NationStates Jolt Archive

One of my Senators, a democrat, issued a press releases today in which he said:

There is no doubt in my mind that Judge Alito is a credentialed jurist for this position, and carries with him the proper judicial temperament to sit on our Nation’s highest court.

and yet he stated that he would vote against his confirmation. Can democrats explain to me why, other than petty partisan politics, a man who is "properly credentialed" and who has the proper "judicial temperament to sit on" the Supreme Court is still not deserving of a vote of confidence? If the man is qualified and has the judicial temperament needed to serve on the court, doesn't that mean he should get a vote in his favor? Ruth Bader Ginsberg received the support of Republicans on these grounds, even though they disagreed with her ideaology, why isn't Alito deserving of the same respect from Democrats?

If the man is qualified and has the judicial temperament needed to serve on the court, doesn't that mean he should get a vote in his favor?

Anyone who is 35+ years old, a natural born citizen of the United States, and has lived in the United States for 14 years is *qualified* to be President of the United States.

Michael Jackson.

Can you now see why just being qualified isn't enough?

Anyone who is 35+ years old, a natural born citizen of the United States, and has lived in the United States for 14 years is *qualified* to be President of the United States.

Michael Jackson.

Can you now see why just being qualified isn't enough?

Well, that trumps anything I was about to say. Huzzah for Keruvalia!

Anyone who is 35+ years old, a natural born citizen of the United States, and has lived in the United States for 14 years is *qualified* to be President of the United States.

Michael Jackson.

Can you now see why just being qualified isn't enough?

Michael Jackson doesn't have the credentials or the temparment to serve as president. Alito is more than qualified, he has the credentials and temperament to serve in the position. You are confusing "requirements" with "qualifications."

Next.

Anyone who is 35+ years old, a natural born citizen of the United States, and has lived in the United States for 14 years is *qualified* to be President of the United States.

Michael Jackson.

Can you now see why just being qualified isn't enough?

Two things:

1. Apart from the childmolestry, micheal jackson would be far from the worst president ever. I doubt he'd lock up all the japanese, pull a genocide or get stuck in the bathtub.

2. He did add the extra condtion of proper judicial temperament.

Anyone who is 35+ years old, a natural born citizen of the United States, and has lived in the United States for 14 years is *qualified* to be President of the United States.

Michael Jackson.

Can you now see why just being qualified isn't enough?
Wrong.

Legally able != Qualified.

Well, that trumps anything I was about to say. Huzzah for Keruvalia!

you too confuse "qualifications" with "requirements"

Damn, don't they teach English anymore?

Anyone who is 35+ years old, a natural born citizen of the United States, and has lived in the United States for 14 years is *qualified* to be President of the United States.

Michael Jackson.

Can you now see why just being qualified isn't enough?

Wait how does that work as an answer that actually...answers his question?

Of course, what you said is true.

But he also included the fact his Senator had stated that he believed that Alito had all that it needed to be a Supreme Court Justice, and not ' Well the man is 35+ years old...I guess we may as well see how well he'd do as President, but I think I'll still say no. '

So, like how several Democrats procrastanate on things, could you please give an answer that fits his question?

Michael Jackson doesn't have the credentials or the temparment to serve as president. Alito is more than qualified, he has the credentials and temperament to serve in the position. You are confusing "requirements" with "qualifications."

Next.


So you'd like to add to the US Constitution? What I stated were the *only* qualifications of being President.

A coke-head, ex-felon, child rapist can be President ... provided he meets the "qualifications".

Don't go confusing things now. Michael Jackson meets all the qualifications to be President of the United States. Deal with it.

Michael Jackson doesn't have the credentials or the temparment to serve as president. Alito is more than qualified, he has the credentials and temperament to serve in the position. You are confusing "requirements" with "qualifications."

Next.
Question--when and where did Pryor say that? Before the hearings? Before the barrage of phone calls and emails from his Democratic constituents telling him that Alito does not have the necessary temperament? I don't know, but you're quoting him, so maybe you do. If the answer to the question is "before the hearings," then maybe the answer is that he was convinced otherwise, either by Alito's evasions or by his answers, or perhaps by his constituents.

Why he's decided to vote against Alito doesn't really matter to me. That he's casting the vote is enough in my book, especially if he votes to uphold Kerry's filibuster as well.

you too confuse "qualifications" with "requirements"

Damn, don't they teach English anymore?

Yes, but teachers these days are just too lazy to really care anymore.

'Read page 30 - 50, go...oh and write down some words that seem to be used as slang...'

>>

<<

Then again my English Teacher is a Pot Head..and the Office still won't fire him.

you too confuse "qualifications" with "requirements"

Damn, don't they teach English anymore?


There is no Constitutional difference between "qualifications" and "requirements".

If we want to base it on precident, then no woman or black man could ever be President.

The Constitution lays out the qualifications. I'm sorry you don't like the Constitution.

Not a demo and not a fan of Alito. There is no question the judge is skilled. However, his "agenda" is in question.

In a perfect world Judges would have no agendas. Alito (at least to me) comes across as he has one. For example, RoeVWade. Roberts said it was decided law. Alito did not. His envolvement with that biggoted sexist group. He places it on an application and then suddenly forgets? It's like saying you don't remember being in a frat?

The library of congress? Why did they refuse examination of the groups records? If nothing was there, it would take one major doubt away from the democrats.

You have to rember that being qualified as a judge is different from being on SCOTUS. His decessions are far more reaching. Longer affect on the nation as a whole.

I can't speak for Ginsberg as I didn't follow her.

Alito just rubs me wrong and I wrote my two Senators to vote against him.

Consider this. Would the Republican base be all supported of a qualified liberal judge?

Is Ginsberg a liberal judge?

So you'd like to add to the US Constitution? What I stated were the *only* qualifications of being President.

A coke-head, ex-felon, child rapist can be President ... provided he meets the "qualifications".

Don't go confusing things now. Michael Jackson meets all the qualifications to be President of the United States. Deal with it.

Actually I like what you are doing.

Trying to cause confusion and turn it into frustration.

Translation -

He is just saying that ANYONE could run for President, but would they really meet those satisfactory points that would ensure him/her that position? No.

Really, I am neutral on the Alito thing. I don't believe anyone will agree with Bush anymore until 10 years after 2008...or in other words, 2018.

Question--when and where did Pryor say that? Before the hearings? Before the barrage of phone calls and emails from his Democratic constituents telling him that Alito does not have the necessary temperament? I don't know, but you're quoting him, so maybe you do. If the answer to the question is "before the hearings," then maybe the answer is that he was convinced otherwise, either by Alito's evasions or by his answers, or perhaps by his constituents.

Why he's decided to vote against Alito doesn't really matter to me. That he's casting the vote is enough in my book, especially if he votes to uphold Kerry's filibuster as well.

Pryor issued his press release this afternoon making the statement, but also said in his press release there was no "smoking gun" that would justify a filibuster. See, http://pryor.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=250851&

Yes, but teachers these days are just too lazy to really care anymore.


HEY! I am a teacher.

you too confuse "qualifications" with "requirements"

Damn, don't they teach English anymore?

http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=Requirement

Thesaurus.com says:


Main Entry: Requirement
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: necessity
Synonyms: claim, compulsion, concern, condition, demand, desideratum, element, engrossment, essential, exaction, exigency, extremity, fulfillment, fundamental, imperative, lack, must, need, obligation, obsession, pinch, precondition, preliminary, preoccupation, prepossession, prerequisite, prescription, provision, proviso, qualification, requisite, specification, stipulation, stress, terms, urgency, vital part, want
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

Drop the arrogance, please.

...I think someone beat me to it...

He is just saying that ANYONE could run for President, but would they really meet those satisfactory points that would ensure him/her that position? No.


Once again ... you're adding to the Consititution.

There is no moral litmus test. There are no "satisfactory points" laid out. The Constitution is very clear.

Why are you so anti-American? :p

HEY! I am a teacher.

Nooo not another Liberal teacher!! Just Kidding, :-P.

No I am not saying all teachers are like my Teacher Mr Sack.

I have my share of cool, and great teachers. I believe you could be one of those types of teachers, but I would possibly never know first hand.

I can't speak for Ginsberg as I didn't follow her.

Alito just rubs me wrong and I wrote my two Senators to vote against him.

Consider this. Would the Republican base be all supported of a qualified liberal judge?

Is Ginsberg a liberal judge?

Card carrying member of the ACLU.

confirmed with more than 90% of the votes.

Nooo not another Liberal teacher!!

Watch out! I have your kids spitting on the flag the first day of my class. :D

Once again ... you're adding to the Consititution.

There is no moral litmus test. There are no "satisfactory points" laid out. The Constitution is very clear.

Why are you so anti-American? :p

Did I say I enjoyed burning the Stars and Stripes? No.

I didn't say the Constitution does, but who ever is incharge does. Of course we have a Constitution which is our most beloved thing and at times the thing that can put a strain at what seems to be a good idea for all.

Morally, a lot of people will base it off of 'Satisfactory Points'. They will over-look the Constitution, and state what they think this man requires. ( or Woman, let's just pretend that Man is short for human for this conversation...atleast for me lol...or wait an alien..nah jk :-P ). For instance, subject A thinks that Marijuana is not a bad thing and we should be more leniant on it. He is appointed to Supreme Judge by President XYZ, yet Senator R says he doesn't like his standing on Drugs. So he does not match Mr. R's 'Satisfactory Points'.

But Senator I and G say 'Well why not? I believe his standings are great!' so he, being Subject A, would fit their satisfactory points.

Then we have our beloved Human glory, Argument.

Watch out! I have your kids spitting on the flag the first day of my class. :D

NOOO! GOD SHALL CONDEMN THEE BLASPHEMIST ANTI-AMERICAN COMMUNIST!

Anyway, I am a Conservative if you hadn't notice yet.

But I really like all points of views, I just stand for what I feel for the most. I don't really mind if my friends are Liberal, which almost all of them are.

So don't expect much hate out of me, :-P.

There is no Constitutional difference between "qualifications" and "requirements".

If we want to base it on precident, then no woman or black man could ever be President.

The Constitution lays out the qualifications. I'm sorry you don't like the Constitution.

Your argument is specious contains the logical fallacy commonly known as comparing apples to oranges and is also an ad hominen attack on me. First, presidents are elected, not appointed. Secondly, the requirements to be president are as you stated, but those requirements do not equal qualifications to serve as a Supreme Court Judge. If Michael Jackson was elected in a real election, then I'd have to live with it. However, a Judge is appointed by a president and in giving there advise and consent to the appointment, the Senate considers legal qualifications that go above and beyond meeting age and citizenship requirements. Finally, I do like the Constitution and my like or dislike of it has nothing to do with my question. If you are unable to give a cognizant answer, so be it, I understand. If you think your answer is such an answer, please go educate yourself a bit more on the proper forms of debate and discourse.

Card carrying member of the ACLU.

confirmed with more than 90% of the votes.

*SIGH* Nice commie reference.....

Considering the number of cases the ACLU takes defending students' right to private prayer and such, that's hardly a demonstration of your liberalness. Still, congratulations- good organization.

Meh, I have no problem with people who say Prayer. But is it strange to see on a College Campus or in a Highschool Hallway? Yes, I think it is. But they way people attack this subject...it just makes the entire 'problem' seem much more worst then it actually is. I mean, it isn't like everyday I say a Liberal Jewish man walking up to a Conservative Christian man and say ' How dare you, you offend me because of your practicing of your Religion. '... of course I bet everyone feels uncomfortable.

But hell...I am a bit neutral on this subject too and just don't want to say anything that'd get 30 people up my ass trying to search for something they can point out in every argument lol.

I didn't say the Constitution does, but who ever is incharge does.

So the Constitution changes based on who is in charge?

Yikes.

Card carrying member of the ACLU.

confirmed with more than 90% of the votes.
Bob Barr is one of the directors of the ACLU, and no one in their right mind could call him liberal. What does that have to do with anything? I mean, Ginsberg is liberal compared to Scalia or Thomas or even O'Connor, but looked at in a larger continuum, she's pretty moderate. She's no Earl Warren, that's for damn sure.

So the Constitution changes based on who is in charge?

Yikes.

Oh yes I forgot, I have to be detailed when talking to a teacher.

Okay first, what class(es) do you teach so I know which format to exactly explain my self in as not to portray any confusions? :-D

Anyway, I am a Conservative if you hadn't notice yet.


Hey ... Conservative is ok. I'm not, but I can never begrudge someone who is.

Rock on with ya bad self.

A Democrat friend of mine told me recently, "Hell yes I'm conservative! I can't afford to give it away!" That made me laugh.

I have no problem with Cons. None whatsoever.

My problem is with Republicans.

Okay first, what class(es) do you teach so I know which format to exactly explain my self in as not to portray any confusions? :-D


I'm a Music teacher. ;)

Pryor issued his press release this afternoon making the statement, but also said in his press release there was no "smoking gun" that would justify a filibuster. See, http://pryor.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=250851&
Okay, now I call bullshit on your original post. Why? Because if you were an honest person, you'd have posted Pryor's entire statement, since he clearly gives his reasons for not confirming Alito.

However, intellect alone is not sufficient to fill this lifetime appointment. I believe a Supreme Court Justice must also exhibit a consistent ability to be fair and impartial. While trying to give deference to the President, I cannot ignore that Judge Alito’s record demonstrates his tendency to legislate from the bench. In my mind, this unmet criterion disqualifies Judge Alito from receiving my vote.

That's why Pryor is voting against Alito. But I guess you were more interested in scoring troll points than you were in actually starting a discussion.

Hey ... Conservative is ok. I'm not, but I can never begrudge someone who is.

Rock on with ya bad self.

A Democrat friend of mine told me recently, "Hell yes I'm conservative! I can't afford to give it away!" That made me laugh.

I have no problem with Cons. None whatsoever.

My problem is with Republicans.

OOO!!

You mean the people who go around screaming ' NO SHE IS STILL ALIVE..EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO SIGN OF MENTAL STABILITY OR THAT SHE'LL BE ABLE TO EVER LIFT A FORK AGAIN...BUT WE BELIEVE IN GOD'S ALMIGHTY WILL AND THAT THIS WOMEN SHALL WALK AGAIN! '...>> oh who could I be talking about?

Wow that was awhile back now, wasn't it?

Anyway, I guess you can say I have some Liberal/Democratic views but I stay mainly Right-Winged...

Definition - I believe it is true that the social part of our life should be a tad bit ' what to and what not ' in certain public domains as not to offend others, being that most of the people in this country are Christian but there are minorities who move here with the same ambitions and goals wishing not to be reminded of things they don't strongly believe in.

And at the same time, I guess I think it is alright to say 'Merry Christmas'. Actually, I'll stop talking right there as you see I am really Neutral with a fine line between what I believe is alright and what isn't, not to mention I don't like explaining my self all too well :-P.

I'm a Music teacher. ;)

Ah, my little sister ( turned 11 today...well 1:24 Minutes ago would be Today for me lol...so umm...yesterday? ) love music.

Anyway, well I'm stuck there. How to explain my self?

So, here I am sitting at my desk in a darkened room talking to someone who is putting me in a position of wanting to explain my self thoroughly...well here goes nothing.

It isn't too much that I believe who ever is in charge has control over our Constitution which so lovingly ( does a paper love a man? ) protects several of our freedoms, but I believe that he or she and others with Political ranking show what they like and try to darken points they don't want others to exactly know thoroughly so they may win. ( Hey, it's politics for ya. )

To go deeper into that hypothesis, a Senator may say ' I do not believe this man is suited for being a SCJ ( Supreme Court Justice..wow why didn't I just type it out anyway? ). Why? Well I do not believe this man would be suitable because of his instability in the past and his moral standings on Child Molestation ( just an example ) is too light and that nothing would be able to get accomplished. So I am going to vote nay, I am sorry yet glad to report.'

Infact, to kind of mess this post up again, I wasn't trying to refer to one man to have control over our very lives through the Constitution. I was just talking about that single persons own beliefes basically.

( 1 30 AM, don't laugh! )

Okay, now I call bullshit on your original post. Why? Because if you were an honest person, you'd have posted Pryor's entire statement, since he clearly gives his reasons for not confirming Alito.

That's why Pryor is voting against Alito. But I guess you were more interested in scoring troll points than you were in actually starting a discussion.

No, wrong, no attempt to score troll points, sorry. I still don't understand why the man who meets the requirements of the job should be voted against because you disagree with what he has decided in the past in other cases. To say he legislates from the bench is disingenous to me, he does so no more than any other judge, liberal or conservative. I find the "reasons" given to be nonsensical since he admits he has the credentials and the temprament to serve. I think that if the man has the credentials and temparment to serve on the court, he is deserving of a vote in his favor, no matter how you view his personal ideaology. Again, Ginsberg received 90+ votes in her favor, despite her ideology, why doesn't Alito deserve the same respect?

And at the same time, I guess I think it is alright to say 'Merry Christmas'. Actually, I'll stop talking right there as you see I am really Neutral with a fine line between what I believe is alright and what isn't, not to mention I don't like explaining my self all too well :-P.

So you and I agree. I have no problem with "Merry Christmas".

Hell ... if it's Christmas time, so be it. Someone says "Merry Christmas!" to me, I generally say "Thanks! Back at ya!" provided it's Christmas time.

Now, if they're saying that in July, I might chuckle a little.

I am Jewish by birth and Muslim by religion. However, I would never expect someone to say "Asala'am Alaikum" to me when I'm in disha dasha and abaya in public unless they were also Muslim. I fully acknowledge that people could see me in Muslim garb and still say "Merry Christmas" to me at Christmas time. I do oppose the idea that I'm a terrorist automatically, but I also understand that some jack-asses have blown up some children in the name of my faith.

This is where "Liberals" and I part ways. I do not believe you have to cater to everyone all of the time. I believe we are all human and should respect each others's customs.

For example, I was asked in the store the other day when I was coming home from Mosque why I was dressed as I was. I explained, we had a nice conversation, we talked about the differences in our faiths, and nobody got blown up or yelled at.

No, wrong, no attempt to score troll points, sorry. I still don't understand why the man who meets the requirements of the job should be voted against because you disagree with what he has decided in the past in other cases. To say he legislates from the bench is disingenous to me, he does so no more than any other judge, liberal or conservative. I find the "reasons" given to be nonsensical since he admits he has the credentials and the temprament to serve. I think that if the man has the credentials and temparment to serve on the court, he is deserving of a vote in his favor, no matter how you view his personal ideaology. Again, Ginsberg received 90+ votes in her favor, despite her ideology, why doesn't Alito deserve the same respect?

Oh what the hell I'll even answer this -

Because, even though the man believe Alito has the right stuff, he still does not think that he will fulfil what is necissary and right and just in the time he will be serving ( IE the rest of his life, or alteast most of it ). And this man is most likely basing this on what Alito has done in the past.

Alito thought so and so on a Murder trial, so will voting for him ensure that as an SCJ he will be able to lower Homicide Counts? Or atleast make the Deterring of that Criminal far more severe that if released will second thought it before doing it again?

---

How about that? ( I left several spaces unanswered, because I just realized you do know the answer...your just upset )

It isn't too much that I believe who ever is in charge has control over our Constitution

Honestly, I cannot place any man, no matter what their title, in control of our Constitution. It is too precious to be placed in the hands of one man, or one party, or one ideaology.

The only thing besides Allah I would die for is the Constitution. It is that important.

So you and I agree. I have no problem with "Merry Christmas".

Hell ... if it's Christmas time, so be it. Someone says "Merry Christmas!" to me, I generally say "Thanks! Back at ya!" provided it's Christmas time.

Now, if they're saying that in July, I might chuckle a little.

I am Jewish by birth and Muslim by religion. However, I would never expect someone to say "Asala'am Alaikum" to me when I'm in disha dasha and abaya in public unless they were also Muslim. I fully acknowledge that people could see me in Muslim garb and still say "Merry Christmas" to me at Christmas time. I do oppose the idea that I'm a terrorist automatically, but I also understand that some jack-asses have blown up some children in the name of my faith.

This is where "Liberals" and I part ways. I do not believe you have to cater to everyone all of the time. I believe we are all human and should respect each others's customs.

For example, I was asked in the store the other day when I was coming home from Mosque why I was dressed as I was. I explained, we had a nice conversation, we talked about the differences in our faiths, and nobody got blown up or yelled at.

Yea that I can perfectly understand.

See, like I was saying before, is it necissarily a bad thing to walk up to a Muslim man and greet him, obviously that he is a Muslim, with ' Merry Christmas? ' Not entirely. If you were to say it in a tone to make him feel belittled, trying to make him ( okay please keep in mind, all who read this, that I am too lazy to type /her to avoid being trolled ) feel as if he is surrounded by Christians and that he is the minority and doesn't deserve his own rights? I would call that person who said it in such a tone wrong, twisted, and flat out an ass hole.

I mean, you could probably walk up to me and say 'Asala'am Alaikum' and I'd be like...'Umm......' for about 30 minutes, and just say 'Whats up?'. Although generally I am not sure most Muslims would walk up to a White Male who is still in his teens at 6'0" and speak in a tongue he most obviously does not understand, but you get my point I hope. No wait I didn't state my point, I was trying to state that I wouldn't mind it if the person was possibly smiling or just had a nice presence.

So...yea.

What level do you teach at? Highschool, College, University, what?

Honestly, I cannot place any man, no matter what their title, in control of our Constitution. It is too precious to be placed in the hands of one man, or one party, or one ideaology.

The only thing besides Allah I would die for is the Constitution. It is that important.

Yea, I am under scrutiny by many, but I am joining the army in a few years and mostly because I'd die to defend that and of course I would do anything that would help defend my friends, my family, and my fellow countrymen no matter Race/Nationality/Religion/Etc. Now, this is what people get out of this -

'Okay fine, go off and fight some dumb ass's war and get shot for him. See if I care.'

And that hurts...it really does.

But aside from that, I am actually glad to see someone else who is a bit more religous thant the normal NSer I run across too :-P.

'Be vewy vewy quiet...I think we stol' a thread...'

No, wrong, no attempt to score troll points, sorry. I still don't understand why the man who meets the requirements of the job should be voted against because you disagree with what he has decided in the past in other cases. To say he legislates from the bench is disingenous to me, he does so no more than any other judge, liberal or conservative. I find the "reasons" given to be nonsensical since he admits he has the credentials and the temprament to serve. I think that if the man has the credentials and temparment to serve on the court, he is deserving of a vote in his favor, no matter how you view his personal ideaology. Again, Ginsberg received 90+ votes in her favor, despite her ideology, why doesn't Alito deserve the same respect?
Here's the thing--literally hundreds of thousands of lawyers in the US meet the requirements of the job. Tens of thousands probably have the temperament for the job. So there's got to be something else, and that something else is his record.

Here's my reasons why Alito is not qualified (in no particular order).

1) He's a liar and a crook. When he testified before Congress for his elevation to a federal judgeship, he said that he would recuse himself from any case involving companies in which he had a financial interest. When such a case came before him, he not only didn't recuse himself, he fought to stay on the case, a case where he found for the company in which he had a financial interest.

2) He doesn't respect stare decisis and refused to say that he believes in a constitutional right to privacy. He'll vote to overturn Roe.

3) He's one of the promulgators of the theory of the unitary executive; in other words, he's argued in the past that the President should be as powerful as any monarch. Sorry, but this is the US. We don't have unitary executives here--we've fought wars over it in the past.

4) When he was a federal judge and he was overturned by the Supreme Court, he was usually roundly overturned--in many cases unanimously. That says to me that he's not only outside the mainstream, but that he's in the middle of the fucking desert.

5) He's replacing the Justice most generally called a moderate (O'Connor is a solid conservative; she's just not crazy like Scalia or Thomas). Having a court that is decidedly more conservative than the population of the US is not a healthy thing.

One last thing about Ginsberg, since you guys like to bring her up all the time. The reason she sailed through confirmation was because Clinton went to Orrin Hatch and asked him who he thought would get through easily. Hatch gave him Ginsberg and Breyer, both of whom are on the bench now. You want to bitch about Ginsberg, take it up with the Republicans in the Senate at the time, because they appointed her as much as Clinton did. Bush didn't do that with Alito--he's trying to play a power game here, and righties are crying because the Democrats aren't rolling over and taking it this time.

Well I'm getting tired, and I think I'll be going to bed.

BTW, hope to catch you in an RP or such. Be interesting to see how well you do IC, or hope to catch ya on another General Forum thread.

Anyway, it was nice meeting you and talking to you.

( go ahead and reply to all my several questions and statements, I can read them tommorow...or scientifically and politically correct it'd be more like 10-11 AM CST lol. )

I mean, you could probably walk up to me and say 'Asala'am Alaikum' and I'd be like...'Umm......' for about 30 minutes, and just say 'Whats up?'. Although generally I am not sure most Muslims would walk up to a White Male who is still in his teens at 6'0" and speak in a tongue he most obviously does not

Lol ...

Ok two things:

1] White Muslims make up 30% of the world's Muslims. I am "White" There are more "white" Muslims than there are Arab Mulims. Ain't that a hoot?

2] The answer to "Asala'm Alaikum" is "Walaikum Sala'am". Just in case you encounter it. :D

Oh what the hell I'll even answer this -

Because, even though the man believe Alito has the right stuff, he still does not think that he will fulfil what is necissary and right and just in the time he will be serving ( IE the rest of his life, or alteast most of it ). And this man is most likely basing this on what Alito has done in the past.

Alito thought so and so on a Murder trial, so will voting for him ensure that as an SCJ he will be able to lower Homicide Counts? Or atleast make the Deterring of that Criminal far more severe that if released will second thought it before doing it again?

---

How about that? ( I left several spaces unanswered, because I just realized you do know the answer...your just upset )

Again with the ad hominems do you think you could answer a question and leave those out, just once?
Now, as to the answer, that makes sense, much more so than the way Pryor worded it and, assuming that is what he meant, I can actually buy into the idea that democrats fear Alito will rule in the future against what they fear is "right" (i.e. correct). I guess then, that makes my question: Why is a fear a person will rule against what you believe in a disqualifying factor for the SCOTUS? Such a fear has not served to disqualify many a nominee in the past, why should it serve that purpose now? In other words, Pryor doesn't like the way he might rule, so he has to vote against him, even though he has the credentials and temperament to serve.

Oh, and BTW, I'm not "upset." Believe me, it takes a lot more than one vote of one senator against something I think he should vote for to get me upset. If I were Michael Savage, yeah, I might be upset. However, I'm not, I'm just me, the questioning conservative who wants to understand liberal mind sets and thought processes. Since I find, generally, that they have a disconnect or a "double think" or double standard inherent in them that is fascinating, all the more so since the average hard left liberal can't see it in themselves.

1) He's a liar and a crook. When he testified before Congress for his elevation to a federal judgeship, he said that he would recuse himself from any case involving companies in which he had a financial interest. When such a case came before him, he not only didn't recuse himself, he fought to stay on the case, a case where he found for the company in which he had a financial interest.


I'd be interested to know more about that. Because if it is as it sounds, he should not only not be on the SC, he should be booted from the bench.

Again with the ad hominems do you think you could answer a question and leave those out, just once?
Now, as to the answer, that makes sense, much more so than the way Pryor worded it and, assuming that is what he meant, I can actually buy into the idea that democrats fear Alito will rule in the future against what they fear is "right" (i.e. correct). I guess then, that makes my question: Why is a fear a person will rule against what you believe in a disqualifying factor for the SCOTUS? Such a fear has not served to disqualify many a nominee in the past, why should it serve that purpose now? In other words, Pryor doesn't like the way he might rule, so he has to vote against him, even though he has the credentials and temperament to serve.

Oh, and BTW, I'm not "upset." Believe me, it takes a lot more than one vote of one senator against something I think he should vote for to get me upset. If I were Michael Savage, yeah, I might be upset. However, I'm not, I'm just me, the questioning conservative who wants to understand liberal mind sets and thought processes. Since I find, generally, that they have a disconnect or a "double think" or double standard inherent in them that is fascinating, all the more so since the average hard left liberal can't see it in themselves.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you're not up on the background of fights over judges, whether on the lower courts or on the Supreme Court, because otherwise you wouldn't have posted what you did.

Ideology is always at stake in judge nominations. Always. It is never not an issue, and that goes for the people in both parties. Republicans held up hundreds of judge's nominations for partisan reasons, and sometimes for no reason at all, during Clinton's presidency. Democrats did it under Bush 1 and Reagan. Republicans did it during Carter and Democrats during Nixon and Ford, etc. etc. etc.

So before you start on this "liberal doublespeak" road, you might want to actually look at the history of the whole story, lest you wind up looking like just another idiot on an internet forum.

Here's the thing--literally hundreds of thousands of lawyers in the US meet the requirements of the job. Tens of thousands probably have the temperament for the job. So there's got to be something else, and that something else is his record.

Here's my reasons why Alito is not qualified (in no particular order).

1) He's a liar and a crook. When he testified before Congress for his elevation to a federal judgeship, he said that he would recuse himself from any case involving companies in which he had a financial interest. When such a case came before him, he not only didn't recuse himself, he fought to stay on the case, a case where he found for the company in which he had a financial interest.

2) He doesn't respect stare decisis and refused to say that he believes in a constitutional right to privacy. He'll vote to overturn Roe.

3) He's one of the promulgators of the theory of the unitary executive; in other words, he's argued in the past that the President should be as powerful as any monarch. Sorry, but this is the US. We don't have unitary executives here--we've fought wars over it in the past.

4) When he was a federal judge and he was overturned by the Supreme Court, he was usually roundly overturned--in many cases unanimously. That says to me that he's not only outside the mainstream, but that he's in the middle of the fucking desert.

5) He's replacing the Justice most generally called a moderate (O'Connor is a solid conservative; she's just not crazy like Scalia or Thomas). Having a court that is decidedly more conservative than the population of the US is not a healthy thing.

One last thing about Ginsberg, since you guys like to bring her up all the time. The reason she sailed through confirmation was because Clinton went to Orrin Hatch and asked him who he thought would get through easily. Hatch gave him Ginsberg and Breyer, both of whom are on the bench now. You want to bitch about Ginsberg, take it up with the Republicans in the Senate at the time, because they appointed her as much as Clinton did. Bush didn't do that with Alito--he's trying to play a power game here, and righties are crying because the Democrats aren't rolling over and taking it this time.

1. I don't know you can call him a crook because of this, liar might fit, certainly there is an appearance of impropriety - valid point, generally conceded as an answer to my original question.

2. You don't know he'll vote to overturn Roe and there is no express constitutional right to privacy, only an implied right created (some would say out of whole cloth) by the Supreme Court in, I believe, the Griswold v. Conneticut decision legalising condoms in Connecticut. Not a good answer.

3. I don't believe he has said the president has the power of an absolute monarch anywhere. However, a legit. fear that he might defer too much to the executive branch could serve as a reason to oppose. However, I still have a problem with Pryor's claim he has the temprament to serve. In my mind, having the temprament to serve means he would attempt to do what he believes to the be the correct thing at all times. That would include ruling against the executive branch based on the law's requirements, even if his [u]personal[u] belief system said they should win.

4. Source for claims on SCOTUS rulings on his opinons. Maybe a valid point here, but it is phrased as a generalization that I can't buy into without more info.

5. Agreed, but having a court that is generally more liberal isn't either. I see Kennedy becoming the new swing vote, and he is as liberal as O'Connor was conservative. So, balance is maintained, in the libs favor.

Though let's be honest. If Roe v. Wade was overturned, it would be the best thing that ever happened for the democrats insofar as elections are concerned.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you're not up on the background of fights over judges, whether on the lower courts or on the Supreme Court, because otherwise you wouldn't have posted what you did.

Ideology is always at stake in judge nominations. Always. It is never not an issue, and that goes for the people in both parties. Republicans held up hundreds of judge's nominations for partisan reasons, and sometimes for no reason at all, during Clinton's presidency. Democrats did it under Bush 1 and Reagan. Republicans did it during Carter and Democrats during Nixon and Ford, etc. etc. etc.

So before you start on this "liberal doublespeak" road, you might want to actually look at the history of the whole story, lest you wind up looking like just another idiot on an internet forum.

I understand Ideaology is always an issue. My point is why say the man has the temparement and credentials to serve and then go on to say you're voting against him anyway because you don't like the way you percieve that his ideaology might affect his decision making process in the future? Why not just say that "based on his ideaology and my concern, based on past rulings and related matters, that he has difficulty in setting aside that ideaology in the decision making process, I don't feel I can vote for him." and leave it at that? Throwing in the statement that he is credentialed and has the proper temprament muddies the waters needlessly and confuses people.

Though let's be honest. If Roe v. Wade was overturned, it would be the best thing that ever happened for the democrats insofar as elections are concerned.

No ... seriously ... if Roe V. Wade got overturned, what would Republicans eat?

There's no fresh baby supply ... they'd all die out!

I'd be interested to know more about that. Because if it is as it sounds, he should not only not be on the SC, he should be booted from the bench.
Here's an article (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/11/03/plaintiff_alleges_alito_conflict/) on it. The short version is this: when Alito was before Congress to be confirmed as an Appeals Court Judge for the Third Circuit, he testified that if a case involving Vanguard came up, he would recuse himself. He had around $400k in Vanguard funds. Now, would a ruling against Vanguard hurt him? Maybe, maybe not. In the world of mutual funds, $400K is a very small number compared to the aggregate numbers they work with. But Alito had said he would recuse himself, and not only didn't he do so, he ruled on the case and then complained when the issue was raised at appeal. So much for his reputation for integrity.

Though let's be honest. If Roe v. Wade was overturned, it would be the best thing that ever happened for the democrats insofar as elections are concerned.

Well, not immediately, but in the long run when they couldn't kill their own anymore, yeah. :eek:

Well, not immediately, but in the long run when they couldn't kill their own anymore, yeah. :eek:
Never mind--you've just shown that you're not worth talking to, not because you're offensive, but because you're stupid if you're arguing, or even joking, that only Democrats get abortions.

Here's an article (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/11/03/plaintiff_alleges_alito_conflict/) on it. The short version is this: when Alito was before Congress to be confirmed as an Appeals Court Judge for the Third Circuit, he testified that if a case involving Vanguard came up, he would recuse himself. He had around $400k in Vanguard funds. Now, would a ruling against Vanguard hurt him? Maybe, maybe not. In the world of mutual funds, $400K is a very small number compared to the aggregate numbers they work with. But Alito had said he would recuse himself, and not only didn't he do so, he ruled on the case and then complained when the issue was raised at appeal. So much for his reputation for integrity.

Well, as I read the article it says he recused himself, his opinion was vacated and a new panel of judges appointed and they ruled the same way he had and he had no financial interest at stake in the company or outcome of the case since Vanguard was sued by a widow who was asking that Vanguard be required to release assets to her that allegedly belonged to her late husband, but that had also been claimed by a business partner. I don't see crook or liar either in this since he clearly, in his confirmation hearings, indicated, as any judge would, that he would recuse from Vanguard cases in which his financial interests were implicated. That wasn't the case here.

Never mind--you've just shown that you're not worth talking to, not because you're offensive, but because you're stupid if you're arguing, or even joking, that only Democrats get abortions.

It was meant as a joke, get a grip, have a sense of humor why don't ya. Of course I know Dems aren't the only ones who get abortions. They are just the ones who stand up for the right to get one more than anyone else. How can you attack me for this and say nothing about:

No ... seriously ... if Roe V. Wade got overturned, what would Republicans eat?

There's no fresh baby supply ... they'd all die out!

It's the same sick joke, only in reverse.

Well, as I read the article it says he recused himself, his opinion was vacated and a new panel of judges appointed and they ruled the same way he had and he had no financial interest at stake in the company or outcome of the case since Vanguard was sued by a widow who was asking that Vanguard be required to release assets to her that allegedly belonged to her late husband, but that had also been claimed by a business partner. I don't see crook or liar either in this since he clearly, in his confirmation hearings, indicated, as any judge would, that he would recuse from Vanguard cases in which his financial interests were implicated. That wasn't the case here.
Have a little trouble with reading comprehension, huh?
Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. ruled in a 2002 case in favor of the Vanguard mutual fund company at a time when he owned more than $390,000 in Vanguard funds and later complained about an effort to remove him from the case, court records show -- despite an earlier promise to recuse himself from cases involving the company.
That's the first paragraph from the article. What part of that don't you understand?

Oh wait, let me guess--you bought the White House spokesperson's spin instead of the court documents. Because the word of a political hack is more conclusive than actual court filings.

Lol ...

Ok two things:

1] White Muslims make up 30% of the world's Muslims. I am "White" There are more "white" Muslims than there are Arab Mulims. Ain't that a hoot?

2] The answer to "Asala'm Alaikum" is "Walaikum Sala'am". Just in case you encounter it. :D

So you're saying the proper response isn't "Right back atchya!"

So you're saying the proper response isn't "Right back atchya!"

But that's what it means.

Cut and pasted for my own convenience, phonetics is subjective.
Asala'm Alaikum = Peace to you(roughly)and Walaikum Sala'am = And also to you may there be peace. I can go into the grammar and where each of the words fit in if you'd like (who'd have guessed I'd use being an Arabic linguist here of all places?)

So you're saying the proper response isn't "Right back atchya!"

How about "Word! dog"

[QUOTE=Keruvalia]So you'd like to add to the US Constitution? What I stated were the *only* qualifications of being President.

A coke-head, ex-felon, child rapist can be President ... provided he meets the "qualifications".





This is who we have as a president.....assumeing dui is a felony in texas... as for as the child rape...ask cathy o'brian (Transformation of America)


sorry if i misread that and this is what you ment in the first place

I have no problem with Cons. None whatsoever.

My problem is with Republicans.

I'm a life long conservative who has never voted for a republican and I guess I should add that I'm fast losing my tolerance for demos as well. Perhaps the anarchists have been right all along "Don't vote, it only encourages them...":headbang:

Have a little trouble with reading comprehension, huh?

That's the first paragraph from the article. What part of that don't you understand?

Oh wait, let me guess--you bought the White House spokesperson's spin instead of the court documents. Because the word of a political hack is more conclusive than actual court filings.

I understood the first sentence, you obviously didn't understand or bother to read the entire article which explains exactly what I stated: he had no financial interest in the outcome, his decision was vacated, new judges heard the case and reached the same conclusion he had, etc.

Anyone who is 35+ years old, a natural born citizen of the United States, and has lived in the United States for 14 years is *qualified* to be President of the United States.

Michael Jackson.

Can you now see why just being qualified isn't enough?
Doesn't he live in the UAE now?

Doesn't he live in the UAE now?

As they've oulawed boy-jockeys in the racing, he may yet move back home.

I understood the first sentence, you obviously didn't understand or bother to read the entire article which explains exactly what I stated: he had no financial interest in the outcome, his decision was vacated, new judges heard the case and reached the same conclusion he had, etc.
Oh, I read the entire article. You misstated what the article said in your last post, which is why I called you on it.

And let me make this point perfectly clear--whether or not another panel of judges came to the same conclusion he did is irrelevant. He told Congress specifically that he would recuse himself from any case involving Vanguard, and then he didn't. That shows both arrogance and dishonesty in my book, and both (along with his loopy legal theories about the unitary executive) disqualify him for the Supreme Court.

One of my Senators, a democrat, issued a press releases today in which he said:



and yet he stated that he would vote against his confirmation. Can democrats explain to me why, other than petty partisan politics, a man who is "properly credentialed" and who has the proper "judicial temperament to sit on" the Supreme Court is still not deserving of a vote of confidence? If the man is qualified and has the judicial temperament needed to serve on the court, doesn't that mean he should get a vote in his favor? Ruth Bader Ginsberg received the support of Republicans on these grounds, even though they disagreed with her ideaology, why isn't Alito deserving of the same respect from Democrats?

AS others have tried to explain through examples, just because one meets the basic requirements to be a Justice does not mean that one automatically must be supported as a Justice.

Ailto is being picked to replace O'Connor a key swing vote on the Court. He appears to be the anti-O'Connor on many key issues.

The Senate has long -- if not always -- considered the political impact of an appointee during the confirmation process.

Ginsburg was not a controversial pick. So that dog won't hunt.

EDIT: GO NAZZ!!!

One of my Senators, a democrat, issued a press releases today in which he said:



and yet he stated that he would vote against his confirmation. Can democrats explain to me why, other than petty partisan politics, a man who is "properly credentialed" and who has the proper "judicial temperament to sit on" the Supreme Court is still not deserving of a vote of confidence? If the man is qualified and has the judicial temperament needed to serve on the court, doesn't that mean he should get a vote in his favor? Ruth Bader Ginsberg received the support of Republicans on these grounds, even though they disagreed with her ideaology, why isn't Alito deserving of the same respect from Democrats?
It doesn't look like there's any explanation or justification for it you're going to accept, so why should they waste their time?

Though let's be honest. If Roe v. Wade was overturned, it would be the best thing that ever happened for the democrats insofar as elections are concerned.

Remember the last time the United States passed a morality-based law that affected the nation as a whole?

That's right, Prohibition.

And we know that the Bible Thumpers won't be happy just banning convenient birth-control abortions either. They'll ban every sort in existence, even the ones that are medically necessary for the woman's life.

Back alley abortions will not only make a comeback, but organized crime will likely latch on to it as a new moneymaker, which will make things worse in so many ways.