Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Penske_Account]

Sen. Mike DeWine, who met with President Bush's latest high court choice earlier Tuesday, warned Democrats he would side with GOP leaders to eliminate the judicial filibuster if the minority party uses it against the New Jersey judge.

DeWine is a Republican who was formerly one of the 7 RiNOs in the Gang of 14. Things are not looking good for the demos here. Odds are McCain and Lindsay Graham will be contrained to support the President and Frist will have the votes to go nucular. Woo hoo. And Chafee, Snowe and Collins can go fuck themselves or each other.

Meanwhile, Operation: Rescue declared that the country was on "the fast-track to derailing Roe v. Wade as the law of the land." Indeed.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account


DeWine is a Republican who was formerly one of the 7 RiNOs in the Gang of 14. Things are not looking good for the demos here.

I doubt that the Dems would filibuster Alito anyway. Why create a train wreck when the result won't change?

I would imagine that they'd be better served by using the hearings and the debate to make clear that what Alito wants, and what Your GOP wants, is to dismantle Roe (plus any other precedents that become the focus of the hearings). Period.

If you like that result, well, then today's a good day for you. If you don't, you'll probably want to remember that in 2006 and 2008. It's that simple.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I doubt that the Dems would filibuster Alito anyway. Why create a train wreck when the result won't change?

I would imagine that they'd be better served by using the hearings and the debate to make clear that what Alito wants, and what Your GOP wants, is to dismantle Roe (plus any other precedents that become the focus of the hearings). Period.

If you like that result, well, then today's a good day for you. If you don't, you'll probably want to remember that in 2006 and 2008. It's that simple.

Why do you think that poses any risks in 06 or 08? Did you listen to what W said in either 00 or 04 regarding the type of judges he would appoint to SCotUS? There was already a referendum on this.

Further, we went through polls on this a few weeks ago. The American people support laws that require parental consent and notification for minors seeking abortions. They also support regulation of partial birth abortions. Those are the cases that are coming that will erode Casey's and Roe's effect and, of course, employing the Ginsgburg strategy, Alito won't be able to comment on those cases.

Finally, much like Roberts did on day one of his hearings, Alito will come armed with and employ his vastly superior intellect against the dimwitted demo leadership of Kennedy, Biden and Boxer and Americans will leave once again with an impression of what a sorry group of intellectually and morally devoid losers the effette faux intellectual elitists of the ivy tower urban centers of the blue states foist upon the nation.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I doubt that the Dems would filibuster Alito anyway. Why create a train wreck when the result won't change?

ps: YOu also, obviously, did not read the AP article I posted the link to. The demo (no)braintrust is already heading toward trainwreckville (and are supported by the looney leftists over at the leading liberal thinkthank, the DU).

But some Democrats were contemplating just such a move as the 55-year-old Alito began courting senators on the second day of his Supreme Court candidacy.

"The filibuster's on the table," Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California said after Bush announced that the U.S. Appeals Court judge was his pick to replace his previous unsuccessful choice

As a civil libertarian (but not a democrat), I often wonder why the douchebags and blunderheads who devise campaign strategy do not focus on the Supreme Court nominations. As far as am concerned, with ehe exception of wars and shit, there isn't that much diff between the dems and repubs, except on civil liberties. I would think that the number of people in this country who would be scared shitless by a menacing ad featuring dark stalky shadows infiltrating bedrooms for example, would haev been nice, Willie Horton like imagery to make people realize how fucking scary itis that Bushie is president while the Supremes are dying off. This is the primary reason I have voted democrat since the nienties. I don't recall hearing Kerry talk much about it and it is probably the only area of my life that could be personally affected by the govt (ie gay marriage ban- I have a gay cousin, abortion, affirm action, etc).

Would the electoral vote thing that is skewed towards racists and rednecks have prevented this from even mattering? Florida has some thikning people, but they are probalby more concerned about medicare and social security and are probably racist, homophobic old coots anyway. I know all the free thinkingers leave CLeveland and Detroit. Could it have mattered?

Just a thought. I retird from following politics after Clinton's first go round bc of all the dogma and bullshit, but I did work for both George the First and Clinton on their campaigns, as well as for Dick Blumenthal, so I used to care a little. Now I jsut watch the daily show.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
As a civil libertarian (but not a democrat), I often wonder why the douchebags and blunderheads who devise campaign strategy do not focus on the Supreme Court nominations. As far as am concerned, with ehe exception of wars and shit, there isn't that much diff between the dems and repubs, except on civil liberties. I would think that the number of people in this country who would be scared shitless by a menacing ad featuring dark stalky shadows infiltrating bedrooms for example, would haev been nice, Willie Horton like imagery to make people realize how fucking scary itis that Bushie is president while the Supremes are dying off. This is the primary reason I have voted democrat since the nienties. I don't recall hearing Kerry talk much about it and it is probably the only area of my life that could be personally affected by the govt (ie gay marriage ban- I have a gay cousin, abortion, affirm action, etc).

Would the electoral vote thing that is skewed towards racists and rednecks have prevented this from even mattering? Florida has some thikning people, but they are probalby more concerned about medicare and social security and are probably racist, homophobic old coots anyway. I know all the free thinkingers leave CLeveland and Detroit. Could it have mattered?

Just a thought. I retird from following politics after Clinton's first go round bc of all the dogma and bullshit, but I did work for both George the First and Clinton on their campaigns, as well as for Dick Blumenthal, so I used to care a little. Now I jsut watch the daily show.

2. It is a breath of fresh air to have some new free thinking perspective here rather than the tired old cliched cat poop from some of regulars, except I can't endorse your comment about Detroit. Hank is a free thinkinger type and I am almost positive he lives in or around Detroit. Also, I co-invented the MotorCityBagel.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
ps: YOu also, obviously, did not read the AP article I posted the link to.

Nope. But I do appreciate knowing that AP wires are within your linked oeuvre. Perhaps next time I'll have sufficient courage to try it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
As a civil libertarian (but not a democrat), I often wonder why the douchebags and blunderheads who devise campaign strategy do not focus on the Supreme Court nominations. As far as am concerned, with ehe exception of wars and shit, there isn't that much diff between the dems and repubs, except on civil liberties. I would think that the number of people in this country who would be scared shitless by a menacing ad featuring dark stalky shadows infiltrating bedrooms for example, would haev been nice, Willie Horton like imagery to make people realize how fucking scary itis that Bushie is president while the Supremes are dying off. This is the primary reason I have voted democrat since the nienties. I don't recall hearing Kerry talk much about it and it is probably the only area of my life that could be personally affected by the govt (ie gay marriage ban- I have a gay cousin, abortion, affirm action, etc).

Would the electoral vote thing that is skewed towards racists and rednecks have prevented this from even mattering? Florida has some thikning people, but they are probalby more concerned about medicare and social security and are probably racist, homophobic old coots anyway. I know all the free thinkingers leave CLeveland and Detroit. Could it have mattered?

Just a thought. I retird from following politics after Clinton's first go round bc of all the dogma and bullshit, but I did work for both George the First and Clinton on their campaigns, as well as for Dick Blumenthal, so I used to care a little. Now I jsut watch the daily show.

Welcome to the PB. And while i will respond substantively, I wanted to note that if you were a newber like me posting on your home, the FB, several posters would flyspeck your post to identify a spelling error, and then critcize you for the error. I'm sure you will find it more refreshing here.

One thing, and it is a truly bothersome thing, is that a majority of people still hate fags (in the abstract- even I get bothered by Coltrane-swishing-Mizuno act). Michigan voted for Kerry by several points. that same night 60% of the state voted to ban gay marriage- it's fucked up. Detroit was 90% for Kerry- 65% for the gay ban.

Everyone knew what the election meant to the court- the candidates didn't need to hgihlight it- and the "scary" bush imagery might have actually helped him.

I think Roberts will vote to keep Roe, he promised to follow precedant or whatever- so the sum is still there maybe? plus the new guy was told his position was wrong so maybe he'd accept that? Case isn't overturned until its overturned.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Nope. But I do appreciate knowing that AP wires are within your linked oeuvre. Perhaps next time I'll have sufficient courage to try it.

do you use MS I.E.?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Why do you think that poses any risks in 06 or 08? Did you listen to what W said in either 00 or 04 regarding the type of judges he would appoint to SCotUS? There was already a referendum on this.

As an aside, judging from the campaign commercials and media reports of mid- to late- 2004, I think the referendum was on a variety of things, and "Starting the Counter-Revolution on SCOTUS" was only one of many. "No Dying From A Big Fucking Jihadist Fireball" was somewhere up there too, and I imagine that at least some voters had competing priorities.

I do not predict that this will be a major point of contention in 06 or 08, but the reality is the following: If you want more Scalias and Thomases on the Court, vote Republican. If you don't, and it's important to you, then you'd better not.

Further, we went through polls on this a few weeks ago. The American people support laws that require parental consent and notification for minors seeking abortions.

You do realize that this post closely trails your advocacy piece cheering Roe no longer being law of the land, right?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
If you want more Scalias and Thomases on the Court, vote Republican. If you don't, and it's important to you, then you'd better not.

It's embarassing that lawyers would attempt to dumb down the argument into some type of scare tactic related to Scalia or Thomas. Scalia is one of the great intellectual minds and jurists of his generation and our time and properly sits on the SCotUS. The same might be able to be said for Ginsburg. They represent different judicial and constitutional philosphies but neither's ideology outweighs their credentials.

While the name Alito could replace Scalia in the above sentence, they are not the same person. Alito is not qualified because he is a carbon copy of Scalia, he is qualified because of his intellect and accomplishments. It's an insult to him, SCalia and the Court to insinuate otherwise. Also, it borders on the whole "Scalito" term, and as such, the typical racist bias of the left wing. Congrats on chugging the kool-aide.

Originally posted by Gattigap
that this post closely trails your advocacy piece cheering Roe no longer being law of the land, right?

yes. Once Roe is gone, the states will be more free to regulate partial birth abortion, and require parental consent and notification. Which the American people, except the out of touch looney left, support.

Originally posted by Penske_Account
2. It is a breath of fresh air to have some new free thinking perspective here rather than the tired old cliched cat poop from some of regulars, except I can't endorse your comment about Detroit. Hank is a free thinkinger type and I am almost positive he lives in or around Detroit. Also, I co-invented the MotorCityBagel.

Can I get feedback from something in a gattigap or atticus?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
Can I get feedback from something in a gattigap or atticus?

Atticus got banned for being less than helpful. He posts on the Parents Board now instead.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Welcome to the PB. And while i will respond substantively, I wanted to note that if you were a newber like me posting on your home, the FB, several posters would flyspeck your post to identify a spelling error, and then critcize you for the error. I'm sure you will find it more refreshing here.

One thing, and it is a truly bothersome thing, is that a majority of people still hate fags (in the abstract- even I get bothered by Coltrane-swishing-Mizuno act). Michigan voted for Kerry by several points. that same night 60% of the state voted to ban gay marriage- it's fucked up. Detroit was 90% for Kerry- 65% for the gay ban.

Everyone knew what the election meant to the court- the candidates didn't need to hgihlight it- and the "scary" bush imagery might have actually helped him.

I think Roberts will vote to keep Roe, he promised to follow precedant or whatever- so the sum is still there maybe? plus the new guy was told his position was wrong so maybe he'd accept that? Case isn't overturned until its overturned.

Perhaps Michigan would have gone for Bushie if Kerry elucidated the importance of the Supremes in protecting civil liberties then? Still shows that the point about the SUpremes wasn't driven home. Perhaps an ad about banning affirmative action (black town right?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
It's embarassing that lawyers would attempt to dumb down the argument into some type of scare tactic related to Scalia or Thomas.

This from one whose favorite word is "Dimwits."

Scalia is one of the great intellectual minds and jurists of his generation and our time and properly sits on the SCotUS. The same might be able to be said for Ginsburg. They represent different judicial and constitutional philosphies but neither's ideology outweighs their credentials.

It's not an argument of credentials. (The Miers nomination is over, Penske.) It's an argument over their judicial philosophies. Saying that you don't agree with thier approach doesn't dumb down anything.

While the name Alito could replace Scalia in the above sentence, they are not the same person. Alito is not qualified because he is a carbon copy of Scalia, he is qualified because of his intellect and accomplishments. It's an insult to him, SCalia and the Court to insinuate otherwise. Also, it borders on the whole "Scalito" term, and as such, the typical racist bias of the left wing. Congrats on chugging the kool-aide.

I never said that they were the same person. See above.

Uh-oh. Once Roe is gone, the states will be more free to regulate partial birth abortion, and require parental consent and notification. Which the American people, except the out of touch looney left, support.

We've had the poll discussions before. I even pointed you to citations about the polls, so that you could parse the language of the questions.