Hamlet, have you read John Corrado’s post #34 in this thread? Thoughts?
And certainly more worthy of a prime time slot than the nomination. All it needs is a puppy and it would be the cutest presidential announcement ever.
Can we hire this kid to work the state of the union address?
Hijack-
I don’t know if this is fair. I don’t know about John, but there are very intelligent, rational people who have rational reasons why abortion should be considered unjustified killing. It does not have to do with only religion, there is science behind it and only a fool would stipulate that the issue is crystal clear in all aspects. Nonetheless, if a person rationally comes to the conclusion that abortion is wrong because it is murder, calling them anti-choice is the same as calling a person who is against rape or murder “anti-choice” because they refuse to give other adults the “choice” to rape or kill. They are anti-abortion. Choice advocates are pro-abortion. This does not mean that a choice advocate has to like abortion, or be willing to have one, but they are “pro” having abortion legal. Whereas, an individual who is “pro-life”, in other words anti-abortion, does not want abortion legal.
All the other terms, such as pro-life and pro-choice, are just politicized terms utilized by each side to demonize the foe. Your don’t want abortion illegal- you must be against a woman’s right to choose you nazi, religious zealot. Oh, you think it is ok to let a woman have an abortion, you must hate life you nazi, non-religious zealot.
Politicizing the issue, on either side, takes away from the true debate which is: 1) Is a pre-born human organism sentient, 2) If so, does it have human rights and 3) If so, does it have Constitutional protection. I don’t want a hijack here- so I will stop.
I think there certainly are empirically determinable biological issues that are worhty of debate and ethical consideration, but to imagine such rational concerns are anywhere even in the orbit of the planet of the real crux of the anti-abortion aregument is to truly pay the religious right an egregiously unjustified compliment.
Well, maybe. What most of us mean by his “smirk” is that peculiar expression he has when he delivers what he thinks is a particularly pithy remark, like he’s condensed the opposing argument into a simple notion that he can dispose of with a one-liner. Then he puts on the face that invites you to agree “Boy, them liberals sure are dumb, huh?”
The President thinks he’s a Leader of Men, and that’s real bad, with dreadful consequence. He also thinks he’s witty and droll, and that’s just plain embarassing.
This is an excellent point. In fact, I would go further and say that the term “pro-abortion” is misleading as well, since I expect many people who identify as pro-abortion don’t really like abortion, but are simply in favor of keeping it legal.
Others have addressed that there is ample precedent for little to no judicial experience in appointees. But you know very well why someone w/o a long track record was nominated: To avoid the inevitable process of nit-picking the guy to death by the Senate Democrats. We lost our innocence on that one a long time ago, and there’s no turning back.
I had not read it, but was aware of most of the information. And if John Corrado is holding up the guy who wrote Dred Scott, and Earl Warren as sucessful examples of inexperienced justices, then I have severly misunderstood his conservatism.
[quote=John Mace*Others have addressed that there is ample precedent for little to no judicial experience in appointees. But you know very well why someone w/o a long track record was nominated: To avoid the inevitable process of nit-picking the guy to death by the Senate Democrats. We lost our innocence on that one a long time ago, and there’s no turning back.[/quote]
There is precedent, but would you say it’s good precedent? You happy with Warren? Taney? And, it is good to know, that Bush’s choice was, once again, the fault of the Democrats. It’d been awhile since they were blamed for something. And God forbid Bush pick a moderate with some judicial experience. Someone who would pass the Senate with support of both parties.
But both help their clients get off.
Do you realize how pathetic this sounds? You sound like a guy whose distant relative won the lottery and now you’re upset that they’re not willing to share it with you.
To the victor goes the spoils. That’s the way it is, that’s the way it was the last time a Supreme Court justice was nominated, so why act indignant, like you are so offended that you weren’t considered before the decision was made?
I have so wanted to say this all day, but I stifled it. Not after your comment, though:
Maybe if the Democrats could win an election every once in a while they might actually have some say in things. Oh, but it’s the majority that’s out of the mainstream, right? Give me a break. The people are about to get exactly what they voted for, and it’s because they found the Democrats seriously wanting time and again. Think about that for a while before you start with the sour grapes again. Enough with the whining already. This guy is as moderate as you could ever expect from Bush, he’s said that he’s not interested in rocking the boat, and he’s got good credentials from people in the know. You’ll never get one better than this. Thank God he wasn’t like Scalia, approve him, and get on with your life.
Bush won by a whopping 1% of the total popular vote in 2004. In 2000 he didn’t win by that much assuming he won at all. Not all of his constituency are far right- many voted for him because they’re moderate Republicans or simply couldn’t stand John Kerry and thought Dubya the less of two evils. However, even if the far right constitutes as much as half of his constituency (which no poll indicates it does), then that means only a quarter of the people want a far right appointee and that 75% of the people are not getting what they wanted. How 25% is a majority is a number crunch worthy of Hollywood accounting offices.
(And then of course there’s the ad populum fallacy)
Don’t forget the Congress. The Democrats had a majority in the Senate with the defection of Jeffords and they couldn’t maintain it. Not only that, but their leader in the Senate was found wanting by his own constituents. The House is strongly Republican.
Face it, the country has taken a solid right in the last 20 years, and it’s evidenced with the composition of the Congress.
Very well said. And it’s not only his facial expression. It’s his demeanor, his body language, his word choice.
I am thinking back to Bush’s “frustration” over Gonzales–“he’s my friend and I dont’ like it when a friend is criticized.” No smirk then. He thnks he is pithy and witty–he just sounds dumb/naive/arrogant–depending on the context.
Yes, we are 12.
Senate: 55% House: 53%
There again, assuming that each Republican Congressman represents a constituency that is 50% far right, you’re talking about slightly over 25% of the nation. And it’s not really that high.
One might argue that whores serve a role beyond that of their own enrichment as well 
This argument against lawyers being “intellectual whores” is flawed for the above reason (although I respect where it’s coming from), but the original comment is pretty silly. If you’re going to use the word “whore” outside of the context of selling sexual favors, then the logical conclusion is that anyone who does anything for money is a whore. I write financial transaction software for a living. I enjoy it, but it’s not what I would be doing with my brain if I wasn’t concerned about money. Does this make me an “intellectual whore”?
I’ve always assumed it was part of a lawyers job to defend their clients, personal feelings aside. I don’t think it’s fair to hold this against them.
Didn’t mean to hijack the thread, but I thought this was an important point to make. Oh wait, it’s the pit, I can say what I like 
Back on topic, from what I’ve read about this Roberts guy he seems fairly consistent about the whole “saying what the law is” vs “making the law” thing. Surely this is the most important criteria?
Dave:
With all respect due a man who is likely to be armed, “majority rules” is not, nor should it be, “majority tyrannizes”. If compromise and accomodation cease to be the central principles of governance…then things will be, like, fucked, dude.
As well, intelligent and reasonable persons can be argued and convinced, even if such conviction cuts across the grain of their temperment and inclinations.
As recent evidence shows
Incidently, I’m not voicing automatic support for the judge. I think he should be grilled simply due to the importance of the position. But I wish the TV talking heads would stop talking about abortion, etc. He should be grilled about concerns regarding potential activism.
I agree, and I respectfully submit that Roberts is a compromise candidate. It’s about as good as you can reasonably expect.A President will never, ever nominate your candidate to placate you. Once you accept that premise you can accept that this candidate is a gift from Heaven for you guys.
Oh, but that’s a bad thing. Go back and re-read what that Elvis wrote in post number 25:
“but for those of us who recognize the Supreme Court as a political actor on a par with Congress and the Presidency,”
Slack jawed mo-ron.
I think you’re right on that. I’m also pretty sure that had Kerry won and nominated a Wiccan judge who was also a part-time abortionist to the SCotUS the right would be screaming bloody murder but most of the leftists screaming bloody murder today would be saying “Hey… the Supreme Court should reflect some religious and professional diversity”.