 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Very sorry..
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 06 Jul 01 - 07:47 PM Hmm. I wonder how our Brit friends will view you now? :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: kendall Date: 06 Jul 01 - 07:17 PM Actually, my ancestors only settled in France. They came from Scandinavia. Then, when the time was right, they invaded England with William the conquorer in 1066. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: kendall Date: 06 Jul 01 - 07:15 PM Doug, I do believe you have a sense of humor after all! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 06 Jul 01 - 02:16 AM Ok. Rick. Kendall, I got an invitation to attend a reception for Justice Clarence Thomas at the State Department in Washington, D. C., on August 1, 2001. It seems someone in the White House took note of my postings on the Mudcat, and sensing that I thought the Justice was qualified, decided to send the invite. I would be delighted to have you accompany me. Should I make reservations for two? I do want you to know that you are second choice because I asked kat and she is all tied up that evening, or something. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Rick Fielding Date: 06 Jul 01 - 01:58 AM Jeez, I'm gonna throw up! Can you guys start fighting again! Rick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 06 Jul 01 - 12:25 AM Jeeze, Kendall, my grandmother was French! You don't think ...Scotch, Irish, French ...could we be related? If so, how could you have gone so wrong? (Sigh) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: kendall Date: 05 Jul 01 - 10:04 PM There is also some French in me, maybe I could apply for foriegn aid? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 Jul 01 - 07:57 PM I'd have thought both halfs would like a jar, kendall... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 05 Jul 01 - 07:43 PM Well, since I am constructed of the same stock myself, I suppose I should feel the say way. I just assumed either you are Spaw would buy. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: kendall Date: 05 Jul 01 - 07:38 PM Doug, I have a problem. I'm half Irish and half Scot. Half of me wants to get drunk, but, the other half doesn't want to pay for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 05 Jul 01 - 06:06 PM Okie dokie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: catspaw49 Date: 05 Jul 01 - 04:10 PM Make mine Jack and Coke....and hold the Coke...... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 05 Jul 01 - 03:53 PM Me either, Spaw. Let's get drunk (that is if you'll drink with a conservative!) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 05 Jul 01 - 03:52 PM Me either, Spaw. Let's get drunk (that is if you'll drink with a conservative!) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 05 Jul 01 - 03:50 PM Me either, Spaw. Let's get drunk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: kendall Date: 05 Jul 01 - 03:50 PM In the movie HONDO, John Wayne said to a young man, "Never apologize, it's a sign of weakness." What a crock! I have never felt the least bit less of a man when I apologized for some stupid remark I made. Thank you guys for injecting some humor, I really appreciate that.Being a humorist is no laughing matter sometimes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: catspaw49 Date: 05 Jul 01 - 02:58 PM Ya' know, this is one of those threads that even when antagonists agree, we miss it. There's been some interesting discussion, but at times we miss each other's points (and places for mutual agreement) in the same way that politics takes over and dismisses abilities in favor of a political agenda in the appointment process. In any case, I still wonder what the ACLU has to do with Clarence Thomas...................then again, I really don't care at this point either! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Lox Date: 05 Jul 01 - 02:51 PM Are we qualified to discuss this issue? Should I qualify that remark? And finally, to get to duel with kendall you'll have to get through the qualifying rounds of the MUDCAT DUELLING CHAMPIONSHIPS. These are of course to the death, but applications must be in before july the 5th or you can't enter (unless you challenge the judges to a duel, in which case ... erm ...) (I think thats probably enough from me) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: UB Ed Date: 05 Jul 01 - 01:05 PM Me too, Doug. I had this vision of losing Danny Boy and being forced to find another Bodhrain player...(wait a second, why would I...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: GUEST,UB Dan Date: 05 Jul 01 - 01:03 PM Kendall, just logged back in. Sorry for the offense. I may have an opinion on a stated idea, but I have no opinion of you personally. We don't know each other well enough for that. Great men sometimes have bad ideas and bad men somnetimes have great ideas. I may "attack" an idea but I mean no offense to the person. (the upside is that now the thread name finally has some meaning) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 05 Jul 01 - 12:38 PM Whew! I am mightly relieved! I had this vision of Kendall and UBDan standing back to back on a frosty morning in Maine, dueling pistols cocked and ready, about to start the count ... This forum could ill afford to lose either of you. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: kendall Date: 05 Jul 01 - 11:56 AM On second thought WS, you are right. He just pushed an old button, and he couldn't possibly know that. Challenge is withdrawn. There is an old eastern saying, "Your opinion of me is none of my business." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 Jul 01 - 11:50 AM I'd think the man has more right to be on the Supreme Court than Bush has to be in the White House. And probably a similar level of competence to do the job.
I imagine he'd say that in this context "discuss" means something different from what it means in ordinary speech. For example, giving an official legal opinion. You know, the same kind of juggling with words thta Clinton tried with "sexual relations".
Isn't "liar" just a different way of spelling "lawyer" anyway? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Whistle Stop Date: 05 Jul 01 - 10:16 AM Kendall, you might want to rethink that. Every disagreement is not a personal attack, and opining that "I think it is silly to say (whatever)" doesn't seem out of bounds to me. Why do you feel the need to respond so aggressively? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: kendall Date: 05 Jul 01 - 10:03 AM Sorry Mate, but, pure logic tells me that a lawyer who says he had never discussed Row v Wade with anyone is bogus. Some very good points have been made here, but, nothing has changed, I still dont like the man for the reasons I stated. UB Dan, this is the second time you have referred to something I said as "silly", and be advised that I dont appreciate it. It borders on an attack, so, if that's what you mean to do, then say so and we will have at it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: GUEST,UB Dan Date: 05 Jul 01 - 09:15 AM Doug...well researched and explained response. Thanks. Although Kendall did make a good point, you only used past events and happenings in your argument, couldn't you add some information and examples from the future as well ;) Sean M, I applaud you. You explain yourself well and made the very important distinction between your objective (Thomas is qualified) and your subjective (you don't like him) views. I think most people would agree with you on both counts. What bothers me is when people confuse these two views (I don't like Thomas so he is unqualified).
In regards to "the admitted liar, David Brock". I am not sure why people would accept everything that he says at face value now. NPR's report stated that no corrobortating evidence can be found. Basically, it is one man saying I was a liar...but believe me now when I say.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Whistle Stop Date: 05 Jul 01 - 08:34 AM Well, I'm a good deal more liberal (politically) than Doug, and I would have preferred to see someone other than Thomas get that seat on the Court. But as far as I can tell Doug has provided a pretty solid rationale for accepting Thomas' qualifications to sit on the Court; at least, I found his arguments pretty compelling (all the more so when you recognize that he was subjected to some significant abuse along the way, but did not respond in kind). Whether we agree or not on any particular issue, I'm glad we have Doug on this forum, and I don't think he has to "show the white feather" to anyone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: GUEST,The Yank Date: 05 Jul 01 - 06:54 AM Showing the white feather, Dougie? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 05 Jul 01 - 12:51 AM Kendall, I think you're right. Enough of this one. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: SeanM Date: 04 Jul 01 - 10:09 PM Well, it would depend on your view of the qualifications. Again - I don't like the man from what I've seen of him. I don't agree with several of his views, and from what I've read of his briefs from the decisions I've seen, I don't agree with his reasoning. However - given the actual qualifications, he's as qualified as anyone else in the country. Given intangible (and unofficial) qualifications such as views on politically charged topics, legal expertise, education and the like? Well, in my opinion, given these qualifications he's definitely NOT the most qualified. However, given the qualifications that he be dependable to push a conservative point of view in court decisions, he's made THAT one several times. I think a LOT of what's going on in this thread is confusing the actual qualifications that DON'T change from appointment to appointment with the substantially slippery and ever changing qualifications based on who is nominating, who is in the senate, what political ideologies are being furthered by his/her appointment, etc. It can not be truthfully said that Clarence Thomas was unqualified for his position. However, I'll stand up and scream as loud as the rest that I don't feel that he meets my criteria as an ideal Justice. M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: kendall Date: 04 Jul 01 - 10:07 PM Seems like we have plowed this ground quite thoroughly, and, any more of this is pointless. The fact that Thomas is qualified to sit on the bench is more scary to me than the fact that he IS on the bench. Why does the Special Olympics come to mind? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Greg F. Date: 04 Jul 01 - 09:36 PM Well, Kendall and McGrath, at least Thomas isn't as nasty a piece of work as his fellow liar & buddy Rhenquist, who committed perjury before the Senate Judiciary Committee more than once during his confirmation hearings. For example: He was confronted with a memo he had written as a law clerk for Justice Jackson which read "I think that we should argue in favor of Plessey vs. Ferguson- that's the 1898 "Separate but Equal" Supreme Court decision re: Black/White education & facilities, for our non-U.S. friends. Rhenquist lied under oath & told the committee that he was just transcribing something that Justice Jackson had said, but that was NOT Jackson's position, nor could Rhenquist produce any other "transcriptions". And Jackson was conveniently dead. Now, had he lied about consensual sex, on the other hand... Best, Greg [P.S. for the benefit of Mr.R- read the hearing transcript] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Lox Date: 04 Jul 01 - 08:26 PM Doug & Sean I put my last point unfairly I had a mild fit of sarcasm feel free to overlook that aspect of it if you can lox |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Lox Date: 04 Jul 01 - 08:20 PM Sean - I said "best qualified" not "best Candidate". Now what kind of qualifications do you think you might need to be a big important judge making big legal decisions for a big powerful country. Doug - good answer, but you know which question needs to be answered don't you. Any other is surely a waste of time energy and brain power. I direct you to paragraph 2 of this post, and ask - is he "really" qualified yes or no. I will not contend your response, but I will be interested to see how stubborn you are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 04 Jul 01 - 08:09 PM Yes, lox, I do. I never, at any time, said Thomas was the most qualified based on experience, or anything else. That, however, was not the charge made by so many in this thread, the charge was that he WAS NOT qualified. Robert Bork is recognized by many to have been among the most qualified ever nominated, but he wasn't confirmed. He was not confirmed for political reasons. It had nothing to do with his qualifications. He was guilty of viewing things from the conservative point of view. Bush (Sr.) wanted, I'm sure, to appoint an African-American to replace Justice Marshall, who was also an African-American. He selecteed Thomas. Justice Thomas is also a conservative. I personally think that one reason so many people are critical of Thomas is that he is not SUPPOSED to be conservative. The overwhelming majority of African-Americans vote liberal, not conservative. Therefore, Thomas doesn't fit the mold. DougR As Sean points out, however, Thomas, under the rules, is qualified, as you, yourself are, lox. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: SeanM Date: 04 Jul 01 - 08:09 PM THAT is a question that (while more to the point) can never be answered to everyone's satisfaction. Was Thomas the best qualified for the job? I'll hazard the answer will be "no". His qualifications to be appointed can't be refuted, as they are minimal requirements at best. However, if you want the best person for the job, you'd better be prepared for the kind of battle that happens every time that a nomination comes before the senate, and you'd also better be prepared to have a large number of people disagree with you. Unfortunately, you can't arbitrarily state "So and so is the best candidate for the court. As their duty is to review laws and the like in reference to their constitutionality, and as the constitution is deliberately vague on a number of points, any decision is going to be based off of the Justice's opinions on what the Constitution means to that particular case. Once again, though, it's somewhat pointless to argue the case. Clarence Thomas is a Supreme Court Justice. Period. Best qualified or not. I don't like it, apparently quite a few others don't like it, but this is America, and the opinions of the masses means dick. How about some talk on how to prevent this happening again (if you are against the appointment) or on future qualified applicants? M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Lox Date: 04 Jul 01 - 07:52 PM A point for consideration Are these questions the same; 1. "Is he qualified" 2. "Does he meet the qualification criteria" And by the same token, should we consider the possibility that some people are better qualified for certain jobs than others irrespective of the qualification criteria? Or does a lack of stringent criteria make everybody equally qualified. DougR, I don't care about Clarence Thomas one way or the other, but I feel I must step in here to point out that your earlier post wasn't as informative as you purported it to be. All you have told us, in answer to the question, is that he studied Law at yale, and that is what makes him a qualified candidate. I would have to conclude on this information, that he was nowhere near being the BEST QUALIFIED candidate. I know enough about the law to know that experience makes you learned in its ways. 3/4 years of college gives you nothing more than a taste. Sometimes common sense must be allowed to prevail over pedantic rule quoting. Do you see my point? lox |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Jul 01 - 07:06 PM Is he really any worse than the rest? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: SeanM Date: 04 Jul 01 - 06:56 PM Liar or not, he's still qualified to sit on the Bench. I'm going to have to be a stickler on this one - he is as qualified as any other representative of 'justice' that could possibly have been sent up. As noted, an autistic quadriplegic blind and deaf three year old would be qualified. Rather than yell back and forth without communicating that he's just "not qualified", which is patently false, how about stating what you'd view as a solution? M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: kendall Date: 04 Jul 01 - 04:49 PM Doug, you will never make me believe that a working lawyer has never discussed Roe v Wade. It is absolutely incredible. No, I dont really believe he is a doofus, I think he is a liar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 04 Jul 01 - 03:32 PM It's not complimentary? Oh shucks, what a surprise! :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Jul 01 - 03:18 PM Wel, the expression portmanteau word comes from Through the Looking Glass ("Well slithy means
But whinging is probably more recent - Aussies use it a fair amount, especially in the expression "Whinging Pom". So it's not complimentary. It means very much the same as "griping", which I thought was another portmantaeu made up of grousing and sniping. But in fact it turns out it is from the Old English gripen, and goes back even further. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 04 Jul 01 - 01:53 PM Thanks for that, McGrath. I'd never heard the word before. Is it a fairly recent addition to the language? So I shouldn't be insulted, right? :>) Hmmm. Not in my dictionary. I wonder if I could find it in "The Supreme Court A to Z?" DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Jul 01 - 01:35 PM (Etymological drift)Whinge is the portmanteau word made up of whining and cringing. The distinction I suppose is that whining is about a sound, and cringing is about a demeanour.
So you could cringe without whining, but I'm not at all sure you could whine without cringing. In which case, if someone is whining they would automaticaly have to be whinging... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 04 Jul 01 - 01:19 PM Why am I not surprised, Greg? Perhaps you could find for us, in a publication you accept as valid, the qualifications for serving on the Court, record for us what you find. Stating the qualifications, which was after all the "question" would not, I believe come under the category of "editorializing." And, it's only a guess, but I think you meant "whining," not whingeing. And Kendell, did it ever occur to you that Justice Thomas might have been telling the truth? Perhaps he never did discuss Roe V Wade with another attorney. He would still be a doofus, right? :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: Greg F. Date: 04 Jul 01 - 12:03 PM Quoth the Doug: "01-Jul-01 Gee, Greg, I'm assuming you have the credentials to make such a judgement in Justice Thomas's case. I'm not familiar with your legal background..."blah, blah, blah(to coin a phrase) It is apparently permitted for Mr. R. to "post... sarcastic message[s] directed at [others], in which he questions [their]credentials"(03-Jul-01 - 09:23 PM) but the other way 'round is strictly forbidden, and cause for Mr. R. to get prissy and piss and moan and carry on. Now I understand how this double standard operates, I'll endeavor to comply by not responding or posting directly to Mr. R. in future--- if only to avoid his whingeing. So, Gentle Reader: Mr. R. confounds the statutory requirements for a Supreme Court Justice with being qualified to serve on the court. He is, indeed, correct in the statutory requirements he states. However, most dead dogs also meet these requirements; this doesn't mean that they are qualified jurists. If there are those out there who believe that it is appropriate for dead dogs to sit in judgement of issues involving the U.S. Constitution, well, (as Mr. R. is fond of reminding all and sundry) they certainly have a right to their opionion. Regarding Mr. R.'s choice of research material, please refer to Congressional Quarterly Press's own website[http://www.cqpress.com/aboutcqpress.html] which states:
"CQ Press is your source for information on politics, policy, and people. A respected purveyor of editorial content [emphasis mine]for more than three decades, CQ Press serves clients in the fields of news, education, business, and government."
e.g.:"On the Court, Thomas forged an unusually close alliance with fellow conservative, Antonin Scalia; they voted together approximately 90% of the time."
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: kendall Date: 04 Jul 01 - 07:43 AM Opinion? this is a fact. When he stated that he had never discussed Row v Wade with ANYONE, it showed him to be either a liar or a doofus. That is not just opinion. I saw it and I heard it from his own mouth. Imagine a lawyer never discussing one of the most controversial rulings in American history! Maybe, like Dan Quayle, he thought Roe vs Wade was the decision Washington had to make when he crossed the Delaware... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: SeanM Date: 04 Jul 01 - 02:19 AM OK... I've been ignoring this thread, but finally out of sheer boredom opened it tonight. Speaking as a confirmed liberal, I have to say that I don't approve of SEVERAL of the Supreme Court's decisions, and do feel that there are any number of people who could do a better job, in my opinion. However, it's still opinion. As Doug points out quite clearly, ANYONE is qualified to sit as a justice on the Court. Any further refinement is due to bickering between the various parties, and ANY judgement of 'quality' will very likely be quickly lost in the morass of partisan bickering. Do I like him? No. Do I wish someone more acceptable to my personal beliefs were in his place? Yes. Does this matter one tiny bit in the grand scheme of things beyond thems that are willing to let me buttonhole them endlessly on politics? No. He's there. He's not done anything that would disqualify him from being a justice - as there really doesn't appear to be anything that would. All the arguing in the world won't change that. Personally, I think that while the court has an identifiable 'conservative' bent, and the handling of the 'election' issue would be worth investigating (if there were a mechanism), overall the justices have shown their willingness to apply the Constitution to the cases brought before them. So, rather than concentrate on the negatives, with 40 minutes to go before 'the 4th', I'll concentrate on a few positives. Kudos to the court for striking down the use of thermal imaging of a house without a warrant, viewing it as a violation of 'unreasonable search'. Kudos to the court for upholding the Federal drug policies over the state 'medicinal marijuana' laws, yet not striking them down - in essence telling the states that while they do not have primacy in this issue (i.e., state laws are still subordinate to directly related federal laws), that they just need to convince the Fed to change things. (In my opinion, this could have opened the door for psychos in the states creating any number of bad laws, and using this as a referendum for racial, gender or any other bias discrimination). Anyone else have something POSITIVE? M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: DougR Date: 04 Jul 01 - 12:23 AM Kendall, my friend, I respect you. And I respect your right to believe whatever you please. Doug |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry.. From: kendall Date: 03 Jul 01 - 11:22 PM Doug, well done, well researched. However, I find that most of your post was about history. Now, why do I feel that he is not qualified? Here goes. He had no experience as a judge. If he has a law degree from Yale, why was he in the Dept. of whatever instead of making loads of money as a lawyer? Look, the man testified in the hearings that he had never discussed Roe v Wade with anyone! Talk about ludicrous. Now, the matter of Anita Hill. She stuffed what happened for a number of years, then, she told some blabber mouth who then spilled the beans. It was after that that she was subpoened to testify. She did not want to, but, she had no choice. I believed her, and, as far as his qualifications go, he meets the bare minimum to sit on the court. Beautiful. How much lower will the bar go? |