Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
NARAL and NOW don't speak for me. I know a fair number of liberals and I can say with confidence they don't speak for them, either. They are out there. Does Mullah Dobson speak for you?

If the Dems in the Senate do that it is stupid. Hear me loud and clear - if the Dems administer a pro-Roe litmus test, it will be the stupidest thing they can do. Far beyond the tactical issues, it also would be overstepping the bounds of what I believe the Senate should do in its advice and consent role, and I think the Republicans will drive a truck through that hole.

Hell, it's not even an issue. Stevens, Bryer, Ginsburg, Souter and Kennedy still are going to beat out Scalia, Thomas, new guy, and the player to be named later on overturning Roe. It's when one of the first five retire (or dies, whichever comes first) that we're in for that fight. One hopes that's after 2008.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I am not against community service sentences for attempted abortion or even, maybe, in some cases, for women who procure successful abortions.

Attempted abortion? Have you lost your fucking mind? Think about how that sounds. Think of the implications. Think of the ludicrous prosecutorial abuse. Think of the absurd expansion of such statutes into invol manslaughter statutes. Why? Why would you even consider toppling the apple cart like this? For waht? To tear the republic apart at the seams over an isssue which ought to never be discussed outside a doc's office? WTF is the matter with you?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The Dems should ask questions and seek a full hearing. They should be respectful and professional, and honor him as the public servant he is (sort of like the Repubs are doing with... oh, never mind).

They should not take him to task over arguments he has made in briefs, where he was asserting a position as counsel for a client. Nor should they push to get dox. that are subject to the atty-client privilege.

And they almost certainly should not filibuster, unless something no one currently knows about comes to light.

In other words, they should treat the hearing like a hearing, not like an opportunity to make a speech or score points. Hopefully the Repubs will allow that, and will do the same.

Your friends at the DLC seem to agree with you:

=============================================
THE NEW DEM DISPATCH, July 20, 2005
Political commentary & analysis from the DLC =============================================
[ New Democrats Online: http://www.ndol.org ]

Roberts: Time For a Judicious Attitude

In naming John Roberts Jr. to replace Sandra Day O'Conner on the
Supreme Court, President Bush disappointed and disarmed activists on
both sides who were ready to launch an immediate ideological battle.
But that doesn't mean Roberts will elude close scrutiny.

Democratic legal journalist Jeffrey Rosen has described Roberts as
a "principled conservative" who would not follow Justices Antonin
Scalia and Clarence Thomas into right-wing judicial activism. But
his very brief judicial career, following two decades as a litigator
and a prosecutor, actually makes Roberts' judicial philosophy a bit
of a mystery. The assumption that he will closely emulate Chief
Justice William Rehnquist, for whom he once clerked, may or may not
be accurate.

That's why the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Roberts are
actually quite important, aside from the predictable partisan to-and- fro of any procedure involving a Bush administration nominee in
these polarized times. We're pleased that Senate Democrats, led by
Sen. Harry Reid, have adopted a judicious attitude towards this
nomination, refusing to take a position until Roberts' record and
philosophy become clearer. They appear to be taking the long view,
in which Democrats can best influence the Supreme Court by winning
elections to the Senate and the White House, which means their
demeanor in this confirmation process must be focused on how it
plays with an electorate abundantly tired of inside-the-beltway
warfare.

Certainly the future of the Supreme Court, and of our constitutional
law, are worth fighting for if it comes to that, but Democrats, in
this as in every other decision, must pick and choose the fights
that really involve fundamental principle rather than reflexive
partisanship.

Related Material:

Sen. Harry Reid's Floor Statement on the Nomination of John Roberts
to the Supreme Court, July 20, 2005: <http://reid.senate.gov/record2.cfm?id=241027>

----
Link to this edition of the New Dem Dispatch on the Web:
"Roberts: Time For a Judicious Attitude" <http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cont...=131&subid=192>
----

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Then why are you accusing me of "making retarded jokes"?

Oh, I know -- you are insane.




No, it's not. She was in "a persistent vegetative state." "Vegetable" is a common shorthand for that.

"Veggie" or "carrot" are pejorative and insulting, and when used just to piss you off, as I've been doing, perfectly appropriate.

It's pejorative and insensitive. it's as inappropriate in the manner used as using "fag" or "nigger" to "piss someone off". I know a lot of liberals who talk about anti-bias and prejudice and political correctness, but apparently showng bias or prejudice or political incorrecness is okay as long as the liberals are doing it in a setting or context that they deem okay. Congrats on the hypocrasy of modern day Demo liberalism.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch



And then the court said.

So a court can never be wrong. How about the 100s of convicted murderers in Illinois who had their death sentences commuted? How about the numerous instances where death row inmates have been pardoned and released? Is that because the Court didn't make a mistake? How about Bush v. Gore?

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

What life? She had zero chance of ever recovering even a minimal level of consciousness. She was dead but for our technical ability to ram nutrients into her.

I am not a MD (just a JD) and neither are you. some medical experts disputed this. Again, I would err on the side of life.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch



Ooooh, good one. Put husband in quotes. After all, he's really a cold, callous murderer. I suppose it was his moral obligation to remain at her bedside for a few decades until Bill Frist mdae a different tele-diagnosis.

His behaviour speaks for itself.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I think that you should adopt a severely disabled child. I'm sure it wouldn't take much googling to find a website that would facilitate this.


Until you do that, stop making decisions for people who can't handle doing so either.

.

I am not making decisions for anyone. If you want to go adopt go for it.

When it comes to protecting rights of the living, even unborn living, I don't know that we do a value test. Taking the life of person, whether severely disabled, or not, is murder. I am saying that protections should be extended to unborn life, regardless of a similar valuation.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I need more analysis than that. What are the penalties for people who perform abortions but are not licensed doctors? You can't take away licenses they don't have. Do you have a bunch of incarcerated preggos (if the abortion doesn't take, and they are convicted of attempted abortion)? Or have them doing community service at 8 months, or after the kid is born -- which would take them away from any children they might have? Way to encourage strong families.

I need a well-thought-out plan from you, not just some pie-in-the-sky crap about how something is "bad" or "wrong."

Kid in Texas who helped his girlfriend, at her request, have a miscarriage is facing several years behind bars. Dunno if that helps in the analysis or no...

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
If the woman convicted of getting an abortion (or trying) already has several children, what happens to them? If she was unsuccessful in the unmonitored, held to no medical standard abortion, but the fetus was damaged, who takes care of that kid? It'd have to be foster care, right, or is termination of parental rights part and parcel of the conviction.

That is an irrelevant question. People, mothers and fathers, with children get arrested and convicted and go to jail/prison every day. Or are you telling me that there is a parental get out of jail free exception?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
. . . We on the left . . . We can get our crazies to the bargaining table. Can you bring yours?

*sniff* It's now we. It's so beautiful....

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
That is an irrelevant question. People, mothers and fathers, with children get arrested and convicted and go to jail/prison every day. Or are you telling me that there is a parental get out of jail free exception?

Only if you are whatstheirfaces from Enron.

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I am not making decisions for anyone. If you want to go adopt go for it.

When it comes to protecting rights of the living, even unborn living, I don't know that we do a value test. Taking the life of person, whether severely disabled, or not, is murder. I am saying that protections should be extended to unborn life, regardless of a similar valuation.

This might be my first and last post here. Frankly, you all frighten me. I liked you much better when my only view into your heads was on the FB. Anyway, does this mean you are also against capital punishment too? I am just a simpleton, but it has always struck me how both liberals and conservatives have seemingly inconsistent positions on both issues.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
His behaviour speaks for itself.

When you do the English spelling thing, I get this picture of a campy, foppish right winger. I'm picturing a Graham Norton crossed with Tucker Carlson and Bill Bennett. You're doing fruity and angry at the same time. You cheeky bitch.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Attempted abortion? Have you lost your fucking mind? Think about how that sounds. Think of the implications. Think of the ludicrous prosecutorial abuse. Think of the absurd expansion of such statutes into invol manslaughter statutes. Why? Why would you even consider toppling the apple cart like this? For waht? To tear the republic apart at the seams over an isssue which ought to never be discussed outside a doc's office? WTF is the matter with you?

I don't disagree. I fell into fringey's trap. I know little about criminal law, other than faded memories, and nothing about sentencing statutes.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Kid in Texas who helped his girlfriend, at her request, have a miscarriage is facing several years behind bars. Dunno if that helps in the analysis or no...

That's about right.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Only if you are whatstheirfaces from Enron.

Irrelevant. I have no ducks in that pond. Once upon a time I knew someone who worked there. Major geek, in the not so good way. Probably a closeted liberal too.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Flinty_McFlint
This might be my first and last post here. Frankly, you all frighten me. I liked you much better when my only view into your heads was on the FB. Anyway, does this mean you are also against capital punishment too? I am just a simpleton, but it has always struck me how both liberals and conservatives have seemingly inconsistent positions on both issues.

I am against the death penalty. I used to be fully pro-choice and pro death penalty.

Now I am pro-limited abortion and anti-death penalty.

does that make you feel better? I give good foot massage. nttawwt.