post modern age Posted October 31, 2005 Author Posted October 31, 2005 Yeah, you must be right. After all, there couldn't have been a list compiled (containing names like John Roberts, Meirs, Gonzalez, Alito, etc) in the MONTHS since Justice O'Connor announced her retirement. Not in a nation of daily changes. Keep trying. 491867[/snapback] Alito was the best option on this list? Again, that's unfortunate. UH KEEP TRYING, UH HUH HUH
post modern age Posted October 31, 2005 Author Posted October 31, 2005 The President gets to nominate who he pleases. That is the law and the way it works. I would expect him to nominate someone who thinks the way he does, as I would expect a Democrat to. He shouldn't pander to anyone, on his side or the other, or the middle, but nominate a man or woman that has a solid background and believes what he believes. This guy doesn't seem so bad to me, and I am a liberal. The Scalito stuff, to me, is more because it's a cute play on words rather than actually being a lot like Scalia. I don't agree with some of his stances but it's impossible to agree on most everyone's stances if you're a free thinking person. Frankly, I hate Bush, and not afraid to say it, but Roberts was a homerun, and this guy at least seems like a reasonable choice. The left cannot expect Bush to nominate someone they like, they would select, or shares their philosophy. 492143[/snapback] I feel he has pandered.
Ghost of BiB Posted October 31, 2005 Posted October 31, 2005 I feel he has pandered. 492191[/snapback] I still don't get what this has anything to do with fat black and white bear looking things.
post modern age Posted October 31, 2005 Author Posted October 31, 2005 Okay who stole the retarded dogs userid? 492174[/snapback] You are a rational, level headed Virginian.
SilverNRed Posted October 31, 2005 Posted October 31, 2005 Alito was the best option on this list? Again, that's unfortunate. 492186[/snapback] Your argument wasn't about who the best choice was, but that he made the choice to take attention away from that CIA thing. Which is ridiculous, but you put it out there anyway. Bush's job is to pick someone who is qualified and who will please the people who actually voted for Bush. Remember them? The 51% of voters who could actually be bothered to go to the polls a year ago. Bush seems to have done both this time around. Bush didn't get elected so that he could pick someone to please Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer.
post modern age Posted October 31, 2005 Author Posted October 31, 2005 Your argument wasn't about who the best choice was, but that he made the choice to take attention away from that CIA thing. Which is ridiculous, but you put it out there anyway. Bush's job is to pick someone who is qualified and who will please the people who actually voted for Bush. Remember them? The 51% of voters who could actually be bothered to go to the polls a year ago. Bush seems to have done both this time around. Bush didn't get elected so that he could pick someone to please Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer. 492198[/snapback] My argument is that if Alito was the best option on the list, the list sucks. The reference to the list was on the point that Bush should have taken more time after Meirs to make his decision for his next nomination. Was Bush doing his job then, when he nominated Meirs? Or was that just a mis-step, or was he just trying to be overly fair, overly giving to the 49% that didn't vote for him? One would wonder if he is concerned more with the rough 33% that still support him, or the rough 66% that doesn't. Of course, that number is a lot less pretty in regards to your argument. As Alaska Darwin would smarmily slap onto his keys: UH HUH, UH HUH KEEP TRYING
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 31, 2005 Posted October 31, 2005 My argument is that if Alito was the best option on the list, the list sucks.492210[/snapback] An opinion no doubt inspired by your intimate familiarity with both the list and Alito.
post modern age Posted October 31, 2005 Author Posted October 31, 2005 An opinion no doubt inspired by your intimate familiarity with both the list and Alito. 492224[/snapback] One is conducive of the other. If Alito is the best on the list, the list sucks. If he isn't the best on the list, why is he up for this vote? Yes, I have read up plenty on several competing judicial candidates. Continue with smacking the sh-- out of yourself.
Kelly the Dog Posted October 31, 2005 Posted October 31, 2005 Okay who stole the retarded dogs userid? 492174[/snapback] I'm very often reasonable. Sure I lean pretty far left but that is simply because I see both sides and then choose which one seems the most reasonable for me. That happens to be approximately 3 out of 4 times a liberal philosophy. You idiot ideologues hardly ever notice it because you virtually never are, and the only times you see it is when I agree with your side. The 1 out of 4.
VABills Posted October 31, 2005 Posted October 31, 2005 I'm very often reasonable. Sure I lean pretty far left but that is simply because I see both sides and then choose which one seems the most reasonable for me. That happens to be approximately 3 out of 4 times a liberal philosophy. You idiot ideologues hardly ever notice it because you virtually never are, and the only times you see it is when I agree with your side. The 1 out of 4. 492233[/snapback] I'm sure that made sense. I am just too tired to think about it.
Kelly the Dog Posted October 31, 2005 Posted October 31, 2005 Your argument wasn't about who the best choice was, but that he made the choice to take attention away from that CIA thing. Which is ridiculous, but you put it out there anyway. Bush's job is to pick someone who is qualified and who will please the people who actually voted for Bush. Remember them? The 51% of voters who could actually be bothered to go to the polls a year ago. Bush seems to have done both this time around. Bush didn't get elected so that he could pick someone to please Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer. 492198[/snapback] No, that's not his job at all.
SilverNRed Posted October 31, 2005 Posted October 31, 2005 One would wonder if he is concerned more with the rough 33% that still support him, or the rough 66% that doesn't. 492210[/snapback] Whatever poll you got that from is meaningless. The only poll that matters is the one where people leave their houses and actually vote. I could care less about what some pollster finds out by calling people who happen to be home at 3pm on a Wednesday afternoon and want to waste 30 minutes talking about what they "approve" of. But, yeah, I'm sure you're right that Bush just whipped up some quick list to take that CIA thing out of the news.
SilverNRed Posted October 31, 2005 Posted October 31, 2005 An opinion no doubt inspired by your intimate familiarity with both the list and Alito. 492224[/snapback] I'm sure he knows a ton about who exactly should be on the court. He's known about Alito's existence for almost 3 hours now.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 31, 2005 Posted October 31, 2005 Yes, I have read up plenty on several competing judicial candidates. 492230[/snapback] Then why is Alito such a bad candidate?
post modern age Posted October 31, 2005 Author Posted October 31, 2005 Then why is Alito such a bad candidate? 492250[/snapback] My opinion is subjective. I'm not going to get into that B word fight, because that is exactly what you want by leading that question as you did. I disagree with Social Conservatism on a root level. That's as far as I'll go.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 31, 2005 Posted October 31, 2005 My opinion is subjective. I'm not going to get into that B word fight, because that is exactly what you want by leading that question as you did. I disagree with Social Conservatism on a root level. That's as far as I'll go. 492254[/snapback] In other words, you can't tell me why he's a bad candidate beyond "He's a conservative."
KD in CA Posted October 31, 2005 Posted October 31, 2005 My opinion is subjective. I'm not going to get into that B word fight, because that is exactly what you want by leading that question as you did. I disagree with Social Conservatism on a root level. That's as far as I'll go. 492254[/snapback] So then we can expect that you'd be whining about anyone that Bush would reasonably be expected to nominate, based on what we know about Bush and his beliefs. Or would you have been happy with Owen, Brown or Gonzalez? I guess that you're pretty disappointed that you don't get a say in appointing USSC justices. It's a rough world.....
KD in CA Posted October 31, 2005 Posted October 31, 2005 Jessica Alba says "hi", by the way 492227[/snapback] Good God Almighty! She gets my full support for anything.
Recommended Posts