Mickey Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 All prosecutors make statements after cases whether they win or lose. Even the statements they picked out didn't seem that defensive. His statements seemed pretty straight forward to me. I don't know what else he was supposed to say. Nope, not my problem. They brought this up and they're the ones framing him as a prosecutor who blew a huge case and really didn't seem to care. I mean, he said he wasn't embarassed - so what? What is the point of this and why is it an important issue here in 2005? They had to think those quotes were of some special significance or they wouldn't have included all of them. Either they're trying to imply that he's a sloopy prosecutor who didn't care or something worse. Discuss all you want, but don't grab a few quotes from him to make it seem like he didn't even care and that it wasn't a big deal to him. I'm sure it was a big deal to him. You don't get as far in the profession as he has without being very good at what you do. Remember the old Jordan commercial where he talks about all the shots he missed and all the games he lost? 493285[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Blame the founders for party politics that puts vested self-interest ahead of the good of the nation? Sometimes you say the downright stupidest things. 493345[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Blame the founders for party politics that puts vested self-interest ahead of the good of the nation? Sometimes you say the downright stupidest things. 493345[/snapback] I was wondering who else would jump on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 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. 493397[/snapback] Because abortion is anywhere near as important as the media leads us to believe? And Nero fiddled... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 2, 2005 Author Share Posted November 2, 2005 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. 493389[/snapback] Yeah, I'm sure they released that memo to show that back in 1988, Alito was stuck with a bad case and it wasn't his fault he lost. Makes perfect sense. They released the memo to knock him down. They're trying to slam him with this. 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? You can present the quotes in such a way that they look bad. The title is that he "embarrassed" the government but the put quotes underneath that to make it seem as if he could care less. They make it seem as though the case was devastating to the government but Alito's philosophy was "oh well." That's the rotten part, as I said earlier. The quotes are meant to look bad because they are out of context but IMO are not bad when you consider that there wasn't much else he could say at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Stop what? Differentiating between party loyalty and loyalty to one's country? Sorry, you're right...there is no difference. The Democrats ARE America, and the Republicans are evil Nazi intruders bent on stealing the country away from them. At least until the roles are reversed next election. 493110[/snapback] It's amazing how that only works one way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 It's amazing how that only works one way... 493474[/snapback] What part of "At least until the roles are reversed next election" did you not understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 The "until the next election" part which implies that today only one party is guilty of acting in a less than honest manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 The "until the next election" part which implies that today only one party is guilty of acting in a less than honest manner. 493517[/snapback] Yep, the democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 The "until the next election" part which implies that today only one party is guilty of acting in a less than honest manner. 493517[/snapback] Way to completely miss the point, idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 I was wondering who else would jump on that. 493410[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Do you think the founders didn't engage in party politics? 493550[/snapback] I don't think they founded the country in such a way that party loyalty was intended to take precedence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 I don't think they founded the country in such a way that party loyalty was intended to take precedence. 493568[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 2, 2005 Author Share Posted November 2, 2005 The "until the next election" part which implies that today only one party is guilty of acting in a less than honest manner. 493517[/snapback] That's not what he was implying at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Way to completely miss the point, idiot. 493524[/snapback] Well then, I must congratulate you for completely failing to make a point, any point, beyond DemsBAD!! Apparently in your perception, challenging or questioning a Bush Nominee in any way shape or form, amounts to the lowest and sleaziest form of partisan politics practiced today. Oh, and if you don't believe you're coming across that way, look at how fast Richio's twin sisters are leaping to your defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 2, 2005 Author Share Posted November 2, 2005 Well then, I must congratulate you for completely failing to make a point, any point, beyond DemsBAD!! 493707[/snapback] His point was literally that both parties pull the same crap. How did you get DemsBAD!! out of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Maybe I read it wrong initially, but that's the way it came across to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Maybe I read it wrong initially, but that's the way it came across to me. 493731[/snapback] And thus, it's somehow my fault you can't read? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts