Is Palin failin' ? or OMG McCain wins with Palin !! pt. 2 - Page 29 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-07-2008, 04:25 PM   #421
War Child
 
TheEdge U2JT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: In a house filled with boys, guitars, pets and a lot of love!
Posts: 947
Local Time: 01:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
I knew the information was out there.


This proves the list was accurate.


So, I should stand by my original post?

That link proves those are the books she would have banned
if they did not stand up and stop her !
Proves???


Palin Rumors | Explorations
__________________

__________________
TheEdge U2JT is offline  
Old 09-07-2008, 04:26 PM   #422
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,249
Local Time: 04:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post

sadly, she's going to be studying for the next three weeks and will be unavailable to the press ... with the exception, i'm hearing, of People Magazine.
She's doing an interview with Charlie Gibson sometime.

(CNN) – Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Sen. John McCain’s surprise pick for the VP spot on the Republican ticket, has agreed to her first television interview with a national media outlet since being named as McCain’s running mate.

CNN confirms that Palin will sit down with Charles Gibson of ABC News later this week; the exact date has yet to be announced.

According to the McCain campaign, Palin will stay on the campaign trail through this Wednesday and then return home to Alaska where she will speak at a ceremony marking the deployment of her eldest son’s Army unit to Iraq on September 11. Palin’s interview with Gibson will be conducted near the end of the week.

Since the McCain campaign picked Palin as the Arizona senator’s running mate, the media has delved into her background and criticized Palin and the McCain camp for not making her more available to the media. Before Palin’s selection, she was a virtual unknown on the national political scene while one of McCain’s trademarks since mounting his first run for the White House eight years ago has been accessibility to the press.

UPDATE, 3:15 p.m.: CNN Correspondent Dana Bash has confirmed additional details about the upcoming interview: According to a McCain aide, the plan is for Gibson to have time with Palin over two days — Thursday and Friday of this coming week. The interview will be part sit-down, part walk-and-talk at various locations in Alaska.


----------

And again, at least lay off her this week. Let her be with her son.
__________________

__________________
2861U2 is offline  
Old 09-07-2008, 04:27 PM   #423
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 03:01 AM
The Republican Party will never overturn Roe v. Wade. If ever there was a wedge issue to fall back on and fire up the base, that is it. Why get rid of your cash cow?

You would think that decades into their affair with the religious right, the religious right would get the hint that they're just being used for their votes.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 09-07-2008, 04:29 PM   #424
War Child
 
TheEdge U2JT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: In a house filled with boys, guitars, pets and a lot of love!
Posts: 947
Local Time: 01:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
The Republican Party will never overturn Roe v. Wade. If ever there was a wedge issue to fall back on and fire up the base, that is it. Why get rid of your cash cow?

You would think that decades into their affair with the religious right, the religious right would get the hint that they're just being used for their votes.
So you agree with me that this really is a non-issue?
__________________
TheEdge U2JT is offline  
Old 09-07-2008, 04:32 PM   #425
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 03:01 AM
No, because stacking a court to one side of the political spectrum is never a good thing.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 09-07-2008, 04:40 PM   #426
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEdge U2JT View Post
I completely disagree. If it was that easy to over turn, it would have been done so by now...Reagan, GHW Bush, GW Bush....
The main thing that has helped is that Republican appointee judges are more likely to be considerably different than expected. Earl Warren, the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that ruled in favor of civil rights cases, was an Eisenhower appointee, and Eisenhower himself called Warren the worst decision he ever made. Justice Stevens? A Ford appointee. Souter? A Bush, Sr. appointee.

What concerns me, more than anything, is that the GOP will feel as though they have to appoint complete demagogues to get their way. I find Scalia to be the most revolting of all the Supreme Court justices, mainly because I do not trust him to be impartial. And you generally know what he thinks about several important issues that are likely to hit his court, because he goes around the country making fiery speeches that I'd expect from a Republican politician, not an "impartial" judge! That's really what frightens me more than overturning Roe v. Wade, because I have a feeling that the GOP would be more than contented to turn our judiciary into an Iranian-style theocratic judiciary just to get its way.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 09-07-2008, 04:55 PM   #427
War Child
 
TheEdge U2JT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: In a house filled with boys, guitars, pets and a lot of love!
Posts: 947
Local Time: 01:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
The main thing that has helped is that Republican appointee judges are more likely to be considerably different than expected. Earl Warren, the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that ruled in favor of civil rights cases, was an Eisenhower appointee, and Eisenhower himself called Warren the worst decision he ever made. Justice Stevens? A Ford appointee. Souter? A Bush, Sr. appointee.

What concerns me, more than anything, is that the GOP will feel as though they have to appoint complete demagogues to get their way. I find Scalia to be the most revolting of all the Supreme Court justices, mainly because I do not trust him to be impartial. And you generally know what he thinks about several important issues that are likely to hit his court, because he goes around the country making fiery speeches that I'd expect from a Republican politician, not an "impartial" judge! That's really what frightens me more than overturning Roe v. Wade, because I have a feeling that the GOP would be more than contented to turn our judiciary into an Iranian-style theocratic judiciary just to get its way.

Interesting..So if Scalia's interpretation of our Constitution was in line with your beliefs he'd be a genius right? If their rulings are to the Left they are impartial. If the ruling is to the right they are shills for the GOP???


As for your comment on summarily approved..... What about Robert Bork.

The Senate...now controlled by the Dems, does not a rubber stamp their approvals.


Main article: Robert Bork Supreme Court nomination

Bork (right) with President Ronald Reagan, 1987
Bork (right) with President Ronald Reagan, 1987

Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell was a moderate, and even before his expected retirement on June 27, 1987, Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form "a solid phalanx" to oppose whoever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace him, assuming it would tilt the court rightward; Democrats warned Reagan there would be a fight.[3] Reagan nominated Bork for the seat on July 1, 1987.

Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Ted Kennedy (D-MA) took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, declaring:

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is -- and is often the only -- protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of American. No justice would be better than this injustice."

TV ads narrated by Gregory Peck attacked Bork as an extremist. Kennedy's speech successfully fueled widespread public skepticism of Bork's nomination. The rapid response of Kennedy's "Robert Bork's America" speech stunned the Reagan White House; though conservatives considered Kennedy's accusations slanderous,[3] the attacks went unanswered for two and a half months.[4]

A hotly contested United States Senate debate over Bork's nomination ensued, partly fueled by strong opposition by civil and women's rights groups concerned with what they claimed was Bork's desire to roll back civil rights decisions of the Warren and Burger courts. Bork is one of only three Supreme Court nominees to ever be opposed by the ACLU.[5] Bork was also criticized for being an "advocate of disproportionate powers for the executive branch of Government, almost executive supremacy,"[6] as demonstrated by his role in the Saturday Night Massacre.

During debate over his nomination, Bork's video rental history was leaked to the press, which led to the enactment of the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act. His video rental history was unremarkable, and included such harmless titles as A Day at the Races, Ruthless People and The Man Who Knew Too Much. The list of rentals was originally printed by Washington D.C.'s City Paper.[7]

To pro-choice legal groups, Bork's originalist views and his belief that the Constitution does not contain a general "right to privacy" were viewed as a clear signal that, should he become a Justice on the Supreme Court, he would vote to reverse the Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. Accordingly, a large number of left-wing groups mobilized to press for Bork's rejection, and the resulting 1987 Senate confirmation hearings became an intensely partisan battle. Bork was faulted for his bluntness before the committee, including his criticism of the reasoning underlying Roe v. Wade. On October 23, 1987, the Senate rejected Bork's confirmation, with 42 Senators voting in favor and 58 voting against. Senators David Boren (D-OK) and Ernest Hollings (D-SC) voted in favor, with Senators John Chafee (R-RI), Bob Packwood (R-OR), Richard Shelby (D-AL), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Robert Stafford (R-VT), John Warner (R-VA) and Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (R-CT) all voting nay. The vacant seat on the court to which Bork was nominated eventually went to Judge Anthony Kennedy.

Note the affirming votes from Democrats and nay votes from Republicans.
__________________
TheEdge U2JT is offline  
Old 09-07-2008, 04:59 PM   #428
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEdge U2JT View Post
A hotly contested United States Senate debate over Bork's nomination ensued, partly fueled by strong opposition by civil and women's rights groups concerned with what they claimed was Bork's desire to roll back civil rights decisions of the Warren and Burger courts. Bork is one of only three Supreme Court nominees to ever be opposed by the ACLU.

ACLU was right
and when the Conservatives whine about Bork, they look either ignorant or bigoted


Bork was a terrible choice.

Based upon his Senate confirmation hearings alone,
he did not belong on the court.

Quote:
At Robert Bork's confirmation hearing to be Solicitor General, he defended the poll tax struck down in Harper v. Virginia, saying, ''It was a very small tax, it was not discriminatory, and I doubt that it had much impact on the welfare of the nation one way or the other.'' In his 1987 confirmation hearing, he held firm to this view, stating, ''It was just a $1.50 poll tax'' (committee print draft, page 129).

Judge Bork's statements on literacy tests are also a defense of their use -he characterized the decisions upholding Congressional authority to ban literacy tests as ''very bad, indeed pernicious, constitutional law.'' Under his theory, the courts and Congress would be prevented from taking any action, and the only remedy would be through constitutional amendment. While Judge Bork recognizes that the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, one form of a right of privacy, at his confirmation hearing he reiterated his long-held view opposing an unenumerated right, ''I do not have available a constitutional theory which would support a general defined right'' of privacy (print draft, page 266).
This is a man that believed poll taxes and literacy tests should be allowed.

These devices were designed and put in place to disenfranchise minority voters.

"$1.50 is very small tax"

not surprising that Southern Democrats voted to confirm

and Northern, moderate GOP voted against.
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 09-07-2008, 05:03 PM   #429
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 01:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
The Republican Party will never overturn Roe v. Wade. If ever there was a wedge issue to fall back on and fire up the base, that is it. Why get rid of your cash cow?
But complacency has done a great deal of harm at the state level.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 09-07-2008, 05:03 PM   #430
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 04:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEdge U2JT View Post
Interesting..So if Scalia's interpretation of our Constitution was in line with your beliefs he'd be a genius right? If their rulings are to the Left they are impartial. If the ruling is to the right they are shills for the GOP???
Nope.

You are so anti-liberal, it's unbelievable.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 09-07-2008, 05:04 PM   #431
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEdge U2JT View Post
Interesting..So if Scalia's interpretation of our Constitution was in line with your beliefs he'd be a genius right? If their rulings are to the Left they are impartial. If the ruling is to the right they are shills for the GOP???
A partisan mind would take that conclusion from what I wrote.

Instead, I'm talking about the fact that Scalia's opinions on important issues that are likely to head to his court are well-known far before the case ever reaches his bench. In other words, how likely is it that such an obviously opinionated judge--which we know by the speeches he has across the country--is actually paying attention to the evidence that the lawyers are presenting to him?

I also know that I am also dismayed by what he writes in his reactions to court cases, which is almost always written in "culture war" rhetoric that I'd expect from a special interest group, rather than a supposedly impartial judge. I'm not a big fan of Clarence Thomas necessarily either, who votes with Scalia fairly reliably, but he also does not march around the country telling people to be outraged and his written responses to cases brought before him are often written in a reasonable tone that I'd expect from an impartial judge, albeit a conservative one.

Why can't Scalia stop with the speeches? - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine

Quote:
Is this brilliant jurist losing his mind? Is he so frustrated by 17 years of failure to sway an allegedly conservative court to his side on social issues that he no longer cares who he offends or how biased he may appear? Has he become so swept up by the Coulter/Limbaugh/O'Reilly game of court-bashing that he cannot see how damaging it is when played by a justice? Or is he running for elected office? What possesses Justice Scalia to eschew the reclusive public life of many justices, or at least the blandly apolitical public lives of most, to play the role of benighted public intellectual and knight gallant in the culture wars?

There is, to be sure, an important difference between Scalia's remarks on the Pledge case and his recent skewering of the Lawrence decision. The rule for improper judicial speech is set forth in Title 28, Section 455 of the U.S. Code, providing that judges must recuse themselves in any case in which their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." With his comments in Fredericksburg, Scalia showed that—at least on the pledge case—he did not have an open mind. One of the reasons Scalia was so quick to recuse himself (and the decision was his alone to make) is that he is intellectually honest enough to know that he slipped in Virginia by discussing a case that would come before the court. There is nothing wrong, technically, with his subsequent comments condemning the decision in Lawrence. The case is already decided, and his intemperate comments were mild compared to his scorching written dissent.

But the body of his speeches and addresses makes it clear that he appears anything but "impartial" as is seemingly required by the law. One can predict his vote on most cases with great confidence. This is true of most justices, although Scalia would see it as a virtue: evidence of the consistency and predictability of his system of constitutional thinking. In some sense, then, the ethics rule punishes only judges whose views are inconsistent, who then speak at large gatherings, or at least gatherings with AP reporters present. California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown is being similarly pilloried for controversial speeches she's made; speeches she insists do not betray her judicial ideology but were deliberately intended to "stir the pot." Whether or not judges should be held to views expressed in extrajudicial speeches and whether or not they should be forced to recuse themselves for them are once again open questions. Expect more recusal motions in the future. But the fact remains that judges who give controversial speeches imploring listeners to espouse certain views and values undermine the appearance of judicial neutrality, and Scalia is no stranger to this fact.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 09-07-2008, 05:06 PM   #432
Blue Crack Addict
 
flybabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sunglasses,USA
Posts: 17,056
Local Time: 05:01 AM
It is soo amazing how far Palin has come,she is the greatest,people should have known about her before this,I mean really... McCain + Palin
__________________
flybabe is offline  
Old 09-07-2008, 05:08 PM   #433
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 04:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
I find Scalia to be the most revolting of all the Supreme Court justices, mainly because I do not trust him to be impartial.
I think Alito could be worse.

Because he is just as dangerous, but only half as intelligent as Scalia. If that.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 09-07-2008, 05:08 PM   #434
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEdge U2JT View Post
As for your comment on summarily approved..... What about Robert Bork.
"Exceptional circumstances." Bork was as terrible of an appointee as Harriet Myers, if not worse.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 09-07-2008, 05:11 PM   #435
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 04:01 AM
I blame Harriet Miers for Alito.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com