Sen. Charles Schumer of New York

[Bill from NYC]

It is capitalism to achieve the highest profit for your company. Companies are in business to make money. Nothing more. If they make more money by shifting the workforce overseas, that is what they will do. Welcome to global economics in a free-market society.

458683[/snapback]

 

I understand this. My question is whether or not it is OK for the government to give them tax incentives to do so?

[KRC]

I understand this. My question is whether or not it is OK for the government to give them tax incentives to do so?

458686[/snapback]

 

Your question was: "Is it truly capitalism for the government to give tax breaks to companies who outsource our jobs?"

 

Whether tax breaks are given or not has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism. Right or wrong, it is a decision by the government to promote business and economic growth through tax relief. Business owners will do what is best for their company. That is capitalism.

[KD in CA]

Actually, JSP brought up how terrible it would be if another Clinton were in the WH, a fairly clear reference to how awful it was the first go-round, hence the response to him you felt compelled to join in on with your own take of the Clinton years.

 

No, I didn't 'join in'. I responded specifically to your claim of 'P&P', and did not allude to anything JSP said.

 

I took your remark regarding Clinton having ignored security threats to include more than just terrorism thinking that if you meant to be more specific you would have used a less general term than "security threats".  Was Saddam a "security threat" that you believe Clinton ignored or one that he dealt with effectively?

 

I think he dealt with Saddam the same way he dealt with terrorism. He pushed it to the back burner since it didn't appear to be an imminent threat. He was right about Saddam (I for one never believed that Iraq was ever an 'imminent threat' to the US), and he was wrong on terrorism.

 

Still waiting for a response from you on the question as whether those who confirmed Roberts based on what they think he'll do on the bench are just as scummy as Schumer is for being against his confirmation based on what he thinks Roberts will do on the bench.

 

No, because confirming a USSC justice isn't like voting 'yes' or 'no' on a piece of legislation. It is the President's choice, not the Senate's. The Senate is supposed to be a check to ensure the person is qualified, which Roberts clearly is. Thus absent any specific reasons why he is not qualified for the position, there is no reasonable justification to vote against him. I suspect this is why virtually every current USSC justice has been approved by an overwhelming margin in the Senate. It seems that the far left has decided in the past decade to change the rules so as to protect their pet issues.

 

By the way, the "juvenile" comment is much appreciated because these discussions are always improved by hurling personal insults.  Bravo. 

 

Another question, which type of post most fits the definition of "rant", one which contains personal insults or one which doesn't?

457800[/snapback]

 

Geez...when did you get so sensitive? Now labeling an over-the-top impersonation of Clinton hating conservatives as 'juvenile' is a personal insult?? I'm sorry if I offended you, I thought we had thicker skin here at PPP. And no, a 'rant' has nothing to do with insults, personal or not.

[Mickey]

No, I didn't 'join in'.  I responded specifically to your claim of 'P&P', and did not allude to anything JSP said.

I think he dealt with Saddam the same way he dealt with terrorism.  He pushed it to the back burner since it didn't appear to be an imminent threat.  He was right about Saddam (I for one never believed that Iraq was ever an 'imminent threat' to the US), and he was wrong on terrorism.

No, because confirming a USSC justice isn't like voting 'yes' or 'no' on a piece of legislation.  It is the President's choice, not the Senate's.  The Senate is supposed to be a check to ensure the person is qualified, which Roberts clearly is.  Thus absent any specific reasons why he is not qualified for the position, there is no reasonable justification to vote against him.  I suspect this is why virtually every current USSC justice has been approved by an overwhelming margin in the Senate.  It seems that the far left has decided in the past decade to change the rules so as to protect their pet issues.

Geez...when did you get so sensitive?  Now labeling an over-the-top impersonation of Clinton hating conservatives as 'juvenile' is a personal insult??  I'm sorry if I offended you, I thought we had thicker skin here at PPP.  And no, a 'rant' has nothing to do with insults, personal or not.

458706[/snapback]

You are still not answering the question, I am not asking whether Roberts is qualified or not or if he should or should not be confirmed. There are those voting for him simply because they believe he will vote the way they want on certain issues and would vote against him if that were not the case irrespective of his qualifications. By the same token there are those, like Schumer, who are voting against him because they don't like they way they think he will vote, irrespective of his qualifications. Why is one group a scum and the other not for employing the same standard?

 

What constitutional basis supports your view that Senators must confirm all "qualified" candidates? Looking at the entire history of the court, that has not been the case historically and the constitution itself does not in anyway limit the grounds upon which a Senator can vote yea or nay on a nomination.

 

If a Senator believes that a nominee will rule on an issue using faulty reasoning, is a judge who uses faulty reasoning or legal analysis "qualified"?

[Albany,n.y.]

Many on the left claim that they are worried about Roberts becoming or being an idealogue.  However, the only idealogues on the SC issue I see are coming from the left.  When left leaning judges were nominated to the SC and came before the Senate, they were confirmed overwhelmingly.  Just saying "I don't like your views" does not make that nominee unqualified, much as I might have liked it to back in the mid-90's. 

 

Dave.

456844[/snapback]

You can't be serious. Scalia is a brilliant man, but he's the biggest idealogue on the Supreme Court. Oftentimes he dissents on issues based strictly on his own beliefs without any merit in constitutional law. The reason they are dissents is because the majority is usually following the constitution.

[Albany,n.y.]

I like him as one of our Senators; he represents the views of the majority of New York State, and along with Hillary gives us two strong Senators who are able to put forward the views of the majority of New Yorkers despite currently being in the minority party.  He will be a strong voice for New York when the Democrats take back the Senate in the next 3 years, and can only help us if he has to work with a future President Clinton.

457251[/snapback]

The scary part of your post is that there are people like you who truly believe that Hillary can win the Presidency. If enough Democrats share this view in the primaries then Hillary could actually get the Democratic nomination and go down to certain defeat in November. I just hope if this happens that the Republicans put up a candidate who is not bought & paid for by big business and/or the religious right, because if the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate H. Clinton, the election is in the bag for the Republicans.

[Taro T]

You can't be serious.  Scalia is a brilliant man, but he's the biggest idealogue on the Supreme Court.  Oftentimes he dissents on issues based strictly on his own beliefs without any merit in constitutional law.  The reason they are dissents is because the majority is usually following the constitution.

459333[/snapback]

YOU can't be serious. The banning of capital punishment for people younger than 18 was based on INTERNATIONAL opinion, per Judge Kennedy; NOT on the merits of US Constitutional Law. Scalia was in the minority on that one.

 

Also, my comment was referring to the words and actions of the Senators from the Democratic Party. They state that they are afraid of putting a justice on the court who is an idealogue, but yet when a QUALIFIED jurist is brought before them they vote against him simply because he is not a leftist.

 

Roberts had 22 votes against him. That is more than twice the number of votes against Ginsberg and Breyer combined. You can't honestly tell me that Republicans were happy with either of those two. But the simple fact of the matter is that those two (although oftentimes misguided ) are qualified and were confirmed overwhelmingly. For all the bellowing from the left about how the Republicans are strictly partisan and idealogues all the while the left would simply never be partisan nor idealogues, the majority of Republicans did the right thing at the end of the day by voting yes on Ginsberg and Breyer whereas half of the democrats put partisanship first and said nay to Roberts.

 

Dave.

[RuntheDamnBall]

if he he voted no because he didn't like the fact that Roberts refused to answer his questions about issues that might be decided before the court he should have also voted no on Ginsberg.

456736[/snapback]

That would have been mighty difficult as he wasn't in the Senate in 1993.

[RuntheDamnBall]

It is capitalism to achieve the highest profit for your company. Companies are in business to make money. Nothing more. If they make more money by shifting the workforce overseas, that is what they will do. Welcome to global economics in a free-market society.

458683[/snapback]

Fine. So tell me where the tax breaks fit in?

[Mickey]

YOU can't be serious.  The banning of capital punishment for people younger than 18 was based on INTERNATIONAL opinion, per Judge Kennedy; NOT on the merits of US Constitutional Law.  Scalia was in the minority on that one.

 

Also, my comment was referring to the words and actions of the Senators from the Democratic Party.  They state that they are afraid of putting a justice on the court who is an idealogue, but yet when a QUALIFIED jurist is brought before them they vote against him simply because he is not a leftist.

 

Roberts had 22 votes against him.  That is more than twice the number of votes against Ginsberg and Breyer combined.  You can't honestly tell me that Republicans were happy with either of those two.  But the simple fact of the matter is that those two (although oftentimes misguided  ) are qualified and were confirmed overwhelmingly.  For all the bellowing from the left about how the Republicans are strictly partisan and idealogues all the while the left would simply never be partisan nor idealogues, the majority of Republicans did the right thing at the end of the day by voting yes on Ginsberg and Breyer whereas half of the democrats put partisanship first and said nay to Roberts.

 

Dave.

459345[/snapback]

Justice Kennedy did nothing of the kind. This is just one of those conservative, Coluter-Limbaugh-Hannity type of sound bytes that just gets repeated and repeated and repeated until its gospel truth. The decision was made based on the US Constitution, specifically the Eighth Amendment. The state of the law internationally was a reference made to simply confirm what our own Constitution, in the opinion of a majority of the Justices, holds. From the syllabus:

 

"The overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty is not controlling here, but provides respected and significant confirmation for the Court’s determination that the penalty is disproportionate punishment for offenders under 18. See, e.g., Thompson, supra, at 830—831, and n. 31. The United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile penalty. It does not lessen fidelity to the Constitution or pride in its origins to acknowledge that the express affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and peoples underscores the centrality of those same rights within our own heritage of freedom. Pp. 21—25."

 

The holding was really based on the Atkins case which was decided in 2002 and resulted in a ban on executing mentally retarded persons. At the time Atkins was decided, 30 states prohibited either all executions or at least executions of the mentally retarded. That evidence was critical in the Court finding that a national consensus had emerged that execution of the mentally retarded was cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Similary, in the Roper case dealing with the execution of juveniles, 30 states banned such executions. Even in the 20 states with no formal ban, such executions were rare, only three of those states had executed a juvenile in the 10 years before Roper was decided.

 

The references in the opinion to international law are made after the holding was reached and is discussed simply in the context that the development of international standards in this area confirms the holding which is based entirely and exclusively on US law. Even without those references, the holding would remain the same. References to laws which have no value as controlling precedent is absolutely nothing new.

 

Believe it or not, I do not agree with the holding in Roper but agree with Justice O'Connor' opinion, who dissented from that holding, that there was nothing at all wrong or inappropriate with the majority's very limited use of international law.

 

The real issue that should be discussed is whether there really is some sort of national consensus which has emerged over the years in the US that executing juveniles is always cruel an unusual punishment. I don't think that is the case. In fact, if there ever was a juvenile whose execution would have been neither cruel nor unusual, it would have been the defendant in Roper.

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

The scary part of your post is that there are people like you who truly believe that Hillary can win the Presidency.  If enough Democrats share this view in the primaries then Hillary could actually get the Democratic nomination and go down to certain defeat in November.  I just hope if this happens that the Republicans put up a candidate who is not bought & paid for by big business and/or the religious right, because if the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate H. Clinton, the election is in the bag for the Republicans.

459335[/snapback]

 

What states could Hillary win that Gore didn't win?

[KD in CA]

I just hope if this happens that the Republicans put up a candidate who is not bought & paid for by big business and/or the religious right,

 

 

Because that would be much worse than a Democrat bought and paid for by big labor and the radical left.

[PastaJoe]

What states could Hillary win that Gore didn't win?

459765[/snapback]

 

She could win Florida by enough votes for it to count. If the Republicans nominate another conservative that is similar to Bush, she'd have a much better chance than if they nominate a moderate like McCain. I'd like to see her remain as our Senator and continue to grow in stature and influence, and have Joe Biden run as the Democratic nominee.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I'd like to see her remain as our Senator and continue to grow in stature and influence

459779[/snapback]

 

That in itself is a sure sign of mental illness.

[KD in CA]

She could win Florida by enough votes for it to count.

 

 

What, negative 539 isn't close enough?

 

 

 

Maybe if Phil Luckett had been in charge, he would have just given it to you!

[PastaJoe]

What, negative 539 isn't close enough?   

Maybe if Phil Luckett had been in charge, he would have just given it to you! 

459808[/snapback]

 

Maybe Bush will bring the subject full circle and nominate Katherine Harris to the Supreme Court.

[KD in CA]

Maybe Bush will bring the subject full circle and nominate Katherine Harris to the Supreme Court.

459865[/snapback]

 

 

And if he does, will any Senate member who seved in the armed forces have their confirmation vote thrown away?

 

Or will the Democrats just decide to change the rules on the fly and require 75 vote for confirmation?

[Mickey]

What states could Hillary win that Gore didn't win?

459765[/snapback]

Her viability as a candidate depends entirely on women. The so called gender gap would be where she might have a glimmer of a ghost of a chance.

 

I think we are more likely to have a female VP first before we have a female President. I see Hillary as a possible VP candidate paired with someone like Wesley Clark.

[Taro T]

Justice Kennedy did nothing of the kind.  This is just one of those conservative, Coluter-Limbaugh-Hannity type of sound bytes that just gets repeated and repeated and repeated until its gospel truth.  The decision was made based on the US Constitution, specifically the Eighth Amendment.  The state of the law internationally was a reference made to simply confirm what our own Constitution, in the opinion of a majority of the Justices, holds.  From the syllabus:

 

"The overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty is not controlling here, but provides respected and significant confirmation for the Court’s determination that the penalty is disproportionate punishment for offenders under 18. See, e.g., Thompson, supra, at 830—831, and n. 31. The United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile penalty. It does not lessen fidelity to the Constitution or pride in its origins to acknowledge that the express affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and peoples underscores the centrality of those same rights within our own heritage of freedom. Pp. 21—25."

 

The holding was really based on the Atkins case which was decided in 2002 and resulted in a ban on executing mentally retarded persons.  At the time Atkins was decided, 30 states prohibited either all executions or at least executions of the mentally retarded.  That evidence was critical in the Court finding that a national consensus had emerged that execution of the mentally retarded was cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.  Similary, in the Roper case dealing with the execution of juveniles, 30 states banned such executions.  Even in the 20 states with no formal ban, such executions were rare, only three of those states had executed a juvenile in the 10 years before Roper was decided. 

 

The references in the opinion to international law are made after the holding was reached and is discussed simply in the context that the development of international standards in this area confirms the holding which is based entirely and exclusively on US law.  Even without those references, the holding would remain the same.  References to laws which have no value as controlling precedent is absolutely nothing new. 

 

Believe it or not, I do not agree with the holding in Roper but agree with Justice O'Connor' opinion, who dissented from that holding, that there was nothing at all wrong or inappropriate with the majority's very limited use of international law. 

 

The real issue that should be discussed is whether there really is some sort of national consensus which has emerged over the years in the US that executing juveniles is always cruel an unusual punishment.  I don't think that is the case.  In fact, if there ever was a juvenile whose execution would have been neither cruel nor unusual, it would have been the defendant in Roper.

459749[/snapback]

Justice Kennedy manufactured a "national concensus" opposing the execution of 16 & 17 year olds by adding (rather arbitrarily) the 12 states that have no death penalty to the minority (18 out of 38) of states that have the death penalty for adults rather than juveniles. The majority did not consider whether the states without a death penalty treat 16 & 17 year olds as adults in criminal matters which would have been more instructive to determining whether there is a national concensus on the issue. He and the other 4 justices are making stuff up as they go along on this one.

 

You are correct in that Kennedy explicitly states that the majority views were based upon their own interpretation of the 8th amendment, but Kennedy does go out of his way to point out where international laws support this view. (I can't believe I actually wasted the time it took to read the decision and dissents.) Considering Kennedy invented the national concensus he is using to interpret the 8th amendments and also rambles about this country's "evolving standards of decency", I am not overly impressed with his statements that international law did not shape majority opinion but merely supports it. Neither, I might add, did 3 of the dissenters find much merit in his statements regarding international opinion.

 

Even if I grant you that the international opinion did not factor into the decision, I still cannot see where Scalia in the minority was not following constitutional law and the majority was (which was the original assertation in the post I was responding to).

 

Dave.

[Ghost of BiB]

Her viability as a candidate depends entirely on women.  The so called gender gap would be where she might have a glimmer of a ghost of a chance.

 

I think we are more likely to have a female VP first before we have a female President.  I see Hillary as a possible VP candidate paired with someone like Wesley Clark.

459962[/snapback]

 

You sit around thinking up ways to give me nightmares?