Mickey

Newbie's point was that Islamic Law would soon be imposed in France, that this will happen "soon". Really, do you think that is going to happen soon and if so, tell me how a few million muslim fundamentalists are going to take down 52 million non-muslims in one of the oldest democracies in the world? Could a roubst minority, in a democracy, effect policy, sure. Impose islamic law? No, I don't think so. France can't be discussed on this board with anything approaching common sense. The mere mention of the word seems to bring out the loopiest assertions because so many here just hate, hate, hate, hate France. If I came out with a post that the 1% of Republicans who are skinheads are on the verge of imposing a Nazi government in the US because we are too busy fighting in Iraq, I can imagine the response.

The point Newbie was making was that France was about to be overrun with muslim fundamentalists and that they "will soon" have Islamic Law imposed upon them. I disagree and made an argument supporting my position. What, on the point being discussed, is your opinion? Do you agree or disagree that France is on the verge of being taken over by fundamentalist muslims who will impose Islamic Law on all of France and that this will happen "soon"? On a side note...."historical predisposition to wait for the US to take drastic actions..." No doubt an observation based on France and Bruschi (We're not worthy!) fighting Hitler without the US from the the summer of '39 until after Pearl Harbor in '41. Does World War II not count?

Only 5-10% of the United States is Christian? It would be an appropriate analogy if 95% of France was muslim and within that huge majority, 10% were fundamentalist muslims. Thats not the case. All the muslims in France are only 7% of the whole population and the fundamentalists among that small group are even less.

Do you really think this "will soon" happen? What are 52 million non-muslim French men and women going to be doing while a subset of the total muslim population of 4 or 5 million is somehow managing to impose Islamic Law on them? We have more muslims here in the US. Are we in danger of experiencing an Islamic fundamentalist take-over? We have already experienced a christian fundamentalist take over as it is, please tell me we I'm not going to be assaulted by Koran toting freaks on the street corner telling me I have to turn my life over to Muhammed.

Does anybody have any links to immigration stats that demonstrate the extent to which there has been a large movement of muslims to Europe? What is the muslim population of European nations and how does it compare to ours? How many of them have been arrested or found guilty of being implicated in terrorism as compared to the muslim population at large? It just seems to me that this thread is laced with a lot of assumptions and I think the actual numbers might be helpful. Reading it made me fear that all of Europe was on the verge of becoming overrun by Islamic fundamentalism any day now. Maybe that is true, maybe not. Those kinds of numbers would at least ground our opinions in facts. Addendum: Here are a few links I found quickly which say that the US has an estimated 6.7 million muslims but there are other estimates ranging from as low as 3 to as many as 9 million. Muslims in America 2001 Here is another that says that France has 4.5 million and Britian 1.6 million and further, that there are about 12 million total in Europe but I think that might include Turkey, not sure. Explosive Relationship 2004 Hope that is a good start. Another addendum: Here is a 2002 study of muslims in Europe done by some University Professors in Amsterdam for the Russel Sage Foundation, whoever they are. It includes a population table showing the population of European nations and their muslim populations: Muslims in Europe, State of Research For example, it shows that France has 56 million, 4-5 million of whom are muslims. The Netherlands has almost 16 million people but only 695,000 muslims. Germany has 82 million people, 3 million of which are muslims. All told, Europe has about 450 million people, 13-14 million of whom are muslims. I think that works out to about 3% of the population of Europe being muslim. In France, its closer to 7-9%. It stands to reason that not all of those muslims are militant fundamentalists, far from it. Even if we assumed that they were, they are hardly on the verge of taking over French politics. Influential minority? Maybe but even that is a stretch. These communities, harboring within them some of most dangerous extremists are certainly of major concern but the idea that France is about to be overrun with fundamentlist muslims because they were "too busy" opposing the war in Iraq, ie, "fighting us" seems to be a point motivated more by hatred of France rather than the facts. Besides, even if it were so, would the number of muslims in France really be any different if France had supported the war in Iraq?

You said that no matter who Bush nominated "the Dems" would oppose him. There was no qualification or limitation. I read that and recalled that fully one half of all "the dems" in the Senate voted to confirm Roberts. It seemed to me then that the facts belied your point. Now you are changing "the dems" to "some on your side of the aisle". There certainly are democrats who would in fact support a nominee of Bush's depending on the nominee. Even as to those who voted against them, their opposition wasn't much more than token and likely for the benefit of their supporters rather than serious opposition to Roberts. The issue really isn't Bush, the issue is abortion. Both parties have strong factions within who are not willing to compromise at all when it comes to the supreme court. There is a reason that sup. ct. confirmation hearings suddenly became so controversial and of such interest to the public and the body politic since 1972. The reason is Roe v. Wade. I just saw a gallup poll that said around 57% of Americans do not want Alito confirmed if he would overturn Roe. I am not willing to pretend that Roe isn't the dominant issue to both sides. Whether it should be, whether or not there are more important issues and so on, doesn't really matter. It is the issue and if it wasn't, confirmation hearings wouldn't even be covered on C-span.

Yeah, half of all the members of the opposition party in the Senate voted for the President's nominee and you think that supports your point that the same opposition party would oppose any judge nominated by the President. You are wrong, 22 times wrong. There are nations out there that do not allow any dissent at all, not even a lousy 22 votes. Maybe you would be happier in a one-party state?

Riiiight, which is why they let the Roberts nomination proceed to a quick and easy confirmation? Your point is belied by very, very recent history to the contrary.

I see you have enthusiastically embraced the "criminalizing politics" talking point. You do realize that it was the CIA which made the referral of the Plame matter to the Justice Department, not the DNC, don't you?

I think they sought to use the energy produced in adversarial conflicts by channeling it to the service of the country. Kind of like how the NCAA tournament, with 64 partisan supported teams, duke it out to be top dog. I am not sure why it is that the nation's interests are thought to be so ill served by a partisan debate over a judicial nominee. It doesn't threaten our national security or degrade the performance of the economy. In theory, the process as it is should result in the selection of a compromise pick acceptable to the broadest spectrum of viewpoints. Adversarial review of nominees assures close examination of the nominees. Their supporters are not going to apply a critical review of their qualifications so you need "partisans" on the other side dragging out all the information. Judges at this level are political appointees. At other levels, they are elected. Either way, judges get to be judges based on politics. It is the way of it and I am not sure there is a better way out there. I am open to suggestions.

Do you think the founders didn't engage in party politics? The election of 1800 involved plenty of party politics, factionalism, regionalism etc., by founders Adams and Jefferson. The election itself was ultimately decided by James Bayard of Delaware who decided to put his state's interest above that of the country. I think the founders would find our pollyannish aversion to *gasp* party politics amusing. The idea that they were all noble aristorcrats with no self interest devoted only to the good of the country was the propaganda of their day. They might not have had political consultants and Madison Avenue helping them out back then but they still knew how to project an image, even a false one, using the media tools of the day. Heck, Washington wasn't selected as commander of the revolutionary forces because of his record of great generalship. He was selected because he campaigned hard for it, was about the richest man in Virginia and because, by selecting him, Adams and other New Englanders guaranteed that Virginia would join and stick with the revolution. They didn't want what was happening in Boston to end up being a limited conflict. In short, it was a political decision with plenty of regionalism, the partisanship of its day, involved. Maybe the genius of the founders was in finding a way to harness narrow self interests to serve the whole.

The founders didn't engage in partisan politics? In 1789, maybe not, none of the candidates were affiliated with a party. That lasted a long, long time, all the way to 1792 when all 5 candidates were affiliated with either the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists. Really, the anti-federalists. Sound like maybe they were a bit partisan back then even? Those clever boys knew exactly what they were doing when they divided the process of raising a mere mortal Judge to Supremacy. They certainly knew what would happen, that politics would be part of the process. And it is. It certainly is. Right or wrong? I don't know what alternative would be better and besides, it is what it is. What I am most tired of is the pretending that politics and abortion is not part of the whole freaking deal by both sides. Total BS. If it is about abortion then fine, lets have the nominee tell us where he or she stands and then vote or filibuster or whatever. It would be hell but it would be honest.

Maybe they grabbed those quotes because that was all the quotes there were to grab. That is why I asked you for examples of quotes you surmise were left out, hence your accusation that they cherry picked. If the comments aren't so bad, then why was it so bad for them to use them? Why was that cherry picking among quotes to make him look bad if those quotes in your own opinion, don't make him look bad? Look, it is a factual event, he did lose the case. It was in fact a big case. Afterward, he did say those things. None of what "they" have said is in any way inaccurate. The one "inaccuracy" cited as a problem by you is that they picked these particular quotes out to make him look bad. Fair enough if true but you don't know that. For all you know, that was all the public comment he made about the case afterwards. Comments that to your mind, don't even mean much anyway. What you really have are a set of facts which are solid, however, what those facts mean is certainly up for debate. Maybe they mean he was stuck with a lousy case. Maybe it means they had a key witness crap out on the stand. Maybe it means he did a crappy job on the case. All of that is fair debate and relevant to the issue of this man's qualifications for a position on the Supreme Court. So in the end you have a set of factually correct events that are relevant by any measure. Subjectively, we all will reach our own conclusions over what those facts mean and that is fair enough. What I still don't get is why this true and relevant information makes the unknown source such a terrible, rotten scoundrel? Because you assume, surmise, ie don't really know, that maybe they used bad quotes (though you say they aren't bad ) when there were better ones that they didn't use? Is that it? Tempest, meet teapot.

I refer you to the writings of that noted expert on this very topic, Harriet Miers, Esq. My views on this matter, compared to her extensive writings on the issue and in-depth analysis are certainly undeveloped. In fact, I can assure you that I have never written or discussed a proportional representation requirement to the Equal Protection Clause.

First of all Senator, I want to thank you for that great question and to complement you on providing me this great opportunity to discuss these great issues during these great proceedings. I'm sure the people of your great state are greatly grateful for the great way you have handled this most important inquiry. Your question, I think touches in a very intelligent and perceptive way the greatness which underlines our great courts and our system of justice which, if I may say so, is the greatest system of justice the world has ever known. I think that due process is a great thing and that America is a great country and that the founding fathers were great, really, really, great. You know that the Constitution says that you can't deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process and I think that is really great. That is definitely one of the great things about the Constitution, the fact that it has these great issues that so greatly impact our greatness as a people and as a nation is unqualifiedly great. The great thing about substantive due process is that it has to be "substantive" and it must involve "process" that is "due". As a judge, I pledge to pay great attention to these great issues and to wrestle mightily with intellectual vigor over the meaning, the beauty, the greatness of such great concepts as due process. I make that promise before the entire Senate, before the great American People and before the President of this great nation. I am sorry, I seem to have used up all of your remaining time, Senator, I do hope I have answered your great question and I thank you again for asking me such a great, great, no really, I mean that, a great, great question.

Is it any more classy for his supporters to trumpet his bio while leaving out the bad stuff? Really, why is it okay to cherry pick good stuff and not bad stuff? I think that whether or not such a huge loss is an embarassment is kind of a subjective determination. The fact that Alito himself felt at the time that it was necessary to defend the awful result certainly tells me that he was worried that it really was a pretty embarassing result. I think his performance in that case should be looked at closely and then the public can decide for itself whether he embarassed the government or just got stuck with a freak jury. I am not taking the word of some unknown source that he screwed up the case but I am not going to take Alito's word for it that he didn't nor am I willing to rope it off as out of bounds. Since you accuse the unknown sources of that "quote" of "cherry picking" quotes of Alito regarding the results of that case, can you tell me what quotes they left out so I can compare them with the ones that were included? I think the fact that he lost one of the biggest cases he ever tried is certainly worthy of discussion now that he is being appointed to the highest court in the land. The hysterical reaction to the notion that this be discussed is, lamentably, par for the course. I guess we can all talk about how brilliant he is, how brilliant the President is for nominating him, how brilliant conservatives are for supporting him and just how brilliantly brilliant he is. We just can't talk about how brilliantly he lost a huge case because that might show that maybe, just maybe, he isn't all that brilliant.

I guess I am missing something, why isn't the conviction record of a prosecutor a legitimate basis for both praise and criticism? If conservatives can praise his work as a prosecutor, why can't others be critical of that same work? For example, GOP Bloggers has this entry in their bio of Alito promoting his nomination: "From 1987-1989, Alito served as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey where he is best know for prosecuting white collar and environmental crimes, drug trafficking, organized crime, and violations of civil rights." GOP Bloggers If his prosecution of organized crime can be praised, why is it out of bounds to indicate that he lost one of his biggest cases against organized crime?

You have to stick with Holcomb for now, he has clearly outplayed JP. They will put JP in the same way they did with Holcomb, late in a game where the starter is clearly struggling and not able to get the job done. As long as he is keeping them in the game, they are going to leave the starter in. I don't think this will be an intellectual decision made in the boardroom over the break. It will be an on-the-field decision during a game.

I was referring to the cases I handled as an atty. before my hypothetical rise to the judiciary. Kind of like Miers and Roberts not wanting to turn over documents related to their role in cases they worked on as attorneys. As for cases I have decided as a judge in the past, I can't comment on them as the issues involved could arise in a same or similar context in other cases I might be called to rule upon in the future. As for my reasoning in those cases, I respectfully refer you to the various written opinions which contain all my reasoning in those cases. Next question.

Exactly. Both sides have litmus tests and both pretend that they don't so that they can lambaste the other side for having one. The constitution created this very situation, two branches having to decide together what happens to a third. Interdependency is all part of the checks and balances. It is a political process and it was meant to be that way. Blame the founders.

I'd answer questions regarding previous cases in which I have ruled but it would be inappropriate for me to do so given that issues from those cases may arise in cases I have not yet heard. Unfortunately, I also will have to withhold from you the results of all my cases since it would be inappropriate for me to break the confidentiality between an attorney and his clients established in every single case I have ever handled. I am, however, a Pop Warner coach so I would be happy to answer any questions you may have on the constitutional implications of running the Wing T with Mitey Mights.

I'd tell you but I can't because it would be inappropriate for me to comment on issues that are likely to arise in cases I will have to judge in the unlikely event that I am ever nominated or elected to the judiciary.

Just thinking out loud here but isn't it possible that part of the reason they had some success on the ground was because of the way they mixed up passing and running in the play calling? Besides, we ran the ball 39 times which seems like plenty to me. We also scored our only TD on a 55 yard pass play. You can't have plays like that if you never, ever, ever throw which seems to be the only strategy immune to criticism around here that we aren't running enough.

Starr didn't ask, Jones' lawyers did already knowing the answer because they already knew about Tripp's tapes and actually violated disclosure rules by not revealing the info to the President's lawyers before his deposition. You see, if Clinton knew they had the goods on him, he wouldn't have lied about it and they wouldn't have had the perjury charge to hand to Starr which was the whole point of the exercise. Its called a "perjury trap". The line between Starr and Jone's lawyers was a bit blurry. It certainly was irrelevant to the Whitewater thing and in fact, was ruled to be irrelevant in the Jones case as well. In other words, they could have objected to the question as irrelevant and it would have been sustained but to demonstrate its irrelevancy, they would have had to admit the affair and show that it was consensual. Politically, he wasn't prepared to do that.

The CIA listed her as "classified" and Fitzgerald's investigation concluded (its right in the indictment) that the fact that she worked for the CIA was not common knowledge. From the indictment: "At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community. "LIBBY had lunch with the then White House Press Secretary and advised the Press Secretary that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and noted that such information was not widely known." This idea that every one and their brother knew about Plame and that her identity was no longer classified has been repeated so often on every conservative web site there is that it has, by its own inertia, become gospel. Fitzgerald's investigation clearly concluded otherwise. In fact, at the time, even Libby was of that opinion. Between conservative blogs and whatever other sources and the Prosecutor, I am going to go with the Prosecutor. He is the one who has seen all the proof and has to go in front of a Judge and Jury and prove these findings, unlike the Ann Coulter's of the world or even real journalists (are there any left?)