Why the fuck are you asking for a cite? Your whole OP was based upon your interpretation of the motive someone’s actions and you have no factual basis for your accusations. If you want to dish it out, expect to take it. Sheesh, grow a pair you fat cow.
Yes, this is the imperial view of the powers of the executive branch and the privileges of their nominees.
And the “I ain’t talking” mode guarantees that some waverers will vote against a nominee.
I could potentially excuse anti-abortion views and even doubts about whether Roe was a good idea, if a nominee was open about his/her views. Lack of candor is not excusable.
Even Alito’s mother knows where he stands. “Of course he’s against abortion” she has said. You guys calling Alito’s mom a liar?
“Trust me, I’m impartial. Don’t you dare ask me for particulars.”
The people who in Diogenes’s words should “grow a pair” sit in the Senate. The days of the gentlemen’s club and the Prez having a right to whichever nominees he wants (unless they are outrageously unqualified or hiring illegal aliens) should be completely gone.
Deliberate, but unoriginal; I heard someone refer to them in passing as this on the radio yesterday, and I got my own juvenile snickers from it, so I had to share.
Daniel
Maybe she was crying because she realized she and her sisters and daughters were about to lose their reproductive freedom.
Hmm…
I don’t see how anybody could distracted from your main point and think this thread was primarily an attack on Alito’s wife. :rolleyes:
No, that’s the constitutional view. There is nothing in the constitution that compels a nominee even to appear before the Senate.
That’s the chance the nominee takes.
Just because you couldn’t be impartion doesn’t mean others can’t. I haev no religious inclinations, and would love to have a complete wall of separation between church and state. But, if on the court, I would have to allow a certain amount of religion in the public sphere because the constutition does not construct that “complete wall”. You can be personally against the death penalty but recognize that the constitution doesn’t forbid it. Frankly, it’s folks like you, who want to politicize the SC nominations process, who guarantee that questions about *Roe *won’t be answered. Me, I’m more interested in how a justice looks at cases and what his broad judicial philosophy is rather then have him pronounce in advance how he’d rule on any given case.
This is just dumb. The whole idea of these hearings is to determine weather or not the nominee can make his decisions based upon the law and not his personal bias. I don’t expect judges not to be human, I do expect them to vote in accordance with the law as they understand it regardless of their personal feelings.
Fuck that shit. Dio’s OP, and his continued line of bewildering defense for it, was blantantly out of line. So much so, that any rational person should have easily recognized it for what it was while the thought was forming and he was typing the goddamn thing. And any of those rational persons, who wasn’t such a dick, would have refrained from posting it to begin with. And any of those persons who wasn’t [it]relishing] being such an utter contemptible asshole, would have backed off long before post #84.
I ain’t buying the apology as sincere. If he actually regrets anything, it’s that got caught showing his ass. His apology is simple expedience, nothing more.
[QUOTE=JackmanniiSomeone’s who has gotten as far in his legal career as Alito, has had ample time to digest Roe and its implications, has a track record on abortion rights and the wholehearted support of the Bush Administration, cannot expect reasonable people to believe that he has no leanings whatsoever on Roe v. Wade and no idea whether he might vote to overturn it.
If someone running for Congress said that he could not answer questions about his support for abortion rights because it would depend on what abortion-related proposal might come up for a vote, the derision would be overwhelming. Supreme Court Justices, as we know full well, are not impartial godlike arbiters of the law but have political and philosophical leanings. We’re entitled to know about those views as much as possible before appointing nominees to lifetime terms.[/QUOTE]
Alito has personal views on abortion, I’m sure. I also believe, with some evidence, that he can truthfully say that he will decide any case, even one concerning abortion, based on the law and on the arguments in the case. He did so in a way that might surprise you in one abortion case.
Yeah, I loved the way he totally lost his way on his prepared script full of invective and had to be correted by Boxer. Apparently, there was a key phrase that he had to say to catch the sound bites, and they were booked on talk shows right after the hearing to discuss that sound bite. And Ted nearly drowned them by going off-script.
Oops…did I say that?
Nor an inclination to proofread your posts, it would appear.
The Supreme Court nomination process has been politicized for a very long time thanks to both liberals and conservatives. It’s only when one side’s perceived champion faces a bit of tough questioning that his supporters whine about politics.
As to strict adherence to legal precedent, funny how that breaks down when someone on the Right wants something.
We don’t know for sure if Alito will concur in a complete overturn of Roe, or more likely, generally concur in the “death of a thousand cuts” approach to whittling away its protections. We should not have to guess about intentions.
It is interesting that on the one hand, we have Alito supporters shocked, shocked that anyone could conceive that their guy is being evasive about his views, claiming that he must be accepted as a model of candor, and then with a straight face saying that opponents couldn’t face the truth if it were presented to them.
Sorry, can’t have it both ways.
Pffftt.
Who said anything about “strict adherence to legal precedent”? What does that mean, anyway? If strict means unwavering, I would hope we’d never nominate any justice to the SC who held that view.
No one is shocked about his evasiveness. That is SOP, thanks to partisans on both sides of the aisle.
If you don’t want to see *Roe *attacked, then get legislation passed that prevents it. But to hide behind something called “strict adherence to legal precedent” is laughable on the face of it.
I know DtC has apologized and withdrew his ‘cow’ remark, but I feel kinda merciless this morning, so I throw two more weeping bovines on the altar:
One bull: A decorated Vietnam veteran, he choked back tears during his remarks to reporters.
And one cow: A Mother’s Tears
What the bleeding fuck is this shit supposed to prove, dickwipe? Some people have good reason to cry, some don’t What the fuck is your point?
What was Judge Alito’s wife’s reason for crying? Or are you the all-knowing arbeiter of when people should release saline? Can people cry at weddings? Funerals? When the national anthem is played? At pictures of kittens? When they have a hissy fit?
no, yes, no, no, yes.
I know her husband wasn’t being “abused” or “mistreated” as the Republicans claimed. I know she was given no legitimate reason to cry by the process itself. The reason I backed off her was because I was convinced that she might have been crying for other reasons than the questioning by Democrats, but I was just following the Republican line in making that assumption.
Why do you hate kittens?
I’m a dog person
can I share this?