nor sodomists "rights" will do

For any who want evidence of the raging media bias, just look at the coverage of the Samuel Alito nomination. All of the flaming Liberal media outlets are painting him as the replacement for  O'Connor. Talk about spin! The TRUTH is that the far too liberal Justice Roberts was O'Connors' replacement, and Bush screwed his Conservative constituency by elevating him to the position of Chief Justice.

This guy is Rehnquist's replacement, or at least we hope he is. Replacing a staunch conservative with a staunch conservative, after having replaced so-called "moderate" O'Connor with the far-too-moderate Roberts, is simply preserving the status quo. Once Alito is confirmed, conservatives will have gained nothing, and in fact we've already lost something in that Roberts was inappropriately elevated.

It just kills me how the media is spinning this thing so blatantly, and even more sad is that most people probably don't even notice it! O'Connor has already been replaced. What we're looking for now is somebody to replace the ultra-conservative Rehnquist, and nobody who is soft on baby-murdering nor sodomists "rights" will do.

Aside from that I would have liked to see the position go to a woman to maintain a gender balance. 

I disagree on this point. Balance schmalance. Pick the best person for the job, period. Whether they are male, female, black, white, Latino, or whatever.

I disagree on this point. Balance schmalance. Pick the best person for the job, period. Whether they are male, female, black, white, Latino, or whatever.

If you want to choose a woman, that's fine. In that case I'll take Janet Parshall over Harriet Miers any day of the week.

But the whole "replace a woman with a woman" thing is sexist, so forget it.

This Alito guy looks like a good choice. If Ginsberg got in, there's no reason why he shouldn't.

Roberts is much more conservative than O'Connor.

Yeah RIGHT!

"Diversity's sake" =  liberal code for reverse discrimination. Politically correct racism/sexism.

Okay, Mr. Rogers, I get it: welcome to the land of make-believe.

Keep spinning, and maybe some day someone will believe you. But it won't be me.

would that go for gays and athiests?

{sorry, I'm still not believing that Anderson Cooper and Shepherd Smith of CNN were outed}

Tatt,

Where in the Constitution does it talk about the SC in that it "should include as many diversly qualified individuals as possible"?  Apparently that is just your view, but why is the SC unique in that regard?  Can you imagine the uproar if Bush had said he picked a woman or minority simply to increase SC diversity?    Would you pick a group of doctors and hospital staff who was gonna operate on you based on diversity or qualifications?

Quotas, by any name, justified by whatever moronic argument you choose, are inherently racist and/or sexist.

-----

Here's a simple challenge to prove my point: I challenge anyone to find a single story in the popular media that fails to call this guy O'Connor's replacement. This is one of the most flagrant examples of media spin-doctoring that we have ever seen!

If the short list was five women Snoopy would be yelling Balance!

Whatever happened to the cry of majority rules!

Fifty percent of the population is female but of course the "best person" can't be found among female candidates.

Since my purpose has been opposing the ridiculous spin the media circus (and that moron TB) is putting on this...

Are you saying that the purpose of the NFL is the same as the Supreme Court? 

What I'm about to say won't be popular with our friend B, but abortion is legal, and I don't want a judge who is going to say "well, folks like B don't believe in abortion, so I need to do something to bring this to an end." 

I heard on the radio this morning that the Dems are threatening to filibuster, and the Republicans are threatening to do away with the filibuster, AGAIN.  Congress as a whole needs to understand that they are there to act in our best interests, not to promote their party's agenda.  Every human being has a personal opinion, but what I want to see is somebody who can put their personal opinion aside long enough to interpret the law.  That means interpret the laws that are on the books, not interpret them in accordance with your party's or other groups' opinions.

What I'm about to say won't be popular with our friend B, but abortion is legal, and I don't want a judge who is going to say "well, folks like B don't believe in abortion, so I need to do something to bring this to an end."  Instead, if a person wants an abortion and can't afford one so she's trying to force the government to pay for it even though there is a law that says gov't funds can't pay for it (an example), then I expect that judge to say "No Way the way you want to do it, but if you can come up with the money for it yourself, be my guest". 

That's what I expect out of a nominee.

"If confirmed, Alito could very well fundamentally alter the balance of the court and push it dangerously to the right," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.
    Republicans pounced on the statement, comparing it with Mr. Kennedy's statement 15 years ago during Judge Alito's confirmation hearing to the 3rd Circuit.
    "You have obviously had a very distinguished record, and I certainly commend you for long service in the public interest," Mr. Kennedy said then. "I think it is a very commendable career, and I am sure you will have a successful one as a judge."

Alito already has been unanimously confirmed by the Senate, once as U.S. attorney and once to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit

Oh yeah, all 35 million are pro-abortion, right?    Shakin' in my shoes. 

Abortion is legal in certain circumstances, but IMO the SC had no business stating such in Roe because it is not directly addressed in the Constitution in a way that clearly should make it legal, therefore it should be an issue for state legislatures to address. 

And if you think gun control is nothing more than a "wedge issue" like flag burning, you, IMO, are delusional. 

BTW -- I do not support a constitutional amendment against flag burning.

Whats the differance between then and now?

Aside from the abortion issue I'm wondering what other questions, if any, people may have for Judge Alito. I'll start it off with this one.

If you are confirmed and at some point in the future President Bush was on trial for a some crime, possibly one committed while he was in office, and his case came before the SC, would you recuse yourself?

Any others? I have a few more but I'll give everyone else a chance first.

As my Pappy used to say, "Wish in one hand, $hit in the other, and see which one gets full the quickest". 

Answer--No

Question,
 
What are your thoughts on the first amendment, specifically pertaining to religion?

Religious expression

Does a police-department policy barring officers from wearing beards violate the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment? More specifically, does the First Amendment bar a police department from firing two Muslim officers who refused to shave their beards for religious reasons? That was the issue raised in Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Newark (1999). The court, in an opinion authored by Alito, concluded that such laws violated the free-exercise clause.

The Newark, N.J., police policy granted exemptions for medical reasons, though denied them for religious ones. The 3rd Circuit held that the police department had no serious reason for not allowing a religious exemption. “Because the Department makes exemptions from its policy for secular reasons and has not offered any substantial justification for refusing to provide similar treatment for officers who are required to wear beards for religious reasons,” wrote Alito, “we conclude that the Department's policy violates the First Amendment.”

Distinguishing the Supreme Court’s holding in Employment Division v. Smith (1988), which limited free-exercise rights, Judge Alito declared: “We conclude that the Department's decision to provide medical exemptions while refusing religious exemptions is sufficiently suggestive of discriminatory intent so as to trigger heightened scrutiny.” In that respect, he concluded that “neither the police departments interest in a ‘monolithic, highly disciplined force,’ or its need to provide a "public sense of security in having readily identifiable and trusted public servants,” were sufficiently compelling to justify a policy that effectively suppressed “manifestations of the religious diversity that the First Amendment safeguards.”

Alito's protectiveness of religious expression has held whether viewed through the prism of the free-exercise clause or the free-speech clause. In an en banc dissenting opinion in C.H. v. Oliva (3rd Cir., 2000), he chastised his colleagues for “duck[ing] the issue” and not addressing the underlying First Amendment issues in the alleged censorship of a kindergartener’s Thanksgiving poster because of its religious content. While the majority said the complaint was inadequate and needed to be amended, Alito opined that the complaint adequately stated a claim for viewpoint discrimination. “It follows that public school authorities may not discriminate against student speech based on its religious content if the discrimination cannot pass strict scrutiny,” he wrote. “School officials are not permitted to discriminate against student expression simply because of its religious character.”

Oh yeah, all 35 million are pro-abortion, right?      Shakin' in my shoes. 

Just like the myth that NOW speaks for women as a whole...

The Fundies have attached themselves to the Republican Party and enabled them to win the last two elections because the rest of the country was so evenly divided. NOW is at a disadvantage because even though 65% of the country support giving women the right to choose to have an abortion, only a small percentage of that group would make that same choice. That's where you guys went wrong with Sandra Day O'Connor and where you're going wrong with Roberts and Alito.

Consider one memo highlighted in a Capitol Hill hearing Wednesday that Scanlon, a former aide to Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Tx., sent the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana to describe his strategy for protecting the tribe's gambling business. In plain terms, Scanlon confessed the source code of recent Republican electoral victories: target religious conservatives, distract everyone else, and then railroad through complex initiatives.


"The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees," Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. "Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them."

Christians simply believe in a set of unchanging standards, and as we refuse to follow secular society as it sinks further into the depths of depravity we're seen to be increasingly different. To the point that non-Christians increasingly find it convenient to call us names (like "fundamentalist", "radical" and "extremist") in an attempt to avoid the realization that it is they who are becoming more evil, not we who are somehow becoming more righteous.

I will never apologize for my beliefs, nor adapt them in response to the increasing popularity of sin. I do not think there is anything admirable or "progressive" about the moral decline of American civilization.

No matter what side of the isle our beliefs fall we should all be able to agree on simple right or wrong lines that benefit society and uphold the basic common principles of humanity.

Insisting that God "certainly needs to be involved" in the Supreme Court confirmation process, three Christian ministers today blessed the doors of the hearing room where Senate Judiciary Committee members will begin considering the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito on Monday.

Capitol Hill police barred them from entering the room to continue what they called a consecration service. But in a bit of one-upsmanship, the three announced that they had let themselves in a day earlier, touching holy oil to the seats where Judge Alito, the senators, witnesses, Senate staffers and the press will sit, and praying for each of the 13 committee members by name.

"We did adequately apply oil to all the seats," said the Rev. Rob Schenck, who identified himself as an evangelical Christian and as president of the National Clergy Council in Washington.

It just kills me how the media is spinning this thing so blatantly, and even more sad is that most people probably don't even notice it! O'Connor has already been replaced. What we're looking for now is somebody to replace the ultra-conservative Rehnquist, and nobody who is soft on baby-murdering nor sodomists "rights" will do.

One can only shudder at the thought of what might transpire had an inadequate supply of oil been applied.

Economic -- if you wanna think your sig is correct, then I can only add then that ALL liberals are either stupid or an Idiot.

Snoopy thinks HIS quotes are in the same league as John Stuart Mill!

Now, THAT IS stupid!

Millennium, you've posted twice, here and in another thread. Each of your posts have been criticizing posts by our long-time members, while not even commenting on the topic at hand. How about adding something to the discussion?

Do I need to draw you a picture, dimwit? Snoopy, got any crayons? - BMIC, Dec 19 2005, 12:55 PM