Quote:In Oct. 1990, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) passionately defended then-Supreme Court nominee David Souter, who faced criticism during his confirmation process for defending literacy tests in his home state of New Hampshire. Hatch noted that those tests were existing law at the time, and that Souter, as the state's assistant attorney general, was required to defend them.

“It is not right to go back in hindsight and say he should not have done that; that that shows something wrong with him. Come on, that is what advocates do,” Hatch said at the time.

“If we are going to start using a nominee's briefs against him in the confirmation process, we are going to be setting a shocking precedent,” he continued. “It would be a very, very dangerous message to send to lawyers: If you have any ambition to be a judge, you lawyers, do not represent controversial clients and be careful what you say on behalf of a client because you might be held responsible for the fact that the law was as it was at the time you made the statement.”

(03-06-2014 05:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And no, a second-hand opinion from a biased senator isn't a fact of anything he did.

And you've produced exactly nothing better in support of your position.

Explain this, if there's nothing there, why did 7 democrats vote no? That's the closest thing to an objective evaluation anywhere.

(03-06-2014 05:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 05:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And no, a second-hand opinion from a biased senator isn't a fact of anything he did.

And you've produced exactly nothing better in support of your position.

Explain this, if there's nothing there, why did 7 democrats vote no?

Quit changing the subject. Let's see your evidence of all his despicable behavior on this case.

And I don't have to provide anything that supports my postion skippy...I'm not the one saying he's not qualified. Their are multiple accounts of his qualifications, go look them up.

But the dems voted against him because, and I was initially wrong about this, they still don't have a spine. They likely feared backlash form police and other law enforcement unions in their next election.

(03-06-2014 05:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 05:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 05:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And no, a second-hand opinion from a biased senator isn't a fact of anything he did.

And you've produced exactly nothing better in support of your position.
Explain this, if there's nothing there, why did 7 democrats vote no?

Quit changing the subject. Let's see your evidence of all his despicable behavior on this case.
And I don't have to provide anything that supports my postion skippy...I'm not the one saying he's not qualified. Their are multiple accounts of his qualifications, go look them up.
But the dems voted against him because, and I was initially wrong about this, they still don't have a spine. They likely feared backlash form police and other law enforcement unions in their next election.

Toomey's comments constitute evidence. So do the comments linked to post 50. And the actions of the 7 democrats would tend to corroborate those statements.

Nobody is changing any subject. I have produced accounts of what happened. You refuse to accept them because of alleged bias, and have provided other highly biased statements as refutation. Given a choice between two allegedly biased accounts, some party or party acting out of character is strong evidence of corroboration. Therefore the actions of those 7 speak volumes. Obviously, you are going to do whatever you can to marginalize those actions as well, since they do not support your position.

I'm just very glad the SOB got shot down. And no, I do not think his qualifications suggest that he is an appropriate nominee.

Stick to the Jamal case fraud.

I'll ask again, please cite me one thing that he did on this case. That's the assertion you made and have yet to back up.

OWL 69/70/75 Wrote:Actually I've read/watched quite a bit and haven't seen what you are alleging happened. It was not what he did in his admittedly minor role, but rather the manner in which he conducted himself regarding the incident.

But you still keep trotting out that the 7 dems capitulation somehow corroborates what he did on the Jamal case.

And this from post #50 doesn't actually help your case:

Quote:The Obama Justice Department touts the Civil Rights Division as “the conscience of the federal government.” We oppose the confirmation of a man who defended unconscionable acts to this sensitive position.

"Capitulation"?

To who? Senate Republicans?

Maybe they didn't think the guy was the guy, either.

inorite

(03-06-2014 05:50 PM)Smaug Wrote:  "Capitulation"?

To who? Senate Republicans?

Maybe they didn't think the guy was the guy, either.

inorite

To the police unions.

(03-06-2014 05:47 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Stick to the Jamal case fraud.
I'll ask again, please cite me one thing that he did on this case. That's the assertion you made and have yet to back up.

OWL 69/70/75 Wrote:Actually I've read/watched quite a bit and haven't seen what you are alleging happened. It was not what he did in his admittedly minor role, but rather the manner in which he conducted himself regarding the incident.

But you still keep trotting out that the 7 dems capitulation somehow corroborates what he did on the Jamal case.
And this from post #50 doesn't actually help your case:

Quote:The Obama Justice Department touts the Civil Rights Division as “the conscience of the federal government.” We oppose the confirmation of a man who defended unconscionable acts to this sensitive position.

This is really absurd. I believe that the descriptions contained in the statements that I've cited are correct. You don't. I'm probably not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me without producting something a lot more compelling than self-serving allegations. I think the actions of 7 democrats are corroboration that there is a legitimate issue with his qualifications, you don't. There's not much point going over the same ground over and over, since neither of us finds the other's position in any way compelling.

All that really matters is that a voting body whose membership is stacked in his favor shot him down. He lost, and America won.

(03-06-2014 06:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 05:47 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Stick to the Jamal case fraud.
I'll ask again, please cite me one thing that he did on this case. That's the assertion you made and have yet to back up.

OWL 69/70/75 Wrote:Actually I've read/watched quite a bit and haven't seen what you are alleging happened. It was not what he did in his admittedly minor role, but rather the manner in which he conducted himself regarding the incident.

But you still keep trotting out that the 7 dems capitulation somehow corroborates what he did on the Jamal case.
And this from post #50 doesn't actually help your case:

Quote:The Obama Justice Department touts the Civil Rights Division as “the conscience of the federal government.” We oppose the confirmation of a man who defended unconscionable acts to this sensitive position.

This is really absurd. I believe that the descriptions contained in the statements that I've cited are correct. You don't. I'm probably not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me without producting something a lot more compelling than self-serving allegations. I think the actions of 7 democrats are corroboration that there is a legitimate issue with his qualifications, you don't. There's not much point going over the same ground over and over, since neither of us finds the other's position in any way compelling.

All that really matters is that a voting body whose membership is stacked in his favor shot him down. He lost, and America won.

I think you've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you're his intellectual superior. His constant moving of the goal posts proves my point.

No comment about the actual vote itself (except to say: well done).

But what I'm curious about is, did the 7 Democrat defectors let Reid know in advance this was going to happen, or was it a "surprise"? (and if Reid did know, did he let the White House know?) That will make a big difference going forward.

This marks a significant new chapter in Obama's relationship with the Senate. They are openly defying him on an issue that the media was deliberately ignoring, and of which most Americans were unaware. This presidency still has 33-34 months left to go. But the stench of lame-duck is already overpowering.

(03-06-2014 09:10 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  No comment about the actual vote itself (except to say: well done).

But what I'm curious about is, did the 7 Democrat defectors let Reid know in advance this was going to happen, or was it a "surprise"? (and if Reid did know, did he let the White House know?) That will make a big difference going forward.

This marks a significant new chapter in Obama's relationship with the Senate. They are openly defying him on an issue that the media was deliberately ignoring, and of which most Americans were unaware. This presidency still has 33-34 months left to go. But the stench of lame-duck is already overpowering.

Those last three years are always tough.

(03-06-2014 09:30 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 09:10 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  No comment about the actual vote itself (except to say: well done).

But what I'm curious about is, did the 7 Democrat defectors let Reid know in advance this was going to happen, or was it a "surprise"? (and if Reid did know, did he let the White House know?) That will make a big difference going forward.

This marks a significant new chapter in Obama's relationship with the Senate. They are openly defying him on an issue that the media was deliberately ignoring, and of which most Americans were unaware. This presidency still has 33-34 months left to go. But the stench of lame-duck is already overpowering.

Those last three years are always tough.

They'll get tougher in November.

(03-06-2014 09:10 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  No comment about the actual vote itself (except to say: well done).

But what I'm curious about is, did the 7 Democrat defectors let Reid know in advance this was going to happen, or was it a "surprise"? (and if Reid did know, did he let the White House know?) That will make a big difference going forward.

This marks a significant new chapter in Obama's relationship with the Senate. They are openly defying him on an issue that the media was deliberately ignoring, and of which most Americans were unaware. This presidency still has 33-34 months left to go. But the stench of lame-duck is already overpowering.

Apparently no. They trotted shotgun Joe up there to be the tie breaker, and it wasn't even close. That's a huge embarassment that he sit in tht big chair and has no reason to be there. The dimocrat whip will probably be replaced by this weekend, or should be. Total meltdown for this crazy clown brigade.

This ship has sailed, and the 'rats that are looking to protect their government jobs are scurrying about trying to find scraps that will endear them to someone. It's scarce feed.

This is closing quickly. The end is near. very near.

Yes, Reid and Adegbile new it was a lost cause. Adegbile insisted that the vote take place.

While there may have been other things to doom his nomination, at least he had the courage to stand for the vote...not take his ball on run away when things don't go his way (you still here Owl...lol)

Quote:"He said, 'I'm 47 years old. ... I've spent all my life trying to do the right thing,'" Reid said. "'I didn't step into a courtroom for this man. I didn't write a word for the briefs for this man. ... I've done nothing wrong. I think if I'm going to be voted down, it's a good time to start a discussion on civil rights in America.'"

Reid said that it was a "courageous" decision by Adegbile and that "he didn't do this lightly."

The White House also knew going into the vote that Obama's nominee was likely going down. Reid said he talked to Attorney General Eric Holder several times that morning as well as White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and Vice President Joe Biden. But it was ultimately Adegbile who wanted the vote.

Obama Civil Rights Nominee Knew He Was Doomed But Wanted Debate, Harry Reid Says

Shameful.

(03-06-2014 06:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 05:47 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Stick to the Jamal case fraud.
I'll ask again, please cite me one thing that he did on this case. That's the assertion you made and have yet to back up.

OWL 69/70/75 Wrote:Actually I've read/watched quite a bit and haven't seen what you are alleging happened. It was not what he did in his admittedly minor role, but rather the manner in which he conducted himself regarding the incident.

But you still keep trotting out that the 7 dems capitulation somehow corroborates what he did on the Jamal case.
And this from post #50 doesn't actually help your case:

Quote:The Obama Justice Department touts the Civil Rights Division as “the conscience of the federal government.” We oppose the confirmation of a man who defended unconscionable acts to this sensitive position.

This is really absurd. I believe that the descriptions contained in the statements that I've cited are correct. You don't. I'm probably not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me without producting something a lot more compelling than self-serving allegations. I think the actions of 7 democrats are corroboration that there is a legitimate issue with his qualifications, you don't. There's not much point going over the same ground over and over, since neither of us finds the other's position in any way compelling.

All that really matters is that a voting body whose membership is stacked in his favor shot him down. He lost, and America won.

But your cited statements don't apply to the Jamal case like you've insisted! Sorry, you're just wrong. Adegbile did notyhing wrong on the Jamal case, he didn't appear in court once or contribute to any brief for him. The case was already underway before he became head of the LDF.

Shameful.

Look, this is going nowhere. What's very strange to me is that you keep trying to act as if the opposition is based solely on his defense of a particular accused, and nothing else, while on the other hand trying to maintain that he really had no role in the trial. Think about it. Those two don't go with each other logically.

How about this. I'll agree with you that if the rejection is based solely upon the fact of his minor role in representing one defendant in one trial, than he should not have been rejected, provided you agree that if the rejection is based upon a broader spectrum of the acts alleged (and as far as I can tell, not refuted) then the rejection is appropriate. Then we can continue to disagree as to the facts.

I've defended enough sleazy characters in my career that I wouldn't want to see trotted out if I were a candidate or appointee to a political position. So I agree that the identity of his clients should no more be used against him than should, for example, Ted Cruz's. Are we in agreement there?

[quote='Redwingtom' pid='10513051' dateline='1394205491']

Quote:"He said, 'I'm 47 years old. ... I've spent all my life trying to do the right thing,'" Reid said. "'I didn't step into a courtroom for this man. I didn't write a word for the briefs for this man. ... I've done nothing wrong. I think if I'm going to be voted down, it's a good time to start a discussion on civil rights in America.'"

If he got voted down we start a civil rights discussion? About what?

(03-07-2014 10:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But your cited statements don't apply to the Jamal case like you've insisted!

But I haven't insisted that. I've actually done the opposite. My point is that it's not simply the fact of representation in one case, but the manner in which he has conducted himself throughout that case and the body of his work. The error is in trying to insist that he was rejected somehow because he happened to be on the defense team for one defendant in one case. Yes, Mr Justice Roberts once defended a similarly despicable defendant. But there is no indication that he did anything like the everything else. And that is the difference.

At the end of the day, you'd do better to lose the arrogance and condescension and pay better attention to the facts.

(03-06-2014 12:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 12:21 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 12:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/0...T320140305
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-pick-ta...ere-spared

Yep...MSLSD.

Read the story you stupid **** and tell me every error in it. OR SIMPLY SHUT THE **** UP BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE.

Idiot.

I wonder if Redwing would have the cajones to call pharaoh that to his face? Red starts throwing out insults when he feels flustered, I've noticed. He must be a hater. Tsk. Tsk.

Ummmm Tom... Here are the top 33 party line voters in the 113th senate...

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congr...e/members/

D Dick Durbin IL 98%
D Patty Murray WA 98%
D Joe Biden DE 97%
D Daniel Akaka HI 97%
D Ben Cardin MD 97%
D Frank Lautenberg NJ 97%
D Hillary Clinton NY 97%
D Chuck Schumer NY 97%
D Barack Obama IL 96%
D John Kerry MA 96%
D Carl Levin MI 96%
D Robert Menéndez NJ 96%
D Jeff Bingaman NM 96%
D Sherrod Brown OH 96%
D Ron Wyden OR 96%
D Jack Reed RI 96%
D Sheldon Whitehouse RI 96%
D Herb Kohl WI 96%
D Barbara Boxer CA 95%
D Chris Dodd CT 95%
D Tom Harkin IA 95%
D Debbie Stabenow MI 95%
D Patrick Leahy VT 95%
D Bernard Sanders VT 95%
D Maria Cantwell WA 95%
D Dianne Feinstein CA 94%
D Daniel Inouye HI 94%
D Barbara Mikulski MD 94%
D Edward Kennedy MA 94%
D Amy Klobuchar MN 94%
D Harry Reid NV 94%
D Bob Casey PA 94%


And for fun here are the 10 Senators most likely to vote against their Party Line

Roger Wicker MS 14%
R Olympia Snowe ME 65%
R Susan Collins ME 68%
R Arlen Specter PA 70%
R Gordon Smith OR 72%
R George Voinovich OH 75%
R Richard Lugar IN 79%
R Norm Coleman MN 79%
R Chuck Hagel NE 79%
R Tom Coburn OK 80%

Im sure thats changed right? Yes now the top 41 party line voters in the senate are dems!

D Brian Schatz HI 99%
D Dick Durbin IL 99%
D Ben Cardin MD 99%
D Barbara Mikulski MD 99%
D Debbie Stabenow MI 99%
D Al Franken MN 99%
D Robert Menéndez NJ 99%
D Cory Booker NJ 99%
D Chuck Schumer NY 99%
D Maria Cantwell WA 99%
D Patty Murray WA 99%
D Barbara Boxer CA 98%
D Dianne Feinstein CA 98%
D Richard Blumenthal CT 98%
D Christopher Murphy CT 98%
D Bill Nelson FL 98%
D Mazie Hirono HI 98%
D Tom Harkin IA 98%
D Elizabeth Warren MA 98%
D Amy Klobuchar MN 98%
D Kirsten Gillibrand NY 98%
D Sherrod Brown OH 98%
D Tim Johnson SD 98%
D Tammy Baldwin WI 98%
D Michael Bennet CO 97%
D Mark Udall CO 97%
D Tom Carper DE 97%
D Christopher Coons DE 97%
D Carl Levin MI 97%
D Jeanne Shaheen NH 97%
D Frank Lautenberg NJ 97%
D Martin Heinrich NM 97%
D Tom Udall NM 97%
D Jack Reed RI 97%
D Sheldon Whitehouse RI 97%
D Patrick Leahy VT 97%
D Jay Rockefeller WV 97%
D Mo Cowan MA 96%
D Ron Wyden OR 96%
D Bob Casey PA 96%
D Tim Kaine VA 96%
D Jeff Merkley OR 95%