In First Full Term, Supreme Court Nominees Roberts And Alito Show True ‘Loyal Bushie’ Colors
In First Full Term, Supreme Court Nominees Roberts And Alito Show True ‘Loyal Bushie’ Colors
Yesterday’s 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court in a landmark racial desegregation case, which instructed local authorities “that they cannot take modest steps to bring public school students of different races together,” marked a fitting yet disappointing conclusion to the first full term of President Bush’s two Supreme Court appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.
Noting the Court’s rapid rightward slide, Justice Stephen Breyer said in his dissenting opinion, “It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much.” For Roberts and Alito, the Court’s turn marks a radical departure from the false promises they made in their nomination hearings before Congress. Here’s what they said then:
ROBERTS: “I have no agenda. … Saying a judge is result-oriented…[is] about the worst thing you can say, because what you’re saying is you don’t apply the law.”
ALITO: “I think the judiciary has to [interpret broad principles of the Constitution] in a neutral fashion. I think judges have to be wary about substituting their own preferences, their own policy judgments for those that are in the Constitution.”
Duke University law professor Erwin Chemerinsky writes in today’s Los Angeles Times that “the testimony given by John Roberts and Samuel Alito at their confirmation hearings just months earlier was a lot of baloney.” Their short activist records already demonstrate the following:
– Alito and Roberts have shown little independence, siding with one another approximately 90 percent of the time.
– They have voted together in 21 of the 23 cases that have divided the Court 5-4 this year.
– Their decisions have come to be marked by an alarming lack of respect for precedent, irreverence for the democratic process, and disregard for constitutional history.
Slate’s Emily Bazelon writes, “And yet some liberal and moderate lawyers and academics didn’t predict this at all. These members of the legal literati urged Roberts’ nomination, promising that he would be a model of restraint and principle and modesty. Why did they think that then? And how do their arguments on his behalf look now?”
The lesson for the Senate, according to Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, is not to take the false assurances of Bush or any potential nominee at face value. Should another vacancy occur, Dionne said, “The Senate should refuse even to hold hearings on Bush’s next Supreme Court choice…unless the president reaches agreement with the Senate majority on a mutually acceptable list of nominees.”
More in today’s Progress Report.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Still wondering what the people can do to remove these corrupt justices from office? Surely, when they are corrupted by political agendas, there must be a legal remedy??
June 29th, 2007 at 12:09 pmREsegregation!
All together now!
REsegregation!
June 29th, 2007 at 12:10 pmOnly bad behavoir can remove them. We can’t remove them because we don’t like their decisions.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:11 pmveritas
Enacting term limits would be nice.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:11 pmveritas the Republicans have wanted to do this for a very long time. And no matter what side of the affirmative action issue you’re on the Republicans have SCREWED UP. The timing could not have been more worse.
The sub-class Mexican community has been denied voter rights and the SCOTUS want to jerrymander the black community out of existence.
I like this SCOTUS. It’s good for the Democrats.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:13 pm“Men have forgotten this truth,” said the fox. “But you must not forget it. You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed.”
June 29th, 2007 at 12:13 pmThe liberals and Democrats keep believing that the right wing cabal in this country will act in a restrained and moderate manner as has been evidenced by prior administrations, Republican and Democratic. In the past one could see the direction taken right ort left but without a wholesale abandonment of restraint or stare decisis.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:13 pmIf Bush wanted them, then, YES they have an agenda, why in the world would anyone think otherwise…they should have blocked these guys from sh!tting on the bench.
Can these guys be impeached when the Legal Democraticly Elected Pres gets in office?
June 29th, 2007 at 12:17 pmPerhaps their confirmation testimony needs to be revisited, was there any perjury committed?
June 29th, 2007 at 12:17 pmwell… duh!
June 29th, 2007 at 12:17 pmI told this to the Democrat Senators, before they helped confirm them, but they wanted to be stupid so they reap what they sow.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:18 pmCongress Needs to Stop Playing in Bush’s Court
There are two ways to look at the growing confrontation between Congress and the White House over access to information.
Either the administration is suckering Congress into a fight, confident that the Democratic Congress will back down and forever surrender its role as a co-equal branch of government, or that it will bring its contempt citations to federal court and lose, thanks to all those right-wing Federalist judges that Reagan, Bush I and Bush II have stacked the judiciary with from bottom to top.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:18 pmCons and their activist judges flout the rule of law.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:18 pmwell, of course they lied…
June 29th, 2007 at 12:19 pmthey had to get confirmed, right?
it couldn’t be TOO obvious at the time…
…
LOL I love it!
June 29th, 2007 at 12:19 pmShocking! Shocking I tell you!
So, the two lunatic appointees that Bush made to the supreme court actually SHARE Bush’s philosophy and are advancing the neo-con agenda? Who could have seen that coming.
I thought that Harry Reid told us that we shouldn’t worry and there was no good reason to fillibuster these confirmations? I mean, we didn’t want to look bad or anything, right?
Now, if you want a real belly laugh you need to go to the Thinkfast diary, expand the post so that you can see below the digital “fold”, and there’s this great joke that starts something like this:
“5 GIs were blown to sh*t yesterday….”
June 29th, 2007 at 12:19 pmI don’t believe Roberts and Alito have an agenda. I think they are sincere. I’ll even go so far as to say they are correct if I’m in the right mood. But the last thing the Republicans needed to do was start a countrywide race discussion.
Alito and Roberts could have voted FOR affirmative action and it would not have hurt the Republicans in any lasting fashion. So in that regard I really question their judgment.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:19 pmThere is no rightward slide. It’s a correction to center.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:20 pmYou guys are upset that the court said the government cannot force our children to attend schools they don’t want anything to do with? HAHA. Man you guys and gals are showing once again that free speech, freedom, and democracy are not something your interested in. While the idea of mixing the races is a very good one, the government has no right to force it.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:21 pmJustice Stephen Breyer said in his dissenting opinion, “It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much.â€
hell, it’s not often in our HISTORY…
…and changed it so negatively…
June 29th, 2007 at 12:22 pm…
Activist judges…..but it’s the GOOD kind. : )
June 29th, 2007 at 12:22 pmWell, here’s proof positive that the Democrats should have told the Republics to shove it and filibustered these guys. But, they played nice and look what is happening now. The Republics are doing what they were complaining about the Democrats saying they would do.
I hope the Democrats have learned their lesson. You will gain NOTHING by playing nice with the Republics. I say let’s treat them the same way they treated us for the last 6 years.
If there is a god one of these agenda-driven justices will be smited after the Democratic President takes office in 2009 and then we can start doing something to undo the damage that Bush has done to the supreme court.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:23 pm“In First Full Term, Supreme Court Nominees Roberts And Alito Show True ‘Loyal Bushie’ Colors”
What are you talking about?? Roberts and Alito’s “true colors” for the Bush team were blaring from the get-go! Is Think Progress blind? Or just out to lunch?
June 29th, 2007 at 12:23 pmRoger_Roger: In an ideal world the government wouldn’t have to force mixing the races, but it doesn’t work that way. Stupid, racist people will refuse and therefore the government must act.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:23 pmLOL!!!! Good Faiz, I am glad you are pissed. That means the Supreme Court is doing it’s job. AND I dare Democrats to take ultra-leftist EJ Dionne’s advice. We will blundgeon moderate Dems up for re-election with it in 2008.
The fact is when the judiciary is an issue - conservatives win! The Courts are too far left and care about the wrong things. Liberals will spend hours crying over the rights of vicious murderers, but defend killing a live baby. You people get what you deserve.
Bush will have a chance to cement a raidal right-wing majority very soon. AND you hateful rac-baiters deserve it!!!
The Supreme Court is FOREVER.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:24 pmRoger_Roger,
June 29th, 2007 at 12:24 pmI agree. So the Republicans better do something fast to compensate for this obvious PR catastrophy and Democrat Godsend. You know, like denying Mexican employees voting rights.
Comment by Patrick1 — June 29, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
Comment by Man — June 29, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
Hey Jake! Stick to one moniker, will you?
June 29th, 2007 at 12:25 pmOne more SC appointment by Bush and this country is TOAST! Time to start looking elsewhere to live, I guess. I hear Canada is very nice. maybe Switzerland.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:25 pmOh Buthra. Where are the “activist” concern trolls now? Stare Decisis my f**king a$$. These guys are liars through and through. Shame on the Dems that put these traitors on the courts without a fight - even I saw this coming.
And to all the wingers in here defending them - just you wait for an eminent domain case to come up where it one person with land against a company. These turkeys will shoot down individual rights so quick it will make your head spin. Better hope the corporations don’t vere left, because that is who these guys work for.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:26 pmActivist judges…..but it’s the GOOD kind. : )
Comment by Patrick1
At least someone on the right can admit that it’s not ‘activist’ judges they don’t like, it’s judges that don’t return the desicions they like that get them worked up.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:26 pmmaybe Switzerland.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:27 pmGo ahead. You’ve got to learn to speak French, too. A perfect fit for a liberal.
Comment by Patrick1 — June 29, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
Comment by Man — June 29, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
Hey Jake! Stick to one moniker, will you?
Comment by StinkyBritches
Yep. I noticed that too. Better grab the bug spray.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:27 pmTwo more conservative Republicans who lied to achieve power so that they can abuse that power and change to rules to suit themselves and their cronies. Screw the people, screw the Constitution, screw my oath to tell the truth, screw my oath of office.
There is no justice in Amerika.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:28 pmCan a Supreme Court Justice be impeached for giving false testimony to Congress?
June 29th, 2007 at 12:28 pmJust asking.
maybe Switzerland.
Go ahead. You’ve got to learn to speak French, too. A perfect fit for a liberal.
Comment by Man
Shut your piehole - you know nothing about me. You know nothing about democracy either…
June 29th, 2007 at 12:28 pmSee the Bush lover trolls are happy that the Supreme Court is becoming a fascist stooge court.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:28 pm#24 That is the point. We should have the right to refuse if we want. Isn’t this America?
June 29th, 2007 at 12:29 pmIf it is news to ThinkProgress that Alito and Roberts would do what they have done, then I now know what is wrong with the Democratic Party elites. The procedure of the filibuster exists for a reason. For 5 long years they refused to wield it. Did they think the GOP would return the favor? Think again. And if you want votes, start acting on those new found thoughts. We in the hinterlands are getting tired of this feigned, “oh my god, can you believe they did X.” Yes we do. Now do you?
June 29th, 2007 at 12:29 pm#34 - quit crying. Democrats have lied for years about the Courts. They are just pissed they can’t hide behind them anymore. They actually have to take a stand on issues, not side with Sandra Day O’Connor.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:30 pmIt’s a shame that Sandra Day O’Conner could not last a short time longer, until Americans restored balance to our government.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:31 pmIf only she could have held out, American wouldn’t be damned to have that liar Alito on the bench.
The right decision was made on the case. It is wrong to force kids to get up early and be bussed to a school that is not near them merely on the basis of racial quotas. Why not concern ourselves with ensuring all schools have the same funding and same standards?
June 29th, 2007 at 12:31 pmMan- Je parle Francais. Et vous? Non? Quelle surprise!
June 29th, 2007 at 12:32 pmHitler’s Germany had stooge courts, so the Bush lover trolls will be sorry if they have to appear before one of Bush’s judges.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:33 pmThe ultra-conservative freakshow that represents at best 20% of America will be around for a while; turning the middle of the roaders/fence sitters(the vast majority of Americans) towards the left and away from organized religion. GOOD
June 29th, 2007 at 12:33 pm.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:33 pmI thought Republicans were against activist judges? I guess they’re hypocrites. Samuel Alito was heard to say, “stare decisis can s**k it.”
.
#44, when was that filibuster? I missed it. Doubt there was full participation, like the lock-step GOP, but, hey, that’s what you get for diversity.
And if Liz Edwards is an attack dog, what is Coulter besides just a bitch with a foul mouth? An idiot savant? Or just an idiot?
June 29th, 2007 at 12:34 pman impeached president’s nominees are all suspect, and need to be removed upon impeachment. however, our congress is so scared of upsetting the little boat and how it will cut in to their fund raising time for the next erection.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:35 pmit is time to remove the entire government and start over. the scum has risen to the top and the bathwater is no good, even for one of their “babies”
#39. Isn’t this America?
Not any longer.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:36 pmAnd sorry for the repost, but, gotta do it….
I don’t know if this is true, I read it on another blog and can’t find any confirmation, but his guy said that House Res 333 to Impeach Cheney has gone through Subcommittee to the FULL JUDICIARY. ?
If this is so, call your congressperson and say you are in support of impeaching Cheney. Whether it’s true or not, I called every one of my reps in IL today to say I was supporting his impeachment.
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ (just click on your state)
Call all your representatives!
June 29th, 2007 at 12:36 pm#50 - you are misinformed like most liberals. There was a filibuster attempt against Samuel Alito lead by John Kerry. Of course, Kerry was skiing in Davos at the time. The filibuster failed miserably with 22 Democrats voting for it. Please pick up a newspaper and learn something.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:36 pm#44, hateful babykillers . . . i just noticed that jab. Wonder what you know about me? Nothing, but I bet I can peg you — death penalty supporter, social welfare hating, bigoted war-monger. Did i get it about right? Let’s talk about the sanctity of life. Oh wait, you only care about people until their born. After that, every one for themselves, no?
June 29th, 2007 at 12:38 pmSure we’re going fund all schools equally. And look at all the pigs flying around! This is the first step in reversing the humane and democratic decisions of the Warren Court. Remember, Brown v Board of Ed was a 9 - 0 decision. This was a 5 - 4, a shameful power grab by reactionary judges.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:38 pmLet’s hope Democrats are smart enough to talk about “court packing” and “activist judges,” basically use the Republican mantras to prove it’s all a lie and a dodge to pack the court with right wing activist judges, not moderates or sensible judges.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:39 pmSHOCKING! Shrub’s Supreme Court Nominees are doing his bidding???? (kinda stating the over-obvious, aren’t we?)
WHODATHUNKIT?
June 29th, 2007 at 12:40 pmThis is nothing Americans will soon realize the damage caused by President Bush and Republicans to our democratic values, constitution and to our country
June 29th, 2007 at 12:40 pmSick, fallen excuse for a human being: “You hateful babykillers finally met your match.”
This from an a-hole who would gladly pull the lever for Rudy Guilani.
I hope Democrats are beginning to understand that the current brand of conservative will not only lie to achieve political ends, but actively supports the idea that one NEEDS to lie. Their philosophical father, Leo Strauss, argued that a small elite should govern the masses and the small elite needs to tell “Noble Lies” to achieve political ends because the masses will never agree with their goals. Bush’s two judges, who sat in front of committee maintaining that they had respect for precedent, also overturned a 96-year old law on price fixing the same day they overturned the race decision.
We should NEVER take anything a neocon says at face value. They are the biggest liars in American history.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:41 pmRusty, it was the “liberal” justices who voted for that eminent domain catastrophe. When it happened, I went ballistic and wrote and called everyone I could.
Their supposed premise was that it was up to the state’s eminent domain laws (many of which exist that override this idiotic decision) that trump any federal laws.
No matter, the decision was one against the people.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:41 pmElizabeth Edwards is An Attack Dog — and mAnn Coulter has the bone
June 29th, 2007 at 12:42 pm#69 - thank you. My goodness, TP readers are really showing their ignorance. BTW Rusty - Lincoln was a Republican or as you’d say, a rethug.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:42 pm*
Republicans: destroying the American dream one law at a time.
*
Hehehehe, your President is a moron!
June 29th, 2007 at 12:44 pmMs. Attack Dog, don’t pat yourself on the back just yet, you wouldn’t have supported Lincoln the Republican.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:44 pmOkay… I stand corrected. Sad.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:45 pmJudge not, lest ye be judged yourself.
Scalia is the turd of turds in the SCOTUS.
Hell, he even hates himself.
Scalia is the Tony Soprano of the SCOTUS.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:46 pm76. #76 - and you are a brownshirt.
Comment by Elizabeth Edwards is An Attack Dog — June 29, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
I love that. Karma is a b!tch and all.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:49 pmI love that. Karma is a b!tch and all.
Comment by Dave C
Pretty funny.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:50 pmI am done taunting the radical left-wing for today. The country is soundly against you on issues of race and free speech and we finally have a Court to take you to task.
I’ll keep that in mind while vetting candidates to replace John Paul Stevens. Have a nice weekend!!!
June 29th, 2007 at 12:51 pmElizabeth Edwards is An Attack Dog
I take it you never went skiing?
June 29th, 2007 at 12:53 pm#81. The country is against free speech!
HA! What a friggin’ bonehead!
Spoken like a true Nazi. Keep up the good work, and a good mein kampf to you (as if you could have any of your own)!
June 29th, 2007 at 12:53 pmRemember your words Attack Dog, when someday you stand before a fascist Bush court and receive verdict of death by hanging or firing squad.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:54 pmElizabeth Edwards is An Attack Dog
Sandra Day O’ Conner who was appointed by …….
June 29th, 2007 at 12:54 pmSick, fallen excuse for a human being: “I’ll keep that in mind while vetting candidates to replace John Paul Stevens.”
Oh, I’m pretty sure they’ve learned their lesson. Even if Stevens does retire before we get a Democratic administration, Senators will burn every Bush nominee down mercilessly as they should. The bastard will NEVER get another nominee through committee. They’ll all be dead on arrival and there will be NO MORE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES PLACED BY BUSH!
June 29th, 2007 at 12:55 pm#67,
Your post is disingenuous and you advance the very same agenda that you are supposedly against.
You imply that neocon politicians are liars and untrustworthy. By extension that implies that Democrats are trustworthy. That is blatantly false.
The Dems are just as corrupt as the Repugs. The problem is not with one party or another, but with the condition of the body politic as a whole. Such is what happens in a representative government when you achieve the “perfect storm” of a grossly apathetic and self-centered public combined with career politicians beholden to special interests and themselves.
To blame only neocons is false logic and part of the problem. The “us good them bad†mentality is not just childish, but wholly and completely counterproductive.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:55 pmSince you’ve gone away for the day (sniff, sniff) you probably can’t answer this (hell, if you’d stayed you probably couldn’t answer it either), but how does a Christian packed SCOTUS decision establish that “The country is soundly against you on issues of race and free speech.”? There is no connection.
The one thing you can say, however, is that liberals, in general, traditionallyhave treated you freaks as, well, freaks. Now you’ve gone and started ‘rival’ think tanks, radio and tv programs, and chosen to try and pack the federal government with your ilk. it’s time we start treating you for what you are. Pests and rodents who feed on the decay of failed ideas and fear. You keep vetting those candidates. I’m confident, in the end, you will not like what you see. The GOP is not for you, but for them and no matter how much money you may earn, in the end you will never be one of them. You are just a pawn.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:56 pmRet. Col. Jack Ripper
Feed me Mandrake feed me!!!!!!!!!!!
June 29th, 2007 at 12:57 pmFed the Fcuk Up!
trying to be rational with the Red/Blue group will only give you a headache
June 29th, 2007 at 12:59 pm#20
I guess Breyer has forgotten all the Warren Court bullshit? Miranda, Roe, Furman?
June 29th, 2007 at 1:00 pmFed the Fcuk Up!
so far I have been accused of being a paid stooge for ther RNC and a left wing pinko commie fag
when you mix blue and yellow what do you get?
June 29th, 2007 at 1:01 pmThe bastard will NEVER get another nominee through committee. They’ll all be dead on arrival and there will be NO MORE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES PLACED BY BUSH!
There will be if the hand of God retires a justice in the next 18 months.
SCOTUS nominees cannot be held up in committee.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:02 pmFed up, if you don’t think there’s any difference between Repubs and Dems, that’s your right, but I think you are sadly mistaken. Is there ANY major democrat who would have lied us into this war? Are there any who would have blocked stem cell funding? Are there any who would have nominated any of these five Supremes? Are there any Democrats who would evicerate the EPA? I don’t think so.
And, I’m sorry, but you really do need to understand that the neocon agenda is a political movement with philosophical underpinnings not shared by Democrats. Go ahead and read some Strauss and consider what’s happened in the last six years in the light of his philosophy.
What I think is childish and counter-productive is not standing up and placing blame where it belongs. What I think is childish is painting the entire system with a broad brush and not recognizing that there are people of good faith who believe in public service. To me, it is lazy thinking to simply say, “they’re all corrupt, so what the hell.”
June 29th, 2007 at 1:03 pmFed the Fcuk Up!
If the extreem left is 25% and the extreem right is 25% what does that make the rest of us. Somewhere around 40% I would guess.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:03 pmYou guys crack me up.
Arguing that this is DEsegregation is STUPID.
It’s RACISM.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:04 pmUSING RACE asa factor to DENY or ASSIGN students is RACISM. Just because you mean well doesn’t make it ok.
While SC nominees may not be held up in committee, there is no requirement that they get an up or down vote or that things move speedily along. The GOP has stalled quite a few up or down votes in the past 6 months, it is loooooooooooooong since time to return the favor.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:05 pmSome of you are acting like policy has no ramifications, like the red-blue thing is simply a red herring. Please explain. Do you really think the world would be the same today if Al Gore would have been allowed to take the Presidency he won fair and square? I find it hard to believe any sane person cannot see a difference between these two parties unless they have a political agenda themselves.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:06 pmRoberts had everyone looking up the tem “stare decisis”.
He lied. Bastard.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:07 pmWhile SC nominees may not be held up in committee, there is no requirement that they get an up or down vote or that things move speedily along. The GOP has stalled quite a few up or down votes in the past 6 months, it is loooooooooooooong since time to return the favor.
Shrug. You can try, in which case the Senate isn’t going to do anything until January 09 and they might as well pack their ball and go home.
Not going to happen.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:08 pmRipper
While I may agree with you in principle Roosevelt was not entirely honest on the road to World War II, he just saw the reality an did what was needed. Bush seems to think he is doing the same but he lost sight of the goal moments before the first plane hit the Twin Towers. Prior to the entry to World War II the Republians were isolationist and felt Europe should be left to there own devices. They were wrong then and they are wrong now, atleast the Republicans that hijacked the Republican party that was ruled by the Ike Republicans not the McCarthy/John Birch ons that resemble the modern day neo-cons. Better off dead than red.
the last five words seem to take on new meaning now in some preverse way.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:10 pmm12: “SCOTUS nominees cannot be held up in committee.”
Democrats are not required to agree with ANY Supreme court nominee Bush places, period. They can hold things like that up indefinitely without breaking any constitutional law. There is no constitutional time limit to the advice and consent portion of their duties.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:10 pmMaybe they were told that the Immigration Bill would go through and the decision was geared towards Mexicans.
When you’re about to allow 600,000 into the country each year, you’re bound to need someplace to school them in their on language.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:10 pmIt’s not SCOTUS anymore…….It’s SKART!
S calia
K ennedy
A lito
R oberts
T homas
By the few, for the few.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:11 pm#75,
Agreed. But to allow the Red/Blue divide to continue and advance will cause a heartache that won’t be curable with a couple of aspirin.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:12 pmIn case SKART decides Cheney is not part of The Executive Branch:
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2007/ 06/ 27/ cheney-vp-is-an-important-part-of-executive-branch/
June 29th, 2007 at 1:12 pmJames, of course you’re right about FDR, but keep in mind that FDR knew what was going on in Europe for years before we entered the war. In my opinion, he was finally able to do what he had always thought would be the right thing. The neocons, by contrast, had a political agenda they wanted to persue and used the 9-11 attack as a means to achieve it.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:13 pmDemocrats are not required to agree with ANY Supreme court nominee Bush places, period. They can hold things like that up indefinitely without breaking any constitutional law. There is no constitutional time limit to the advice and consent portion of their duties.
That’s true, but they won’t. You think Hillary wants the same done in return to her nominees?
June 29th, 2007 at 1:14 pm– Alito and Roberts have shown little independence, siding with one another approximately 90 percent of the time.
– They have voted together in 21 of the 23 cases that have divided the Court 5-4 this year.
– Their decisions have come to be marked by an alarming lack of respect for precedent, irreverence for the democratic process, and disregard for constitutional history.
You could use these exact quotes to describe Stevens and Ginsberg!
June 29th, 2007 at 1:14 pmStevens and Ginsberg respected Stare Decisis.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:16 pmFed Up, do you see no difference between, say, Russ Fiengold and Mitch McConnell? Do you see no difference between Henry Waxman and Tom Delay? How about Al Gore and George Bush? No differences? I’m just asking because I see a lot of your thinking around and I think it’s strange.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:17 pmThen I’d have to agree that Bush’s “coup on america” has been totally successful!
June 29th, 2007 at 1:17 pmFed the Fcuk Up!
My only point here is that, left or right, the middle is the majority and any attempt to change closed tiny little minds is an exercise in futility. I can be fun sometimes to watch their faces get all twisted and the wires in the “brain” to cross phases and short out. I watch the hate spew from both sides and revel in the fact that if we let the two sides cancel each other out the sane middle ground will eventually carry the day.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:18 pmAt this point, I think that there is no one out there whom the people can trust - as sad as that fact may realistically be.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:18 pmm12: “You think Hillary wants the same done in return to her nominees?”
That’s a good point and it’s the main reason why Democrats need supermajorities in both houses as well as a President. Only in that way can they begin to reverse the disasterous policies of the last 7 years (and some of Clinton’s disasterous policies as well.)
June 29th, 2007 at 1:19 pmThat’s true, but they won’t. You think Hillary wants the same done in return to her nominees?
Comment by m12
Not that that’s likely to happen, even if she was elected, because she’s not going to be facing a Republic majority any time soon.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:19 pm#98 I agree with you and “the middle” is carrying the day. Just look at the sheer numbers of Independents as opposed to Republicans today - it’s becoming clear.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:19 pmAnd Congress appears to be in a “perpetual brain fart” while this government goes down the tubes.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:20 pmI don’t see a dividing line between the 2 parties. Who cares what they SAY if they know the votes aren’t there and they don’t raise any Hell?
Before the last election, Hillary reminded us not to expect much of her because “everyone knows it takes 6o votes to get anything done in the Senate”.
How come Pelosi can get the votes to make Foley’s actions illegal?
Swamp too deep?
June 29th, 2007 at 1:20 pmThese bastards also need to be impeached. No, we could not get them on lies as I am sure they properly crafted their words to be confirmed. But, it is all too obvious they purposefully MISLED congress and that in itself is morally wrong to an extreme especially for what these folks are supposed to stand for.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:21 pmIf you are not with the Liberals then you are a liar, Nazi, idiot, etc. This is the same crap on every liberal thread on the Internet and you guys are too stupid to see how stupid you all look. Maybe if for once the majority of you losers would get a job, move out of your parent’s basment and become productive citizens you would start to get a brain.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:22 pmOur basements are the most comfortable places to watch your side fail to pick up a single seat in the House or Senate.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:24 pmThe Kerry filibuster was lip service at the very end.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:25 pmStevens and Ginsberg respected Stare Decisis.
No, they don’t at all. How many capital punishment cases decided in the 80s have been overturned?
June 29th, 2007 at 1:25 pmGreat Job, boys!!!
Keep up god’s… I mean the good work.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:25 pmThank you Ralph Nader! You had a permanent effect on American History. I guess vanity campaigns can cause change.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:25 pmJames: “I watch the hate spew from both sides and revel in the fact that if we let the two sides cancel each other out the sane middle ground will eventually carry the day.”
Number one, I don’t think the left engages in the same kind of hate speech as the right. I can’t imagine, for example, a Swiftboat Veterans campaign impuning the military service of a veteran as we saw them do to Kerry coming from the left. The left does not engage in vote supression. The left has very little of what people like Coulter, Limbaugh, Bortz and Hannity are spewing every day. And so on….
Number two, you’re acting like the Democrats don’t have moderate candidates. What is Hillary Clinton if not a centrist? Obama is certainly a moderate in his thinking as are a number of other Democratic candidates. They ARE trying to appeal to the middle.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:25 pmIf you are not with the Liberals then you are a liar, Nazi, idiot, etc. This is the same crap on every liberal thread on the Internet and you guys are too stupid to see how stupid you all look. Maybe if for once the majority of you losers would get a job, move out of your parent’s basment and become productive citizens you would start to get a brain.
Comment by John Sacks
Project much?
You’ve just described every right wing blog, talk radio host and pundit in the US.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:26 pmCheny was found to have a spy in his office, shot a man in the face and still needs his privacy???
June 29th, 2007 at 1:26 pmNumber two, you’re acting like the Democrats don’t have moderate candidates. What is Hillary Clinton if not a centrist? Obama is certainly a moderate in his thinking as are a number of other Democratic candidates. They ARE trying to appeal to the middle.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper
According to most of the trolls here, Clinton and Obama are “far far left” commie pinkos.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:28 pmNo, we could not get them on lies as I am sure they properly crafted their words to be confirmed. But, it is all too obvious they purposefully MISLED congress and that in itself is morally wrong to an extreme especially for what these folks are supposed to stand for.
But lying to the President is morally acceptable, right? How do you think Souter got in?
June 29th, 2007 at 1:28 pmI love Olbermann, but you gotta admit, the Dems could sure be doing a Hell of a lot more to right some wrongs.
If a corporation can prove that they are hiring and giving good raises, then HELL YES they deserve tax cuts!
If not, quit making me pay it!
June 29th, 2007 at 1:28 pmOnly bad behavoir can remove them. We can’t remove them because we don’t like their decisions.
Comment by Crump’s
They purposefully MISLED congress in front of all to see. These bastards are supposed to represent supreme honor and justice. You do not call this bad behavior? This immoral behavior is unacceptable.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:28 pm#89 You are correct. This administration does NOTHING unless it benefits the few at the expense of the many. The words, “Of the People, By the People and For the People” mean absolutely nothing to people like Bush/Cheney/Roberts/Alito/McConnell/Barton/Inhofe… etc, etc, etc.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:30 pmHillary has yet to speak up about wage stagnation and trade agreements with countries that practice human rights abuses.
SHE HAS YET TO SPEAK OUT ON THE GOP VISITING THE MARIANA ISLANDS WITH MR. ABRAMOFF AND TOM DELAY ON THEIR VENTURES TO LET THEIR CONTRIBUTORS HAVE SEX WITH THOSE CHILDREN AND FORCE THEM TO HAVE ABORTIONS?
ASK GOOGLE, ASK ANYONE. HILLARY DOESN’T KNOW? BULLSHIT!
June 29th, 2007 at 1:31 pmCol.
First. Hillary is a political oppertunist, period.
Second. George Bush Jr. is the same
Third. Hillary will not win.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:31 pmBut lying to the President is morally acceptable, right? How do you think Souter got in?
Comment by m12
Lying, misleading is not acceptable especially from those representing the highest court. This is another drop in our moral standards since this stolen administration began office.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:34 pm#79,
Sir, with respect, I do not agree.
In regards to Dems who would have lied us into a war, do you really and truthfully agree with your position?
And I understand that the neocon agenda is a political movement, on the surface. But if you were to be totally honest and frank, you would call the neocon agenda what it actually is, and that is the Corporate Political Agenda. When you use accurate and truthful definitions, clarity is not so hard to achieve.
I agree completely that “blame†needs to be assigned accurately. Did all “Dems†take a bribe and stuff it in their freezer? No, but a career politician named Jefferson did. Did all “Repugs†take a bribe and sell out their country for a few rugs and a boat? No, but a career politician named Cunningham did.
The partisan mentality that assigns blame to the “parties†but ignores the actual perpetrators is a large part of why the blame is never assigned accurately. It is not that “they are all corruptâ€, it is that the system is corrupt and the rampant apathy amongst Americans is not just enabling the process but is in large part the cause of it.
Murder is murder whether done by an American or a Saudi. Corruption is corruption whether done by a Dem, a Repug, an Independent, or a Green. If we do not get past the labels that we use as either a blanket excuse or a blanket condemnation, we will never address the true issue only the symptoms.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:34 pmThey purposefully MISLED congress in front of all to see. These bastards are supposed to represent supreme honor and justice. You do not call this bad behavior? This immoral behavior is unacceptable.
Comment by had enough
Never heard of Clarence Thomas? This is standard operating procedure for the Far Right.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:35 pmLying, misleading is not acceptable especially from those representing the highest court. This is another drop in our moral standards since this stolen administration began office.
So David Souter should be impeached? Because he told GHWB that he was a conservative.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:35 pm#83,
EXACTLY! (save one small adjustment)
I agree wholeheartedly that Al Gore would have made a better president than George Bush. But I will not make a label extension and then say that a Democrat would make a better president than a Republican.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:38 pmI’ll keep that in mind while vetting candidates to replace John Paul Stevens. Have a nice weekend!!!
Comment by Elizabeth Edwards is an Attack Dog
Yeah, a class act like you is “vetting candidates” wait I guess Bush would have a lowclass lowlife like you do his dirty work. Close personal friends with Rove no doubt.
My guess is that’s why these justices are ignoring stare decisis and pulling decisions out of their ass. Rove probably had little bitches like you vet candidates with skeletons in their closets. Like Roberts being gay. And now threatens to break it to the newspapers if they don’t do chimpy’s bidding.
The were given life appointments so they wouldn’t worry about political ramifications of decisions. But what if a guy doesn’t want his mother to know he’s gay. He wouldn’t want dirty laundry in the newspapers anyway. My guess is the best way to get these guys to act honorably is to dig up the real dirt on them so they’re not worried about it in the future.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:38 pmHillary, Obama are for the insurance co remaining - continuing the rip off to the people in their health care plan. Kucinich is for eliminating the insurance co, therefore taking about 40% of the cost out and going single payer.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:39 pmJames, you’re implying there are no differences between Hillary Clinton and George Bush. At best, that’s lazy thinking. Her positions on almost every issue are almost the opposite of his. Secondly, this cannard that Hillary is a political opportunist is very popular, but on what basis do you make that judgement? Is it because she is politically expedient or is it because you just don’t like her. There’s a lot of mind reading going on these days. People seem to be able to discern things about certain candidates by reading their minds. My favorite is that Hillary is too “ambitious.” A woman who was named one of the most influential woman lawyers in the nation for her work on childrens’ rights, but gave up her law career to support her husband’s political career is too ambitious???!!! Please.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:41 pmHillary has made a stance? Where? Was it when she said we’ll get out of Iraq……eventually?
Why isn’t she leading a march to the White House?
June 29th, 2007 at 1:44 pmI can think of no instances where Hillary has voted to piss off Big Business.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:45 pmThat’s true, but they won’t. You think Hillary wants the same done in return to her nominees?
Comment by m12
Wow what an idiot. You think that Hillary will get the nomination and the the Republicans will control the congress. Anything else you’re wrong about.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:45 pmon the board of wal mart hillary?
June 29th, 2007 at 1:47 pm#98,
Agreed. However, when that “middle†becomes as apathetic as they are now, your structure of how good will overcome evil collapses.
And that is precisely what we are seeing now.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:48 pmAn opportunist is someone that stays with her husband and doesn’t sleep with him or just doesn’t explain why she never had his intern checked for VD.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:48 pmFed up, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I know they’re all feeding from a similar corporate pot for money, but that’s somewhat of a separate issue from where they stand on various political issues. The way to end all that is public funding of all federal elections and re-building a legal “firewall” between media news operations and the corporate boards of their parent companies.
But, for the pragmatic business of fixing our nation’s problems and undoing much of the damage caused by the modern neocon political movement, I see no more effective process AT THIS POINT IN HISTORY than a supermajority for Democrats in both houses and a Democratic president. That will get the most done on the most timely fashion. I hope that at some point soon, though, we will have the luxury of entertaining third and fourth party candidates even though most of the Founders saw numerous problems with more than two major parties.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:49 pmcol
I am refering to being a political opportunist not a neo facist sub moronic ass hole
June 29th, 2007 at 1:49 pm#100,
That is EXACTLY what the Republicans said back in 1994 and they were just as correct as you are now.
Think about that.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:49 pmMaybe if for once the majority of you losers would get a job, move out of your parent’s basment and become productive citizens you would start to get a brain.
Comment by John Sacks
Johnny Sacksashit, you do know that we’ve all heard your lame ass comments hundreds of times from other trolls who frankly stole them from us. If you don’t have any of your own insults, really, why bother.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:50 pmAnd that is exactly why Hillary will be the next president
June 29th, 2007 at 1:50 pmHillary could at least tell us why we haven’t seen those Mangoes. She voted for the Trade Agreement.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:50 pmNo, they don’t at all. How many capital punishment cases decided in the 80s have been overturned?
Comment by m12
Wow, you’re an idiot. A murder case only goes to the supreme court once. How does stare decisis apply to a case they’ve never decided before.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:51 pmSo David Souter should be impeached? Because he told GHWB that he was a conservative.
Comment by m12
I see no link with your statement….if that were true we would never hear the end of if from the frenzied religious nuts and the insane republicans. These people can not let go or shut up. They can not even let go of B Clinton’s affair which was only the business of his wife… 10 years ago now?…
June 29th, 2007 at 1:52 pmJames: “on the board of wal mart hillary?”
Maybe you missed it or chose to ignore it, but I believe Hillary resigned from that board when she couldn’t positively change their labor policies.
Look James, I actually hate to be sitting here having to defend Hillary. I like the fact that she has a chance to be the first woman president and I think it’s a disgrace that we’ve never had one, but she’s not my favorite candidate. I just think there is a lot of Hillary hatred which is a result of a concerted 15-year effort by the right to trash her character.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:53 pmGore was deselected.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:54 pmBut lying to the President is morally acceptable, right? How do you think Souter got in?
Comment by m12
What did Souter lie about, got a link?
June 29th, 2007 at 1:55 pmI’m hardly on the right, and I’m tired of guessing what Hillary would do.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:55 pm#142
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-8452.ZS.html
Atkins v Virginia - Overturned the 1980s case that allowed executions of the mentally retarded
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-633.ZS.html
Roper v Simmons - Overturned the 1980s case that allowed executions of 16, 17 year olds
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html
Lawrence v Texas - Overturned the 1980s case that allowed states to criminalize sodomy.
So much for stare decisis! Oh, and all of them were written with at least 1 Democratic justice in the majority.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:56 pmFed up: “That is EXACTLY what the Republicans said back in 1994 and they were just as correct as you are now.
Think about that.”
Republicans were all about overturning New Deal policies. I don’t agree with that. I think New Deal political policies created the strongest middle class our country has ever seen. I’m talking about overturning Republican policies of the last 7 to 15 years and, in a larger sense, modern libertarian policies which began eroding our middle class when Reagan took over in 1981.
I see a profound difference, Fed up. In fact, I’m very surprised when people seem NOT to see a difference.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:58 pmFed the Fcuk Up
simplistic
The two party system is the problem, we need more viable parties in the races. Say there was an individual who achieved a well deserved public acceptance. It is 3 months before the general election and the apathy with the two major candidates is as it has been for many cycles, the impossibiliy of forming a movement behind the individual is virtually impossible. You can’t even write in a name on the ballot, the requirements are different in each and every state. If God appeared in each and every livingroom and said write in this name and it happened they would not win. The system is set up for big money only, republican or democrat.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:59 pmSo David Souter should be impeached? Because he told GHWB that he was a conservative.
Comment by m12
Justices are not the President’s judge they’re the people’s judge. And justices are not supposed to rewrite law they are supposed to interpret the law. And frankly you don’t have an effing clue what you’re talking about. And your idea of a conservative justice is somebody who is an activist judge. What an ass.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:59 pm#136,
I addressed the supermajority issue in my comment somewhere around #138 (the numbers change sometimes).
In regard to the Founders position on how many parties there should be, I’m not entirely comfortable with your statement about them seeing numerous problems and them being against it. But that is a moot point based upon one thing and one thing only, the Founders never considered the Western invention of “Corporationsâ€.
P.S. I am not attacking big business nor am I against big business as a whole. It is the “Corporation†concept and its shields and anonymity that I speak of.
June 29th, 2007 at 2:00 pmCol
you and I basically agree from what I can gather, so let us focus on the far right and left. we can work on some of the smaller issues later
June 29th, 2007 at 2:02 pm#146
Souter claimed he was a conservative.
http://select.nytimes.com/ gst/ abstract.html?res=F30617FE395F0C778EDDA10894D8494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations%2fS%2fSupreme%20Court%20
John H. Sununu, the White House chief of staff, assured a conservative writer that President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, David H. Souter, would offer a strong conservative voice on the Court if confirmed, according to a memorandum made public today. John H. Sununu, the White House chief of Staff
June 29th, 2007 at 2:03 pmJames: “The system is set up for big money only, republican or democrat.”
That’s only one of the reasons two parties dominate and that could be fixed with public financing of federal elections.
But, remember that we don’t have a European-style parliamentary system. In Europe, lesser parties form coalitions with major parties when they approach election days. Our system is rather unique and depends on a national network of party machinery. To penatrate this system, even with public funding, a third party would have to do the “dirty work” of developing from the local level up, not from the top down.
The other problem or challenge, as Jefferson, Madison and many other founders worried, is that the more parties you have, the more chance you will have a chief executive actively supported by a small faction or minority as opposed to a majority of citizens.
June 29th, 2007 at 2:04 pmI see no link with your statement….if that were true we would never hear the end of if from the frenzied religious nuts and the insane republicans. These people can not let go or shut up. They can not even let go of B Clinton’s affair which was only the business of his wife… 10 years ago now?…
You don’t hear the end of it. The first conservative chant when the 2005 vacancies occured was “No more Souters!”.
June 29th, 2007 at 2:04 pmJustices are not the President’s judge they’re the people’s judge. And justices are not supposed to rewrite law they are supposed to interpret the law. And frankly you don’t have an effing clue what you’re talking about. And your idea of a conservative justice is somebody who is an activist judge. What an ass.
George Bush had a very specific definition of what a conservative judge is. Souter did not fit it in any possible way. Thank you for admitting the man lied!
June 29th, 2007 at 2:06 pm#149,
Agreed wholeheartedly. There should not be a limit on any options. There should be as many political parties as the people want, 1, 2, 500, whatever. The only reason that it continues to be limited to 2 is that maintaining a tripartisan (or beyond) divide would be impossible.
Corporate influence and manipulation is the largest problem that we have, next to the rampant apathy of the US citizenry.
June 29th, 2007 at 2:08 pmDavid H. Souter, would offer a strong conservative voice on the Court if confirmed, according to a memorandum made public today. John H. Sununu, the White House chief of Staff
Comment by m12
So you don’t believe that he’s personally a conservative? He is supposed to interpret the law, strictly, not rewrite it. A good justice, conservative or liberal, does just that. That doesn’t have anything to do with what he told the President about his personal beliefs. Roberts and Alito said they would not be “activist judges” and obviously they lied. They are revisiting cases that past courts would not even have addressed.
June 29th, 2007 at 2:09 pmJames: “you and I basically agree from what I can gather, so let us focus on the far right and left. we can work on some of the smaller issues later”
Sounds good to me.
Fed up: “the Founders never considered the Western invention of “Corporationsâ€.
Actually, a number of our Founders had a healthy distrust and outright hostility for corporations. Remember that the Boston Tea Party was actually about a targeted tax break for the East India Company which gave them an unfair competitive advantage. Thomas Jefferson and a number of others saw corporations as a sly way of setting up a new kind of landed aristocracy and favored heavy regulations as were favored by Adam Smith himself.
Thomas Jefferson wrote this in the 1790’s: “I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. â€
June 29th, 2007 at 2:10 pmWe’ve known for a long time now - and it was thoroughly vented when Roberts came up and again when Alito did - that this stacked court was a decades-old goal that led to a far-sighted plan of attack by the Federalist Society. What you don’t see the Society wWe’ve known for a long time now - and it was thoroughly vented when Roberts came up and again when Alito did - that this stacked court was a decades-old goal that led to a far-sighted plan of attack by the Federalist Society. What you don’t see the Society write but what is obviously their credo, along with that of Pat Roberts and the Regents University crowd, is that the theoretical and political programs of the right-wing corporate wolves and their supporters is worth lying, stealing and cheating to achieve. Bush ran on lies twice and won, started a war with lies, pushed every major corporate agenda with lies, and had the full support of more than half of the legislature in the process. The judiciary was a fait accomplis, with or without the lies by Robertson and Alito. All of them had learned a great deal from Rhenquist and Reagan. This Court and the Bush reign should make Ralph Nader really proud. Many of us tried to warn him while there was still time to withdraw and throw his support to Gore. I still haven’t forgiven him and think of him every time one of these decisions spew forth from the high court.rite but what is obviously their credo, along with that of Pat Roberts and the Regents University crowd, is that the theocratical and political programs of the right-wing corporate wolves and their supporters is worth lying, stealing and cheating to achieve. Bush ran on lies twice and won, started a war with lies, pushed every major corporate agenda with lies, and had the full support of more than half of the legislature in the process. The judiciary was a fait accomplis, with or without the lies by Robertson and Alito. All of them had learned a great deal from Rhenquist and Reagan.
June 29th, 2007 at 2:12 pmCol
June 29th, 2007 at 2:14 pmI understand these issues, i grew up in a very political family. The system is almost completly broken at this point. We don’t need to discuss the two party system we need to bring the extreems in from the hail storm.
editing one’s own post by cutting and rearranging it is a dangerous business, as it makes one appear even more illiterate than one may be.
June 29th, 2007 at 2:15 pmolivelawyers, after all this, Nader is still singing the same tune. He was on television the other night saying there were no differences between Dems and Repubs. As someone who was an ardent supporter of his for decades, I think he’s lost his mind.
June 29th, 2007 at 2:15 pm#159,
Forgive my unclear language. When I said - the Founders never considered the Western invention of “Corporations†- I meant the current Western “version” of “Corporations” and their legal structures.
The Founders were wise to be distrustful of corporations. We, Americans, decided however that they were idiots.
June 29th, 2007 at 2:17 pmSo you don’t believe that he’s personally a conservative?
No, and he never was. He has spent the last 15 years voting alongside the 2 liberal Clinton judges. He knew Ronald Reagan’s definition of a conservative judge, he knew George Bush’s definition of a conservative judge, and he falsely fit himself in that category. He misled everybody, including Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, who voted against him.
He is supposed to interpret the law, strictly, not rewrite it. A good justice, conservative or liberal, does just that. That doesn’t have anything to do with what he told the President about his personal beliefs. Roberts and Alito said they would not be “activist judges†and obviously they lied. They are revisiting cases that past courts would not even have addressed.
That’s precisely what Roberts and Alito did, in that 180 day pay discrimination case. They limited claims to 180 days. But liberals threw a hissy fit.
June 29th, 2007 at 2:18 pmcol
don’t forget your distilled water. I have worked recently in water plants rewiring pumps and those places are scary, not to mention very unguarded
June 29th, 2007 at 2:20 pmOh, and how can you claim that the 4 lefty justices believe in Stare Decisis after they dumped on the 3 decisions I mentioned above?
June 29th, 2007 at 2:22 pmFed up, the founders distrust of corporations held sway for about 100 years. Up until the 1880’s, it was a criminal offense in most states to give money to any election campaign. Until the 1870’s, I believe, corporations actually had to be desolved after 40 years. Corporations DID exist in the time of Adam Smith and he didn’t think they were a good idea. I think they were called by a different name - Chartered Accounts. Adam Smith felt that corporations must be regulated or they would be a detriment to any given society. They didn’t start gaining their current political power until the latter part of the 19th century.
June 29th, 2007 at 2:22 pmwhy is it when a judge does not rule the way a modern day conservative wants the judge is called activist. Judges interpret other wise it would be an if then logic problem. There are almost alway mitigating circumstances.
how about the clumsy Bork dude and the Yale thing, what a joke these right wingers are
June 29th, 2007 at 2:23 pmGood catch, James. Finally, someone recognizes me. I drink distilled water and neutral grain spirits.
June 29th, 2007 at 2:23 pm