posted on July 20, 2005 10:51:36 AM new
The Federalist Patriot:
The Demo-Gogues:
It's all about ideology:
"I will not prejudge this nomination [of Judge John Roberts]. The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry. The Senate must review Judge Roberts' record to determine if he has a demonstrated commitment to the core American values of freedom, equality and fairness." --Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid ++
"I look forward to the committee's findings so that I can make an informed decision about whether Judge Roberts is truly a guardian of the rule of law who puts fairness and justice before ideology." --Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton Rodham ++
My, how times have changed: "A resumè is no substitute for answering questions about whether the nominee respects the basic rights and freedoms on which the nation was founded." --Ted Kennedy
BUT:
**"At Thurgood Marshall's 1967 Supreme Court confirmation hearing, a young Sen. Edward Kennedy lectured his colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, saying it was not their responsibility to question a nominee's judicial philosophy, only to ascertain his legal credentials and qualifications." --Jill Zuckman, Chicago Tribune. ++
"The burden is on a nominee to the Supreme Court to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove he is unworthy." --Chuck Schumer
-----------
Shows how out-of-touch and what hypocrites the far lefties are. But no surprise there....everyone certainly expected the hard left would have different standards they expect to be met when it's not their side.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 20, 2005 10:54:48 AM new
Yes, here again , the Pro-dictatorship, communist based, fascist leaning neocons are in seventh heaven
They're so lucky because you don't need a brain when the government controls you completely
[ edited by mingotree on Jul 20, 2005 10:56 AM ]
posted on July 20, 2005 10:56:31 AM new
Then there's what the President really said:\
"A nominee to [the Supreme] Court must be a person of superb credentials and the highest integrity, a person who will faithfully apply the Constitution and keep our founding promise of equal justice under law. [i]I have found such a person in Judge John Roberts. ...He will strictly apply the Constitution and laws -- not legislate from the bench." --President George W. Bush
++"Judge Roberts is the kind of outstanding nominee that will make America proud. He embodies the qualities America expects in a justice on its highest court -- [b]someone who is fair, intelligent, impartial and committed to faithfully interpreting the Constitution and the law." --Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
++ "Fidelity to the original intent of the Constitution must be the sole ideological criterion used to evaluate any nominee. Everything else is noise. Originalism alone produces a body of law evincing the will of America's citizenry." --Steven Geoffrey Gieseler
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 20, 2005 11:00:28 AM new
LindaK I sincerely hope you get what you're asking for and are young enough to enjoy the fruits of the Republican 's labor.
I am so old that I shall not have to watch the destruction of America for very long
But I can see that YOU will enjoy it thoroughly....until it affects you directly.
Now go back to C&Ping since obviously you have no original thoughts of your own....a very safe position to be in in future America.
posted on July 20, 2005 11:08:52 AM new
Yes, it will be WONDERFUL to return to a government where the courts don't MAKE legislation....once again. The USSC won't be making decisions that aren't based on ANY laws/legislation...but rather what some judge/group of judges decided. We'll finally get back to how our Constitution was originally set up. For there to be three DIFFERENT branches of government.....not the courts making legislation.
And I see that you don't mention all helen's copy and pastes from her progressive/hard left sites. Oh....but I understand....in YOUR eyes that's so different. LOL LOL LOL
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 20, 2005 02:18:26 PM new
Quote: "Even in red states, parents may not spare much enthusiasm for a judge who would lock up their 12 year old for public consumption of McDonald's fries."
Helen, somehow you always manage to leave out and twist the important parts of an incident to prove YOUR point.
On the french fry case. Eating a french fry in the metro subway was illegal and the police arrested someone for performing an illegal act.
And,
However, Roberts wrote, the question that came before him and his two fellow judges was not whether Metro’s policies on enforcing a rule of no eating in its transit system were a good idea.
What came before him on an appeal from a District Court ruling was simply whether Metro’s policies violated Ansche’s constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
The Court of Appeals, he wrote, concluded that they did not.
And the other judges agreed.
Judge Roberts locked up NO ONE.
[ edited by etexbill on Jul 20, 2005 02:20 PM ]
[ edited by etexbill on Jul 20, 2005 02:25 PM ]
[ edited by etexbill on Jul 20, 2005 02:27 PM ]
posted on July 20, 2005 02:39:53 PM new
That quote, taken from this paragraph does not mean that Judge Roberts literally locked the child up but rather that his decision supported that action. The police of course arrested the child.
Perhaps most telling is Roberts' brief track record on the federal bench on individual rights, a threshold issue not just for the left but conservative libertarians. A few years back, Washington, DC police arrested a child for eating a single french fry on the Metro, during a zero-tolerance crackdown on subway-rule violators. Arrrested her, handcuffed her, fingerprinted her, threw her in the back of a squad car and held that 12-year old in lockup for three hours. The child's mother sensibly pointed out in a lawsuit that an adult committing the same offense would have been issued a ticket, not treated like a dangerous felon. Judge Roberts rejected the mother's plea for sanity: arresting a 12 year old like a suspect on Cops for eating on the subway, Roberts wrote, advanced "the legitimate goal of promoting parental awareness and involvement with children who commit delinquent acts." Even in red states, parents may not spare much enthusiasm for a judge who would lock up their 12 year old for public consumption of McDonald's fries.
posted on July 20, 2005 02:55:21 PM new
That's the way helen always presents the issues...never telling the whole story.
From today's Washington Post
As a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Roberts wrote a decision last year upholding the arrest of a 12-year-old girl who violated the ban on eating food on Washington's subway system, Metro.
But Roberts said that while the arrest was legal, he felt transit officers overreacted by handcuffing and jailing the girl.
"No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation," he wrote. "Her shoelaces were removed, and she was transported in the windowless rear compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing center, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and detained until released to her mother some three hours later _ all for eating a single french fry."
Still, Roberts agreed with a lower court ruling upholding the arrest "The District court described the policies that led to her arrest as 'foolish,' and indeed the policies were changed after those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry," he wrote.
"The question before us, however, is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Like the District court, we conclude that they did not, and accordingly we affirm."
Two months after the arrest, and following a torrent of bad publicity, the transit agency revised its policy and said that children under 18 who committed minor offenses would instead be enrolled in a program run in cooperation with school authorities and other city officials.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence[/i]." --Ann Coulter And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 20, 2005 03:06 PM ]
Linda, That paragraph was included in an article that I posted on the previous page. Your information adds nothing to the facts presented by that author other than to quote an effort by Roberts to explain this controversial ruling.. It's interesting that you neglected to bold his entire statement.
"The District court described the policies that led to her arrest as 'foolish,' and indeed the policies were changed after those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry," he wrote.
posted on July 20, 2005 03:29:40 PM new
No, helen I included it in the WashPost article.
Because you constantly post from all these hard-core leftist sites....which only give one side of the stories they're covering....give people a totally FALSE impression of how Judge Robert's actually ruled....and the reasons for that. BUT when people have the WHOLE story....can see why he ruled the way he did.....then they get a more 'rounded' perspective of the man....rather than the FALSE impression YOU try to give him.
That's why I'm always pointing out your links are ususally from the hard core left.....and aren't fair evaluations of any situation they write about.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 20, 2005 03:52:01 PM new
It's interesting that you neglected to bold his entire statement.
"The District court described the policies that led to her arrest as 'foolish,' and indeed the policies were changed after those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry," he wrote.
Nice try again, Helen. But I see that statement in Linda's post, bold or not what difference.
[ edited by etexbill on Jul 20, 2005 03:52 PM ]
[ edited by etexbill on Jul 20, 2005 03:53 PM ]
Linda, you have ranted about nearly every major newspaper in the United States including the New York Times and the Washington Post...calling them "liberal". Now, you use the Washington Post in your defense of Roberts. The Nation, in which my article was published is not hard core "leftist". Neither are other papers that I use including the Washington Post and the New York Times. Neither are they liberal.
You certainly can't claim that your links to Fox news and other right wing rags are unbiased, now, can you? And for those here who are familiar with how you fudge a story, this exchange will be very humorous.
Tex...Give it a rest. You are making a fool of yourself. Linda bolds anything that supports her thinking while leaving the portion that is really meaningful not bold.
Of course that part of Robert's statement was included in the article that she copied! But it wasn't bold, like the rest of his statement.
Ask yourself, if this was a part of Robert's explanation, why didn't she make it bold too?
posted on July 20, 2005 04:00:32 PM new
I purposely used the Washington POST just for YOU helen. Because you think the other accepted media sources are rags....
You tried to SMEAR Judge Robert's with your hard-core, left wing NATION article. Few besides yourself would consider them or the NYT, WP to NOT be liberal media.
Guess only the Moscow Times might fit your description of a liberal newspaper.
Leaving out the most important parts of Judge Robert's statement on that case....makes it look other than it really is....as was your intent....and as it always is.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 20, 2005 04:04:40 PM new
LOL the portion that's really meaningful....
Are you deaf, dumb AND blind.....
the court case, and what was "meaningful" was:
"The question before us, however, pis not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Like the District court, we conclude that they did not, and accordingly we affirm."
GET A CLUE, helen. THAT's what the case was about no matter what YOU think is "meaningful".
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 20, 2005 04:05:00 PM new
"That quote, taken from this paragraph does not mean that Judge Roberts literally locked the child up but rather that his decision supported that action."
Again with the twisting of facts. No his actions had nothing to do with supporting locking up the child, but whether it violated her civil rights or not.
He himself, agreed that locking her up in that manner was "foolish".
Linda...I did not leave anything out. I posted the ENTIRE article. The AUTHOR of that article was apparently not interested in making excuses for the conservative right wing Judge John Roberts.
It's so funny...when YOU are trying to be fair and balanced. LOLOL!
posted on July 20, 2005 04:21:01 PM new
Yes, helen, obviously the NATION author wasn't interested in being fair and giving all of Judge Robert's quotes. They, like YOU, don't ever give the FULL story....and that's why I've mentioned they're totally UNFAIR...and BIASED...because they and you are!!!
But it wasn't the author of this Nation article that was choosing to focus on the WRONG subject matter. YOU choose to focus on a young girl, who broke the law and whose mother tried to sue the Metro.
Whether or not the police handled it properly she still had broken the law.
And as the circuit Judge ruled...and Judge Robert's re-affirmed....her 'right's weren't violated.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 20, 2005 04:57:48 PM new
Linda cut the crap about being unfair. It's hypocritical of you to play the role of someone who is fair and balanced... a stance that you seldom take unless it serves one of your radical right goals.
You say, "But it wasn't the author of this Nation article that was choosing to focus on the WRONG subject matter. YOU choose to focus on a young girl, who broke the law and whose mother tried to sue the Metro."
ABSOLUTELY WRONG. I posted the entire article and your buddy, Tex questioned the paragraph in which the author described this episode. Read the article, linda and the thread. I did not comment on any part of the article until tex questioned it. He chose to focus on THAT case. You both need help in reading comprehension.
posted on July 20, 2005 05:22:39 PM new
Gee, tex. It looks like I have you and linda all in a dither. Since I don't post "twisted facts and untrue statements", you will have an impossible job, tex.
I advise you to calm down and survey the territory before you make a bigger fool of yourself than you already have. You and linda are just two blinkered twits in my opinion.
posted on July 20, 2005 05:30:21 PM new "I'm baaaack. There was no "manifesto". I stated that I would not be posting again because of the politics"
I could post several other statements that would lead most reasonable people to believe that you don't like discussing politics..So, I have to wonder, are you really enjoying your time spent here discussing politics?
posted on July 20, 2005 06:00:51 PM new
I'm really enjoying my time keeping you on the straight and narrow.
Just can't take it when somebody proves you to be stretching and bending the truth.
You can post your little savings all you want Helen, it doesn't keep you from being what you are. A dyed in the wool liberal, who should thank her lucky stars she lives in this country that she hates so badly. In most countries, you would be so far back in the salt mines, or under house arrest, or disappeared completely, that you would never utter another word, especially stretching or bending the truth to make your point against your government and anyone who doesn't meet your approval.
Go back and read this thread and realize what is going down here.
You have been proven wrong several times and everyone knows it.
twit. You haven't proven anything but your inability to read and reason. You failed to comprehend the article that I posted and then made a fool of yourself. I'm not sorry about that. It's your problem, not mine.
