BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: LilyFestre
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 08:39 PM

John, you just don't get it.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 07:12 PM

"It takes a heck of a LOT more to raise a child than just money."

Indeed, and I can't begin to tell you how much I admire my mother for having pulled it off as a single woman.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 06:55 PM

"Further, until the time that a man can carry and give birth to a child, he should have NO SAY in the matter."

Until such time that a man can be born a Jew, he should have NO SAY on the issue of anti-semitism.

Until such time that a man has been forced to work for another as a slave, he should have NO SAY on the issue of slavery.

Until such time that a man has been robbed, he should have NO SAY on the issue of robbery.

Until such time that a man has been killed, he should have NO SAY on the issue of murder.

Obviously, the making of laws doesn't work that way. How could it?

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 06:04 PM

No chimp has yet been nominated. I guess you know what that means...

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: LilyFestre
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 06:00 PM

John,

You said, "I've said that he should pay equally (supposing that sex was mutually consented) for any expenses incurred in the raising of the child. I'm not sure how much more I should be expected to want."


It takes a heck of a LOT more to raise a child than just money.

I like HarpGirl's line of thought, very much.

Further, until the time that a man can carry and give birth to a child, he should have NO SAY in the matter.

My body, my choice.

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 05:45 PM

y'know, if there was any (had to slip in one of those tricky underlines) other case where one was admittedly unsure as to when or if something they wanted to exterminate was a living being, would they not be expected not err to the side of assuming "alive" until proven otherwise, instead of assuming "expendable" unless proven otherwise?

By all human goodness, isn't the burden of proof on the wrong side?

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 05:02 PM

"EVERY ova has the potential of becoming a human."

No they don't.

Oh...

....you mean like in the case of Jesus and Mary? ....well, see, I was trying to leave religion out of this. *BG*

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 04:54 PM

BB, in this case I tend to agree with what you say, including both expressions, "pro-life" and "pro-choice," being an attempt to put the best possible faces on the two opposing viewpoints. But you will note that I did not use the term "pro-choice."

Until I am officially declared Omniscient, I reserve judgment on when a fetus becomes a viable human being, because I (and you, and John, and John Roberts) am not qualified, medically or philosopically, to determine that. Until such time, I favor leaving Roe v. Wade as it is. Question:   will John Roberts do that if he is confirmed? That, after all, is what this thread seems to be all about.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 03:57 PM

Don Firth,

And Pro- choice means that the fetus has some choice? You are on weak ground: BOTH sides have chosn labels that sound "good"

I happen to be in favor of allowing abortions. I do not think thay are good, and would rather that they were not needed. But in the real world, they are sometimes the best action.

The major point, that both sides ignore, is the definition of WHEN the fetus becomes a human being with rights. IMO, that is when it is capable of life outside the mother.

For those who would argue that conception is the key point, let me point out that EVERY ova has the potential of becoming a human: Are you willing to insist that ALL women have sex every month to avoid the "loss" of all those potential lives? Starting at what, 12 or 13 years old? If not, any talk of "potential" human life is hypocritical.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 03:28 PM

So, if they are neither representative of the "Pro-life" movement, nor of Christianity, why exactly did you bring them up? More rust? *BG*

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 03:16 PM

Will you allow us to televise these Hardly - Firth debates on MSNBC ?

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 03:09 PM

John, "pro-life" is a misnomer. "Anti-abortion" is what it really amounts to. If they were really pro-life, they would be much more concerned about the welfare and well-being of the mother and the child after the child is born, and I've seen no evidence of this. In fact, many of the same people rage and storm against what they call "welfare mothers" and tell apocryphal stories about women on welfare who deliberately pop out babies for the purpose of increasing their welfare payments. This, of course, is ridiculous.

It has to do with that "collateral damage" that I mentioned.

No. "Pro-life" in this context is nothing more meaningful than a nice sounding buzz-word.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 02:34 PM

oh....and before I'm completely side-tracked....

I still don't think abortion will be made illegal, even if Roe v Wade is ever overturned.

Ironically, as long as it is legal, there will be little effort put into making men more responsible for the children that they produce that escape abortion.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 02:27 PM

So, Don, you're saying that, though they (your anecdotal fundies) are not representative Christians, they are representative of the pro-life movement? (after all, that is why you used them as an example, is it not?)

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 02:22 PM

I've tried to make it clear that I am for any measure that makes the male more responsible. I'm not sure what else I can say.

I've said that he should pay equally (supposing that sex was mutually consented) for any expenses incurred in the raising of the child. I'm not sure how much more I should be expected to want.

I've said that if the father is a minor, the boy's parents should be similarly charged with the financial obligation. I'm not sure how that is a dodge.

It would be incredibly patronizing if I were to suggest that the woman had no say in (were the "victims" of) consentual sex (and therefore would not have to bear at least half the burden). The women in my life are at least as powerful, at least as responsible, at least as capable of decision-making as any men I know. I was raised by a single mother.

And if the sex was not consentual in the first place, well, I'm not sure how much more I could say than that I think a rapist should be put to death (unless there were some way to make him financially indentured to the mother and child).

Just because all of these measures are not in place, though, does not give the moral green light to killing children -- the children who are the result of an act participated in fully volitionally. If one wishes to rectify the situation, I merely suggest that they put their energies toward more moral solutions -- not accepting abortion as birth control.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 02:11 PM

John, they are certainly not representative of most of the Christians I know, but then I go to a fairly liberal Lutheran church (and no, that's not an oxymoron).

One of the two fundamentalist Christians I had that discussion with used to live in the same building where I live. He belongs to one of several nearby churches who share the same beliefs. They proudly say that they believe that the Bible is the literal word of God (the definition of "fundamentalist," whether the book referred to is the Bible or the Koran), and they tend to take verses out of context and string them together to make them mean what they want them to mean. Now, I call that interpreting, which they insist one is not supposed to do.

The vast majority of Christian fundamentalists that I have met seem to be focused on matters of personal salvation, sin, and punishment for sin, along with a heavy emphasis on The Book of Revelation and the "End Times." Other than Revelation, the Old Testament seems to play more of a role in forming their beliefs than the New Testament, apart from selections from Paul's Epistles (oddly enough, especially neglecting the Gospels). Any quotations of Jesus are highly selective, and I never hear them quoting the Beatitudes (". . . Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God. . . .") or verses such as Matthew 25:31-35 (". . . For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me. . . ."). Lots about separating the sheep from the goats, but not that part. They often become involved in legal and political action in an attempt to force their beliefs on the community as a whole. For verification of this, see national politics. Also, my wife works at the Seattle Public Library, and they often have to deal with challenges from these groups to remove certain books from the shelves. Number 1 on the current "hate parade" is the Harry Potter series.

This is not a case of "All Indians walk in single file. At least the one I saw did." In my fairly long life, I've met and had discussions with a substantial number of these folks, and I've had plenty of opportunity to observe them in action. The two people I mention above seem to me to be pretty representative of—not Christians—but Christian fundamentalists.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 01:46 PM

John - Harpgirl has a very good point.

If abortions are illegal and the woman is forced to give birth to an unwanted child, why is it that she has to endure the additional burden of taking him to court to insure child support? Not only is she struggling, financially, to support the child but she has the additional court costs. Even if she can afford a good lawyer (and this is certainly not available to everyone) the courts very rarely consider the cost of education.

Besides the financial cost, there is the day to day responsibility of child care. Who pays for that? I don't think any unwed father has ever been made to pay the mother for her absence from the work force or her day to day job of raising that child.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 12:43 PM

No rhetorical point.

To you, it appears, that your anecdotal Christians are representative. I'm saying they are not. I'm sure they are real -- I'm sure you're not making them up -- I'm just as equally sure that the thousands of people with whom I am familiar (in teh pro-life "movement") are not as you describe....

....gotta load of clay -- maybe more later.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 12:37 PM

And by the way, abortion is not quite the same thing as "killing her child." Or were you trying to make a rhetorical point?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 12:07 PM

John, let's put this right where it really is:   the people I had this discussion with were also opposed to birth control of any kind (and no, they were not Catholic). That's where the discussion started, and then it moved on to abortion. Sex out of wedlock, they maintained, is sin. And if a person commits a sin (or at least what they regarded as sin), then that person must be punished for it.

I found their whole outlook disgustingly mean-spirited and focused strongly on sin and punishment. Damned little regard for the welfare of people, and devoid of the sort of love and forgiveness that Jesus spoke about often and at length. Not what I have been taught is a Christian viewpoint.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 11:52 AM

Back to the judge nominee.

Why is Bush (Jr) not allowing the release of any writing of John Roberts Supreme Court arguments during the time he was working for Bush (Sr.) ?

Its like saying do not look here! Hmm, what's there?

I do not know but there must be a can of worms or Iran contra connection or somthing dark.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: harpgirl
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 11:37 AM

For starters John, this is wrong:At the point of pregnancy there is a third person -- a child. At the point of pregnancy you have a blastocyst. Nothing more.

And I could not be MORE for making men responsible in any way possible -- for both the act of sex and for any consequntial child produced.

So what are you doing to make this a reality? Anything at all?


In fact, I would be for making rape a capital offence (with the added benefit of short-cutting through the BS of what to do with pedophiles -- rape would cover any sexual assault). The only exception I might make would be if there was any possibility of leaving it up to a raped woman if she would rather have a rapist as an indentured servant, having his wages apportioned to her for life.


This ia a start, John.


You start to lose me at this point, John:

I would be for confiscation of HIS parent's wages to support the pregnancy and child. That just might make boys behave more responsibly if there was no escape from the financial responsibility.

Like, this is going to make a teenage boy keep his johnson in his pants.


How about paternity tests for all children as requested by the mother, and mandatory support of the MOTHER AND THE CHILD for eighteen years? Kind of makes ya squirm huh, John? To have all that responsibility. But we women have it without any guaranteed support for parenting. That's so fair.

You still strike me as a man who will not step up to the plate and offer a solution that makes men and women equally responsible for the children they bring into the world.

But keep trying. I can see your are thinking more about this important issue.

On a more personal note:

My son's father is a stock broker. Because I went to court at my own expense, I got 150 dollars a month to raise my son for the first ten years. When I returned to court at my own expense, I got $270 a month until the day he graduated from high school. Since that time I received nothing at all. I'm not bitter, just very, very good at and focused on giving my son what he deserves from two parents in this world. I have made sacrifices to provide him with a college education and help him negotiate the world. Someone had to. I would have been a better parent though, if his father had done his fair share.

Until men are made to carry their fair share, abortion should be legal, free, and on demand.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 10:10 AM

John you would sound much more intelligent if you spoke about what you think men should be made to do with regard to the unwanted children they produce.

I fail to see any relation between sounding intelligent in posts here and also addressing the male part of the problem.

John could address also the male part and still sound not intelligent, he also could sound intelligent and not mention the male part (and two more possibilities). I disagree with John's opinion here but I admit sometimes grinning in appreciation about his way to argue (I liked the 'rusty' observation for instance).

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 08:04 AM

Harpgirl, what could I possibly say that would sound "intelligent" to you, short of agreeing with you? *BG*

The issue of male responsibility is an important issue, and one I addressed tangentially when I expressed the view that men WANT abortions. One of the many reasons men WANT abortions is that, as I said, they want sex without responsibility. That means they want sex without fear of paternity suit.

A couple hundred dollars for an abortion (wherein the woman suffers the trauma of the procedure, as well as the intimate knowledge of the totality of the horror of the act) is a preferrable "out" to that kind of man -- a man who would rather pay a few hundred early than pay child support for 20 years.

Doesn't say much about men. But there you have it. Men WANT abortion to remain legal. Men don't want to "control" women by keeping them pregnant -- it costs too much.

Honestly, of the people you know, is it really the men who can't wait to have babies? Really?

I know men want sex. Lots of it. As much as they can get. But babies? Really?

And I could not be MORE for making men responsible in any way possible -- for both the act of sex and for any consequntial child produced.

In fact, I would be for making rape a capital offence (with the added benefit of short-cutting through the BS of what to do with pedophiles -- rape would cover any sexual assault). The only exception I might make would be if there was any possibility of leaving it up to a raped woman if she would rather have a rapist as an indentured servant, having his wages apportioned to her for life.

And when it's not rape, but rather, consentual sex, I believe in pateral support. In fact, if the father is a minor, I would be for confiscation of HIS parent's wages to support the pregnancy and child. That just might make boys behave more responsibly if there was no escape from the financial responsibility.

I am not "soft" on male responsibility. I merely face the reality -- a reality imposed by nature, not by man -- that it will forever be the woman who bears the burden of childbirth.

But it isn't about a woman's choice about what to "do with her body". That ship sailed when she participated, willingly, in the act that nature dictated creates the possibility of a child. Sex is great fun but it is not guaranteed to be without consequence. When there is a consequence -- pregnancy -- it is no longer the woman's body alone. At the point of pregnancy there is a third person -- a child.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: harpgirl
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 07:32 AM

John you would sound much more intelligent if you spoke about what you think men should be made to do with regard to the unwanted children they produce.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 07:28 AM

So, "sin" or no "sin", she should be able to kill her child for messing up her plans (like going to college, for instance)? Was she raped?

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: DougR
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 12:56 AM

Jeeze, what a disappointment. I was just sure GWB would appoint a Liberal candidate to the court! What a disappointment.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 09:12 PM

once someone gets the notion that there IS such a thing as **SIN** that can be defined and easily recognized by a specific religious denomination, shrugging about punishment, no matter how punitive, comes easily.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 08:57 PM

The "rusty" was to stress the point, John. I didn't, however, mention the all too often questionable sanitary practices of the back-street abortionist. Sorry if you found the emphasis objectionable.

Regarding pregnancy as a punishment for sin:   in a rather heated discussion some time ago, I was informed by a couple of people of the fundamentalist Christian right persuasion that if a woman (we were speaking of teen-agers at the moment) got pregnant by messing around in the back seat of her boy friend's Chevy, and for whateve reason had to go ahead and have the baby, then whatever social disgrace she faced, or however this messed up her life plans (preventing her from going to college, say), that was no more than she deserved for committing the sin of having sex without the sanction of the church. Their equation of having a child as punishment for sin was clear. When I argued that the child may very well suffer as a result, one of them made some remark about the sins of the father (or mother) being visited upon the child.

Like I said, they didn't give a damn about "collateral damage."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 12:20 PM

"Why shouldn't women have the right to do with their bodies what they want ?"

They should. They should have the absolute right to have or say no to sex.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Wesley S
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 11:52 AM

Why shouldn't women have the right to do with their bodies what they want ? We men have had that right all along. It's time to share the "wealth".

I would love to see the "study" you are quoting guest. Can you provide a link ?

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: GUEST,G
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 08:45 AM

Michelle;
Sorry but I am not ashamed. It would accomplish the puroose, wouldn't it? We are being hammered by the Feminists pleas a for a womans right to "do with her body as she pleases".
Incest and rape are one catagory, gender selection? Rather callous, I think, and the clinics report the majority of abortions are for that purpose.

I think "Guest" is ok for anyone that so desires. In this case, it means the same as Michelle, John, Azizi,and Joe from where I am sitting.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 08:05 AM

....Oh, and Don,

...why a "rusty" coathanger?

Couldn't the rhetorical point be made as strong without the rust? How did the rust get in the cliche'? Did the rust strengthen the logic of your point?

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 07:58 AM

But I doubt that it will be made illegal. And it especially will never be illegal for the rape victim. And it will especially never be illegal when the health of the mother is concerned.

Even if all of the above was at one time illegal, the country has more than moved on.   

I'm not saying that there isn't a vocal minority that will push to make abortion illegal again. They just won't win.

And there are extremists who would push for illegality even in rape and health-of-the-mother cases. They especially won't win -- and they will (as ever) be one of the reasons that more moderate limitations on abortion won't be passed (it will be demogogued, and the moderate will be too easily tied to the extremist's cement shoes and thrown in the river, as always).

We have lived with the convenience of abortion for too long to go back. There is no collective will to go back.

The cliche', Don, that it is a punishment for the sin of extramarital sex, in my intimate knowledge of a huge number in the pro-life movement (my mother was, and sister is active in the movement, supporting and volunteering in crisis pregnancy centers -- financially supporting anyone who wishes to carry an "unwanted" child to term), has NEVER been the issue. Nobody that I know considers pregnancy a punishment for sin.

There is a huge and meaningful difference between "punishment for sin" and acknowledgement that there are consequences for actions. There need be no "religious" element in trying to get society to accept that there are NATURAL consequences to actions. Education to accept natural consequences is often the first, best step toward improving a situation. We currently operate under the mistaken notion that consequences can be removed without further consequences. It isn't God, or religion, or judgemental people that cause consequences. It's nature.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: LilyFestre
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 06:50 AM

If I wrote something as disturbing as "including jumping from the 5th floor of a parking garage if the 'baby' is not wanted. That should "get rid" of it." I'd post as Guest too. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: GUEST,G
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 11:01 PM

Is anyone aware of what percentage of abortions are due to "gender selection"? I have never considered sex out of wedlock a sin, even though I may have a tough time explaining that to 'lord' knows who.

With regard to a womans right to do with her body as she deems necessary, ok with me - including jumping from the 5th floor of a parking garage if the 'baby' is not wanted. That should "get rid" of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: LilyFestre
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 10:25 PM

Here's Your As....er...Conservative Old White Man

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 09:59 PM

Well, here are a few more cliches (but just remember, one of the troublesome things about cliches is that they generally become cliches because they're true).

Those for whom aborting an unwanted child is a matter of "maintaining a lifestyle" generally have the bucks necessary to travel to another state or another country to get the job done. Or to find a doctor who is willing to do a little backroom procedure without putting it on the books if he's paid enough. For the rape victim or the pregnant teen-ager, the only recourse they will have is the sleazy back-street butcher or the time-honored rusty coat hanger.

Making abortion illegal won't stop it. It'll just wind up killing and maiming a lot of women and girls. But then, the whole point, as far as the far right or the fundies is concerned is that if someone "commits a sin" (has sex out of wedlock), they must suffer for it. Suffer:   be forced into having a child that they don't want or are simply unable to raise in a decent environment.

Great for the child. Not to mention eventual crime statistics.

But as long as the sinner suffers for her sin, fundies and right-wingers don't much care about "collateral damage."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: harpgirl
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 06:24 PM

"If Roe v. Wade is overturned abortion won't go away. Each state can and has legistlated on the issue. It does mean that some states will be more difficult (like it was ever easy?) to obtain safe and legal abortions. Amazing how those who oppose abortion think that if it's made illegal it will go away. They have no regard for the young women of America (chattle, apparently) who have the least amount of power in this entire transaction (when compared to the conservative white males who would force this situation upon them) and who will once again start turning up as bodies dumped in discreet places after they die from botched abortions."



Calling these remarks "arguing from cliche" is just a sneaky, patronizing way of dismissing them, John.

SRS is correct in everything she says. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, many states will make abortion illegal and women will still seek abortions.

Wealthy women will still have abortions and poor women will have children they don't want or can't take care of but would have aborted if they had the opportunity. And many will die from operations which are done on the sly and without proper medical support.

White males or males at all, for that matter should not be able to legislate this choice. It is a women's problem and should be a women's right.

l,h

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 06:17 PM

That's not the cliche' to which I referred. The cliche' to which I refer is the notion that white males want to keep young women pregnant. All one has to do is look around their own experience and their own circle of aquaintances to realize that it is rarely the men that do not want abortions, It is rarely the (unmarried) men who want children.   

If anything, more abortions are performed at the behest of the man, not the woman. Men WANT abortions. Men WANT sex without commitment or consequence. Men don't want their daughter's lives "ruined". Rich Republican men want abortion on demand so their taxes aren't increased to pay for more welfare children, plus they ignore their wives. Democrat men want abortion because the the envision those poor children being born in poverty (whether or not they are), plus they listen to their wives *BG*.

Men want abortion on demand at least as much as women do. Maybe more. And women are just as active, maybe more active, in the "pro-life" movement.

I do think that, in answer to your worry, abortions will be legal for the duration. We just won't have to torture the Constitution to make it so. There will, no doubt, be battles over laws -- some even vehement in some states -- but illegal abortion? No way.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: van lingle
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 05:42 PM

Now that you brought it up JH I don't know where SRS was going with that but if Roe v Wade is overturned that will just be the beginning for the very determined anti abortion movement. They'll be hammering it in every state and while that middle class woman in California will have the option who's gonna buy that poor girl in Alabama a bus ticket?vl

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 10:18 AM

"Millions were spent, many counts were made and the result was the same."

well, that is not the main point....it is certainly possible that Bush won Florida by 500 or so votes by counting all those officially approved ballots.....but there were ballots that were NOT 'officially approved' ...by hard line Republican officials....and many, many more people that were denied the right to VOTE by intimidatation or making it difficult for them to register, etc. THIS IS DOCUMENTED, even if hard to build a sold court case over.

An election can be influenced by more than just blatant, outright fraud and ballot box stuffing like Mayor Daley used to do!

Get over it? Have those who lost under Daley's machine gotten over it?

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: GUEST,G
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 08:57 AM

This has been a very interesting, even intellectual thread but for two exceptions.

CBS news, the New York Times, CNN et.al., did a long range recount of the 2000 Florida ballots. This is not your average "right wing" group and their results closely matched the final State tally.
Millions were spent, many counts were made and the result was the same. Besides, that was 5 years ago and it is time to get over it!

Secondly, I must be a lot slower than I thought. There was no way in whatever that I could obtained enough information to develope an informed opinion on the nominee as was done by "21 July 05 - 10:12"
in this thread. Gee Whiz, that was about an hour after the announcement!

I did, however, notice the marked resemblance of the 3 people to the left of the President; Jackie, Johnboy and his sister?

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: snarky
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 03:16 PM

Would crying make you go away? If so, I think she should do it!

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: GUEST,Your Pal
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 12:08 PM

Typical response from a pig-headed feminist, harpgirl.

Does crying help you get your way if nothing else works?

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 11:39 AM

Anything but an insult, harpgirl. I rarely, if ever, see SRS arguing from cliche'. I would have expected her to be more like Bill D. in this instance -- disappointed, but well-reasoned.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: harpgirl
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 10:48 AM

Another insult to women from John Hardly. Keep it up, pal!

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: John Hardly
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 09:44 AM

"If Roe v. Wade is overturned abortion won't go away. Each state can and has legistlated on the issue. It does mean that some states will be more difficult (like it was ever easy?) to obtain safe and legal abortions. Amazing how those who oppose abortion think that if it's made illegal it will go away. They have no regard for the young women of America (chattle, apparently) who have the least amount of power in this entire transaction (when compared to the conservative white males who would force this situation upon them) and who will once again start turning up as bodies dumped in discreet places after they die from botched abortions."

SRS,

Your mind is SO much better than this. I'm really surprised.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Peace
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 02:15 AM

FYI

Second down. (Will he pass?)

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 11:50 PM

Yeah, if the corrupt Bushites hadn't hyjacked the Election, as well as America, in2000, we wouldn't be a a point where we would be settling for the least reactionary of the the reactionaries....

Yeah, we'd be thinkin' about a judge who would rather accept current law (and precedences thast go with it) and move *forward*...

I'm not too sure that there will be anything but *retreat* under this court, especially since Bush will more that likely appoint a real reactionary firebrand when Renquist resigns or dies....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: GUEST,ar282
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 11:05 PM

Whatever happens, America deserves it. We brought this on ourselves. Compared to what we're doing to the Middle East, we're getting off pretty mildly I would say.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 09:56 PM

He's an intelligent, Christian White man with a little son who likes to dance.

Probably the best PR move that Bush ever made.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 07:33 PM

bb, I'm real tired of tiresome adolescent crap like this: "Brilliant, respected, unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness... sounds like no liberal could think of voting for him...."

'Tain't funny no more.

And who is that liberal you're talking about? Richard Nixon fits the bill better than anyone I can think of -- look at his VP and Attorney General, among others. Who would've thought?

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 11:08 AM

"speak for"??? gee, oh esteemed soother of troubled psyches, I don't "speak for" anyone...I just draw on my now overwhelming(age, you know) store of observations of LO these many years and report on what is obvious to anyone who hasn't been running lambent through too many hurricanes recently ;>)

There I was, attempting to support, as I always have, the improvement of opportunities and consideration for various groups (NOT just women), while trying to recognize the inherent differences in perceived ambitions ....and what do I get? Demands for facts and statistics! Cor, blimey! I didn't ASK 270,000 folks their ultimate goals...that would have taken more time than hollowing a 12" chunk of Live Oak!



but I did find this: *grin*...data on applications to Law Schools

(yeah, women ARE finally applying in 'almost' the same numbers as men)....Now, what precise % follow thru and graduate and seek to become judges, I'm not sure has been researched, and though it's probably higher that those who seen to drive in the INDY 500, I'd venture that it is still lower than for men. As Bobert might say, "That's my opinion, an' I'm stickin' to it"

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: harpgirl
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 10:14 AM

Hey wooden bowl breath! How do you presume to speak for what most women strive for? Facts?
l,h

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: van lingle
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 06:02 AM

I, for one, apply "litmus tests" to judicial appointees and this guy fails most of mine from what I see, so far. At the very least he's guilty by association and appears to be just another gift to the upper 1 or 2% by our little pissant of a president. vl

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 09:46 PM

Hey, when the Bush team of lawyers stopped the recount in Florida in 2000 because they argued that if it were to continue that their guy "would be harmed", it was a forgone conclusion that the Supreme Court was gonna move further to the right...

Like what is the big shock 'n awe here???

Ain't rocket surgery...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 09:18 PM

"Or blacks, hispanics, homosexuals, or Russians huh, Bill?"

yes, that's correct....I didn't say it was nice, and that I was in favor of it. Those groups also are not striving to be race car drivers or professional bowlers or bass fishers in the same percentages as the 'dominant' group, but when they DO strive, they are beginning to be noticed & chosen more often...which is a GOOD thing.

You don't think *I* am in favor of keeping "blacks, hispanics, homosexuals, Russians OR women" from applying and suceeding at anything they wish to compete in, do you? I am trying VERY hard to balance what would be nice to see with the realities of life as it works.

You seem to be suggesting something like 'affirmative action' quotas for jobs on the Supreme Court, and I gotta tell you, that just wont work. All we can do is try to level the playing field to make the OPPORTUNITES fair & open, and remember that the most qualified for job 'X' will often NOT be from a minority group.....it is up to us to be sure minorites are allowed to BECOME qualified and to be fairly considered....and yes, I KNOW how awkward and uphill that battle is at times!

   There is a lot more than slogans and critical rhetoric needed to make the needed gains...whether in driving in the Indy 500,or sitting on the Supreme Court.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 08:56 PM

A person from Nebraska said that Roberts primary qualification is that he is a good Christian.

It is apparent to that gentleman that Christians are automatically superior to everyone else.

Enough of the Uber Christians.

Judge the man, not the religion that prays to a God that shares their political predjudice.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: harpgirl
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 08:43 PM

"The court is a collection of 9 supposedly intelligent legal minds....and most women don't work to be in that group."


Or blacks, hispanics, homosexuals, or Russians huh, Bill? Just white middle class males! The dominant superpower of the planet, rapidly moving us all towards extinction! Hooray for you guys. I really want you representing me on the court. Not

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 07:41 PM

Harpgirl - I am very surprised to hear you say, " Reigster everyone by their religion! Keep those muslims out!!!!" Were you kidding? I hope so.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 06:02 PM

Harpgirl, honey. Could you get me some coffee please?

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 05:58 PM

"... the court is not representative of our population."

and it never WILL be! That's not the way it was set up and not even a good idea. It would require elimination of the 'lifetime appointment' clause and would mean even worse battles than we NOW have to try to implement. Proportional representation is only slightly sucessful in the House of Representatives. Any time the President gets to appoint, he WILL appoint from his own perspective, and for a few years we had a court with some real scholars and socially aware jurists...sadly, some recent appointemnts are suspect.

The court is a collection of 9 supposedly intelligent legal minds....and most women don't work to be in that group, so there is NEVER as large a pool to choose from, though we are, thankfully, finally getting some women considered and appointed.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson's Mind But Not Body
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 05:45 PM

Harpgirl wants a feminist Spanish speaking black who wears a turbin, obviously.

Typical response from a feminist.

Reasonable left wingnuts here know Roberts is a fine choice and Bush made a choice that will make anyone against him look like a crybaby.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 05:42 PM

Register everyone by their religion!

Harpgirl, I wish I hadn't even read that.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: harpgirl
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 05:31 PM

Well, I am outraged that the court is not representative of our population. It should be weighted with women, slightly more liberal than conservative and reflect the racial balance of the United States. Anything less is simply unacceptable.

But Georgey boy, has all the marbles!

And these stupid white men are going to frisk people on the new york subway by a number system like one in five (that's of one million daily riders, right???)and not target any special races!

The fundamentalist muslim crazy men are doing this to the world. Pick up those guys, you fools! Reigster everyone by their religion! Keep those muslims out!!!!

l,h

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 05:19 PM

yep, PoppaGator...that's what I tried to say. Bush has almost 3 years to go, and we "fellow lefties" are not likely to see just what we want from him, and I doubt we can block appointments for 3 years (NOT a good idea to try)...this whitebread fellow is at LEAST brighter that we might have hoped for....and ya' know, sometimes basic intelligence will get through as a justice sees real cases.....

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: PoppaGator
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 02:15 PM

Trivia: Assuming JR gets approved, it will be the first time that a former Supreme Court clerk and the justice for whom he clerked would serve on the court at the same time.

Fellow lefties: Bush could hardly have been expected to nominate someone with whom we agree 100%, right? Or even 20%... All things considered, this guy might be OK in the long run: way brighter than the typical neocon dittohead ~ and young ~ he just might grow and evolve on the job to become be the Earl Warren on the coming era. Or not (of course).

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: snarky
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 02:15 PM

white bread and mayonnaise

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Wesley S
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 01:50 PM

This is from his www.nndb.com profile -

AKA John Glover Roberts, Jr.

Born: 27-Jan-1955
Birthplace: Buffalo, NY


Gender: Male
Religion: Roman Catholic
Ethnicity: White
Occupation: Government

Level of fame: Niche
Executive summary: Bush nominee for Supreme Court

Clerk for William Rehnquist, 1980-81, and after that special assistant to US Attorney General William French Smith. Private practice, 1986-89 and 1993-2003, associate for Hogan & Hartson and partner from 1993 onward. In 2003, his gross income at Hogan was $1.04M. For 1989-93 he was Principal Deputy Solicitor General, responsible for arguing 32 cases in the US Supreme Court. Presently, he serves on the US Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit. A conservative, though the paper trail on him is thin. He believes in a narrow interpretation of the Constitution and limited government. In one of his briefs he stated that "we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled" -- but in later confirmation testimony stated "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." George W. Bush nominated Roberts to replace Sandra Day O'Connor in a televised broadcast on 19 July 2005.

Father: (Bethlehem Steel manager)
Sister: Kathy
Sister: Peggy
Sister: Barbara
Wife: Jane Sullivan Roberts (m. 1996, two children adopted)
Son: Jack
Daughter: Josie


    High School: (Indiana)
    University: AB, Harvard University (1976, summa cum laude)
    Law School: JD, Harvard Law School (1979, magna cum laude)


    Harvard Law Review Managing Editor, 1978-79
    Bethlehem Steel summer jobs

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 01:46 PM

...but ain't generic usually cheaper? Maybe lower quality binders and coatings, making it harder to swallow...but often does as well as fancy, well-advertised name brands.

Take two and call me in a month...

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: freda underhill
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 11:01 AM

OBERTS VOWS TO BE MOST GENERIC WHITE MALE IN HISTORY OF SUPREME COURT
Bush Praises Nondescript Nominee

John G. Roberts, President Bush's nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the United States Supreme Court, made a case for his own nomination today, telling reporters that, if confirmed, he was determined to be "the most generic white male in the history of the Supreme Court."

With a beaming President Bush at his side, Judge Roberts said that if he serves on the nation's highest court, "The nondescript American white male, who is woefully underrepresented in this country at present, will finally have a voice."

Judge Roberts summarized the life experiences that had put him in touch with the needs of the generic white male, including a brief period in the early 1980's when he modeled generic men's sportswear for K-Mart, as well as a later stint as a downloadable generic white male icon for ClipArt.

While President Bush praised his nominee for being both "interchangeable" and "unremarkable," a poll taken just hours after the nomination was announced suggests trouble ahead, with a clear majority of Americans being unable to remember Judge Roberts' name.

According to the poll, over fifty percent of those surveyed identified Mr. Bush's nominee as either "Jim Rogers" or "Bob Roberts," with over seventy percent confusing him with CBS news anchor John Roberts, yet another prominent generic white male.

For his part, President Bush appeared unfazed by such numbers, telling reporters at the White House, "I have total confidence in Don Rogers."

Elsewhere, over 150,000 women in Great Britain submitted applications to become actor Jude Law's new nanny.

from Today's political satire & parodies

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: harpgirl
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 10:12 PM

Roberts is a f***king disaster in a Zegna suit! Thank God these white men are going extinct!

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 06:39 PM

no..first I have to get it to feed paper
(and I am always reasonable!....a condition totally incompatible with being a Bushite!)

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 04:13 PM

Be carefull, Bill... There are those here who will call you a Bushite if you keep being reasonable....


BTW, I found one cartridge for the LJII- Need it yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 11:49 AM

from Marc Fisher's column in today's Wash. Post (it is just about what I remembered.)


"The matter wound up in the U.S. Court of Appeals, and Roberts's decision last fall shows him to be a witty writer with the confidence to show some heart. He seems pleased that after "the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry," Metro changed its policy and no longer arrests young snackers. Roberts recognizes that Ansche wants the charges nullified because no one wants to have to say yes to that standard application question, "Ever been arrested?"

But Roberts quickly divorces himself from the human side of the case. He has no sympathy for the notion that Ansche was discriminated against because of her age. Roberts says government has every right to treat children differently, setting age requirements for voting, marriage, driving and drinking. Anyway, he notes, the fact that Metro changed its policy so quickly shows "that the interests of children are not lightly ignored by the political process." But Roberts rejects the idea that the court should weigh in on whether the police trampled on Ansche's freedom."

so...he did agree that the arrest was 'legal', if poorly thought out under bad policy. Sorry M. Ted, but even though I agree with you that we could have better choices, just saying "Roberts is the one who ruled in favor of arresting the 12 year old girl..." is misleading and incomplete. I actually though he showed some humor & comapssion in the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: GUEST,Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 11:38 AM

Looks like Martin Gibson is back and in fine form, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 10:31 AM

SRS and dianavan obviously responded with the penis envy feminist attitudes that were expected from their sorry lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 10:22 AM

Mr. Ted, what is this about a girl being arrested for eating a "French Fry"??

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Wolfgang
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 07:28 AM

This actually seems like one the better decisions of Bush.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: GUEST,G
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 06:53 AM

SRS - Regarding Clarence Thomas, I have never meet the man but his educational background seems to be more meaningful than that of any golden retrieve I have run across. I do know that a retrievers' brain is physically small and in all cases has been proven to be nomially trainable. I guess I just need more "evidence".
Nice play on words though, "thats a no brainer".
Maybe you know of a golden retriever that has a law degree?

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: van lingle
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 04:44 AM

But, can a golden retriever detect a pubic hair on top of a coke can?

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 Jul 05 - 12:21 AM

He doesn't need to pre-judge any case when he answers a basic question about his views on privacy as they are understood according to the constitution.

Guest G said Things I don't understand at all are statements like;

"At least he has more brains than Clarence Thomas".

Now, how can anyone say that and have the evidence to back it up.

I'd say that your average golden retreiver has more brains than Clarence Thomas, and a lot more character. That's a no-brainer.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:56 PM

interesting so far...even though *I* would have picked someone WAY different from Roberts, I see those on my side fudging on some of the arguments. He has said several different, and apparently contradictory, things about Roe....but each side points only to the ones THEY want to emphasize.

And I'd have to look up the exact text of what he said about the 12 year old girl, but I 'thought' he merely ruled that the law was technically enforced correctly, though in a heavy-handed manner and the incident should have been handled better. Maybe that was in todays paper...(Let's be as clear & fair about representing the man's record as we can, folks. If we get all excited and can't stomach THIS one, just imagine who they have waiting! You don't think Bush is gonna give us another Byron White or Thurgood Marshall, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:44 PM

Frank, Try reading my post before you make comments. I don't call the Clinton administration Republican Reactionary.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: M.Ted
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:38 PM

146 members of the DC Bar--by a recent estimate, there are more than 40,000 lawyers in Washington--that isn't exactly a plurality. So you are simply spinning the party line, Bruce, trying to make this extremely partisan man seem reasonable--

Roberts is the one who ruled in favor of arresting the 12 year old girl for eating a French Fry while she was standing on the Metro platform--and, lest we forget, he has advocated for the right-wing religious terrorists who, in turn, advocate bombing abortion clinics--

So we'll see--

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Frankham
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:36 PM

Brilliant, respected, unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness... sounds like no liberal could think of voting for him....

That's only because this really sounds like Republican Reactionary hype.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:30 PM

Here's what MoveOn says about his record, FWIW. I am not coming out swinging here, but just posing this viewpoint for consideration:

John Roberts has little experience as a judge—he was only appointed in 2003. But he's got a lot of experience as a corporate lobbyist and lawyer, consistently favoring wealthy corporations over regular Americans.

Here's a list of some of the things that make Roberts the wrong pick for the Supreme Court:

*        Wrong on environmental protection: Roberts appears to want to limit the scope of the Endangered Species Act, and in papers he wrote while in law school he supported far-right legal theories about "takings" which would make it almost impossible for the government to enforce most environmental legislation.

*        Wrong on civil rights: Roberts worked to keep Congress from defending parts of the Voting Rights Act.

*        Wrong on human rights: As a appeals court judge, Roberts ruled that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to some prisoners of war.

*        Wrong on our right to religious freedom: Roberts argued that schools should be able to impose religious speech on attendees.

*        Wrong on women's rights: Roberts wrote that "Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled." He also weighed in on behalf of Operation Rescue, a violent anti-abortion group, in a federal case.

President Bush could have chosen many fair-minded and independent jurists to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Instead, he chose a corporate partisan loved by Bush's right-wing base but out of step with the rest of the country.

---

I think there is some merit to these views.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:23 PM

From what I've heard on the radio today, Judge Roberts sounds like a pretty decent human being. Far better, in fact, than the person who put forth his nomination. Any chance we could just let Roberts be President instead?

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:19 PM

In 2003, as M. Ted noted, Roberts said "Roe v Wade is the settled law of the land...There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

In fact, for that very reason, some of the fire-breathing anti-abortion groups are not thrilled with him.

However, he sure does toe the business line--so laws like the Endangered Species Act stand to be progressively undermined--he has already signalled this in a recent dissent while on the DC Circuit. This is a real danger. And a lot of people may be up in arms about "Kelo", but the anti-environmentalists plan to exploit this feeling to attack the "takings" clause--now used to prevent development which puts endangered species at risk.


The worst aspect of his being chosen is that he's 50 years old--will likely be on the Court for a LONG time--30 years or so of relentless strict constructionism.

And of course he will be soon joined by another judicial spring chicken clone of Rehnquist--though my guess is that, for his second pick Bush will choose his Hispanic Texas buddy--thus assuring his place as first to pick a Hispanic. (Of course the "Religious Right" is not happy with (is it Gonzalez?) either---but where are they going to go?--and at this point, not ever facing any more elections, Bush is far more concerned with his imagined place in the history books.

But as far as fighting Roberts' nomination, unless there's a smoking gun in his private life--ain't gonna happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:16 PM

well, bruce...I thought that was sort of what I said....but, ok...I'll officially agree with you...so far..*grin* (but we both know BOTH sides will want to know (or think they already do) about how he is likely to decide certain types of cases.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:04 PM

BillD,

Do you really want ANY judge that will decide a case before hearing the arguements?

ANY questions about how he will rule in specific cases should be off-limits.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:01 PM

ok, 'G'...'never mind' officially dropped. I admit I am a bit surprised to see Bush appoint someone who is obviously well qualified and intelligent....and I also admit I was expecting nothing BUT mud-slinging in this thread. I hope it is kept to a minimum, and I hope Roberts is as forthcoming as someone ought to be during the hearings. I, at least, would not expect him to 'announce' all his potential decisions prior to actual cases, but I hope he doesn't obfuscate either.

we shall, as they say, see...hmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 09:50 PM

Our John Roberts has been nominated for the Supreme Court Justice opening? If he was having heart problems before, this will really do him in. Just say no, John!

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 09:44 PM

"Roberts' nomination to the appellate bench attracted support from both ends of the ideological spectrum. Some 146 members of the D.C. Bar, including officials from the Clinton administration, signed a letter urging his confirmation.

The letter stated: "He is one of the very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation, with a deserved reputation as a brilliant writer and oral advocate. He is also a wonderful professional colleague both because of his enormous skills and because of his unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness."


http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/20/roberts.profile.ap/index.html

Brilliant, respected, unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness... sounds like no liberal could think of voting for him....

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 09:40 PM

Common sense is ethno centic. Since America has no specific culture of its own (unless you include Hollywood), I think your name says it all. If you think America has a specific culture, you should explain more specifically what that implies.

I think you are Martin and we all know that he has no common sense at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: jimmyt
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 09:39 PM

I hope he is a moderate and hope against hope that Rehnquist is still on the court when the next election comes around. I am one conservative that believes we need a balanced court and nothing will benefit by getting it weighted one way or the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: GUEST,G
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 09:37 PM

To Bill D.; Drop the "Oh, never mind". Your points are well taken.
While we may not always vote for the same people, although I think there are times we may, I get the feeling that we (you and I) have the ability to respect each others opinions. And that is just what they are, opinions. I sometimes wonder who is on the correct path.

Things I don't understand at all are statements like;

"At least he has more brains than Clarence Thomas".

Now, how can anyone say that and have the evidence to back it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: kendall
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 09:20 PM

At least he has more brains than Clarence Thomas.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: M.Ted
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 09:14 PM

For what it's worth, Roberts has actually said that the Roe vs. Wade decision is the law of the land and should be respected. As to his other dubious activities--it has been pointed out that he did it what he did because he was paid to be an advocate--

God knows what he'll do when he can decide on his own--and that's the principle that has made our legal system what it is;-)

Still, I'm against him--cause I know that the folks who are against me support him. I just sent a bunch of money to MOVE-ON, and I'm looking forward to the fight!

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 08:56 PM

Good discussion about the confirmation process today on Fresh Air. They discussed the process of getting useful answers from candidates by asking the right questions and listening to what they've been coached to say.

If Roe v. Wade is overturned abortion won't go away. Each state can and has legistlated on the issue. It does mean that some states will be more difficult (like it was ever easy?) to obtain safe and legal abortions. Amazing how those who oppose abortion think that if it's made illegal it will go away. They have no regard for the young women of America (chattle, apparently) who have the least amount of power in this entire transaction (when compared to the conservative white males who would force this situation upon them) and who will once again start turning up as bodies dumped in discreet places after they die from botched abortions.

Perhaps this is what our malignant guest was aiming for all along. What a sorry self-righteous SOB.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 08:55 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/20/scotus.oconnor.ap/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 08:47 PM

piffle! Technically, the Supreme Court does not make abortion law, but we KNOW there will be a case chosen so that the court can 'interpret' the law to allow states to impose thinly disguised moral judgements on those whose moral views are different from the legislature - leading to crossing state lines (for those who can afford it) and all the other devious ploys some of us barely remember before Roe.

Why can't some people understand that issues of this type should not be subject to the vagaries of shifting political winds every few years!! When the nasty, liberal, Democrats have power, no one forces conservatives to HAVE abortions, quit going to church, marry someone of the same sex, or give up their legal hunting rifles...but.........oh, never mind.....

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 08:34 PM

The Supreme court does not make abortion law. They only rule on it.

They may overturn Roe but states will have their various rules for the practice of abortion. It will never go away if Roe is overturned. We are democracy. We get to define these sorts of issues, as citizens through our representitives. The issue actually should be decided there (legislature).

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 08:23 PM

well, being a semi-liberal Democrat, I am sure GW Bush is not likely to nominate ANYONE I really liked....but this looks like about as good as we're likely to get. The man has amazing credentials in Washington, and I imagine he'll be confirmed. I think Bush is waiting for his BIG surprise for when he replaces Rehnquist.

As to Roe...we cannot have a one-issue litmus test for this job, and no matter how Roberts finally votes on the matter, no one will stop abotions...they can only smugly make them illegal and push them into back rooms again.

It is just too damn bad that one side feels that they want to control the ethical decisions that others are allowed to make...or that they have the right to.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 08:07 PM

Everybody but conservatives have a right to freedom and respect.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Chris Green
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 07:48 PM

'Common Sense America'. Bit of a political oxymoron?

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: LilyFestre
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 07:02 PM

Gee, CSA, you sound like this is a big surprise. Was it not apparent to you that Super Dork GWB would pick anyone other than an old, conservative white man...I mean c'mon!!!!! What would Daddy say????!?!?!?!!? *eyeroll*

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: number 6
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 06:12 PM

I have a problem with him being a consertative. I don't care whether he is male, hip, nerd, female, eunich, black, yellow, purple or whatever.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 06:00 PM

From the genious kid himself... Todd Snider


Song: Conservative Christian, Right Wing, Republican, Straight, White, American Males
Album: East Nashville Skyline


Conservative Christian, right wing Republican, straight, white, American male.
Gay bashin', black fearin’, poor fightin’, tree killin’, regional leaders of the South
Frat housin’, keg tappin’, shirt tuckin’, back slappin’ haters of hippies like me.
Tree huggin’, peace lovin’, pot smokin’, porn watchin’ lazyass hippies like me.
Tree huggin’, love makin’, pro choicen, gay weddin’, widespread diggin’ hippies like me.
Skin color-blinded, conspiracy-minded, protestors of corporate greed,
We who have nothing and most likely will ‘till we all wind up locked up in jails
By conservative Christian, right wing Republican, straight, white, American males,.

Diamonds and dogs, boys and girls, living together in two separate worlds
Following leaders of mountains of shame, looking for someone to blame.

Diamonds and dogs, boys and girls, living together in two separate worlds
Following leaders of mountains of shame, looking for someone to blame.
I know who I like to blame:

Conservative Christian, right wing Republican, straight, white, American males,
Soul savin’, flag wavin’, Rush lovin’, land pavin’ personal friends to the Quayles
Quite diligently workin’ so hard to keep the free reins of this Democracy
From tree huggin’, peace lovin’, pot smokin’, barefootin’ folk-singin’ hippies like me.
Tree huggin’, peace lovin’, pot smokin’, porn watchin’ lazyass hippies like me.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 06:00 PM

Yep, the right to kill babies thankfully is about done.

Plenty don't find that sad. Roe v. Wade will be re-written with a common sense approach to rape and potential births that make no sense for anyone.

Not because some woman and man were careless and a lifestyle has to be supported.

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: van lingle
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 05:50 PM

Ha, ha good one alanabit. This could be the death knell for Roe v. Wade. Sad to think that woman will have to fight for abortion rights all over again. vl

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: alanabit
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 05:01 PM

There's a surprise. We were all expecting a hip, black Harvard professor of Social Sciences, who played free jazz saxophone in his free time to get the gig. Whose buttons are you trying to push mate?

Subject: RE: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 04:58 PM

Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren because he felt Warren was conservative.

Besides, neither you nor anyone else knows what I think of John Roberts.

Subject: BS: Cool! a conservative white man nominated
From: GUEST,Common Sense America
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 04:49 PM

John Roberts is a great choice for the supreme court!

I'm sure many here don't think so.

Big deal.