Yeah, but it was kinda a sarcastic credit. I really want them to try a filibuster because that would be very good for Republicans.
I'm confused. Am I supposed to give Matthews and Imus credit for making crude remarks about homosexuality? They can not believe in or support homosexuality but making disparaging remarks isn't to their credit.
If you think a failed (or successful) filibuster would be good for Republicans then y'all are more desperate than I thought.
As for Imus and Matthews, no surprises there. Imus' show is (in)famous for loosening standards to the point where people who appear there and should know better seem somehow to lose their sense of propriety.
Actually Rosemary in both situations, I give neither credit, but in both situations, the parties are acting on their beliefs.
Kennedy and Kerry pushing for a filibuster because they have nothing else, is not credit worthy. They are making a mockery of the positions that they hold.
Imus and Matthews may not embrace homosexuality, but to act childish about it is also, imo, making a mockery of the positions that they hold. I wonder if an employees of Imus and Chris, at their respective stations would be allowed to get away with such talk. I would bet they would be former employees.
I do agree with your thought that it would be good for the republicans though...Barak Obama seemed a tad bit disgusted with the whole situation.
I see what you're sayin Pam and I must say, after further reflection, I don't think K&K deserve any credit at all. Kerry is doing it to position himself for another presidential run in 08 and Kennedy is just a whackjob.
If you think a failed (or successful) filibuster would be good for Republicans then y'all are more desperate than I thought.
If it fails and it probably will, it will make the Dems look weak and out of touch with the mainstream, which btw, supports Alito. Only 30% of the country opposes him.
I've not seen the movie and I probably won't. I don't go to very many movies unless it's about something I'm really intersted in or the special effects are worth the trip.
If it fails and it probably will, it will make the Dems look weak and out of touch with the mainstream, which btw, supports Alito. Only 30% of the country opposes him.
When it comes to the Constitution, even when you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.
The slime being thrown at Alito is baseless. If this guy were so evil why did he get thru the first time. They are basing stuff on stuff that happened in the 80's, he didn't become a judge until the 90's.
If this guy were so evil why did he get thru the first time. They are basing stuff on stuff that happened in the 80's, he didn't become a judge until the 90's.
Nobody here said he was evil. OK?
I'll keep it simple: He should be kept off the court because he has a dangerous bias in favor of Executive powers (and against Legislative powers). His view is at odds with what the Framers envisioned which is an intricate system of checks and balances wherein all three branches are co-equal.
ara-
1. why are you bringing up the framers as part of your arguement? 2 weeks ago when I pointed out framers and their feelings on executive powers etc, you said it was irrelevant..now you want to make the framers relevant to your arguement?
2. why is/was Alito fit to serve on the Federal Court? Are you saying that the very things that you object to for the SCOTUS are not pertinant to the Federal Bench he sits on? Which court hears more cases?
You a used an irrelevant story of some of the Framers discussing the need for the executive to keep secret from Congress some negotiations with a foreign power.
That had nothing to do with the voluminous writings of all of the Framers on the need for a system of checks and balances so as to keep the Executive from becoming a despot. This is well-known to even those with a junior high school level of historical knowledge.
Please let's not go over that entire discussion again.
Please try to stay focused on the real issue: the President has admitted breaking the law, saying that the Constitution gives him the right to do so. It does not and never has. And, God Willing, it never will.
I've already stated my beef with Alito: his view of the separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches is dangerously flawed. Assuming he ascends to the SCOTUS he will be hearing more than one case arguing against the President's acknowledged law-breaking actions. He will be asked to judge the Constitutionality of those criminal acts.
I think it would be a bad idea for someone with Alito's flawed judicial mindset to sit in judgement of these cases at this time (or any other time).
The best thing would be for the Legislative branch to exercise its Constitutional powers to reject Alito, or barring that, derail the President's agenda (or cut off funding for it), hold rigorous oversight hearings so we know what's REALLY going on behind the lies, and/or impeach the President.
He suggested that a president’s signing statement be used not only to address a limited class of constitutional issues, but also mundane and frequently arising questions about what a law in fact meant.
This argument required a radical leap in constitutional interpretation, which Alito delivered.
Given that the president plays “just as important” a role in legislating as Congress, the Reagan Justice Department argued, federal courts ought to defer to these presidential interpretations.
Exactly how this “just-as-important” role could be squared with the first words of the Constitution’s Article 1 went unexplained.
For those of you who are curious, Article 1 begins like this:
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
No one has challenged Bush's peculiar use of the signing statement...yet. When/If they do, Sam Alito will be sitting there on the SCOTUS waiting for them.
P.S. Bush used this tactic when he signed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. You know the one: it had McCain's anti-torture amendment. Bush signed it and then issued a signing statement that essentially reserved the right to strike that provision whenever he saw fit to do so.
It was almost as though he had issued a line-item veto of the bill, something the President does not have the power to do.
I believe I'm being polite in saying that Bush's actions are arguably over the line of legality.
You a used an irrelevant story of some of the Framers discussing the need for the executive to keep secret from Congress some negotiations with a foreign power.
Wow ara, that irrelevant story is the framework for executive power during war time as we know it...You might try to keep up...it is you that seems to be unable to grasp the reality of the situation...the reality is that the POTUS broke no law by authorizing the wiretapping of certain phone calls that were reviewed by members of Congress...the lie is
Please try to stay focused on the real issue: the President has admitted breaking the law, saying that the Constitution gives him the right to do so. It does not and never has. And, God Willing, it never will.
But you know that...you just like repeating lie after lie which in essance makes you the liar.
A lawyer acts as an advocate for his client. Are there any relevant rulings he has made as a judge?
When you say, "Bush's actions are arguably over the line of legality" do you mean it has yet to be determined? I take "aguably" to mean one can make a case in both directions.
I'm confused. Am I supposed to give Matthews and Imus credit for making crude remarks about homosexuality? They can not believe in or support homosexuality but making disparaging remarks isn't to their credit.
As for Imus and Matthews, no surprises there. Imus' show is (in)famous for loosening standards to the point where people who appear there and should know better seem somehow to lose their sense of propriety.
Kennedy and Kerry pushing for a filibuster because they have nothing else, is not credit worthy. They are making a mockery of the positions that they hold.
Imus and Matthews may not embrace homosexuality, but to act childish about it is also, imo, making a mockery of the positions that they hold. I wonder if an employees of Imus and Chris, at their respective stations would be allowed to get away with such talk. I would bet they would be former employees.
I do agree with your thought that it would be good for the republicans though...Barak Obama seemed a tad bit disgusted with the whole situation.
If you think a failed (or successful) filibuster would be good for Republicans then y'all are more desperate than I thought.
If it fails and it probably will, it will make the Dems look weak and out of touch with the mainstream, which btw, supports Alito. Only 30% of the country opposes him.
I have heard they are not cowboys but shepards.
When it comes to the Constitution, even when you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.
If this guy were so evil why did he get thru the first time. They are basing stuff on stuff that happened in the 80's, he didn't become a judge until the 90's.
Nobody here said he was evil. OK?
I'll keep it simple: He should be kept off the court because he has a dangerous bias in favor of Executive powers (and against Legislative powers). His view is at odds with what the Framers envisioned which is an intricate system of checks and balances wherein all three branches are co-equal.
That's why he should be kept off the court.
What leads you to that conclusion?
1. why are you bringing up the framers as part of your arguement? 2 weeks ago when I pointed out framers and their feelings on executive powers etc, you said it was irrelevant..now you want to make the framers relevant to your arguement?
2. why is/was Alito fit to serve on the Federal Court? Are you saying that the very things that you object to for the SCOTUS are not pertinant to the Federal Bench he sits on? Which court hears more cases?
- You a used an irrelevant story of some of the Framers discussing the need for the executive to keep secret from Congress some negotiations with a foreign power.
- I've already stated my beef with Alito: his view of the separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches is dangerously flawed. Assuming he ascends to the SCOTUS he will be hearing more than one case arguing against the President's acknowledged law-breaking actions. He will be asked to judge the Constitutionality of those criminal acts.
The best thing would be for the Legislative branch to exercise its Constitutional powers to reject Alito, or barring that, derail the President's agenda (or cut off funding for it), hold rigorous oversight hearings so we know what's REALLY going on behind the lies, and/or impeach the President.That had nothing to do with the voluminous writings of all of the Framers on the need for a system of checks and balances so as to keep the Executive from becoming a despot. This is well-known to even those with a junior high school level of historical knowledge.
Please let's not go over that entire discussion again.
Please try to stay focused on the real issue: the President has admitted breaking the law, saying that the Constitution gives him the right to do so. It does not and never has. And, God Willing, it never will.
I think it would be a bad idea for someone with Alito's flawed judicial mindset to sit in judgement of these cases at this time (or any other time).
OK?
What leads you to that conclusion [that Alito has a dangerous view of Executive powers]?
While he was a Reagan administration lawyer in the Justice Dept., Alito was one of the prime architects of something called the “Litigation Strategy:” For those of you who are curious, Article 1 begins like this:No one has challenged Bush's peculiar use of the signing statement...yet. When/If they do, Sam Alito will be sitting there on the SCOTUS waiting for them.
P.S. Bush used this tactic when he signed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. You know the one: it had McCain's anti-torture amendment. Bush signed it and then issued a signing statement that essentially reserved the right to strike that provision whenever he saw fit to do so.
It was almost as though he had issued a line-item veto of the bill, something the President does not have the power to do.
I believe I'm being polite in saying that Bush's actions are arguably over the line of legality.
Wow ara, that irrelevant story is the framework for executive power during war time as we know it...You might try to keep up...it is you that seems to be unable to grasp the reality of the situation...the reality is that the POTUS broke no law by authorizing the wiretapping of certain phone calls that were reviewed by members of Congress...the lie is
But you know that...you just like repeating lie after lie which in essance makes you the liar.
A lawyer acts as an advocate for his client. Are there any relevant rulings he has made as a judge?
When you say, "Bush's actions are arguably over the line of legality" do you mean it has yet to be determined? I take "aguably" to mean one can make a case in both directions.