Yes, and Bush’s actions in lying into taking us into Iraq are more forgivable than claiming he is the one to look to to make a clear break from the previous administration who was too keen on “nation-building” :rolleyes:.
Just like FDR’s maneuvreing us into war is more forgivable than his winning the Presidency by claiming he would not lead us into war, then doing just that.
And the fact is that nobody was charged with leaking were they.
You’re right, I should have left “whining” out of the description but I had bad dreams of Teddy Kennedy whining on the Senate floor all night.
Yesnobody has been charged with leaking in either the NSA or the Plame affair. Your point?
This is not now and never has been a legitimate juridical theory. It takes no substantial steps to respond to the core judicial challenge; namely deciding between competing interpretations of the relevant words.
‘It’s a good idea for the President to lie,’ ‘I support due process’, ‘Land me some strict constructionism:’ These inconsistent arguments spring from the same ideological sources being arguments of convenience, because the underlying principles cannot be openly advanced.
You also forgot to call him fat and make a Chappaquidick reference.:smack:
Seems like you were referring to “facts” that are still in dispute. Maybe you were just referring to the “fact” that the WaPo reported something as fact.
You are right I should have said that they “failed” in their attempt to prevent a judge who didn’t agree with their view of the law from being confirmed.
My main concern with Alito is that it appears he’s never seen an expansion of executive power he didn’t like. Others have different concerns. But the American people understood the kind of person Mr. Bush was and what kind of Presidential style he follows and what type of appointments he would make – take your lumps, there’s no takebacks. I can get used to the idea of a firm father type leading us, and if it gets too bad there’s always Europe.
Question: how do you feel about our entry into World War II? How do you feel aout the events leading up to it - specifically the representations made by FDR to pass the Lend-Lease Act?
If two equally authoritive laws conflict, I agree that additional analytical tools are needed to resolve the conflict. However, when a general proposition like “due process” is held to forbid the state from regulating abortion during the first trimester, no “competing interpretation” analysis is needed.
I don’t have the slightest idea what this paragraph means.
Didn’t we enter WW II because Japan bombed Pearl Harbor? Didn’t we declare war on Japan as a direct result of their attack on Pearl Harbor? And didn’t Germany declare war on the USA before the USA declared war on Germany? I know you didn’t address your question to me but my opinion is that our entry into World War II was absolutely necessary and fully justifiable. Our invasion of Iraq was and is neither.
Well I have only the slightest idea what this paragraph means. Is this Roe v Wade?
If so, it illustrates my otherwise obscure meaning. The legal doctrine you advance is not principled. Rather it is all about outcomes in particular cases, specifically overturning/limiting Roe. In fact it is no different to the earlier examples you decry. e.g.
Ok, I’ll bite, there must be a debate in there. So I went looking for some cites, this is what I found:
"Dubya and Republicans whining about “obstructionist Democrats” "
amptoons.com
“Southern Republican Whining”
http://journals.aol.com/bmiller224/OldHickorysWeblog/entries/273
“Republican Whining @ MindSay”
http://www.mindsay.com/tags/republican+whining
“Republican whining about DeLay/Frist”
http://www.thepoorman.net/2005/09/29/republican-whining-about-delayfrist-early-returns/
“There’s nothing more pathetic than Republicans whining about being victims”
http://nehring.blogspot.com/2005/11/rated-r-republicans-in-hollywood-2003.html
“A Reality Check On GOP Whining About Judicial Nominations”
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200305/050803.html
“republicans who can’t stand losing, always whine til they get their way”
http://www.usndemvet.com/blog/archives/001132.html
“more Republican whining”
http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=53;t=002922;p=2
I guess that wraps it up!
That would be true if I wanted my legal doctrine applied on a case-by-case basis. But I don’t. I contend it should be applied across the board, even if the result is one I don’t like.
That makes it the very definition of principled.
And yet you are unwilling to state what those principles are.
And before Germany declared war on the US, didn’t the US violate the principles of neutrality by supplying England with munitions? Didn’t the US violate its own laws by doing so?
And didn’t those illegal actions have something to do with Germany declaring war?
What are you talking about? The principle is one I’ve enunciated very clearly: statutory and constitutional provisions should be interpreted by reading the text of the provisions, not strictly, not loosely, but simply reasonably. No reliance on “penumbras” or “emanations”.
That simply returns to my orginal objection. Reasonable people can differ and do. It’s not responsive to the question of how to elect between competing interpretation. Other than to discount emanation and penumbra, which are by no means self-evidently unreasonable.
On reflection the question probably isn’t fair. The diversity of the common law system mirrors physics. It precludes a ‘simple unified theory’ for every category of cases.
The thing is, that observation changes the way to think about appointing judges in the US.