RE: "Its in my handwriting" Kagan says

RE: "Its in my handwriting" Kagan says (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: "Its in my handwriting" Kagan says (6/30/2010 2:24:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: julia, I think many trace the beginnings of hyper-partisanship in the appointment of judges to the Democratic Congress during the Reagan Administration, and it's arrival with the attempted high-tech lynching of a certain black justice during Bush I's Administration. Firm I would disagree.... if someone came forward and claimed that Kagan sexually harassed them I would think that deserved a full hearing...sexual harassment is a serious accusation, and seeing that he was confirmed for lack of "proof" that he did this, the process worked... A serious and unsubtantiated accusation. Of course " a woman wouldnt lie about somethink like that".

Moonhead -> RE: "Its in my handwriting" Kagan says (6/30/2010 2:25:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Can I just ask what "far left" actually means to you guys? Surely it isn't merely a synonym for "not quite as far to the right as I am"? I mean, Obama for fuck's sake. He's a lefty like I'm getting my cock sucked by Alysson Hannigan while I type this. If he has a "far left" agenda, where does that leave (say) Ken Livingstone or Noam Chomsky? How about that Castro d00d or Billy Bragg? Obama is every bit as far left as Chomsky. Curious.... do you know what political ideology that Chomsky ascribes to? I am loving this Since Ive read all of his books, yeah, I do. So why do you think his political stance is identical to the Kenyan's, pray tell?

juliaoceania -> RE: "Its in my handwriting" Kagan says (6/30/2010 2:30:02 PM)
quote: A serious and unsubtantiated accusation. Of course " a woman wouldnt lie about somethink like that". She worked for him for a very long time. She was a credible person. She was willing to face him in a full hearing. At this point in time it was a risky thing for her to do, and she paid a price for it. Personally, I believe her. She has led an upstanding life outside of the media lens for the most part. As I said, if a person as credible as Anita Hill accusing anyone of impropriety, it should be listened to. As I said, there was ultimately no proof, it was he said/she said... as is often the case in these situations... but that was what the hearing process was for... it wasn't for talking about some obscure term paper someone wrote 30 years ago... seriously, that sort of shit cheapens this entire process

DomKen -> RE: "Its in my handwriting" Kagan says (6/30/2010 2:34:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania There used to be an era where judges were appointed without being crucified in front of the senate for every little thing they have ever said and done... there was a time that unless there were ethical concerns justices would get through hearings with our elected officials treating them with respect and dignity.... our country is really going to hell in a handbasket if we are going to start putting forward the idea that these human beings are not allowed opinions. What we will get if we continue down this path is judges that are bereft of intellectual prowess and academic vigor... When we use these appointments as a way to gain political oneupmanship our country suffers and our business remains undone. I find this trend requiring super-majorities to get anything accomplished to be highly disturbing, making me think that they need to change the senate rules. The filibusterer was never intended to be used as a political tool to freeze the gears of government It is being abused. And the threat of it underlying every legislative agenda is tyranny of the minority over the will of the majority... julia, I think many trace the beginnings of hyper-partisanship in the appointment of judges to the Democratic Congress during the Reagan Administration, and it's arrival with the attempted high-tech lynching of a certain black justice during Bush I's Administration. Firm Bullshit. This partisanship about justices getting approved started under Clinton because the far right still had its panties in a bunch of Bork not getting on the bench. Reagan and Bush I got virtually every judge they nominated while Clinton's judicial nominations were simply ignored by the Republican Senate after 1995.

DomKen -> RE: "Its in my handwriting" Kagan says (6/30/2010 2:35:42 PM)
What I'm finding most unbelieveable about these hearings is the venom the GOP Senators are expressing about Thurgood Marshall. Are they running as Dixiecrats or what?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: "Its in my handwriting" Kagan says (6/30/2010 2:41:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Can I just ask what "far left" actually means to you guys? Surely it isn't merely a synonym for "not quite as far to the right as I am"? I mean, Obama for fuck's sake. He's a lefty like I'm getting my cock sucked by Alysson Hannigan while I type this. If he has a "far left" agenda, where does that leave (say) Ken Livingstone or Noam Chomsky? How about that Castro d00d or Billy Bragg? Obama is every bit as far left as Chomsky. Curious.... do you know what political ideology that Chomsky ascribes to? I am loving this Since Ive read all of his books, yeah, I do. So why do you think his political stance is identical to the Kenyan's, pray tell? I didnt say "identical", I said "as far left". Still waiting for your examples of the differences.

juliaoceania -> RE: "Its in my handwriting" Kagan says (6/30/2010 2:41:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen What I'm finding most unbelieveable about these hearings is the venom the GOP Senators are expressing about Thurgood Marshall. Are they running as Dixiecrats or what? Yeah, they are going to be really successful in that strategy.... next they will be running against baseball, Abe Lincoln, and Martin Luther King Jr too[8\|] Edited to add... they do have the tea party republicans running against the Civil Rights Act and Social Security...lol

Archer -> RE: "Its in my handwriting" Kagan says (6/30/2010 2:45:39 PM)
Filibuster? has there even been a threat of that? I mean I heard them saying it's not off the table, but that's not the same as even a basic threat of a filibuster. They can't keep it held up in committee the Democrats on the committee outnumber republicans by a large margin so she'll be forwarded out of committee. Unless she actually were to act on her idea from her article that appointees should be open and honest and answer the questions fully. (which she as thus far been smart enough to not follow her own advice) she's going to be appointed and confirmed. They will make alot of noise and poke at her enough that they make a good show of it for their constituents. They will make as much political hay as they can because they are unwilling to block a supreme court appointment with a filibuster. Unless she Borks (verb) and starts actually answering questions with the truth about what she feels she's going to be on the court.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: "Its in my handwriting" Kagan says (6/30/2010 2:52:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania There used to be an era where judges were appointed without being crucified in front of the senate for every little thing they have ever said and done... there was a time that unless there were ethical concerns justices would get through hearings with our elected officials treating them with respect and dignity.... our country is really going to hell in a handbasket if we are going to start putting forward the idea that these human beings are not allowed opinions. What we will get if we continue down this path is judges that are bereft of intellectual prowess and academic vigor... When we use these appointments as a way to gain political oneupmanship our country suffers and our business remains undone. I find this trend requiring super-majorities to get anything accomplished to be highly disturbing, making me think that they need to change the senate rules. The filibusterer was never intended to be used as a political tool to freeze the gears of government It is being abused. And the threat of it underlying every legislative agenda is tyranny of the minority over the will of the majority... julia, I think many trace the beginnings of hyper-partisanship in the appointment of judges to the Democratic Congress during the Reagan Administration, and it's arrival with the attempted high-tech lynching of a certain black justice during Bush I's Administration. Firm Bullshit. This partisanship about justices getting approved started under Clinton because the far right still had its panties in a bunch of Bork not getting on the bench. Reagan and Bush I got virtually every judge they nominated while Clinton's judicial nominations were simply ignored by the Republican Senate after 1995. Close, but once again, no cigar. The partisanship started WITH the Bork rejection. He was unquestionably qualified and competent, with no pecadillos, and was rejected solely on partisan grounds.

juliaoceania -> RE: "Its in my handwriting" Kagan says (6/30/2010 2:55:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Filibuster? has there even been a threat of that? I mean I heard them saying it's not off the table, but that's not the same as even a basic threat of a filibuster. They can't keep it held up in committee the Democrats on the committee outnumber republicans by a large margin so she'll be forwarded out of committee. Unless she actually were to act on her idea from her article that appointees should be open and honest and answer the questions fully. (which she as thus far been smart enough to not follow her own advice) she's going to be appointed and confirmed. They will make alot of noise and poke at her enough that they make a good show of it for their constituents. They will make as much political hay as they can because they are unwilling to block a supreme court appointment with a filibuster. Unless she Borks (verb) and starts actually answering questions with the truth about what she feels she's going to be on the court. In this case there was no threat,... yet... but they did threaten to filibuster Soto Meyer. They are using archaic rules to hold up other appointments... such as the head of homeland security....

Moonhead -> RE: "Its in my handwriting" Kagan says (6/30/2010 2:59:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Can I just ask what "far left" actually means to you guys? Surely it isn't merely a synonym for "not quite as far to the right as I am"? I mean, Obama for fuck's sake. He's a lefty like I'm getting my cock sucked by Alysson Hannigan while I type this. If he has a "far left" agenda, where does that leave (say) Ken Livingstone or Noam Chomsky? How about that Castro d00d or Billy Bragg? Obama is every bit as far left as Chomsky. Curious.... do you know what political ideology that Chomsky ascribes to? I am loving this Since Ive read all of his books, yeah, I do. So why do you think his political stance is identical to the Kenyan's, pray tell? I didnt say "identical", I said "as far left". Still waiting for your examples of the differences. Apart from the one about nationalism I posted and you ignored, you mean? Yeah, there's a lot of point making more effort with this, isn't there? particularly as you've yet to state a single simularity between the two besides the fact that you don't like them. You probably think Ross Perot had a hard left agenda as well.

DomKen -> RE: "Its in my handwriting" Kagan says (6/30/2010 3:02:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania There used to be an era where judges were appointed without being crucified in front of the senate for every little thing they have ever said and done... there was a time that unless there were ethical concerns justices would get through hearings with our elected officials treating them with respect and dignity.... our country is really going to hell in a handbasket if we are going to start putting forward the idea that these human beings are not allowed opinions. What we will get if we continue down this path is judges that are bereft of intellectual prowess and academic vigor... When we use these appointments as a way to gain political oneupmanship our country suffers and our business remains undone. I find this trend requiring super-majorities to get anything accomplished to be highly disturbing, making me think that they need to change the senate rules. The filibusterer was never intended to be used as a political tool to freeze the gears of government It is being abused. And the threat of it underlying every legislative agenda is tyranny of the minority over the will of the majority... julia, I think many trace the beginnings of hyper-partisanship in the appointment of judges to the Democratic Congress during the Reagan Administration, and it's arrival with the attempted high-tech lynching of a certain black justice during Bush I's Administration. Firm Bullshit. This partisanship about justices getting approved started under Clinton because the far right still had its panties in a bunch of Bork not getting on the bench. Reagan and Bush I got virtually every judge they nominated while Clinton's judicial nominations were simply ignored by the Republican Senate after 1995. Close, but once again, no cigar. The partisanship started WITH the Bork rejection. He was unquestionably qualified and competent, with no pecadillos, and was rejected solely on partisan grounds. Bork was simply beyond the pale and had the paper trail to prove it. He supported the Saturday Nigh Massacre He was in favor of allowing poll taxes He flatly refused to acknowledge the right to privacy. He opposed antitrust laws He was on record as wishing to overturn much of the other civil rights ruling of the Warren Court His legal opinions are and remain far outside the mainstream.

juliaoceania -> RE: "Its in my handwriting" Kagan says (6/30/2010 3:04:49 PM)
He is the one that made absurd comments about Chomsky being anything like Obama... and he is asking you to dispute his ludicrous assertion.... why would you play his game? His claim is like me saying that white chocolate and real chocolate are the same...or splenda and sugar are the same

mnottertail -> RE: "Its in my handwriting" Kagan says (6/30/2010 3:06:07 PM)
Isn't that what nancy reagan said? (but it was in George Bushes piss)

Moonhead -> RE: "Its in my handwriting" Kagan says (6/30/2010 3:13:15 PM)
She means the stuff they skim out of cocoa butter to get it chocalately, not a euphemism for cocaine, old boy.

Archer -> RE: "Its in my handwriting" Kagan says (6/30/2010 3:32:50 PM)
Both sides have taken to holding up appointments as a means to gum up the ability of the other side to make things happen on their agendas. And both sides have had to use the archaic rules (Byrd was a master at that) to do it. It has been long said that nobody knew more about the rules of the Senate than Senator Robert Byrd. It may be awhile before anybody who knows them better shows up again. I recall I was a proponent of the idea that appointees deserve an up or down vote while Bush was in ffice and really I still hold that opinion. Hold a strong tough Hearing put out the information to the public and then have the up or down vote. Let the President do their job and rise or fall as a result of who they appoint. And really the point of the hearings needs to be are they qualified.

juliaoceania -> RE: "Its in my handwriting" Kagan says (6/30/2010 3:43:30 PM)
quote: Both sides have taken to holding up appointments as a means to gum up the ability of the other side to make things happen on their agendas. Democrats usually pussied out from obstructing... If you look at how the use of the filibuster has escalated since Obama took office, it is shameful

Elisabella -> RE: "Its in my handwriting" Kagan says (6/30/2010 3:48:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 mono e mono. It's mano a mano and it means hand to hand, as in fist fighting. Not one on one.

flcouple2009 -> RE: "Its in my handwriting" Kagan says (6/30/2010 4:06:13 PM)
Moon, You must remember we have some posters here who are jammed so far right, they think the middle is the left.

DomKen -> RE: "Its in my handwriting" Kagan says (6/30/2010 4:13:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Both sides have taken to holding up appointments as a means to gum up the ability of the other side to make things happen on their agendas. And both sides have had to use the archaic rules (Byrd was a master at that) to do it. It has been long said that nobody knew more about the rules of the Senate than Senator Robert Byrd. It may be awhile before anybody who knows them better shows up again. I recall I was a proponent of the idea that appointees deserve an up or down vote while Bush was in ffice and really I still hold that opinion. Hold a strong tough Hearing put out the information to the public and then have the up or down vote. Let the President do their job and rise or fall as a result of who they appoint. And really the point of the hearings needs to be are they qualified. I think every appointee should get a vote but I've also come to the conclusion that too many posts require Senate confirmation. Does the Deputy Director for State, Local and Tribal Affair, Office of National Drug Control Policy really need to be confirmed by the Senate? The Cabinet offices, ambassadors, judges and a few select sub cabinet level appointess (Secretary of the Navy for instance) should have to get Senate approval but at last count there were around 1200 positions that the Senate has to confirm. Even if the Senate wanted to give each of those appointees a fair and timely hearing it would be nearly impossible considering the number involved.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875