• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gonzalez and the AG spot

jj

Penultimate Amazing
J
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
21,382
I suspect it's good that Gonzalez isn't "hard-line" enough in terms of things like abortion and the like for the religious right, HOWEVER, does anyone think that former ENRON Council is going to stand in this day and age????

Is he just a sacrifice, allowing Bush to appoint somebody more in line with the apparent agenda he's followed from day 1?
 
jj said:
I suspect it's good that Gonzalez isn't "hard-line" enough in terms of things like abortion and the like for the religious right, HOWEVER, does anyone think that former ENRON Council is going to stand in this day and age????

Is he just a sacrifice, allowing Bush to appoint somebody more in line with the apparent agenda he's followed from day 1?
Click to expand...

I'm more concerned about the whole "torture is A-ok" bit than about Enron. I imagine there isn't a lawyer on the planet who hasn't had to defend real sleezeballs.
 
Re: Re: Gonzalez and the AG spot

Cleon said:
I'm more concerned about the whole "torture is A-ok" bit than about Enron. I imagine there isn't a lawyer on the planet who hasn't had to defend real sleezeballs.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not very happy about that, either.

What bothers me is that the more liberal nominatee is so badly flawed. There are a host of good, experienced moderate jurists around, and we don't see a one of them come up.

http://web2.acbl.org/halloffame/kearse.htm

How's about that for starters?
 
Re: Re: Gonzalez and the AG spot

Cleon said:
I'm more concerned about the whole "torture is A-ok" bit than about Enron. I imagine there isn't a lawyer on the planet who hasn't had to defend real sleezeballs.
Click to expand...

What's Alan Derschowitz got to do with this?

:p
 
Re: Re: Re: Gonzalez and the AG spot

crimresearch said:
What's Alan Derschowitz got to do with this?

:p
Click to expand...

When unsure, vilify, spread doubt, or question something irrelevant, eh? Is that what the manual says?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gonzalez and the AG spot

Luke T. said:
This article mentions her skills as a bridge player first than as a judge! There is a lot more about her cardsharp abilities than her legal. And you think this is a good candidate? Why? Because she's black?
Click to expand...

It's a BRIDGE website, Luke. What did you expect. By the way, Bridge and "cardsharp" do not go together. It's a thinking game, a game of deduction and probabilities to an extent that poker only pretends at.

She's got one of the lowest rates of reversals going, or did as of 5 years ago, has enormous experience, is someone who other judges commonly ask for advice, etc.

I see you've committed your own little villification there, was it necessary to mention that she was black, even as a jab at me?

ETR (that's edited to remove) my pointing out the use of a whole flock of biased words like "cardsharp", "because she's black", etc.

Luke, you disappoint me. I've removed the rest of what I had to say.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gonzalez and the AG spot

jj said:
It's a BRIDGE website, Luke. What did you expect. By the way, Bridge and "cardsharp" do not go together. It's a thinking game, a game of deduction and probabilities to an extent that poker only pretends at.

She's got one of the lowest rates of reversals going, or did as of 5 years ago, has enormous experience, is someone who other judges commonly ask for advice, etc.

I see you've committed your own little villification there, was it necessary to mention that she was black, even as a jab at me?

ETR (that's edited to remove) my pointing out the use of a whole flock of biased words like "cardsharp", "because she's black", etc.

Luke, you disappoint me. I've removed the rest of what I had to say.
Click to expand...

Then why don't you post a more substantive link on her background? At least give me credit for taking the trouble to actually read your links, jj. I'm willing to look at your points. Ease up, man.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gonzalez and the AG spot

Luke T. said:
Then why don't you post a more substantive link on her background? At least give me credit for taking the trouble to actually read your links, jj. I'm willing to look at your points. Ease up, man.
Click to expand...

Well, I have no idea where it was I dug up the info on referrals. I found out about her existance thanks to a Newark Star Ledger article about the time of Clarence Thomas.

Why just not compare her folio to his, eh?
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Well, the anti-choice nuts are already screaming, so he can't be all that bad!
Click to expand...

Which leads to the point, was this the reason for the nomination in the first place, a sacrifice to allow swinging back to the right?
 
jj said:
Which leads to the point, was this the reason for the nomination in the first place, a sacrifice to allow swinging back to the right?
Click to expand...

Probably not. He's a long-time friend (political and otherwise). He's not a sacrifice so far as I can see. More a shoe-in.

If he get's rejected it is likely, IMO, that Bush will renominate him for the SC. Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it. I think he'll do a fine job. Or at least as fine a job as Ashcroft or Reno did.
 
In a January 2002 memo, Gonzales wrote: "This new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions ... ."

WTF ?
 
Rob Lister said:
Or at least as fine a job as Ashcroft or Reno did.
Click to expand...

I've got to ask. Do you mean that as a positive thing, a negative thing, or just a statement of neutral opinion.

Given the outcome of the last two AG's, it's hard to see a positive side to this.
 
Ladewig said:
In a January 2002 memo, Gonzales wrote: "This new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions ... ."

WTF ?
Click to expand...

That statement was preceded by "As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war. It is not the traditional clash between nations adhering to laws of war that formed the backdrop for GPW. The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors to avoid further atrocities against American civilians, and the need to try terrorists for war crimes such as wantonly killing civilians."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999148/site/newsweek/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom