Senate Republican staffer put on leave for accessing Democratic files

[hoodooman]

AAA

Who do you think you are kidding.

Clarence Thomas( had never tried a case in his life when he took a seat on the Supreme Court. He was appointed head of the EEOC by Regan to impede the work of that organization ("restructure EEOC regulations") and in '90 appointed to DC court of appeals to be groomed for a move to the Supreme Court the following year. Thurgood Marshall would have rolled over in his grave.

If it looks like a HN, walks like a HN and sounds like a HN, its an HN.

 

[Error 404]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:


The problem I have with the Republicans is they don't seem to have the stomach for the infighting that is necessary. Can't say I blame them, but maybe they should look for another job if they don't relish grappling with an asshole like Chuck Schumer.

To answer your questions, Anita Hill went from being a mediocre lawyer who got her lowly jobs through the patronage of Clarence Thomas to an icon of the left with lucrative speaking tours and a cushy law faculty job that she clearly was not qualified for.

AAA, I have to admit to knowing practically nothing about Charles Schumer. Why is he an "asshole"?

As for Anita Hill, her competency as a lawyer, or her "cashing in" on the speaking tour really isn't relevant to what happened during the Thomas confirmation hearings.

Can there be any doubt that her allegations could have destroyed her life? Do you think she was just shooting craps and hoping for the best? If she was lying, she should have gotten a lucrative contract in Hollywood. She seemed pretty convincing to me. While I dislike Thomas' politics, and if her story is true, than I would dislike him as a human being, I have to say that it is a credit to our system of government that the guy was confirmed. At least we know that when it comes down to the nitty gritty, allegations do not convict. Still innocent until proven guilty in the US (except for cases involving the IRS, which is amazing and a shame).

And if you think I am being partisan, I am not. I feel the same contempt for Bill Clinton as a human being that I feel for Thomas. This despite the fact that I believe he was a good President. I know you feel differently. But I don't know why. Except for the obvious....he was a Democrat. Other than that???

Being a "good guy" or a "bad guy" doesn't seem to have much to do with how our Presidents perform. Here is another subject I believe we would have to agree on. We have had some miserable men who were effective Presidents (maybe the majority of them), and guys like Carter, who was (appeared to be) an honest and honorable man, yet a weak President. Too many examples to list. Besides, really, who of us know what these guys were like in real life? They are so insulated from the public, we can only know them by their publicists and the media.

Too bad Martin Sheen isn't the real President

Peace,
RS

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from hoodooman:

AAA

Who do you think you are kidding.

Clarence Thomas( had never tried a case in his life when he took a seat on the Supreme Court. He was appointed head of the EEOC by Regan to impede the work of that organization ("restructure EEOC regulations") and in '90 appointed to DC court of appeals to be groomed for a move to the Supreme Court the following year. Thurgood Marshall would have rolled over in his grave.
... .

So what? Plenty of justices have gone from the Court of Appeals to the Court without experience in trying cases. Justice Bryer comes to mind.

 

[dgabriel]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:



What scares me are judges who confuse their role with that of the legislature, or in some cases, a dictator. Consider the Massachusetts Supreme Court which recently had the temerity to order the legislature to enact a gay marriage law. Why even bother with having the legislature? Send them home and save the money. Why let a little thing like democracy get in the way of progress?

It's called a remedy to address laws that the court found to be unconstitutional (in this case state constitution).

 

[ARogueTrader]

Quote from dgabriel:



It's called a remedy to address laws that the court found to be unconstitutional (in this case state constitution).

AAA doesn't like the constitution when it is not interpreted in his favor.

Can you imagine living under his own personal interpretation of the constitution that he would have everyone adhere to?

 

[TriPack]

Quote from ARogueTrader:



Judges who make judicial decisions based on their personal interpretation of their chosen religion have no place on the bench.

It is called separation of church and state.

We have evolved enough to make moral decisions without the need to look at a religious book to tell us what to do.

The same applies to atheists and agnostics, who have views that could cloud their judicial judgement. If the standard is applied, it should be applied universally, yet the Democrats are simply applying an anti-religion standard.

But this really ISN'T about separation of church and state. It is about having a judiciary that is unbiased - able to rule based on the facts, the law and the Constitution, regardless of what the judge's background is with regards to religion, gender, ethnicity, political party or anything else that might bias their viewpoint.

 

[TriPack]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

A sizeable number of outstanding judges are being filibustered simply because they have religious or morally based scruples against abortion. Not one of them has said they wouldn't follow the law, as invented by the Supreme Court. In effect, a religious test has been imposed for being confirmed as a federal judge. Apparently the Democrats will permit you to profess belief in a religion, provided they are satisfied you don't mean it or actually believe it.

A number of other outstanding judges are being filibustered for the crime of being a minority and not adhering to liberal orthodoxy. It was quite clear from the leaked memo's that this was the sole basis for opposing nominees like Estrada.

The memo's also confirmed what had been suspected all along, namely that the Committee Democrats had manipulated the confirmation process to prevent an additional judge being added to the Sixth Circuit until after the University of Michigan affirmative action case had been decided. The additional judge would have been the swing vote to decide the case against the racial spoils system run by the University.

So what does Chairman Hatch get worked up about? Some staffers who got the goods on the Democrats. When liberals do something like that they are called whistle-blowers or celebrated for their courage, eg. Pentagon Papers, Anita Hill et al.

The problem I have with Hatch is he is a gentleman in a street fight, and he either doesn't know it or isn't willing to hand the gavel over to someone who will fight back. Ditto for Majority Leader Frist, a wonderful man and gifted heart surgeon who simply doesn't have the temperament to deal with the hardball politics of the Kennedy's, Clinton's, Schumer's and the like.

Since the opposition to several of the nominees centers on abortion, it is legitimate to question how hard Spector will fight for them, given his position on the issue. It is not a matter of the religious right running the country. Under the Consitution, the President is entitled to nominate judges, as much as the left wants to deny him that privilege, and he is entitled to a vote on them. No where does the Constitution allow a supramajority for judicial confirmation. That, my friend, is the law and the Democrats are running roughshod over it for partisan reasons. As despicable as their conduct is, I blame the Republicans for allowing them to get away with it.

I agree with your points regarding what the Democrats are trying to accompish with their filabuster, and how they are doing it. However, I for one am glad there is still at least one Senator who is willing to put principle ahead of politics and do the right thing.

But, the inability to get judges confirmed isn't helping the GOP or our country any, so it may be time for Hatch to retire.

 

[bungrider]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

...And no, Clarence Thomas is not scary. I've met him and he is a gracious and humble man with uncommonly sound judgment and the courage of a lion.

Dude, I gotta ask -- you're not into animal porn, are you AAA??

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

...What scares me are judges who confuse their role with that of the legislature, or in some cases, a dictator. Consider the Massachusetts Supreme Court which recently had the temerity to order the legislature to enact a gay marriage law. Why even bother with having the legislature? Send them home and save the money. Why let a little thing like democracy get in the way of progress?

I think the perception of the court is that it has the fundamental responsibility of ensuring that everyone, no matter their religion, race, or sexual preference, has the same rights to freedom and happiness as everyone else.

I mean, shit, why should some redneck have a right that a homosexual doesn't??? What are we, the 3rd reich here?? Pink triangles for all the fags?

 

[ARogueTrader]

Quote from TriPack:



The same applies to atheists and agnostics, who have views that could cloud their judicial judgment. If the standard is applied, it should be applied universally, yet the Democrats are simply applying an anti-religion standard.

But this really ISN'T about separation of church and state. It is about having a judiciary that is unbiased - able to rule based on the facts, the law and the Constitution, regardless of what the judge's background is with regards to religion, gender, ethnicity, political party or anything else that might bias their viewpoint.

So the question becomes this:

Is someone who strongly and adamantly believes that abortion is wrong on the basis of their religious beliefs capable of making judicial decisions on abortion issues which would contradict their strongly held religious beliefs?

Some are capable, and others aren't. You would have to look at their records in the past to see if they routinely voted or ruled in a manner that was more consistent with their religious/political belief systems, or if they ruled favor of the reasonable rights of the individual as outlined in the constitution.

 

[Pabst]

Quote from ARogueTrader:



So the question becomes this:

Is someone who strongly and adamantly believes that abortion is wrong on the basis of their religious beliefs capable of making judicial decisions on abortion issues which would contradict their strongly held religious beliefs?

Some are capable, and others aren't. You would have to look at their records in the past to see if they routinely voted or ruled in a manner that was more consistent with their religious/political belief systems, or if they ruled favor of the reasonable rights of the individual as outlined in the constitution.

So an African-American judge should not feel compelled to uphold laws mandating racial quotas. I agree!

As far as abortion being this personal liberty acid test, by the same token why isn't the 1964 Civil Rights Act unconstitutional. Don't I have the right, as a free individual, to hire, serve, rent, or do business with whoever I choose. Alas, don't I have a right to be predjudiced.You see Rogue, these rulings are not about justice or fairness, or philosophy, but they are about whatever prevailing political winds mold the judicial participant's at any random snapshot in history. Any time someone bring's up the sanctimony of the High Court's sense of morality, I have but two words, Dred Scott.