Comments on: James Dobson gets letters.

By: Andrew Longman

Andrew Longman — Sun, 05 Mar 2006 20:32:51 +0000

A judge goes through a bruising American nomination process, then sends a thank you note to organization that actively helped and encouraged him. Uh, so what? Have any of you bothered to think that Ruth Ginsburg probably sent thank you notes to her supporters following her cake-walk confirmation? Is it beyond the ken to understand that sending a thank-you note to people who support you is common decency? Yet, something else is betrayed here. You show clearly that you think showing any kindness to James Dobson is wrong simply because James Dobson’s opinions and positions are, to most of you-all, practically illegal. You think it implies some form of breach of impartiality on Alito’s part for even sending a thank you note to someone so illegal as Dobson. Amazing! Dobson’s speech has been so criminalized in your minds that a judge can’t even be polite to him! If Hilly Clinton got put on the court and sent a thank you note to moveon.org for their support, would you excorciate her for the same evil? I think that might not be progress. Nor is it with Alito & Dobson.

By: Chesterfield Cattle

Chesterfield Cattle — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 13:21:16 +0000

Thanks be to God for a man who can stand-up for what he believes in! Praise God!

By: mrbigmuscles

mrbigmuscles — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 14:05:45 +0000

# 46

Wow. Just amazing. You are totally right! My chosen nickname for posting comments on TP reflects deep, personal secrets which I am ashamed to otherwise reveal! Like the fact that I’m stupid!

What exactly is “the same insecurity that Alito was pushed to the court”? So you can’t form a coherent sentence, and I’m the stupid one? Man, you can’t beat intellectual discourse on this level! Oh wait, unless I go start an argument with the Freepers.

Can you explain how anything in your comment has anything to do with the Alito letter? Or anything to do with the comment you actually replied to? Or the fact that you interpret screennames to be literal translations of their owner’s personal characteristics? Probably none of the above, because like SBW, your post was nothing more than some garbled gibbeish about fear and Alito and OH NOES ALITO WROTE A THANK YOU NOTE THE US IS A THEOKRICY!!!11

The hilarious part of all this is that I disagree with Alito, his nomination, and pretty much everything the Bush admin has done. Oh well!

By: Clif

Clif — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 09:56:43 +0000

#45 Stupid is as stupid does, and saying it in your moniker smacks the same insecurity that Alito was pushed to the court, a large segment of the American population lives in fear because they are told to and then make any move that they are told to alleviate the same fear, but funny the fear mongers do not stop in fact the fear shrill increases each year…

By: mrbigmuscles

mrbigmuscles — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 06:27:31 +0000

#42-

Your comment essentially translates to: “I don’t understand how the Supreme Court really works, and didn’t bother to look up the context surrounding Alito’s letter.”

He was responding to a congratulatory letter from Dobson and friends. What do you think he was going to write, “thanks for the support but go screw yourself?!”

One of us posted a shrill, hysterical, knee-jerk response without bothering to do even a minimal amount of research. The other actually bothered to inform themselves before posting. So which one is the idiot?

By: Sincere Thanks

Sincere Thanks — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 00:29:03 +0000

After reading these comments I have to express my “Thanks” to you all for affirming my support of the work “Focus on the Family” is doing!

By: Sister Boogie Woman

Sister Boogie Woman — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 00:15:58 +0000

For once Mighty-A says something I agree with. Here here!

By: Sister Boogie Woman

Sister Boogie Woman — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 00:11:41 +0000

#39, MrTINYmuscle — think with your head and not with your gerkin, the “big deal” is conflict of interest; the “big deal” is a justice who acts with partiality and not impartiality; the “big deal” is a justice who votes rather than as the law dictates but as the religious right dictates. THAT’S the big deal, idiot.

By: mighty aphrodite

mighty aphrodite — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 00:10:10 +0000

Let’s make a deal. Let’s revoke the tax exempt status of all churches, synagogues, mosques….ACLU, NAACP, People for the (Un)american Way, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, American Lung Association, AMA, American Cancer Society – EVERY PAC, special interest, and NON-profit. There, that should take care of a few of the whiners…for two or three seconds.

By: Marie

Marie — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:55:52 +0000

Gasp!! But Sam Alito is supposed to be so middle of the road — how did this happen?
And what about removing tax-exempt status from religious organizations?
Hypocrites, hypocrites everywhere are hypocrites.

By: mrbigmuscles

mrbigmuscles — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:10:47 +0000

I don’t see what the big deal is. The Supreme Court is a political institution with political appointees. The judge is not voted in there, but there is still a campaign of sorts. How is thanking your campaign backers inappropriate or even unexpected? This is blown way out of proportion.

By: bush hater

bush hater — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:09:01 +0000

Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, Bush: FASCISTS IN CHRISTIAN CLOTHING!!!

By: big papa

big papa — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 22:57:24 +0000

Right wing, anti-Christian, al Crackker Bushite inbreds…

…America’s TRAITORS in the church house…

James Dobson, Robertson, Falwell et al…

…send ‘em to hell where they belong…

By: Wayne A. Schneider

Wayne A. Schneider — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 22:51:07 +0000

If James Dobson ever has a case go all the way to the Supreme Court, I wonder if Justice Alito will recuse himself? I know that the recusal decision is an individual justice’s to make, but the conservatives on the Court (and in Congress, and in the White House) do not seem to understand what “avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest” means. They like to say “I can be impartial”, but they always seem to do what people said they might do. Justice Scalia refused to recuse himself in the case involving Vice President Cheney (who once shot a 78-year-old man in the face), and then voted in Mr. Cheney’s favor.

By: AvengingAngel

AvengingAngel — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 22:47:48 +0000

Dobson of course supports The Judicial Dress Code Act:

Judges approved by the Federalist Society will wear white robes – and hoods.

By: Sister Boogie Woman

Sister Boogie Woman — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 22:41:25 +0000

Two words: Alito can go f**k himself, that mother f**ker.

By: Plaintiff

Plaintiff — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 22:38:29 +0000

Goodness Sam, the universe sure handed you a ripe one this afternoon!
And all you expected when you got home from duty on the bench was to have to wash the pigeon poop out of your hair.
If you put up your hood tomorrow, might give you more time time to wash the white out of your robe.

By: Clif

Clif — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 22:28:16 +0000

Touchy for a judge, what do you judge, porcelain drinking contests?

By: snookered

snookered — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 22:27:56 +0000

Hey Morgan, you sure got it right…..2nd sentence especially! I used to call Ashcroft the Ayatollah, he was off the deep end.

By: Samuel Alito

Samuel Alito — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 22:05:25 +0000

Clif – poor thing. On one hand, you asswipes make a stink about a little note that Alito writes. ON the other, you don’t really beleive the Court will shift dramatically to the right. So what is it?