Alito: Conservative or Liberal. It doesn't matter.

[gnome]

Keep right on believing that; it makes no difference to me or anyone else worrying about reality.


Go pound sand. Glad to discover you & your cohort are not "liberals". What are you?

Playing "No True Scotsman" today are you...

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Keep right on believing that; it makes no difference to me or anyone else worrying about reality.

One positive byproduct of Election 2000 is that it brought the anti-Americans right out into the clear.

 

[hammegk]

Backwards Nick, I'm not sure who that comment is directed towards; care to clarify?

If directed at me, it says a lot about you and many other posters here who do appear anti-American in every way, shape, and form.

 

[Mark]

Keep right on believing that; it makes no difference to me or anyone else worrying about reality.


Go pound sand. Glad to discover you & your cohort are not "liberals". What are you?

Ah...so you made it all up. Glad to see that you know it.

 

[DavidJames]

Keep right on believing that; it makes no difference to me or anyone else worrying about reality.


Go pound sand. Glad to discover you & your cohort are not "liberals". What are you?

you're a funny guy. You make a blanket statement, then when confronted with examples showing your blanket has holes, you slink away, "go pound sand", you say. You are worrying about reality? [Col. Nathan R. Jessep]You can't handle reality[/Col. Nathan R. Jessep]

 

[LawnOven]

Is anyone bothered by the method in which alito was nominated? Bush was expected to nominate a woman, to replace the one which would be leaving; so he did. The only problem was, she was clearly unqualified and stepped down. So then bush was free to nominate anyone he wanted, and he did; a white man.

Seems a little convenient to me. Bush should have nominated another woman; one that wasn't wholey incompetent.

Being over half the population, they are a little underrepresented on the supreme court. I think that is a serious problem.

 

[Mycroft]

Is anyone bothered by the method in which alito was nominated? Bush was expected to nominate a woman, to replace the one which would be leaving; so he did. The only problem was, she was clearly unqualified and stepped down. So then bush was free to nominate anyone he wanted, and he did; a white man.

Seems a little convenient to me. Bush should have nominated another woman; one that wasn't wholey incompetent.

Being over half the population, they are a little underrepresented on the supreme court. I think that is a serious problem.

I'm troubled by this. I don't think Supreme Court nominations should be made based upon gender.

 

[LawnOven]

I'm troubled by this. I don't think Supreme Court nominations should be made based upon gender.

Hmm, well I do, maybe something to do with my belief that America is a representative democracy.

In a perfect world it would go without saying that the justices would in fact be split closer to 50/50 in regards to gender.

But here in the real world, as of now, it is soon to be 8 to 1.

Obviously gender plays a big role in who gets to be judge. Or are you arguing by merits that women are less qualified to be judges?

*edit* Further, my real gripe was in the way Bush nomited a clearly unqualified woman who got shot down and then nomitated a man, almost like that was the plan all along. Do you really think there are no woman judges in the country qualified to "sit on the bench" of the supreme court?

 

[Dancing David]

Hmm, well I do, maybe something to do with my belief that America is a representative democracy.

In a perfect world it would go without saying that the justices would in fact be split closer to 50/50 in regards to gender.

But here in the real world, as of now, it is soon to be 8 to 1.

Obviously gender plays a big role in who gets to be judge. Or are you arguing by merits that women are less qualified to be judges?

*edit* Further, my real gripe was in the way Bush nomited a clearly unqualified woman who got shot down and then nomitated a man, almost like that was the plan all along. Do you really think there are no woman judges in the country qualified to "sit on the bench" of the supreme court?

If the Supremes were meant to be elected then they would be, it is the fact that the Constitution meant for them to be appointed. When the framers of the constitution wrote it they wanted to incorporate what they saw as the benefits of the monarchial systems that were currently around. The powers of the president and congress are meant to play off each other, parts of the president are meant to be the monarchs powers, the House is meant to be like the lower house of parliment and the Senate is meant to be like the upper house of parliment. The Supreme Court is meant to be a check on both of them, the founders were very concerned that there gentleman's club was going to be wrecked by the common man and the tyranny of mob rule.

So the SCOTUS has a number of roles, the first is to keep the legislature and president within the bounds of constitution. But they are also meant to act as a mix of the monarch, the upper house and the established power of a church, they are meant to be conservative and represent stable vaues in the face of democraticaly elected representatives. Like the upper house there is role is to preserve the power of the landed aristocracy and maintaing the powr of the system itself.

The modern roles extend much beyond, but there is a reason that the SCOTUS is appointed for life.

 

[Mycroft]

Hmm, well I do, maybe something to do with my belief that America is a representative democracy.

Representative democracy has nothing to do with setting aside a seat on the Supreme Court for women only.

In a perfect world it would go without saying that the justices would in fact be split closer to 50/50 in regards to gender.

In this perfect world you imagine, are those seats set aside for women? Or does it just work out that way?

But here in the real world, as of now, it is soon to be 8 to 1.

Obviously gender plays a big role in who gets to be judge.

That's not obvious at all.

Or are you arguing by merits that women are less qualified to be judges?

And that doesn't follow from your previous statement.

*edit* Further, my real gripe was in the way Bush nomited a clearly unqualified woman who got shot down and then nomitated a man, almost like that was the plan all along. Do you really think there are no woman judges in the country qualified to "sit on the bench" of the supreme court?

The issue isn't if there are qualified women to sit on the SC, the issue is if it's right to set aside a seat for women only. Do you believe there are women qualified to sit on the SC without the help of a special set-aside for women?