Karl Rove has been FIRED!!!? Oh, happy day!
True, that would be heresy. Alito believe the President’s powers stop at the Dictator for Life level.
Translation: Badges? We don’t need no stinkin’ BADGES! And privacy? You got NONE of that.
------>Stone Age
The Cro Magnons have joined up with the Neanderthals? Now I AM alarmed!
So?
Undoubtedly they did. And undoubtedly Mr. Libby was not forthcoming.
I specifically disclaimed wny talk of “whiners”. Didn’t I?
Just out of curiosity, have you followed Saddam’s trial at all?
Enjoy,
Steven
Not that I can find. This is really just a rant.
Hey, I can agree that the Dems were mostly playing party politics. But you act as if this the first time either party has done that. It happens all the time.
There will be an viscious clash between the parties if Bush gets to nominate another jsutice. Most likely, he’ll nominate someone like Lutig, and the Dems will go ballistic. But even then, it’s uclear that the gang of 14 will all the nuclear option to prevail. Some Dems could defect and some Pubs could defect as well. I have no doubt that the fight will eclipse anything we’ve seen so far, but I don’t see a clear outcome. Let’s cross that bridge when we get to it.
Fascinating. I will be eagerly awaiting the striking down of all obscenity laws, laws against slander and libel, and FCC regulations on what is appropriate content for broadcast.
Nitpick: Scooter Libby resigned. He was not fired, nor has anyone been fired over the Plame affair in direct contradiction of Bush’s original pronouncements on the subject.
I think the Democrat strategy is clear and coherent. They’re essentially saying: “The Republicans are in power now and we can’t stop them. But we’re going on record that we think they’re making mistakes. Now let’s sit back and wait for the results of their actions.”
If the Republicans are right, then the results will show it. If Iraq is stable, and the economy is strong, and terrorism is diminished, and Roberts and Alito appear to be good justices, then the Republicans will run on their record in 2006 and 2008. But the Democrats are guessing these things won’t happen and if they don’t, they will have positioned themselves to run against the Republican record.
“So?” Bricker, do you honestly believe that there’s so little importance to the reason for going to war? If FDR had declared war on England in 1941 in the mistaken belief that the RAF had bombed Pearl Harbor, would it have been okay if we later came up with a different reason?
There is good reason to doubt that things happened as you described. And this is not the only unsupported assumption you’re making on this situation.
I happen to support the principle that the President needs strong executive powers in some situations. But this particular President is abusing the principle to look for powers he wants not needs and use those powers in situations where they were unnecessary. In the recent wire-tapping scandal, the President could have done what he needed to do within the law but he apparently didn’t want to feel he was bound by the law. And this was not a unique display of this attitude.
And on the issue of judicial wisdom there’s a thin line between “I agree with that judge’s decisions because he follows the law” and “I think that judge follows the law because I agree with his decisions”. Which side of that divide are you one?
Yes, and he did that only after he was indicted (or just before). He worked for the administration long after it became clear that he was involved in the leak. He almost immediately got a plum gig as a Senior Fellow with a conservative think tank, the Hudson Group.
To my knowledge, no one in the administration has ever unequivocally denounced Libby’s actions, and other people who are known to have been involved in the leak (even if they don’t meet Fitzgerald’s conservative standards for indictment) continue to work in the White House, despite Bush’s earlier promises.
Exactly. Everyone knows what the Repubs did to Kerry because of that vote allowing Bush to use force in Iraq. The Dems do NOT want to be cuaght in that bind again. Vigorously opposing Alito is the only smart move for them. I wonder if the Repubs understand that when they vote Alito in, they’ll be making their own political fortunes hostage to Alito’s good behavior.
Is this really appropriate for GD? If you’re going to preemptively say that any democrats who challenge your views are “whining,” shouldn’t you have put this in the Pit?
I find it rather indicative of the modern Republican mindset that the attempt to block a judge with decidedly lax views regarding executive authority to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is reduced to “losing”, as if this was all just a game of football or basketball instead of the colossal blunder that it’ll eventually prove to be.
I think the biggest debate is “what makes you think this is a GD thread?” What it lacks in debate propositions, it makes up for in confrontational attitude. But I guess people are making arguments around these topics.
From your OP, you’d think it was a surprise that Alito got through the Senate. Seeing as how there has been a 55-seat Republican majority in the Senate for two years, it was obvious he was going to be confirmed, just as nobody should have been surprised that the filibuster attempt failed when the Republicans only needed five votes to beat it. In other words, “Republicans won the elections of 2004.” I don’t think there’s anything to debate about that.
Strawman. I don’t see this as a game. I see it as a very positive step for the country, and not at all a blunder. I see the abortive filibuster attempt as a very poor, unwise choice, and for this reason I’m glad it failed.
You attempt to paint my reactions as simply “We won, yeah us!” What we won was another voice on the Court that will rule on cases based on a fair reading of the text of the law, and not be seduced by the ephemeral penumbras and emanations that some of his predecessors found so fascinating. That’s a win - not because it’s an “us” vs. “them” but because such a judicial philosophy is the best choice for the country as a whole.
It would have had to have been a hell of a reason. But yes, actually.
But that’s a pretty unfair hypo, since we know there was no good reason to fight England, and plenty good reason to fight alongside England.
Let me offer a hypo that’s closer to the facts: if Germany had not declared war on the US, would have been OK if FDR trumped up a reason to declare war on them?
YES. Yes, it would. In fact, given FDR’s violations of the Neutrality Act, that’s about what happened.
I DON’T want a “friend of the disabled” as a justice. I DON’T want a justice to “stand for the working men and women”. Etc. I want a justice who will side with the party that the written law favors. Period. I want a referee. I don’t want an advocate for women, for labor, for children, for parakeets. I want a judge who will read the WORDS and decide based on the WORDS. Period.
[fix tags --g]
Wow, you’re really abdicating a lot of power to the president. I do NOT think it’s acceptible for a president to “trump up” (lie) in order to force us into a war. If Congress cannot be convinced to go to war based on the truth, we shouldn’t be at war. No matter how noble your goals, the political process should not be circumvented like that. To drag this slightly back to the OP, even if I thought Alito was a terrible judge, I would not consider it moral to “trump up” reasons to get Congress to defeat his nomination. I thought you were all about the proper process–when did you shift to “the ends justify the means”?
Of course, if the wiretapping WASN’T illegal, and WASN’T unconstitutional, but WAS a very useful tool that has now been compromised somewhat, then the leaker damaged national security, essentially for partisan ends.
And of course, if the leak of Plame’s name wasn’t an attempt to ‘smear’ someone as retribution, but an attempt to explain that Joe Wilson was lying when he said he was sent there on the personal request of Dick Cheney, then the leaker in that case is speaking truth to correct the lies of a partisan attempting to damage the administration.
It’s pretty much all in how you look at it, isn’t it?
I don’t know who the leaker was, or what the reason for the leak is. It may have been an NSA or AG employee who expressed doubt about the legality of the wiretaps and was resoundingly condemned, or it may have been a leftist nut with no interest in the Constitution, but rather a hatred for the President. Do you know something I don’t? And, just to dismiss you of the idea that I’m some kind of partisan hack, I’ve already said the investigation into the leaker of the NSA information is proper.
First, you’re lying. Joe Wilson never said “he was sent there on the personal request of Dick Cheney”. In fact, what he did say was: "Well, look, it’s absolutely true that neither the vice president nor Dr. Rice nor even George Tenet knew that I was traveling to Niger. What they did, what the office of the vice president did, and, in fact, I believe now from Mr. Libby’s statement, it was probably the vice president himself…
BLITZER: Scooter Libby is the chief of staff for the vice president.
WILSON: Scooter Libby.
They asked essentially that we follow up on this report – that the agency follow up on the report. So it was a question that went to the CIA briefer from the Office of the Vice President. The CIA, at the operational level, made a determination that the best way to answer this serious question was to send somebody out there who knew something about both the uranium business and those Niger officials that were in office at the time these reported documents were executed."
The closest Wilson ever came was to say that was that he was told that the VP’s office had requested the CIA look into the issue of Nigerian yellowcake.
How the hell does that make it OK to violate the law and out his wife anyway? Cheney had already made a denial that the VP was involved in sending Wilson. It was illegal, and wasn’t even close to necessary, to out a CIA agent simply to call Wilson’s credibility into issue. As the Washington Post stated: "A senior administration official said that before Novak’s column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson’s wife… ‘Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge,’ the senior official said of the alleged leak.”
Yep, some of us rely on the facts and legal arguments and others make shit up and ignore history.
And IF my father had tits, he’d be my mother.