getting at. You have gone off the deep end into incomprehensibility. It was not I that suggested that Pickering didn't represent a diversity of views. That was Shawn. Likewise I didn't say the courts HAVE to be diversified through this process, but rather that the result has often lead to that. I have no idea why you would associate anything I have said with racism since I never implied that diversity was only achieved by race. I never suggested that the appointment of Pickering was not representative of a diversity of views. That was yourself and Shawn for the record.
So you implied racism. I reversed the process to people you were more likely to find favorable, and thus I am claiming the actions there were racist? Well I didn't suggest the Pickering appointment was racist did I? I showed you your own reasoning applied. I didn't claim that it would sarcastically highlight the celebration of MLK's birthday.
So just to make it clear for you.
Pickering process = racist, mean Marshall, Warren, others = also racist process.
Pickering process = not racist, means Marshall, Warren others = not racist process.
All this would be much easier if you would just stop trying to imply Bush, Pickering and his appointment were all racist.
Pickering process = racist, mean Marshall, Warren, others = also racist process.
Pickering process = not racist, means Marshall, Warren others = not racist process.
To simplify:
Pickering selection = bad, Marshall, Warren, other selections = OK.
A case has been made that Pickering is racist. Subverting the correct appointment process to appoint a racist judge is bad.
A case was made (back in the day) that racism was holding back other judges. Subverting the correct appointment process to appoint a judge held back by racism is good.
Is my distillation 100% accurate? Maybe not, but it's how the story has been told so far.
Pickering selection = bad, Marshall, Warren, other selections = OK.
A case has been made that Pickering is racist. Subverting the correct appointment process to appoint a racist judge is bad.
A case was made (back in the day) that racism was holding back other judges. Subverting the correct appointment process to appoint a judge held back by racism is good.
Is my distillation 100% accurate? Maybe not, but it's how the story has been told so far.
I've only heard the story distilled to one case on cross burning where the man was given two years instead of seven. I wouldn't call anyone racist just because someone got X amount of jail time instead of Y. You are welcome to post any information you want to support your claims of racism. Using the word alone will get questioned and called on it though.
Would it not be just as racist to assume a man cannot judge because he is black, as it would be to assume a man from Mississippi who is white must be a prejudiced? They both sound like stereotypes based off race to me.
Sometimes, I think we should just throw everything out, and start back using just the constitution as the foundation
it's in the constitution...... let me help you out a bit...
Article II section 2:
"The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."
His commission expires January 2005. At that time he may be resubmitted for confirmation, however if he not confirmed, he automatically loses his job.
Quote:
How were recess appointments ever constitutional
Uh, see above.... are you kidding me?
Quote:
This loop hole may need to be sealed up though
seriously? loop hole?!?! It's in the constitution.... so that means it will only take a vote of both houses of congress, and ratification of two-thirds of the states legislatures....
In 1967 Pickering testified against Sam Bowers, a KKK leader. Bowers was being tried for the firebombing death of Vernon Dahmer, a black civil rights activist. The all white jury couldn't come to a verdict. It took 4 trials and 31 years before Bowers was finally convicted in 1998.
Whatever Pickering's failings, testifying in that trial, despite warnings from the Klan, was an act of courage. Pickering's critics have acted shamefully.
I've only heard the story distilled to one case on cross burning where the man was given two years instead of seven. I wouldn't call anyone racist just because someone got X amount of jail time instead of Y. You are welcome to post any information you want to support your claims of racism. Using the word alone will get questioned and called on it though.
Would it not be just as racist to assume a man cannot judge because he is black, as it would be to assume a man from Mississippi who is white must be a prejudiced? They both sound like stereotypes based off race to me.
I don't think it's because Pickering is from Mississippi and is white. Mostly what I hear is that this guy isn't impartial enough to do this job.
I don't think it's because Pickering is from Mississippi and is white. Mostly what I hear is that this guy isn't impartial enough to do this job.
But the case for his impartiality is being made based in large part on this cross burning sentence reduction. This guy was given a reduction to his sentence because Pickering felt he was unfairly punished. This guy got a longer sentence for being the driver for the cross burners than the actual cross burners themselves received.
But the case for his impartiality is being made based in large part on this cross burning sentence reduction. This guy was given a reduction to his sentence because Pickering felt he was unfairly punished. This guy got a longer sentence for being the driver for the cross burners than the actual cross burners themselves received.
If that's it then I'd say there were a weak case against Pickering. I don't know though.
He's ready to quip that the Pinkering nomination is an insult to civil rights yet knows little about it. It's usually better to be informed before your knee jerks and you post something stupid.
He's ready to quip that the Pinkering nomination is an insult to civil rights yet knows little about it. It's usually better to be informed before your knee jerks and you post something stupid.
Can we deduce from your post that since you can't even spell the guy's name right you don't have the ability to contribute to this discussion?
Why don't you read the thread and you'll see that I never 'quip that the Pickering nomination is an insult to civil rights', as a matter of fact I don't take a stance on that issue at all.
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnJ
I think the diversity argument presented in that CNN article most definitely doesn't apply here!
Hey, but at least the timing is good with MLK day and all. What a way to celebrate!
Originally posted by ShawnJ
I think the diversity argument presented in that CNN article most definitely doesn't apply here!
You need to consider the long term view Shawn.
The courts should have a diversity of views which means, surprise, those that you don't happen to agree with. A diversity of people does not insure a diversity of views. Only someone who is racist would assume that just because someone's skin color is different, that their views are as well.
As for vehmently disagreeing with Charles Pickering and his recess appointment, you would have to convince people that your view is worth changing the Constitution to protect. The process is there and is used to bring in people that a small minority in Congress has been obstructing. Practically every president has used it. It has sometimes been used to promote some very capable people who otherwise would not have gotten to where they did.
The point is would you honestly wish to close the means that gave us Warren and Marshall just to avoid the Pickering you disagree with?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You truly unique in your lack of vision at times Shawn.
The courts should have a diversity of views which means, surprise, those that you don't happen to agree with. A diversity of people does not insure a diversity of views. Only someone who is racist would assume that just because someone's skin color is different, that their views are as well.
As for vehmently disagreeing with Charles Pickering and his recess appointment, who cares what you think. The process is there and is used to bring in people that a small minority in Congress has been obstructing. Practically every president has used it. It has sometimes been used to promote some very capable people who otherwise would not have gotten to where they did.
The point is would you honestly wish to close the means that gave us Warren and Marshall just to avoid the Pickering you disagree with?
Nick
Who cares? We're here to discuss each other's views. If you don't care, then you shouldn't be here discussing.
As for the skin color comment, it was YOU that brought up the point that the courts have been 'diversified' through this loop hole. Does that mean you're a racist or something? Or do you just believe that you believe the appointments of Warren and Marshall were racist appointments?
Yes, the courts should have a diversity of views, and no that doesn't have anything to do with skin color. But not even judges are supposed to let their personal views effect their decisions. I guess there's some serious questions about Pickering's ability to separate the two.
Originally posted by trumptman
The point is would you honestly wish to close the means that gave us Warren and Marshall just to avoid the Pickering you disagree with?
Probably. Unless Kickaha or others want to argue for its continued usefulness.
Originally posted by bunge
But not even judges are supposed to let their personal views effect their decisions. I guess there's some serious questions about Pickering's ability to separate the two.
Perfect, Bunge.
Originally posted by bunge
Who cares? We're here to discuss each other's views. If you don't care, then you shouldn't be here discussing.
As for the skin color comment, it was YOU that brought up the point that the courts have been 'diversified' through this loop hole. Does that mean you're a racist or something? Or do you just believe that you believe the appointments of Warren and Marshall were racist appointments?
Yes, the courts should have a diversity of views, and no that doesn't have anything to do with skin color. But not even judges are supposed to let their personal views effect their decisions. I guess there's some serious questions about Pickering's ability to separate the two.
Well I edited that at Shawn's request. Had a harder edge to it than it read to me. I clarified what I meant with regard to it in the edit.
As for your second paragraph, I have no idea what you are even getting at. You have gone off the deep end into incomprehensibility. It was not I that suggested that Pickering didn't represent a diversity of views. That was Shawn. Likewise I didn't say the courts HAVE to be diversified through this process, but rather that the result has often lead to that. I have no idea why you would associate anything I have said with racism since I never implied that diversity was only achieved by race. I never suggested that the appointment of Pickering was not representative of a diversity of views. That was yourself and Shawn for the record.
So you implied racism. I reversed the process to people you were more likely to find favorable, and thus I am claiming the actions there were racist? Well I didn't suggest the Pickering appointment was racist did I? I showed you your own reasoning applied. I didn't claim that it would sarcastically highlight the celebration of MLK's birthday.
So just to make it clear for you.
Pickering process = racist, mean Marshall, Warren, others = also racist process.
Pickering process = not racist, means Marshall, Warren others = not racist process.
All this would be much easier if you would just stop trying to imply Bush, Pickering and his appointment were all racist.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
So just to make it clear for you.
Pickering process = racist, mean Marshall, Warren, others = also racist process.
Pickering process = not racist, means Marshall, Warren others = not racist process.
To simplify:
Pickering selection = bad, Marshall, Warren, other selections = OK.
A case has been made that Pickering is racist. Subverting the correct appointment process to appoint a racist judge is bad.
A case was made (back in the day) that racism was holding back other judges. Subverting the correct appointment process to appoint a judge held back by racism is good.
Is my distillation 100% accurate? Maybe not, but it's how the story has been told so far.
Originally posted by bunge
To simplify:
Pickering selection = bad, Marshall, Warren, other selections = OK.
A case has been made that Pickering is racist. Subverting the correct appointment process to appoint a racist judge is bad.
A case was made (back in the day) that racism was holding back other judges. Subverting the correct appointment process to appoint a judge held back by racism is good.
Is my distillation 100% accurate? Maybe not, but it's how the story has been told so far.
I've only heard the story distilled to one case on cross burning where the man was given two years instead of seven. I wouldn't call anyone racist just because someone got X amount of jail time instead of Y. You are welcome to post any information you want to support your claims of racism. Using the word alone will get questioned and called on it though.
Would it not be just as racist to assume a man cannot judge because he is black, as it would be to assume a man from Mississippi who is white must be a prejudiced? They both sound like stereotypes based off race to me.
Nick
Sometimes, I think we should just throw everything out, and start back using just the constitution as the foundation
it's in the constitution...... let me help you out a bit...
Article II section 2:
"The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."
His commission expires January 2005. At that time he may be resubmitted for confirmation, however if he not confirmed, he automatically loses his job.
How were recess appointments ever constitutional
Uh, see above.... are you kidding me?
This loop hole may need to be sealed up though
seriously? loop hole?!?! It's in the constitution.... so that means it will only take a vote of both houses of congress, and ratification of two-thirds of the states legislatures....
Whatever Pickering's failings, testifying in that trial, despite warnings from the Klan, was an act of courage. Pickering's critics have acted shamefully.
Originally posted by trumptman
I've only heard the story distilled to one case on cross burning where the man was given two years instead of seven. I wouldn't call anyone racist just because someone got X amount of jail time instead of Y. You are welcome to post any information you want to support your claims of racism. Using the word alone will get questioned and called on it though.
Would it not be just as racist to assume a man cannot judge because he is black, as it would be to assume a man from Mississippi who is white must be a prejudiced? They both sound like stereotypes based off race to me.
I don't think it's because Pickering is from Mississippi and is white. Mostly what I hear is that this guy isn't impartial enough to do this job.
Originally posted by bunge
I don't think it's because Pickering is from Mississippi and is white. Mostly what I hear is that this guy isn't impartial enough to do this job.
But the case for his impartiality is being made based in large part on this cross burning sentence reduction. This guy was given a reduction to his sentence because Pickering felt he was unfairly punished. This guy got a longer sentence for being the driver for the cross burners than the actual cross burners themselves received.
Originally posted by rageous
But the case for his impartiality is being made based in large part on this cross burning sentence reduction. This guy was given a reduction to his sentence because Pickering felt he was unfairly punished. This guy got a longer sentence for being the driver for the cross burners than the actual cross burners themselves received.
If that's it then I'd say there were a weak case against Pickering. I don't know though.
Fellows
Originally posted by Scott
He's ready to quip that the Pinkering nomination is an insult to civil rights yet knows little about it. It's usually better to be informed before your knee jerks and you post something stupid.
Can we deduce from your post that since you can't even spell the guy's name right you don't have the ability to contribute to this discussion?
Why don't you read the thread and you'll see that I never 'quip that the Pickering nomination is an insult to civil rights', as a matter of fact I don't take a stance on that issue at all.