You acquited yourself well in this thread Dip, rest assured.

I think the right/conservs/GOP (and their puppets like der dipster) would fight like this unless Obama nominated a clone of Justice Roberts, or Harriet Miers.

As I said before, unless some big skeletons come out of her closet which is possible the way Obama's administration qualifies their candidates, she's a lock. The GOP doesn't have a leg to stand on these days.

In reality....doesn't it seem like most people want judges to legislate from the bench?

The "progressive" position, you know.

It seems wierd to me that so many folks feel the need to answer for that Youtube clip.

Why don't her supporters simply take what she said and run with it?

Why do you feel that they should? It was at most out of context. Her rulings and opinions mean more and are the most relevant, right? I asked if that was the case before, why no answer?

Quote:It seems wierd to me that so many folks feel the need to answer for that Youtube clip.

At first glance, 15 are "answers" that are not so positive towards her and her record, based on that YouTube clip. Including the first response.

Quote:As I said before, unless some big skeletons come out of her closet which is possible the way Obama's administration qualifies their candidates, she's a lock.

That video is a big skeleton. The New Haven case is a big skeleton. Several people who have worked with her think she's a dim wit......big skeleton.

She's a lock because the Senate has the numbers, and the media are now advocates for the government rather than being watchdogs.

The left's agenda rarely passes muster when put to a vote of the people. Gay marriage has not done well when put to a vote. Prop 187 in CA was a classic example. Prop 187 was a 1994 ballot initiative designed to prohibit illegal immigrants from using social services, health care, and public education in the U.S. State of California. It was initially passed by the voters but later found unconstitutional by a federal court.

The left's kooky ideas rarely pass the smell test when put before the voters, so they have to cloak them under a different name, and hope they can sneak them through, or better yet, legislate from a stacked bench in the court of appeals...............hence her comment, "The appeals court shapes policy." Oooops

(05-27-2009 10:48 AM)Chipdip1 Wrote:  

Quote:As I said before, unless some big skeletons come out of her closet which is possible the way Obama's administration qualifies their candidates, she's a lock.

That video is a big skeleton. The New Haven case is a big skeleton. Several people who have worked with her think she's a dim wit......big skeleton.

She's a lock because the Senate has the numbers, and the media are now advocates for the government rather than being watchdogs.

The left's agenda rarely passes muster when put to a vote of the people. Gay marriage has not done well when put to a vote. Prop 187 in CA was a classic example. Prop 187 was a 1994 ballot initiative designed to prohibit illegal immigrants from using social services, health care, and public education in the U.S. State of California. It was initially passed by the voters but later found unconstitutional by a federal court.

The left's kooky ideas rarely pass the smell test when put before the voters, so they have to cloak them under a different name, and hope they can sneak them through, or better yet, legislate from a stacked bench in the court of appeals...............hence her comment, "The appeals court shapes policy." Oooops

No, they're really not big skeletons, Anita Hill was a bigger skeleton than this. New Haven is an appellate ruling, again, not a skeleton. GOP has no legs on this one, she's a lock.

Keep throwing red herrings Dip.

Quote:the media are now advocates for the government rather than being watchdogs.

Worked well for the Iraq lead up didn't it?

DBama

Quote:No, they're really not big skeletons, Anita Hill was a bigger skeleton than this.

Really............

So her outing herself on video is less compelling than a woman saying a man sexually harassed her, while having no concrete proof? You are so gullible

Her record of overturned cases is less compelling, than a woman saying a man sexually harassed her, while having no concrete proof?

Her supporting of the New Haven case is less compelling a woman saying a man sexually harassed her, while having no concrete proof?

It's shocking how desperate you are to believe this woman in spite of enormous evidence that suggests she's an activist judge.

Thanks for clarifying my point, she was nothing just like these are nothing. Now who's gullible here?

Quote:Why do you feel that they should? It was at most out of context.

I don't feel like the "should".

I curious as to why they don't.

You know..."the constitution is a living, breathing document"....that sort of thing.

That philosophy leads to concepts like the "right to privacy" and Roe vs Wade. These are decisions that many people support.

So....in context or not. It suprises me that more people (especially those who support Obama and his plans) don't respond with a "so what" when she talks about legislating from the bench.

I think I just did say "so what", and to that note that isn't the first time I've heard about policy being set from the bench, it's naive to think it's not for many reasons, I cited that as well.

Quote:I think I just did say "so what",

I wasn't trying to make it personal (about you).

I'm addressing the phenomena as it plays out nationally.

Have you seen anyone on the news say "so what" about the Youtube clip?

Or..."yes she would do that on the supreme court bench because it is the right thing to do".

Well, there's that, and the fact that she was admitted that the outcome of decisions are policies, intended or not. That would be my take.

People go on the defensive about nominees almost immediately, doesn't matter what side nominates them.

Quote:I think I just did say "so what", and to that note that isn't the first time I've heard about policy being set from the bench, it's naive to think it's not for many reasons, I cited that as well.

If legislating from the bench is all good with you, then the founding fathers were wrong. They created the court to interpret laws and make sure they were in line with the Constitution. They also made lifetime appointments because they wanted them to be free of political influence.

In saying "so what" you're saying the founding fathers were wrong. That their job is not just to interpret law, but to make laws as well. And if they're so clearly influenced by the politics then what's the point of giving them life time appointments?

Quit whining and trying to dissect my words for the sake of an argument, you have nothing. I stated that I agree policies are the outcome of decisions, intended or not, which is much different than legislating from the bench.

It sounds to me like you have a real problem with her for some reason, beyond those two talking points, why is that?

BTW, that shrub you always defend? He's the reason the BHO is in power and now making this appointment to the Supreme Court, thank him.

(05-27-2009 06:41 AM)Dirty Ernie Wrote:  I like her because she is kind of cute. Seems witty and a sense of humor.

Also, to me, she comes across as empathic. To me, that is important.

What's with it with all these people so mired in the past trying to strictly interpret a centuries old document. Big deal. Shouldn't we be getting a life already?

For the sake I hope I'm reading sarcasm. Cute too ?.

Quote:Quit whining and trying to dissect my words for the sake of an argument, you have nothing.

Oh, so I'm the only one questioning your points? Well, let's put it this way. I'm the one being blunt about it.

What points are you questioning Dip? Anita Hill? THAT would ge a miss of the point, not a question!! LOL!

You're not being blunt, you can't form a direct pointed question to any point so you evade and try to get a response about something irrelevent.

BTW, last I heard there wouldn't be a filibuster according to the GOP.