|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:34 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
We need not know anything more about this woman. She is unfit. Done.
| Quote: |
(CNN) -- U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers gave mixed answers on same-sex rights in a questionnaire she filled out from a Texas gay rights group during her successful 1989 run for the Dallas City Council.
She told the group she believed gay men and lesbians should have the same civil rights as straight Americans, but that she opposed repeal of the state's sodomy law criminalizing same-sex sexual conduct.
So they should have equal rights, but not engage in sexual intercourse?
The Supreme Court struck down the sodomy law in 2003 with a 6-3 vote in the case of Lawrence v. Texas.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whom Miers has been nominated to replace, voted with the majority in the ruling, which effectively erased sodomy laws in 13 other states. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:32 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| She told the group she believed gay men and lesbians should have the same civil rights as straight Americans, but that she opposed repeal of the state's sodomy law criminalizing same-sex sexual conduct. |
That's very interesting.
She also defended Microsoft.
Remember all of that what-not about Edwatds being an ambulance-chaser?
If a corporate defender gets a seat on the Supreme Court, what can we expect in terms of rulings against big business?
But, I think this is a bit of a Catch-22, or, in other words, an elaborate ploy.
Here's how I see the strategy:
1) Bush, in stating that she's not going to "legislate from the bench", has a very ambiguous meaning. My interpretation is that she's not going to legislate as he sees previous courts as doing, meaning she's going to overturn Roe v Wade if appointed. At this point (with Roberts already in after refusing to reveal all records), I think this is what Bush would like to achieve most through his appointments.
Note: This is another victory for the Bush administration's war against transparency. After he leaves office, should any other party find themselves in the White House, they are going to have a positive field day with the lowered-bar precedents set by this administration.
2) However, with conservatives already up-in-arms over her nomination and the "liberal media" explaining how he thinks it "better than him going through a long search for an acceptable ideologue", this simply sets it up for him to appoint someone more Ashcroft-esque.
BONUS: Long deliberations will take away attention from the poop-stew the guy's already swimming in.
In other words, not that I like her, but the question is whether she is better than anyone else BUSH WILL nominate?
So, it basically sucks. It's just a question of what kind of suck we want.
Which begs the question: What kind of suck do I want?
I don't know, but I think I'll lean toward the Sith advisor over the Sith General that I believe will follow as the next nominee.
Of course, we could trust in our opposition party's use of the fillibuster, but I see that as already compromised.
I hesitate to say that I think she is the best under the circumstances.
Why didn't he nominate Arnie?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
1) Bush, in stating that she's not going to "legislate from the bench", has a very ambiguous meaning. My interpretation is that she's not going to legislate as he sees previous courts as doing, meaning she's going to overturn Roe v Wade if appointed. At this point (with Roberts already in after refusing to reveal all records), I think this is what Bush would like to achieve most through his appointments.
Note: This is another victory for the Bush administration's war against transparency. After he leaves office, should any other party find themselves in the White House, they are going to have a positive field day with the lowered-bar precedents set by this administration.
2) However, with conservatives already up-in-arms over her nomination and the "liberal media" explaining how he thinks it "better than him going through a long search for an acceptable ideologue", this simply sets it up for him to appoint someone more Ashcroft-esque.
BONUS: Long deliberations will take away attention from the poop-stew the guy's already swimming in.
In other words, not that I like her, but the question is whether she is better than anyone else BUSH WILL nominate?
So, it basically sucks. It's just a question of what kind of suck we want. |
The conservatives have always worried about getting soutered again, so nobody can be entirely confident what anyone's agenda will be once on the bench. But instead of trying to look through the prism of ideology, Bush might try to select someone of such intellectual caliber as well as ethical fiber that the final product on the Supreme Court would be a nominee even liberals could grudgingly respect (a sort of SCOTUS version of McCain). However, the likelihood of Bush making a careful selection of prime candidates assembled from lists given by right-wing think-tanks (the respected ones) in preference to simply rewarding someone for their dogged loyalty is fairly low. So, I have to agree with Nowhere Man, it basically sucks, although my explanation is a little different.
One thing, I think a long deliberation will high-light the so-called 'poop-stew' of Bush's early lame duck administration position and thus may at least be advantageous for Democrats to pull out if they have the power to do so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
One word for anyone who doubts it could be much worse, or, so to speak, more Sith-like:
Bork |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let me make this simple: he's down. Kick him. Hard. And repeatedly. Start the process now of setting up the next election to be so lopsided anyone, almost literally anyone, but a rebublican gets in.
Fight everything tooth and and nail. Shout loud and ahrd about every crappy thing that he has done, or his appointees might do. Filibuster her and every subsequent pick into kingdom come. DO NOT SETTLE ANY LONGER!
The time is NOW. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:49 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
OK, EFL,
I understand that, but conservatives aren't buying it.
Kick it, and it will produce one conservatives do approve of.
Gonzales?
Ash himself?
He's president. He gets a SC justice. He's won the fair and square contest.
I doubt that we can kick for better.
Of course, we can very easily kick for worse... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:54 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
He's president. He gets a SC justice. He's won the fair and square contest.
I doubt that we can kick for better. |
Oh, c'mon! He's pres, give him what he wants? BS. These fights have been won before. I have a very bad feeling about this woman. She will be a disaster on the bench. Fight for better. And of course there is better out there. Fight hard enough and they'll have to compromise. She's not a compromise, she's a Bush family pet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 8:07 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
The compromise has already been set up to be a compromise with the GOP.
Of course, we don't determine what's about to happen.
What I'm saying is that we will further compromise ourselves.
Are you so sure that blocking her will bring a better candidate? or the proper ideologue the GOP is whining about?
On the plus side, it's the 21st Century. Outlawing abortion will backfire in a way even the Flying Spaghetti Monster cannot foresee. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
well he's getting reemed by the right-wing, which is interesting. They're accusing him of cronyism. Wow guys, didn't realize that was going on until now. 
That's the only good part. Alas, I think the woman could a nightmare for those of us who lean towards the left. She is the great unknown. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
All you need do is look at how Roberts is handling the assisted suicide case.
He's showing preferential treatement to the administration already, and aggressively so.
No, the opposition needs to identify a candidate and get that person on the bench. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Will Harriet Miers vote to overturn Bush's conspiracy conviction?
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/7/2005/1222In
TWENTY-TWO (22) FEDERAL INDICTMENTS SAID TO BE REVEALED WITHIN DAYS; MAY NAME GEORGE W. BUSH, RICHARD CHENEY AND SCORES OF OTHERS!
Charges allegedly include Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, Complicity in Terror Attacks of 9-11, Election fraud from the year 2000 Presidential Election, more Election Fraud from the 2004 Presidential Election, violation of Intelligence Agent Identity Protection Act (Valerie Plame) and more Sources close to the federal Grand Jury in Chicago say that after the top 22 Indictments are released, upwards of another 100 Indictments of high ranking U.S. Officials, including members of Congress and of the Supreme Court may be named!
SPECULATION: Bush to step down in Mid November?!?!
FEARS: U.S. government may be overthrown by population completely outraged at stolen elections and rampant criminal activities. They are right to fear such a thing!
UPDATE 11:49 PM: Main stream media FINALLY admits indictments pending - won't say who may be indicted. . . . . .!
Click Here
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051006/pl_nm/bush_leak_dc_1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Who is Harriet Miers?
Tuesday :: Oct 4, 2005
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/005630.php
Posse and Harriet: The real reason that Bush picked Miers
... that there may be a connection to Bush's recent, alarming plans for getting around the Posse Commitatus Act of 1878, which ...
passed in 1878 after the end of Reconstruction, and was intended to prohibit Federal troops from supervising elections in former Confederate states.
It generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or the Congress. Coupled with the Insurrection Act, the powers of the Federal government to use the US military for law enforcement are limited.
Miers Briefed Bush On Bin Laden Memo
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001221205
Miers Was Fixer For Dubya's Nat'l Guard Records Purge
http://www.globalnewsmatrix.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2835 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
Will Harriet Miers vote to overturn Bush's conspiracy conviction?
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/7/2005/1222In
TWENTY-TWO (22) FEDERAL INDICTMENTS SAID TO BE REVEALED WITHIN DAYS; MAY NAME GEORGE W. BUSH, RICHARD CHENEY AND SCORES OF OTHERS!
Charges allegedly include Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, Complicity in Terror Attacks of 9-11, Election fraud from the year 2000 Presidential Election, more Election Fraud from the 2004 Presidential Election, violation of Intelligence Agent Identity Protection Act (Valerie Plame) and more Sources close to the federal Grand Jury in Chicago say that after the top 22 Indictments are released, upwards of another 100 Indictments of high ranking U.S. Officials, including members of Congress and of the Supreme Court may be named!
SPECULATION: Bush to step down in Mid November?!?!
FEARS: U.S. government may be overthrown by population completely outraged at stolen elections and rampant criminal activities. They are right to fear such a thing!
UPDATE 11:49 PM: Main stream media FINALLY admits indictments pending - won't say who may be indicted. . . . . .!
Click Here
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051006/pl_nm/bush_leak_dc_1 |
Just a little over-hyped, don't you think? See below:
| Quote: |
| Fitzgerald could announce plea agreements, bring indictments, or conclude that no crime was committed. |
I'd love it, but seriously... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
