Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone_Slothrop
If you think this has a snowball's chance in Kona of happening, you should meet up with Not Me and her friends at the Radisson. Don't promise to move to Wyoming unless you're clear on what you're getting into, though.

An Ivory Tower liberal like youself trying to ground me into reality.

The end is definitely near.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
All you damn heathen liberals look the same. You can't expect the civilized Rs to be able to keep you straight, even if you do label yourselves. Bilmore seems to be referring to your link, not Ty's.

In my little McCarthy-like book, I have Burger in the "independent" column. Is this not correct?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Without getting into the detail of his brief, in a country where 50% of the popualtion is anti-abortion and even more is anti gay rights, is it surprising that an occasional member of one or the other group is nominated for Judge?
How can either be a litmus test?
The man was being an advocate, does that mean he cannot rule impartially?

Well, the man was indeed being an advocate -- but in many of the cases cited, he was not being an advocate for his "client" (the State of Alabama). Instead, Pryor was being a vigorous, unapologetic advocate for one side in the "culture wars". Hell, he unsucessfully petitioned to participate in the oral argument in Lawrence v. Texas (I doubt the Governor asked for that).

I think, Hank, that the "litmus test" is not so much what one's personal views are. It's more a question of whether you think the guy can actually be a neutral and impartial adjudicator of the rights of citizens under the law when the guy has proclaimed such strongly held views about why some any of those "rights" aren't or shouldn't be rights, and why those laws are just plain wrong. I would have a tough time believing that I as a citizen or advocate would get fair and impartial treatment from Pryor if I were on the "wrong" side of a gay rights, women's rights, or civil rights case.

To flip it around a little bit, what do you think social conservatives/Republicans would say if the President of NOW got a law degree and was appointed to the Second Circuit? Or even Hillary Clinton -- who already has the law degree?

Also -- while BB takes his record as indicating that Pryor is a "strict constructionist" (since the term "states rights" has fallen out of favor in recent years) -- it sees to me that when you combine Pryor's stringent social conservatism with the "states rights" issues that he has chosen to be out front on, it suggests a results-oriented approach in which he fights to preserve his "traditional values" behind a Federalist cloak. As an aside regaring results-oriented opportunism -- I mean, really . . . an amicus brief for the Bush campaign in Bush v. Gore? What interest did that serve for the citizens of Alabama? It served Pryor's desire to get where he's gotten.

I sure hope some President-other-than-Bush gets the chance to send Pryor back home in January, 2005.

S_A_M

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yes, but you represented those cases to state that there is a reason and that procreation is the only reason.

No I didn't say it was the only reason and neither did the Supreme Court. Reread my posts and read the court opinions if you have any questions in that regard.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
And I've yet to see you explain why the logic supporting eliminating gender restrictions on marriage also supports numerical limitations.

I have said just the opposite - that eliminating gender restrictions supports not having numerical limitations.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Equal protection treats suspect classes differently than non-suspect lines, such as between 1, 2, 3, 4, and any other number.

Gender is an intermediate scrutiny class whereas religion is a strict scrutiny class. Polygamy is a religious practice to those who engage in it. So bringing up the suspect classes argument only strengthens the case for allowing polygamy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I sure hope some President-other-than-Bush gets the chance to send Pryor back home in January, 2005.

S_A_M

I thought there was some step the senate would have to take to extend his appointment. Will there need to be a positive step to remain, or is a positive step necessary to remove?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
In my little McCarthy-like book, I have Burger in the "independent" column. Is this not correct?

If he is a Democrat, he is surely not a liberal. No one who knows that much antitrust law could _possibly_ be a left-winger nowadays. The trusts have been busted.

S_A_M

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I thought there was some step the senate would have to take to extend his appointment. Will there need to be a positive step to remain, or is a positive step necessary to remove?

Absent confirmation, his recess appointment expires at the end of the Senate's next session. U.S. Const. Art II, Sec. 2.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The trusts have been busted.

Typing this from your apple/linux computer, using netscape or safari?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Absent confirmation, his recess appointment expires at the end of the Senate's next session. U.S. Const. Art II, Sec. 2.

Yes. I was just speaking colorfully. (And if the President were to oppose the confirmation, hard to believe it would get through.)

S_A_M

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
In my little McCarthy-like book, I have Burger in the "independent" column. Is this not correct?

It may be correct, but in the world of "if you aren't with me, you are against me" Burger is a big honkin' liberal in the eyes of conservatives.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Absent confirmation, his recess appointment expires at the end of the Senate's next session. U.S. Const. Art II, Sec. 2.

Can Ashcroft/Bush issue one of them Gephardt x'cutive orders to block this expiration?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Typing this from your apple/linux computer, using netscape or safari?

Hmmm. I was referring to how the days of the Progressive Party have long passed. Besides, the government won those cases and Microsoft lost, right?

The EU may well give MS much more trouble soon.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It may be correct, but in the world of "if you aren't with me, you are against me" Burger is a big honkin' liberal in the eyes of conservatives.

I wish you were both with me and against me fringe. But burger is the Jefords of the board. We both trying to win him over.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Besides, the government won those cases and Microsoft lost, right?

Um, I guess.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
But burger is the Jefords of the board.

Dude, I'm Rule 11.