(IT WENT IN THE GOVENOR OUT THE SHOULDER UP A HILL, PAST THE NECK AROUND HEAD IN AND OUT AGAIN..WHY DID WE NOT USE THIS TECHNOLOGY IN IRAQ!)

SECOND, SPECTER WANTED TO HAVE THE RECORDS OF ALITO AND ROBERTS CHALLENEGD THE OTHER DAY. DIDN’T HE GIVE THE BIG VOTE FOR THESE TWO ALONG WITH LONG TIME REPUBLICAN STEVENS OF ALASKA? NOW SPECTER QUESTIONING THEIR RECORD?

SEE PART OF ARTICLE SND LINK:
DEMOCRAT CHARGES U.S. JUSTICES “DUPED” SENATE
FRI JUL 27, 2007 6:13PM EDT
FEATURED BROKER SPONSORED LINK
BY THOMAS FERRARO

WASHINGTON (REUTERS) – U.S. CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS AND SUPREME COURT JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO “DUPED” THE U.S. SENATE INTO CONFIRMING THEM, A TOP DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKER CHARGED ON FRIDAY, DAYS AFTER A KEY REPUBLICAN QUESTIONED IF THEY HAD LIVED UP TO THEIR PROMISES.

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER OF NEW YORK, A MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THAT HELD HEARINGS ON THE TWO, SAID THEY STAKED OUT MODERATE POSITIONS IN CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY BUT BECAME PART OF A CONSERVATIVE BLOC THAT ISSUED RESTRICTIVE RULINGS ON ISSUES FROM FREE SPEECH TO CIVIL RIGHTS.
SCHUMER, IN A SPEECH TO THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION SOCIETY, TALKED ABOUT THE CONFIRMATION OF ROBERTS AND ALITO IN 2005 AND 2006, RESPECTIVELY.

“WERE WE DUPED?” HE ASKED.

“WERE WE TOO EASILY IMPRESSED BY THE CHARM OF NOMINEE ROBERTS AND THE ERUDITION OF NOMINEE ALITO?” SCHUMER ASKED. “DID WE MISTAKENLY VOTE OUR HOPES WHEN OUR FEARS WERE MORE THAN JUSTIFIED BY THE ULTRACONSERVATIVE RECORDS OF THESE TWO MEN?”

“YES,” HE SAID.

HIS COMMENTS CAME DAYS AFTER SEN. ARLEN SPECTER OF PENNSYLVANIA, A MODERATE REPUBLICAN, SAID HE INTENDED TO REVIEW THE CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY OF ROBERTS AND ALITO.
THE POLITICO, A WASHINGTON-BASED NEWSPAPER, QUOTED SPECTER AS SAYING HE WANTED TO SEE IF ROBERTS AND ALITO HAD “LIVED UP” TO THEIR PROMISES TO RESPECT LEGAL PRECEDENTS.

HTTP://WWW.REUTERS.COM/ ARTICLE/ POLITICSNEWS/ IDUSN2729913220070727

ISN’T THAT ILLEGAL AND CONSIDERED TREASON IF THEY HAD NOT DONE THINGS BY FOLLOWING LEGALLY PRECEDENT? WASN’T THAT SPECTERS JOB TO LOOK FOR BEFORE HE CONFIRMED THESE TWO? NOW HE’S DOING THE SAME WITH GONZIE??

THIRD, SPECTER HAS ALL OF A SUDDEN GROWN A HEART TO GIVE GONZIE ONE MORE CHANCE?

WAIT ISNT FIXING THE RECORD FORGERY OR TREASON OR SOMETHING? YOU CAN JUST DISREGARD THE LEGAL PROCESS! – OH WAIT… SPECTER HAS AND HE WILL CONTINUE TO BACKTRACK AND DISREGARD… WHY?

NEXT, NOW AN ALL TO YOUNG AND ROBUST HEALTHY CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS HAS ALLEGEDLY HAD A STROKE AND A SEIZURE OF UNKNOWN ORIGIN – MAYBE HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH SPECTER LOOKING AROUND AND ASKING QUESTIONS HE REALLY DOES NOT WANT TO ASK ABOUT THE “RECORD”

LASTLY, IT LOOKS HORRIBLE THAT THESE GUYS ARE REPUBLIANS GETTING REPUBLICANS. SPECTER IS ON GONZIE (BUT GIVING HIM ANOTHER CHANCE), HE’S QUESTIONING ALITO (WHO IS SUPPOSEDLY IN LATVIA TEACHING LAW) AND ROBERTS RECORD AND SPECTERS LONG TIME FRIEND AND LONGEST SERVING REPUBLICAN IN US HISTORY R- ALAKSA STEVENS WAS INVADED BY FEDS FOR ALLEGED “INSIDER” PAY OFFS? BY THE WAY, THE COMPANY (an oil company no less), ALREADY PLEAD GUILTY TO GIVING OTHER LEGISLATORS “DEALS”. Oil companies build houses??

SMELLS LIKE A BIGGER STORY TO ME. THERE IS FIGHTING AMOUNG THE SIBLINGS!

I THINK SPECTER IS THE NEW RED HEADED STEP CHILD OF GEORGE!
WHO WILL PUSH THE LAW HERE?

Intersting thing the DEMS LOVE Specter NOW they are saying they were DUPPED??

Specter has to answer alot of questions.

1. why he nominated Roberts and Alito if he wanted to question them later?

2. Why did he NOT report anything in regards to Chief Roberts previous seizures

3. Why was he all for Gonzie being ousted THEN gives a chance to “correct the record”

4. Who is Specter loyal to George who helped him get re elected by the hair on his chinny chin chin OR the DEMS he’s been loyal to for decades

5. What the heck is going on in the Judiciary that they FORGOT to ask all these KEY questions BEFORE all these guys got their LIFETIME Jobs!?

Who will save or QUESTION the legal process of our Judiciary??

Yeah, you could count the SC naming then-Gov. Bush to the Presidency as “trying to write law like it did for so many years before”.

If only the SC weren’t so “liberal” as to let Pres. Bush destroy the US Constitution!

/sarcasm

Because almost all states use a “winner-take-all” approach to committing electors, a winning candidate could win by only one vote in each of those states, while losing a landslide in the other 39. Such a scenario would give the winner an advantage of a few electoral votes, while losing the popular vote by about 35% to 65%.

Those states have some pretty divergent views, being in the widely separate regions of the country and having very different rural versus urban population distributions. But a candidate who could find that one thread that flows through them all could all but ignore almost 80% of the states. Or, ominously, could ignore them all and rig only 11 states’ elections.

Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 29, 2007 @ 1:02 pm

These are good points. I can also see where a candidate might actually pander to the “swing states”, promising them things (like, say, more hurricane research funding in Florida) while perhaps ignoring needs of equal concern in states that don’t matter.

The Electoral College also has the potential to cause a level of animosity within a given state. Upstate New York’s red vote is negated by NYC’s vote. Austin, Texas, has no real say in a presidential election because of the surrounding sea of red. A vote can be very close in a state and still all the votes go to one candidate.

It seems to me that it’s hard to argue that the Electoral College makes for a better, more enlightened vote. How can 50 (51?) parcels of land somehow smarten up the selection process?

Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 29, 2007 @ 11:22 am

Thanks for saying that, Wayne. I had thought more or less the same thing.

Comment by Mr. President — July 29, 2007 @ 12:34 pm

No, absolutely not! I have not followed this thread throughout, I only came in at the end to see Egg’s comment. You are, for some reason, persisting in the notion that “of the people, by the people, and for the people” means that we no longer have a republican form of government (not the political party, the representation part). The “people” have chosen to govern themsleves with a republic. That’s all that means. You are twsiting it, I susupect, to start a fight. I told you, put that clebver wit of yours to use fighting the forces of Goodness & Light, and not against us! :)

Then we’ll just have to agree to disagree, and I hope that you can cope with the possibility that a majority of Americans may also want to do away with the Electoral College for choosing their president, in part, because not enough people get to see the candidates because they all concentrate on “swing states”. Plus, it’s a lot harder to rig elections over the entire country than it is in one key state.

Here is where I disagree.

Good,

Then do you both agree that the whole “by the people, of the people, for the people” rhetoric is meaningless, except in virtue of it’s symbolism?

Shumer should work hard to block any more treasonous, ignorant appointments by an unelected, deserting war criminal, as Bush is. Gonzo should be impeached, indicted, tried, convicted and sent back to Mexico. the presidency of bushco should indeed be overthrown, but the traitors on the right would rather live in North Korea than the USA. Fortunately, there are very few righties left that still drink the karl-aid, as evidenced by the paucity of their type here. Too bad they’re too cowardly to stand up and fight for their beliefs. Bush has lost two wars because his supporters are cowards, just like him.