From NYT:

Deborah Cook Is the Typical Bush Judicial Nominee — So Watch Out
By ADAM COHEN


The case before the Ohio Supreme Court looked simple enough. Thomas Davis, a forklift operator at an Ohio Wal-Mart, was crushed to death at work. When his widow sued, Wal-Mart fought hard — and its employees may have lied and destroyed evidence. When she learned of the possible deception, Mrs. Davis went to court to try to add an important legal claim. Too bad, Wal-Mart argued. She had missed her chance — even if it did trick her by lying.

As they say in law school, What result?

The predominantly Republican court properly ruled, 6 to 1, that Wal-Mart's legal defense had been bogus. Even if it wasn't, the court held, it would be fundamentally unjust "to reward a party for misrepresenting or destroying evidence." Only one justice took Wal-Mart's side. That justice was Deborah Cook.

She is now President Bush's nominee to fill a vacancy on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati. Ms. Cook is no Miguel Estrada, the so-called conservative "stealth nominee," who is facing a Senate filibuster. Blacks are not rallying against her, the way they are against Charles Pickering, the Trent Lott protégé who lobbied the Justice Department to go easy on a convicted cross-burner. Disabled people are not lined up against her, as they are against Jeffrey Sutton, who argued a major case that weakened the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Deborah Cook, a 51-year-old onetime corporate lawyer from Akron, Ohio, may actually be the most utterly typical of the Bush administration's judicial nominees. Which is why, based on her judicial record, we should all be very worried about the future of the federal courts.

In eight years on the Ohio Supreme Court, Justice Cook has been a steady voice against injured workers, discrimination victims and consumers. The court's most prolific dissenter, she frequently breaks with her Republican colleagues to side with big business and insurance companies. Often she reaches for a harsh legal technicality to send a hapless victim home empty-handed.

Take David Norgard, a beryllium plant worker in Elmore. When he developed skin ulcers, dizziness and coughing fits, he suspected beryllium poisoning, but his company told him he was fine. It didn't tell him his blood tests showed he was unusually sensitive to beryllium — and that it had filed a workers' compensation claim on his behalf. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Norgard could sue, but Justice Cook argued that it was too late. The statute of limitations started running, she said, when he first suspected he was being poisoned, not when he learned his employer was lying about it.

Justice Cook's dissents in age-discrimination cases have taken tortuous paths to leave older workers in the lurch. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that Michael Oker, an attorney fired by Ameritech, could sue for age bias. But Justice Cook disagreed, saying the 180-day period for filing a complaint began not when he was fired, but months before he left the job. The court ruled that Phyllis Ruth Mauzy, a 61-year-old office manager, could proceed against an employer who berated her in front of her colleagues, pressed her to retire and wrote in her final evaluation, "you can't teach an old dog new tricks." But Justice Cook would have thrown the case out before Ms. Mauzy appeared before a jury.

In case after case, Justice Cook has found ways to protect corporations pestered by sick or fired workers. When a bank argued that a jury's sex-discrimination verdict should be thrown out because the judge improperly "steered" the jurors to their result, Justice Cook was the only member of the Ohio Supreme Court to buy it. When a female Dairy Mart employee sued for psychological injuries after she was robbed while working alone, Justice Cook argued, in dissent, that the woman had no claim — a position a majority of the court called "absurd."

At Judge Cook's confirmation hearing, even the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Orrin Hatch, a strong supporter, felt a need to ask her why she dissents so often. It is not, "as has been implied," she said, "a matter of my particular bent or preference for any side of a case." She dissents, she said, when she disagrees about the law.

There were senators who were prepared to explore the matter further. But Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, in an extraordinary move, had scheduled a single confirmation hearing for Justice Cook, Mr. Sutton and a third nominee. Democratic senators devoted most of their question time to Mr. Sutton. Justice Cook was all but ignored. When Senator Charles Schumer asked for her to return for more questions, Senator Hatch refused, saying it would not be fair to Justice Cook.

The Bush administration has a long list of Deborah Cooks — nominees who are not stirring controversy, but who will radically reshape the federal judiciary for a generation. The administration is loading the courts with judges who rule in favor of discriminating companies, abusive bosses and employers who injure their workers and lie about it. And it is counting on the rest of us not to notice.

I would like to see a more objective article about her before I make any further comment ...

edit: Here is an article supporting her: http://www.judicialselection.org/nominees/cook.htm

and one about the selection process:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30306

And now the attacks begin on Cooke.

Here is a response by Law Professor Larry Solum. http://lsolum.blogspot.com/2003_02_01_lsolum_archive.html#89717693

BTW Zman, are you aware that we are just finding out the the lawyer arguing the governments case, on the side of NOW, in NOW v. Shields, is the current nominee under fire, Miguel Estrada.

In this case, Estrada argued, and won, that RICO should be used against anti-abortion protestors. He was assigned the case by the current SG at the time, Mr. Days.

Yes, I guess the arch-conservative can set aside his views, and take on those of his clients.

I agree with Mike, definitely need a more objective look at things.

I think we will have to save it for the Supreme Court nominations. The ability to get circuit judges through, well, if you try to block all of them for political grounds, then you'll never get ones through when it's your President in office.

A co-worker of mine responed to this article...

Terrifying ... they're slashing and burning this country from top to bottom and most people just stick their heads further into their TV guides and watch the latest so-called reality show 'cause true reality is too much to deal with. Thanks for sending.



Unfortunately true....


A more objective article Mike? That doesn't just mean one that supports her.... .

Mr_disco - while the supreme court is the true worry, the number of appeals court, and lower, decissions that don't make it up there, make this kind of appointment just as important, if not more so.

I didn't say the article I posted was objective, just that I wanted to see one.

The article pittspilot posted seems to be written by somone who actually understands the legal issues involved, unlike the NYT one, which is just a typical leftie hatchet job.

:rolleyes: to the eXtreme

Originally posted by Zman
A co-worker of mine responed to this article...

Terrifying ... they're slashing and burning this country from top to bottom and most people just stick their heads further into their TV guides and watch the latest so-called reality show 'cause true reality is too much to deal with. Thanks for sending.


:lol: That's a typical knee-jerk response from someone who just assumes anything bad anyone says about Bush must be true. That's actually worse than apathy IMHO.

Originally posted by Mike Wevrick


:lol: That's a typical knee-jerk response from someone who just assumes anything bad anyone says about Bush must be true. That's actually worse than apathy IMHO.


Except that this particular person is very well informed, and there is very good reason to question everything Bush does, that is, if you care about anyone, or anything, but yourself. We have already established that you are selfish Mikey, so I'm not surprised by your right-wing response.

Originally posted by Zman
A co-worker of mine responed to this article...

Terrifying ... they're slashing and burning this country from top to bottom and most people just stick their heads further into their TV guides and watch the latest so-called reality show 'cause true reality is too much to deal with. Thanks for sending.



Unfortunately true....


A more objective article Mike? That doesn't just mean one that supports her.... .

Mr_disco - while the supreme court is the true worry, the number of appeals court, and lower, decissions that don't make it up there, make this kind of appointment just as important, if not more so.

I see you're from the Bay Area. I'd imagine all your coworkers believe as you do.


There is little sense of reality in the Bay Area.

Originally posted by imprezton


I see you're from the Bay Area. I'd imagine all your coworkers believe as you do.


There is little sense of reality in the Bay Area.


ohhhh..... resorting to that one? What a bold statement.... I hear that reno is the hub of reality:lol: :disco:

Originally posted by Zman
A co-worker of mine responed to this article...they're slashing and burning this country from top to bottom

This is just a ridiculous thing to say. The Bush admin. is not that much different from previous ones. Anyone who says this is not "well informed." (Note: reading NYT op-eds does not make a person well-informed.)

My response was not particularly right-wing. I have no opinion about this judge and no vested interest in her being appointed.

Originally posted by imprezton


I see you're from the Bay Area. I'd imagine all your coworkers believe as you do.


There is little sense of reality in the Bay Area.

San Jose had 5000 show up for its antiwar protest, making it the biggest protest in San Jose's history. Think again about your labels.

Originally posted by mr_disco
San Jose had 5000 show up for its antiwar protest, making it the biggest protest in San Jose's history. Think again about your labels.
You mean the anti-Bush, pro-communist rally?...The very people who overlook human rights abuses and genocidal maniacs, in the name of peace?...These people follow Stalinism and Che Guevera, people who have been guilty of more attrocities than Hitler himself.

Originally posted by Zman
Deborah Cook Is the Typical Bush Judicial Nominee — So Watch Out
By ADAM COHEN
A bush hating liberal.
Ms. Cook is no Miguel Estrada, the so-called conservative "stealth nominee," who is facing a Senate filibuster. Blacks are not rallying against her, the way they are against Charles Pickering, the Trent Lott protégé who lobbied the Justice Department to go easy on a convicted cross-burner. Disabled people are not lined up against her, as they are against Jeffrey Sutton, who argued a major case that weakened the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Mr. Cohen, in his biased literary flourish, is spewing race-baiting lies in order to bolster his manipulative intent...Charles Pickering has been a friend of the black people in Mississippi, as attested to by the brother of slain civil rights leader Medger Evers, and battled the KKK, losing his re-election bid as local prosecutor as a result.

The only reason these leftists don't want conservative nominees in Judicial positions, is because they can't be counted on to distort the Constitution for their left-wing constituency groups and special interests...This is the bottom line.

Outraged, I'm sure at least one of the recovering alcoholics sitting next to you is a Democrat, and maybe one of them is against the war. Maybe if you'd realize that liberals are not worshipping Satan or some weird godless entity, selling baby parts, and plotting the communist overthrow of the government, then you'd be a little less noxious and appear to be less of a psychotic to everyone who knows you. Because guess what, if liberals were plotting a communist revolution, you'd be dead by now.

Originally posted by Zman
ohhhh..... resorting to that one? What a bold statement.... I hear that reno is the hub of reality:lol: :disco:
We finally agree....Janet "Reno" is no hub of reality...really nothing more than another Clinton whore...From burning Christians at the proverbial stake (Waco, Texas), to covering up massive illegal Clinton/Gore fundraising from the Chinese Military, to sending Elian Gonzalez back to the slavery of Castro.

Oh, where is Mr. Cohen when you need him?

Originally posted by mr_disco
Outraged, I'm sure at least one of the recovering alcoholics sitting next to you is a Democrat, and maybe one of them is against the war. Maybe if you'd realize that liberals are not worshipping Satan or some weird godless entity, selling baby parts, and plotting the communist overthrow of the government, then you'd be a little less noxious and appear to be less of a psychotic to everyone who knows you. Because guess what, if liberals were plotting a communist revolution, you'd be dead by now.
You are in some sordid company...Communists, NAMBLA, black racists (black panthers, NAACP), white racists (Robert Byrd), pro-abortionists and homosexuals all agree...War is bad, Bush is evil, and Saddam should be allowed to murder and plot genocide to his heart's content.

The question that nags me to no end is where were these "anti-war" protestors when Clinton was dodging the UN and bombing Serbia on much less credible reasons??...hmmmmmmm???

Sorta reminds me of Patricia Ireland (N.O.W), up in arms when Clarence Thomas was alleged to have talked about a pubic hair on his Diet-Coke, and referred to this is "sexual harassment"...But when Clinton was accused of pattern sexual harassment and rape????....silence.

Originally posted by Outraged

We finally agree....Janet "Reno" is no hub of reality...really nothing more than another Clinton whore...From burning Christians at the proverbial stake (Waco, Texas), to covering up massive illegal Clinton/Gore fundraising from the Chinese Military, to sending Elian Gonzalez back to the slavery of Castro.

Oh, where is Mr. Cohen when you need him?

He was talking about Reno, Nevada, Professor.

Keep up the good work, Outraged, you're a big example why Blacks don't vote Republican. The Black Panthers haven't existed for 30 years. Why don't you complain about the Symbionese Liberation Army while you're at it. And the NAACP worked for a hundred at desegregating institutions, is that why they're racist?

Originally posted by Zman
The case before the Ohio Supreme Court looked simple enough. Thomas Davis, a forklift operator at an Ohio Wal-Mart, was crushed to death at work. When his widow sued, Wal-Mart fought hard — and its employees may have lied and destroyed evidence. When she learned of the possible deception, Mrs. Davis went to court to try to add an important legal claim. Too bad, Wal-Mart argued. She had missed her chance — even if it did trick her by lying.
Boy he sure does lay out the ambulance chasers perspective quite aptly...Here is the other side...

Wal-Mart involved the intersection of two legal doctrines, the tort of spoliation of evidence and the doctrine of res judicata (or claim preclusion). Both require a bit of explanation.

The Spoliation Tort
When a party to a lawsuit destroys evidence, the legal system has a variety of techniques for responding. There are criminal statutes that forbid the obstruction of justice or evidence tampering. During the discovery process, judges can sanction the destruction of evidence. At trial, a judge can instruct a jury that it may draw an inference (called the spoliation inference) to the effect that the party who destroyed evidence did so because it would have hurt their cause. In 1984 in the case of Smith v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court added another legal doctrine, an independent tort action that allows that victim of spoliation to sue for damages based on their opponent's destruction of evidence. The spoliation tort was the basis for the plaintiff's claim before the Ohio Supreme Court in Wal-Mart.

Res Judicata
The doctrine of res judicata (latin for "a thing decided") is part of the law of res judicata. Although res judicata is certainly technical, it is not a "mere technicality." Without this doctrine, lawsuits could continue forever. A party who lost the first time could simply sue again. A party who won, could continue to sue again and again, seeking new damages each time. The doctrine of claim preclusion is absolutely essential for a well functioning legal system, not just for powerful reasons of efficiency, but also because it would be horrendously unfair to defendants if they could be sued again and again on the same claim.

Originally posted by mr_disco
Keep up the good work, Outraged, you're a big example why Blacks don't vote Republican. The Black Panthers haven't existed for 30 years. Why don't you complain about the Symbionese Liberation Army while you're at it. And the NAACP worked for a hundred at desegregating institutions, is that why they're racist?
I stand corrected, they have splintered off into the "New" Black Panther Party. Along with the National Black United Front and the New Black Muslim Movement.

As for the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA)...the violent left-wing militia...ex-President Jimmy "the peanut" Carter lobbied Bill "pardons for sale" Clinton to pardon Patty Hearst...she received executive clemency.

What do you get when you cross Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter???...North Korea.

Originally posted by Outraged
What do you get when you cross Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter???.

The SRT-4

Originally posted by mr_disco
Keep up the good work, Outraged, you're a big example why Blacks don't vote Republican.
This is what is great about the hate-whitey class-warfare race-baiting tactics of the left...They are very effective...You have your "useful idiots" tell blacks that they are suppressed, tell them that if they vote Republican "another black church will burn", offer them a handout and keep them dependent....Guess what?...They vote Democrat...Democrats seem to think blacks are too stupid to make it on their own, and therefore keep them on the plantation of welfare dependency and keep them stupid on failing public schools.
And the NAACP worked for a hundred at desegregating institutions, is that why they're racist?
Don't forget that it was the Republican party who freed the slaves, passed Civil Rights Act of 1964, and died in massive numbers to free the slaves.

Originally posted by Outraged
Democrats seem to think blacks are too stupid to make it on their own, and therefore keep them on the plantation of welfare dependency and keep them stupid on failing public schools.

Looks to me that you're the one who thinks blacks are stupid.

Originally posted by Planet Telex


He was talking about Reno, Nevada, Professor.

He knew what he was talking about.....a clever play on words.

I fell outta my chair when I read this :lol: :alien: :alien:

Originally posted by mr_disco
if liberals were plotting a communist revolution, you'd be dead by now.

Except that they're too disorganized to pull it off ... :lol:

Oh, wait, we ARE slowly drifting toward communism ... :( :mad:

Zman
Scooby Newbie

Location:
Bay Area, CA


Hang on while I put on my "suprised" face :eek:...

lump

Man, the invective just files around in here doesn't it? What everyone seems to miss is that the federal circuit court is pretty much the most influential body of peopl in american justice. The Supreme court only takes a very small number of cases, while the circuit courts of appeal take large numbers and are basically the major deciding body as to what becomes law in the U.S. When presidents appoint judges to these positions, they are exercising immense power over the judical future of the country.

Originally posted by Turbosnow
Man, the invective just files around in here doesn't it? What everyone seems to miss is that the federal circuit court is pretty much the most influential body of peopl in american justice. The Supreme court only takes a very small number of cases, while the circuit courts of appeal take large numbers and are basically the major deciding body as to what becomes law in the U.S. When presidents appoint judges to these positions, they are exercising immense power over the judical future of the country.


True - very true. Actually, what everyone REALLY misses, is that it is just as much the clerks that work in the appeals, and supreme courts, that do most of the work. Depending on the judge, sometimes all of the work.

So just as you have med students/interns in the ER, you have recent law school grads at the supreme court.

Not saying this is bad, just making sure people understand this.

Originally posted by Planet Telex
Looks to me that you're the one who thinks blacks are stupid.
To vote Democrat...you have to be (see election 2000 - butterfly ballot).

It's odd that you mention the clerks, my sister was a clerk for a circuit court judge for a few years, they do have some influence in the process, but the judge does have the final decision. She is thinking of going back to it, and as her views are closely aligned with mine I feel some comfort with having her is such a position.

I won't mention who she currently works for :)
You conservatives would have a heart-attack.

Originally posted by Turbosnow
[B]Man, the invective just files around in here doesn't it? What everyone seems to miss is that the federal circuit court is pretty much the most influential body of peopl in american justice.
It is very simple Turbo, this is an ideological witch-hunt...But when Democrats resort to half-truths and outright slander, i.e. Clarence Thomas, Charles Pickering, Miguel Estrada, Cook...They have taken politics to the lowest dirtiest level...and this is dangerous to our country.

Democrats are putting politics before justice...They are putting lies before truth...Remember, these Democrat Senators are the same Democrat Senators that violated their "oath of impartial justice", to keep Bill Clinton in power during Impeachment...They directly violated their Constitutional duties and their sole reason was manipulated polling data.

Please...oh please...challenge me.

Originally posted by Turbosnow
I won't mention who she currently works for :)
You conservatives would have a heart-attack.

Rangel? :eek: :eek:

Originally posted by Turbosnow
It's odd that you mention the clerks, my sister was a clerk for a circuit court judge for a few years, they do have some influence in the process, but the judge does have the final decision. She is thinking of going back to it, and as her views are closely aligned with mine I feel some comfort with having her is such a position.

I won't mention who she currently works for :)
You conservatives would have a heart-attack.



True - the judges do have the final say. My wife clerked for the appeals court, and another friend of mine did too. It is still rather amazing how much is done by the clerks. Granted, they are really the best of the best in most cases, so it doesn't concern me as much as if they hired just 'any' law student right out of school. I think it is a good way to mentor.

The reality is that the President of the United States has the privilege of nominating Judges when there are vacancies. It is the duty of Congress to confirm the President's nomination if the Nominee is "qualified".
"Qualified" does not equal "Agrees with ideology". I do not agree with many of the political views of the President nor his judicial nominees. But there are those that do, about 50% of the nation voted for him in the last presidential election. Bush is president and I don't see any point in arguing over his responsibility to nominate judges whom he feels are the best choice for the job.
If you don't like his very conservative ideology, vote him out of office at the next chance you get!

Originally posted by Outraged

It is very simple Turbo, this is an ideological witch-hunt...But when Democrats resort to half-truths and outright slander, i.e. Clarence Thomas, Charles Pickering, Miguel Estrada, Cook...They have taken politics to the lowest dirtiest level...and this is dangerous to our country.

Democrats are putting politics before justice...They are putting lies before truth...Remember, these Democrat Senators are the same Democrat Senators that violated their "oath of impartial justice", to keep Bill Clinton in power during Impeachment...They directly violated their Constitutional duties and their sole reason was manipulated polling data.

Please...oh please...challenge me.

The funny thing is that I don't really support either party. Your statement is half-true, politicians in this country are ALL putting politics before justice. It is true that the democratic party often comes closer to at least paying lip service to the political views that I hold, but true conservatives, and the early republicans are not that far off either. You continually trot out all of the good things that the early republicans, Like Lincoln did for the country, but fail to see that our system has become horribly corrupt since that time.
There is no monopoly on corruption, deciet of playing politics for either party in our system. The whole cconcept of a bipolar government is outmoded. We could go back and forth debating the evilness of either party, but even if you truly believe that the democrats are horrribly corrupt and the republicans are angels, you must ask yourself:
How is it that we are a part of a system of government that not only allows such corruption, but indeed encourages it by it's very nature?

Originally posted by Stanley

If you don't like his very conservative ideology, vote him out of office at the next chance you get!

I did it the first time, but somehow it didn't stick. Must be some family thing with his brother.......

Originally posted by Turbosnow


I did it the first time, but somehow it didn't stick. Must be some family thing with his brother.......

Outraged, if there was ever an apporpriate time for your crybaby graphic, it is now.

Originally posted by imprezton


Rangel? :eek: :eek:
Nah she couldn't put up with that.
I'll give you a hint it is four letters and it actually defends constitutional rights :)

Originally posted by Turbosnow

Nah she couldn't put up with that.
I'll give you a hint it is four letters and it actually defends constitutional rights :)

ACLU isn't all that bad. :)

Originally posted by imprezton


Outraged, if there was ever an apporpriate time for your crybaby graphic, it is now.

Well somone should be crying when our electoral college starts to take on the aspect of a third world country, operating as a dynastic government for the wealthy.

Originally posted by imprezton


ACLU isn't all that bad. :)

I quite agree, my sister keep talking about wanting to exercise all of her rights, even the second amendment ones :eek:
Actually I'm quite proud of her she fights the good fight, in my eyes at least.

Originally posted by Turbosnow

Nah she couldn't put up with that.
I'll give you a hint it is four letters and it actually defends constitutional rights :)

Except the 2nd amendment for some reason ...

Beat you to the punch on that one mike :)
And there is some division within the group on that one.
However many people agree that the right to bear arms does not necessarily accord you the right to use a semiautomatic weapon for "hunting".
Although it should allow you to raise a militia against a supressive and unfair government..
Viva la revolution.........:disco:

Originally posted by Turbosnow


I did it the first time, but somehow it didn't stick. Must be some family thing with his brother.......

That's really the tough part, isn't it. Regardless of who won, it was an extremely close race and now the "winner" has all of the appointments that our country is going to have to deal with for a very long time.
Of course, conservatives would be just as outraged if Gore was appointing extremely liberal judges...

Originally posted by Stanley
The reality is that the President of the United States has the privilege of nominating Judges when there are vacancies. It is the duty of Congress to confirm the President's nomination if the Nominee is "qualified".
"Qualified" does not equal "Agrees with ideology". I do not agree with many of the political views of the President nor his judicial nominees. But there are those that do, about 50% of the nation voted for him in the last presidential election. Bush is president and I don't see any point in arguing over his responsibility to nominate judges whom he feels are the best choice for the job.
If you don't like his very conservative ideology, vote him out of office at the next chance you get!

stanley,

Bush only got 50% of the electoral votes, while getting only 47% of the popular vote (to gore's 48%)


Bush does not have a mandate, which is why the democrates are fighting his pathetic excuse for judicial canidates... tactics like what the democrates are using is nothing new. In the past the republicans have not had enough votes to filibuster clintons judical canidates

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/frametextj.html

Originally posted by Outraged



Please...oh please...challenge me.

I did, where did you go?

Originally posted by Stanley
The reality is that the President of the United States has the privilege of nominating Judges when there are vacancies. It is the duty of Congress to confirm the President's nomination if the Nominee is "qualified".
"Qualified" does not equal "Agrees with ideology". I do not agree with many of the political views of the President nor his judicial nominees. But there are those that do, about 50% of the nation voted for him in the last presidential election. Bush is president and I don't see any point in arguing over his responsibility to nominate judges whom he feels are the best choice for the job.
If you don't like his very conservative ideology, vote him out of office at the next chance you get!


But we all know (I hope) that these are lifetime appointments.... so it's not that simple, especially when things are so closely divided.

Originally posted by Zman



But we all know (I hope) that these are lifetime appointments.... so it's not that simple, especially when things are so closely divided.

Right. When dems are President, they appoint liberal judges to the lifetime positions when they vacate. When Republicans are Prez, it's their turn. That's how the system works.

Originally posted by ChrisW
Bush only got 50% of the electoral votes, while getting only 47% of the popular vote (to gore's 48%)

Bush does not have a mandate, which is why the democrates are fighting his pathetic excuse for judicial canidates... tactics like what the democrates are using is nothing new. In the past the republicans have not had enough votes to filibuster clintons judical canidates

Bush doesn't have a mandate?...He got more votes than Clinton. The people spoke loudly in 2002, Republicans sweeping the Congress.

By the way, Democrats are fighting Bush's "well-qualified" Judges because the Democrats are whores to liberal special interest groups like Big-Baby-Murder and Enviro-Wackos, and other associated socialist miscreants.

Originally posted by Outraged

Judges because the Democrats are whores to liberal special interest groups like Big-Baby-Murder and Enviro-Wackos, and other associated socialist miscreants.

Hmm you still haven't responded to me. And since when is concern for the environment wacko? I mean I can understand people getting worked up over abortion, it's a real issue. But are you actually anti-earth? Do you really think that pollution, extinction, and early death are good?

Originally posted by Turbosnow
Do you really think that pollution, extinction, and early death are good?

Only for liberals.

Originally posted by robroy72


Only for liberals.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The problem with Environmental Terrorists is that they put even the tiniest environmental issue ahead of industry, commerce and economy.

If you really want to see our environment destroyed, let's dismantle our society to protect it, then watch some outside force come in and rape our environment for everything it has while we're too weak to stop them.

Originally posted by robroy72


Only for liberals.


True ignorance...... politics aside, the environment is a valid issue to be concerned about. To think otherwise is just ignorant. To respond this way, is childish.

Originally posted by Zman



True ignorance......

You should have added the work "prick," so this thread could get locked like your other one :)

Dude. He's joking. Take a pill.

Originally posted by imprezton


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The problem with Environmental Terrorists is that they put even the tiniest environmental issue ahead of indeustry, commerce and economy.

If you really want to see our environment destroyed, let's dismantle our society to protect it, then watch some outside force come in and rape our environment for everything it has while we're too weak to stop them.

The only "Environmental Terrorists" are the folks who are willing to completely destroy the environment for a profit. This is far more morally corrupt than any action taken by environmentalists. All of those people petitioning and protesting are really a threat to national security, please........ How about treating our planet with a modicum of respect, for now it;s the only one we've got.

Zman is a prick.

Aww come on I still haven't heard back from Outraged, who seems to be hiding from me. Don't get the thread locked before he can make a response.

Turbosnow is a treehugging prick.

Thanks, robroy :)
You're a true gem.....

Originally posted by Turbosnow
Thanks, robroy :)
You're a true gem.....

Turbosnow is a treehugging prick with a sense of humor.

Originally posted by Zman
But we all know (I hope) that these are lifetime appointments.... so it's not that simple, especially when things are so closely divided.

That is the tough part, especially as ChrisW pointed out, when the president wasn't even elected by a popular vote. This goes for Clinton and Bush. It's a tremendous power the President's have been given. A power which has been abused by both the liberals and the conservatives. Has anyone got a better idea of how to do it?
I don't particularly like how partisan the process has become, but I'm not sure how to improve it without petty politics getting in the way.

I hear conservatives shouting about "enviro-terrorists" and partial birth abortions. I see their point of view and somewhat agree. I hear liberals shouting about "religous fundamentalists" and lack of responsibility for the environment. I also see their point of view, particularly on the environment. I work in the energ industry and can tell you that things you read in the paper do not accurately reflect what's going on. Furthermore, the Bush administrations energy policy has set us back a couple of decades.
But Judges are supposed to be wise. Regardless of their political leanings, individuals appointed to the Supreme Court and District Courts are supposed to be the best of the best: philisophical, deep thinking men and women. Unfortunately it seems both parties are guilty of nominating judges who promote the political "flavor du jour" instead of picking the best qualified person for the job.
Again, does someone have an idea which will improve on the status quo or are we going to sit here and bicker back and forth about Democrats are pot smoking womanizers or Republicans are coke snorting war mongers.:rolleyes:

Yep i got an improvement, elect federal judges in district-wide voting for 10 year terms (long enough to get good). Judges should be required by law NOT to be registered as members of either party, but should run on thier own merits and records. That would make a dent.

Federal court appointments would not be nearly the issue that they have become if the letter and intent of laws and the Constitution were followed more closely.

"The Rule of Law", as it has become popular to call it, is no longer valid or upheld. This BS of the Constitution being a "living document" is exactly that, BS. Laws and the Constitution are only open to INTERPRETATION by the Judicial branch, not to being rewritten by it.

The fear on both the right and the left is that this trend of "legislating from the bench" will tip the balance too far one way or the other. Decisions by the court system are much more difficult to "undo" than those by the Executive branch or Legislature. This is one reason why it was never intended for the Judicial branch to create law.

lump

Originally posted by lumpy
Federal court appointments would not be nearly the issue that they have become if the letter and intent of laws and the Constitution were followed more closely.

"The Rule of Law", as it has become popular to call it, is no longer valid or upheld. This BS of the Constitution being a "living document" is exactly that, BS. Laws and the Constitution are only open to INTERPRETATION by the Judicial branch, not to being rewritten by it.

The fear on both the right and the left is that this trend of "legislating from the bench" will tip the balance too far one way or the other. Decisions by the court system are much more difficult to "undo" than those by the Executive branch or Legislature. This is one reason why it was never intended for the Judicial branch to create law.

lump


wow, this is a first, I agree with lumpy....:eek:

yeah, if the judges stuck to the letter of the law, rather than twisting it to fit their views, I for one would be a lot less concerned about this. The thing is, politictians have figured out that getting people on the bench who agree with them is the best way to ensure their laws are upheld.

Originally posted by Zman



wow, this is a first, I agree with lumpy....:eek:

yeah, if the judges stuck to the letter of the law, rather than twisting it to fit their views, I for one would be a lot less concerned about this. The thing is, politictians have figure out that getting people on the bench who agree with them is the best way to ensure their laws are upheld.

This is called Constitutionalism , and is al-in-all the lot of conservative-appointed judges :)

Originally posted by imprezton


This is called Constitutionalism , and is al-in-all the lot of conservative-appointed judges :)


ummm.... gonna have to disagree on that one....

So you don't really agree with judges sticking to the letter of the law? I didn't think so ...

Originally posted by Mike Wevrick
So you don't really agree with judges sticking to the letter of the law? I didn't think so ...


Mike, I know it's hard for that simple, selfish brain of yours to process, but once again, you miss the point. Now which part of that statement does Zman disagree with?

[gameshow host voice] Yes, the two year old with his hand raised? Conservative judges.....yes...... correct.... now could you help Mikely out? [/gameshow host voice]

Originally posted by Zman



Mike, I know it's hard for that simple, selfish brain of yours to process, but once again, you miss the point. Now which part of that statement does Zman disagree with?

[gameshow host voice] Yes, the two year old with his hand raised? Conservative judges.....yes...... correct.... now could you help Mikely out? [/gameshow host voice]


Would Zman please make a point?

I figured Zman out.

Outraged is actually Bipolar

Originally posted by Zman
Now which part of that statement does Zman disagree with?

Conservative judges

You don't agree that conservative judges are more likely to stick to the letter of the law than liberal ones? I guess it never occurred to me that that was what you meant because it is so obviously absurd. Most liberals openly admit that they believe in judicial activism (only when liberals do it, of course).

Originally posted by Planet Telex
I figured Zman out.

Outraged is actually Bipolar

Bipolar is when you go through alternate periods of depression and mania. You are thinking of schizophrenia ...

Originally posted by Turbosnow
politicians in this country are ALL putting politics before justice. It is true that the democratic party often comes closer to at least paying lip service to the political views that I hold, but true conservatives, and the early republicans are not that far off either.
This country was founded in conservative Christian ideology...That is the very basis of this country, and liberalism/socialism runs absolutely contrary to the original vision.
The whole cconcept of a bipolar government is outmoded. We could go back and forth debating the evilness of either party, but even if you truly believe that the democrats are horrribly corrupt and the republicans are angels, you must ask yourself:
How is it that we are a part of a system of government that not only allows such corruption, but indeed encourages it by it's very nature?
The "whole concept of bipolar government is outmoded"?...Who says...This experiment has no equal and is proven to be the best form of government the world has ever seen.

When a politician says he is for smaller government and less taxes...This is the politician to trust...Never EVER trust a politician that thinks he/she knows what to do with your money better than you do...or uses class-warfare, race-baiting and scare tactics to achieve their nefarious ends...see Democrat party.

Originally posted by Turbosnow
Well somone should be crying when our electoral college starts to take on the aspect of a third world country, operating as a dynastic government for the wealthy.
Don't forget that 9 of the richest 11 Senators are Democrat...Millionaires, on a 12:1 basis, funded the 2002 election in favor of Democrats.

Next time you hear a Democrat lie about the "richest 1%", realize they are just trying to foster class-warfare hate...They leave out the facts that the richest 1% employ, provide health care and pay 40% of all of the nations taxes.

Originally posted by Zman
True ignorance...... politics aside, the environment is a valid issue to be concerned about. To think otherwise is just ignorant. To respond this way, is childish.

Former Greenpeace director Patrick Moore, who has quit Greenpeace, says the environmental movement has been hijacked by political activists. "They're using environmental rhetoric to cloak agendas like class warfare and anti-corporatism that, in fact, have almost nothing to do with ecology," Moore tells Stossel.

Originally posted by Outraged

This country was founded in conservative Christian ideology...That is the very basis of this country, and liberalism/socialism runs absolutely contrary to the original vision.

The "whole concept of bipolar government is outmoded"?...Who says...This experiment has no equal and is proven to be the best form of government the world has ever seen.

When a politician says he is for smaller government and less taxes...This is the politician to trust...Never EVER trust a politician that thinks he/she knows what to do with your money better than you do...or uses class-warfare, race-baiting and scare tactics to achieve their nefarious ends...see Democrat party.

One of the founding tenets of this country was the separation of CHURCH AND STATE. Why ? Because politics and religion are strange bedfellows. Do you have no concept of the horror that was caused by the church ruling europe during the middle and "dark" ages. Even today's politicians haven't come close to approaching the levels of corruption and greed than ran rampant when the church was in charge. Inquisition anyone ? This country was founded on the principles of religious and ideological freedom, not some totalitarian cross worshipping bible literalist idiocy.
And since when are the Democrats the sole purveyors of scare tactics? These tactics have been the main thrust of the bush administration's dealings with the american pople ever since sept 11th. They blame every failing on "terrorists" and tell people to buy duct tape and plastic.
And yes the concept of bipolar parties is outmoded and it will continue to break down until dempublican and republicrats will be indistinguishable in their ideologies. It is already becoming mroe of a "brand loyalty" issue of who to vote for than any rational debate on the issues. So go vote for the party that you think is for "small government" and "low taxes", as you will continualyl see that their promises are as empty as their feeble minds.

Originally posted by Turbosnow
go vote for the party that you think is for "small government" and "low taxes

I do: www.lp.org

Mike, I agree :)

Originally posted by Outraged
When a politician says he is for smaller government and less taxes...This is the politician to trust...Never EVER trust a politician that thinks he/she knows what to do with your money better than you do...or uses class-warfare, race-baiting and scare tactics to achieve their nefarious ends...see Democrat party.

Hmm, like spending my tax money to hunt down and incarcerate people selling pipes which can be used to smoke drugs? Like build a huge institution costing 100's of millions of dollars in the name of "homeland security"? Like spend 100 billion dollars to disarm Iraq who has weapons that can reach 20 miles outside it's borders? Like give tax breaks to the richest segment of our population (I am in the highest tax bracket, btw)?
I'm sourry (sic), but your argument holds no water with me.

I usually vote libertarian as well. I don't believe the hogwash that it is "throwing your vote away". Maybe my candidate has very little chance of victory, but at least the guy who wins might see that there are folks dissatisfied with the status quo.

This country was founded by Diests.

Deism, a European religious and philosophical movement, was influential in eighteenth-century American thought. It described a world order based on human reason rather than divine revelation. God was viewed as the "first cause" who had established an ordered universe controlled by immutable laws that functioned without miracles or other divine intervention. Human beings had to rely on reason to know God's existence and their own moral duties. This radical development in religious thought was prompted by new philosophical methods, frustration with doctrinal controversies, new political and social theories, and a revolution in the empirical sciences led by Isaac Newton.

Although deism appealed to the individualism and optimism of many eighteenth-century American political and social thinkers, it was popular only among upper-class intellectuals. American deists ranged from the moderate anticlericism, rational morality, and political liberalism of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin to the much less common militant deism of Ethan Allen and Thomas Paine, who called for an abolition of traditional religion. The one unifying factor in the different versions of deism was a readiness to question traditional revealed religion.

The Reader's Companion to American History

And a quote from Thomas Jefferson:

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

and another from Alexander Hamilton:

"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."

Hosam, thanks for so beautifully illustrating our points :)

When a politician says he is for smaller government and less taxes...This is the politician to trust...Never EVER trust a politician that thinks he/she knows what to do with your money better than you do...or uses class-warfare, race-baiting and scare tactics to achieve their nefarious ends...see Democrat party.

See BOTH parties. Bush is spending money like crazy. Billions of dollars to Africa for AIDS? Sounds nice, but we're BROKE. We don't have that money to spend. Domestic spending is up 4% since he took office. Government is getting BIGGER, not smaller. I expect someone who ran against big spending to show some restraint!

Bush supporters will claim that Congress is responsible for the spending. They neglect to state that Bush has VETO power. Reagan used to veto Democratic spending packages all the time, why doesn't Bush have the balls to do the same?

Originally posted by hotsam
This country was founded by Diests.

As Alexis de Tocqueville observed:

There is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its [Christianity's] influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation on earth. (cited in David Barton, The Myth of Separation [Aledo, Texas: WallBuilder Press, 1992], p. 131)

As Benjamin Franklin opined:

I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel (cited in David Barton, The Myth of Separation [Aledo, Texas: WallBuilder Press, 1992], p. 109)

As Thomas Jefferson commented in his Notes on the State of Virginia:

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever (Thomas Jefferson, Writings [New York, New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984], p. 289)

Actually, the Constitution not only refers to God, but specifically mentions Jesus Christ, when it dates itself in the "Year of Our Lord, 1787". The Declaration of Independence repeatedly refers to God.

"In God We Trust".

You can thank the Christian Founding Fathers for their "tolerance" in allowing idiots to spout off disinformation, practice devil worship, worship false gods, abort their children and engage in homosexuality to their dark hearts discontent.

Originally posted by Outraged

You can thank the Christian Founding Fathers for their "tolerance" in allowing idiots to spout off disinformation, practice devil worship, worship false gods, abort their children and engage in homosexuality to their dark hearts discontent.

OUtraged, you should take a look at the thread on "the political problem of islam" it will be illuminating to you. Unfortunately for oyu it's statements like this that marginalize you even more and allows you to be cclassified as a "fanatic". If you want people to listen to your words then you should attempt to temper the thinly veiled bile that oozes out of each of your posts.

You can thank the Christian Founding Fathers for their "tolerance" in allowing idiots to spout off disinformation...

You are the one who should be thanking our Deist Founding Fathers.

Originally posted by Turbosnow
Even today's politicians haven't come close to approaching the levels of corruption and greed than ran rampant when the church was in charge. Inquisition anyone.
You are all talk and no substance my young and naive, even brainwashed, friend...The greatest attrocities in the history of man have been perpetrated by Communist, secular, evolutionists...to the tune of over 100,000,000.
And since when are the Democrats the sole purveyors of scare tactics? These tactics have been the main thrust of the bush administration's dealings with the american pople ever since sept 11th. They blame every failing on "terrorists" and tell people to buy duct tape and plastic.
You are calling the war on terrorism a "scare tactic"?...You are a fool my friend.

An unfounded scare tactic would be when Democrats, every election cycle, say things like "if you vote Republican another black church will burn", or "Republicans want to put grandma on the street", and "Republicans want to starve children", or "Republicans are polluters and want to destroy the environment"...Nonsense on all counts.
And yes the concept of bipolar parties is outmoded and it will continue to break down until dempublican and republicrats will be indistinguishable in their ideologies. It is already becoming mroe of a "brand loyalty" issue of who to vote for than any rational debate on the issues. So go vote for the party that you think is for "small government" and "low taxes", as you will continualyl see that their promises are as empty as their feeble minds.
Strong military, anti-baby-murder, low taxes, small more efficient government....Big differences and as you can see, GW Bush is making good on all his promises...unlike his philandering felon predecessor Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton.

Originally posted by hotsam
You are the one who should be thanking our Deist Founding Fathers.

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." - John Quincy Adams

"We've staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all our heart." - James Madison

"You can't have national morality apart from religious principle." -George Washington

"The philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation will be the philosophy of the government of the next." - Abraham Lincoln

"Our country was founded on the Gosple of Jesus Christ." - Patrick Henry

"The longer I live the more convinced I become that God governs in the affairs of men. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance." -Benjamin Franklin

"While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader." - Samuel Adams

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion." - John Adams

You have a little mud on your face.

Originally posted by Stanley
Hmm, like spending my tax money to hunt down and incarcerate people selling pipes which can be used to smoke drugs?
What the hell are you talking about??...I can throw throw a stone from my apartment and hit three "head shops"...of course I live in the middle of a liberal shiitehole, Hollyweird, Kalifornia.
Like build a huge institution costing 100's of millions of dollars in the name of "homeland security"?
Would you prefer terrorist cells to have free reign?
Like spend 100 billion dollars to disarm Iraq who has weapons that can reach 20 miles outside it's borders?
Hey, you are right, lets give him some time so he absolutely has the means to deliver mass destruction to foreign shores.
Like give tax breaks to the richest segment of our population (I am in the highest tax bracket, btw)?
I'm sourry (sic), but your argument holds no water with me.
It seems your argument is predicated on the belief that the money the government robs me and you of, belongs to the government and not me and you..."GIVE"?....It is our damn money, and it is very presumptuous of you to think just because you are a sucker to the government, that you are going to force your stupidity on me and my pocketbook.

I realize you are clueless, but the tax cuts proposed are "across the board"...The "richest 1%" STILL PAY THE MAJORITY OF TAXES...and the bottom 50% of wage earners still pay next to nothing.

It seems you trust proven corrupt politicians like Gray Davis, Robert "Rolex" Toricceli, Gary ConDIDit, Bill "pardons for sale" Clinton, Hillary "carpetbagger" Clinton, Ted "Chappaquidick" Kennedy, et al.