Comments on: Meet the New Guy http://revision99.com/2006/01/12/meet-the-new-guy/ Harshing your mellow since 2004. Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:38:07 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Larry Jones http://revision99.com/2006/01/12/meet-the-new-guy/comment-page-1/#comment-8490 Larry Jones Thu, 01 Mar 2007 05:07:19 +0000 http://revision99.com/2006/01/12/meet-the-new-guy/#comment-8490 Let the record show that "Crusader For Life" posted these three comments more than a year after my original post and all the other comments. Also, there was an earlier comment from Crusader that I deleted because it was gibberish -- a server error message that made me think it might be some kind of spambot. If I had time to waste I bet I would discover that the first of these comments was written a long time ago and has already been posted all over the internet. The "voters of 2006" line looks like an update to me, and the fact that s/he "forgot" to break up the text into paragraphs suggests a copy-and-paste routine. In any case, the comment reads like a troll. And to you, <strong>Crusader For Life</strong>: I am concerned with more than just abortion rights. Your crusade is not important to me. I think the elections of 2000 and 2004 were stolen anyway, so even though you and I will have to live with the horrendous damage Rove/Cheney/Bush has done, I don't have to accept the legitimacy of this administration. Let the record show that “Crusader For Life” posted these three comments more than a year after my original post and all the other comments. Also, there was an earlier comment from Crusader that I deleted because it was gibberish — a server error message that made me think it might be some kind of spambot. If I had time to waste I bet I would discover that the first of these comments was written a long time ago and has already been posted all over the internet. The “voters of 2006″ line looks like an update to me, and the fact that s/he “forgot” to break up the text into paragraphs suggests a copy-and-paste routine. In any case, the comment reads like a troll.

And to you, Crusader For Life: I am concerned with more than just abortion rights. Your crusade is not important to me. I think the elections of 2000 and 2004 were stolen anyway, so even though you and I will have to live with the horrendous damage Rove/Cheney/Bush has done, I don’t have to accept the legitimacy of this administration.

]]> By: Crusader for Life http://revision99.com/2006/01/12/meet-the-new-guy/comment-page-1/#comment-8489 Crusader for Life Thu, 01 Mar 2007 05:06:42 +0000 http://revision99.com/2006/01/12/meet-the-new-guy/#comment-8489 If you want your pary to demand that a judicial nominee "holds this truth to be self-evident, that the right of life, liberty, and persuit of happiness stops at the vagina--that there is a constitutional vaccum between the womb and the clitoris; which only the individual woman can decipher-- you have to win elections. I concede your party did just that in 2006 and earned their say should Bush get a third pick to the high court. However, I don't understand why you assert that your party is always entitled to a "consensus" nominee. Did not Clinton have the inherited privlage to move the court to the left with 55 senate seats? He was a benefactor in the expression, "to the victor go the spoils," when he won the 1992 election. Orin Hatch conceded in that notion, or he would have had to be retarded to recommend Ruth Bader Ginsburg as Byron White's successor. Similarly, the democrats would have to have accepted this notion in 1986 when they considered Scalia to indirectly replace Warren Burger (Renquist replaced Burger and Scalia replaced Renquist) rather than being too retarded to put up a fight. So why all of a sudden do standards change? Not only do you want the democrats to oppose a conservative nominee, you want to require the republicans and conservative democrats to occupy 60 seats because God forbid the high court's sinful shift to the right! In anticipation to your question concerning Bush the elder being able to get Clarence Thomas through a 57-member-democratic-congress, perhaps the outcome fits the old expression. BushI won in 1988, but the democrats retained control of congress. Perhaps going 1/2 (David Souter a gift to you) was the best way to divide the loot. I will concede that their midterm 1986 victory put them in position to have a share in the spoils when they rejected Robert Bork to be Louis Powell's seat, and I will do the same conserning the 2006 midterm electionions (should Bush name a third). If you want your pary to demand that a judicial nominee “holds this truth to be self-evident, that the right of life, liberty, and persuit of happiness stops at the vagina–that there is a constitutional vaccum between the womb and the clitoris; which only the individual woman can decipher– you have to win elections. I concede your party did just that in 2006 and earned their say should Bush get a third pick to the high court. However, I don’t understand why you assert that your party is always entitled to a “consensus” nominee. Did not Clinton have the inherited privlage to move the court to the left with 55 senate seats? He was a benefactor in the expression, “to the victor go the spoils,” when he won the 1992 election. Orin Hatch conceded in that notion, or he would have had to be retarded to recommend Ruth Bader Ginsburg as Byron White’s successor. Similarly, the democrats would have to have accepted this notion in 1986 when they considered Scalia to indirectly replace Warren Burger (Renquist replaced Burger and Scalia replaced Renquist) rather than being too retarded to put up a fight. So why all of a sudden do standards change? Not only do you want the democrats to oppose a conservative nominee, you want to require the republicans and conservative democrats to occupy 60 seats because God forbid the high court’s sinful shift to the right!

In anticipation to your question concerning Bush the elder being able to get Clarence Thomas through a 57-member-democratic-congress, perhaps the outcome fits the old expression. BushI won in 1988, but the democrats retained control of congress. Perhaps going 1/2 (David Souter a gift to you) was the best way to divide the loot.

I will concede that their midterm 1986 victory put them in position to have a share in the spoils when they rejected Robert Bork to be Louis Powell’s seat, and I will do the same conserning the 2006 midterm electionions (should Bush name a third).

]]> By: Crusader for Life http://revision99.com/2006/01/12/meet-the-new-guy/comment-page-1/#comment-8483 Crusader for Life Thu, 01 Mar 2007 04:33:30 +0000 http://revision99.com/2006/01/12/meet-the-new-guy/#comment-8483 Unfortunately, I forgot to breakup my paragraphs. Unfortunately, I forgot to breakup my paragraphs.

]]> By: Crusader for Life http://revision99.com/2006/01/12/meet-the-new-guy/comment-page-1/#comment-8482 Crusader for Life Thu, 01 Mar 2007 04:31:53 +0000 http://revision99.com/2006/01/12/meet-the-new-guy/#comment-8482 THAT'S JUSTICE ALITO TO Y'ALL! Yes he was confirmed and I'm glad!! I am so sick of all your name calling against conservative jurists because they don't fit your liberal paradigm. You are not entitiled to a consensus candidate. The debate for the future of the supreme court is decided on election days. The democrats had their chance in 2004 to make their case against Bush's conservative preference for judicial nominees. Guess what, the voters gave him FOUR MORE YEARS AS THE NOMINATOR, AND HIS PARTY FOUR MORE SEATS IN THE "ADVICE AND CONSENT LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER." The voters said yes to Bush and his judges and no to Filibuster King, Tom Daschle, and his road block followers. I will only concede that perhaps the voters of 2006 declared the 2004 voters wrong, and that the democrats have earned a significant say in the choice of a judicial nominee should Bush get another one. Reagan earned his undisputed say in 1980 and 1984; the democrats earned their say in 1986, and were in position to reject Bork; Bush1 earned his say in 1988 to name 1/2 conservative judges because the democrats retained control of the senate; Clinton earned his perogative to replace Byron White, a Roe Vs Wade desenter, with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and the fortune to secure the seat occupied by the Roe author himself, Harry Blackmun with Stephen Breyer, just before the GOP siezed both houses. It's quite retarded that y'al assert that a democratic president is entitled to move the court to the left with 55 senate seats, yet Bush2 must have 60 republican/conservative seats (55, we're still alive!) to move it to the right. To demand a judge "to hold this truth to be self-evident that the right of life, liberty, and persuit of happiness stop at the vagina--that there is a constitutional vacuum between the womb and the clitoris that only the individual woman can decipher--" you have to win elections. Only then are you entitled to demand the rest of this country to bow in resignation that the bulk of your philosophy will serve as the pillers for the American legal system THAT’S JUSTICE ALITO TO Y’ALL! Yes he was confirmed and I’m glad!! I am so sick of all your name calling against conservative jurists because they don’t fit your liberal paradigm. You are not entitiled to a consensus candidate. The debate for the future of the supreme court is decided on election days. The democrats had their chance in 2004 to make their case against Bush’s conservative preference for judicial nominees. Guess what, the voters gave him FOUR MORE YEARS AS THE NOMINATOR, AND HIS PARTY FOUR MORE SEATS IN THE “ADVICE AND CONSENT LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER.” The voters said yes to Bush and his judges and no to Filibuster King, Tom Daschle, and his road block followers. I will only concede that perhaps the voters of 2006 declared the 2004 voters wrong, and that the democrats have earned a significant say in the choice of a judicial nominee should Bush get another one. Reagan earned his undisputed say in 1980 and 1984; the democrats earned their say in 1986, and were in position to reject Bork; Bush1 earned his say in 1988 to name 1/2 conservative judges because the democrats retained control of the senate; Clinton earned his perogative to replace Byron White, a Roe Vs Wade desenter, with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and the fortune to secure the seat occupied by the Roe author himself, Harry Blackmun with Stephen Breyer, just before the GOP siezed both houses. It’s quite retarded that y’al assert that a democratic president is entitled to move the court to the left with 55 senate seats, yet Bush2 must have 60 republican/conservative seats (55, we’re still alive!) to move it to the right. To demand a judge “to hold this truth to be self-evident that the right of life, liberty, and persuit of happiness stop at the vagina–that there is a constitutional vacuum between the womb and the clitoris that only the individual woman can decipher–” you have to win elections. Only then are you entitled to demand the rest of this country to bow in resignation that the bulk of your philosophy will serve as the pillers for the American legal system

]]> By: Larry Jones http://revision99.com/2006/01/12/meet-the-new-guy/comment-page-1/#comment-1705 Larry Jones Tue, 17 Jan 2006 20:59:00 +0000 http://revision99.com/2006/01/12/meet-the-new-guy/#comment-1705 Jayne - You are NOT old enough! Jayne – You are NOT old enough!

]]> By: JayneSays http://revision99.com/2006/01/12/meet-the-new-guy/comment-page-1/#comment-1704 JayneSays Tue, 17 Jan 2006 02:15:00 +0000 http://revision99.com/2006/01/12/meet-the-new-guy/#comment-1704 You are SO lucky I'm old enough to know that SNL reference. ; P You are SO lucky I’m old enough to know that SNL reference. ; P

]]> By: Larry Jones http://revision99.com/2006/01/12/meet-the-new-guy/comment-page-1/#comment-1703 Larry Jones Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:16:00 +0000 http://revision99.com/2006/01/12/meet-the-new-guy/#comment-1703 Everybody - I'm not being negative about this, just realistic. I'm a partisan - I lean <I>way</I> to the left, but this battle is over, and I'm trying to get used to the idea, and figure out where the next battle is shaping up, and what I can do to help. Everybody – I’m not being negative about this, just realistic. I’m a partisan – I lean way to the left, but this battle is over, and I’m trying to get used to the idea, and figure out where the next battle is shaping up, and what I can do to help.

]]> By: tacit1 http://revision99.com/2006/01/12/meet-the-new-guy/comment-page-1/#comment-1702 tacit1 Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:15:00 +0000 http://revision99.com/2006/01/12/meet-the-new-guy/#comment-1702 I need to know nothing more about this man other than he comes recommended by W. to know that he's unqualified. I mean hello, remember the FEMA dude & the fiasco in N.O. b/c he wasn't qualified? There are others too who aren't making it into my mind right now that illustrate this man's poor judge of character (no pun intended). I need to know nothing more about this man other than he comes recommended by W. to know that he’s unqualified. I mean hello, remember the FEMA dude & the fiasco in N.O. b/c he wasn’t qualified? There are others too who aren’t making it into my mind right now that illustrate this man’s poor judge of character (no pun intended).

]]> By: jonny-no-stars http://revision99.com/2006/01/12/meet-the-new-guy/comment-page-1/#comment-1701 jonny-no-stars Sun, 15 Jan 2006 10:31:00 +0000 http://revision99.com/2006/01/12/meet-the-new-guy/#comment-1701 Sorry, kinda assumed. House of Lords (HOL) 1) Upper level of Parliament. Can delay and change proposed legislation so that it must be considered by the lower, but ultimately senior, House of Commons once again. Can be overruled and so might be considered effectively redundant, but this is very rare. Also the place where a Prime Minister can promote people of a like philosophy so that when his/her proposed Bill gets that far, it has an easier ride and is more likely to become law without major change/delay. 2) The Law Lords (British ultimate legal authority - synonymous with US Spreme Court) are part of the HOL and form a separate HOL which is the one I meant here. We have county courts, appellate court (Court of Appeal), and 'ultimate' court (HOL) before the European Court of Justice. Lesson over! :P Sorry, kinda assumed.

House of Lords (HOL) 1) Upper level of Parliament. Can delay and change proposed legislation so that it must be considered by the lower, but ultimately senior, House of Commons once again.

Can be overruled and so might be considered effectively redundant, but this is very rare.

Also the place where a Prime Minister can promote people of a like philosophy so that when his/her proposed Bill gets that far, it has an easier ride and is more likely to become law without major change/delay.

2) The Law Lords (British ultimate legal authority – synonymous with US Spreme Court) are part of the HOL and form a separate HOL which is the one I meant here. We have county courts, appellate court (Court of Appeal), and ‘ultimate’ court (HOL) before the European Court of Justice.

Lesson over! :P

]]> By: Steph http://revision99.com/2006/01/12/meet-the-new-guy/comment-page-1/#comment-1700 Steph Sat, 14 Jan 2006 19:13:00 +0000 http://revision99.com/2006/01/12/meet-the-new-guy/#comment-1700 I love how people have been calling him Scalito. He bugs me too, but it looks like he's going to get confirmed, no doubt aided by the timely waterworks by his wife. I love how people have been calling him Scalito. He bugs me too, but it looks like he’s going to get confirmed, no doubt aided by the timely waterworks by his wife.

]]>