KRC Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 In other words, you can't tell me why he's a bad candidate beyond "He's a conservative." 492270[/snapback] He is taking away from 24/7 coverage of Plamegate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Wow. Tom...Da...BiB.....someone want to take this? 491757[/snapback] No, I'm in a somewhat pensive and reflective mood today. I'm also not going to visit junior's spitball fight with a Ruger Blackhawk, either. He's a right to his opinions, but has never shown himself discussion or debate material. "I don't like because I don't like" is a debating point for a 3 year old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachChuckDickerson Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 In other words, you can't tell me why he's a bad candidate beyond "He's a conservative." 492270[/snapback] I don't know about the rest of you but I am waiting to give my opinion until I know where Tedy Bruschi stands on the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 I don't know about the rest of you but I am waiting to give my opinion until I know where Tedy Bruschi stands on the issue. 492452[/snapback] That WAS nauseating wasn't it? We ended up watching the game mostly on mute. The good news was that we didn't have to hear about Brett Favre for a couple of hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 I don't know about the rest of you but I am waiting to give my opinion until I know where Tedy Bruschi stands on the issue. 492452[/snapback] Good call! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 So, he didn't nominate this person because there is an actual vacancy on the court. He did it to con the public and distract the media? 491797[/snapback] Of course, because MSNBC and CNN told us so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Then why is Alito such a bad candidate? 492250[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 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. 492863[/snapback] As much as I like that answer (and I do; answering with judgements in hypothetical cases risks prejudging actual cases that may come before the court), it certainly doesn't leave much remaining to ask. Though if the Senators had any brains, they'd manage to ask intelligent questions about previous cases and their rationale behind judgements in such. But...nah. Much more lucrative to pander to the masses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 As much as I like that answer (and I do; answering with judgements in hypothetical cases risks prejudging actual cases that may come before the court), it certainly doesn't leave much remaining to ask. Though if the Senators had any brains, they'd manage to ask intelligent questions about previous cases and their rationale behind judgements in such. But...nah. Much more lucrative to pander to the masses. 492917[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 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. 493161[/snapback] Technically, that confidentiality doesn't exist, as your judgement is (or should be) based on public testimony. I would submit that any judge who claims confidentiality between an attorney and their client in discussing their judgement of a case is implying their judgement is in part based on confidential, private information, and such a judge would be unsuitable for the Supreme Court anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Technically, that confidentiality doesn't exist, as your judgement is (or should be) based on public testimony. I would submit that any judge who claims confidentiality between an attorney and their client in discussing their judgement of a case is implying their judgement is in part based on confidential, private information, and such a judge would be unsuitable for the Supreme Court anyway... 493165[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 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. 493189[/snapback] What is your view on substantative due process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 What is your view on substantative due process? 493256[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 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. 493269[/snapback] Thank you. Two part question: I'd now like to turn your attention to another Please, if you will, discuss your impressions of the Griswold case and what you believe are its implications for unenumerated rights. Next, I'd kindly ask you to give your view on the proportional representation and how it relates to the equal protection clause.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Thank you. Two part question: I'd now like to turn your attention to another Please, if you will, discuss your impressions of the Griswold case and what you believe are its implications for unenumerated rights. Next, I'd kindly ask you to give your view on the proportional representation and how it relates to the equal protection clause.... 493302[/snapback] THIS is what I'm talking about...! Far better than the "Would you overturn Roe v Wade?" nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Thank you. Two part question: I'd now like to turn your attention to another Please, if you will, discuss your impressions of the Griswold case and what you believe are its implications for unenumerated rights. Next, I'd kindly ask you to give your view on the proportional representation and how it relates to the equal protection clause.... 493302[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 In other words, you can't tell me why he's a bad candidate beyond "He's a conservative." 492270[/snapback] Would not matter if he was a non-smoking, union judge, who went to spas, stuff peanut butter jars up his ass, abortion doctor at night, liberal. The Dems would hate him, because "BUSH BAD" and Bush nominated him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Would not matter if he was a non-smoking, union judge, who went to spas, stuff peanut butter jars up his ass, abortion doctor at night, liberal. The Dems would hate him, because "BUSH BAD" and Bush nominated him. 493814[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 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. 493899[/snapback] Ummm.... guess you never read the papers. They tried. Was the vote 100-0? I didn't think so. Did you read any of the crap Kennedy, Kerry and Boxer were pulling during that confirmation hearing? I guess not. No Roberts took his beatings as well. But regardless, the point is no matter how liberal the judge, the Dems would have has a been in a frenzy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Ummm.... guess you never read the papers. They tried. Was the vote 100-0? I didn't think so. Did you read any of the crap Kennedy, Kerry and Boxer were pulling during that confirmation hearing? I guess not. No Roberts took his beatings as well. But regardless, the point is no matter how liberal the judge, the Dems would have has a been in a frenzy. 493924[/snapback] Exactly. No one accused the Dems of being stupid in this process. They tried to build a case against Roberts with the usual bluster, and when the public didn't respond and they couldn't build momentum, they dropped it before they started to look like the bad guys by attacking a very reasonable nominee. They will try again with Alito. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts