|
|
Post by shin on Jan 10, 2006 16:58:47 GMT -5
Well for one, being against affirmative action is not the equivilent of being racist. Two, Alito addressed it yesterday, explaining that he joined because he was against Princeton moving ROTC off the campus. So all in all, I think it's throwing out an issue to make the guy look bad because you don't have much to work with ... much like the Senator's concerns over race and gender make up of the court, or filling an opening with a like-minded judge are red herrings. It's pretty obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jan 10, 2006 16:59:55 GMT -5
Rocky, I agree with you compltely. My point in saying that was to use the absurd to point out the absurd. If the concerns Senators were expressing were over Alito's qualifications, I'd have no problem with that. But when an overwhelmingly male and exlusively white body is lamenting the racial and gender makeup of any other government body - it's a joke.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jan 10, 2006 17:05:25 GMT -5
Rocky, I agree with you compltely. My point in saying that was to use the absurd to point out the absurd. If the concerns Senators were expressing were over Alito's qualifications, I'd have no problem with that. But when an overwhelmingly male and exlusively white body is lamenting the racial and gender makeup of any other government body - it's a joke. I don't know. First of all, I would argue that the make up of the Supreme Court is of a much larger importance than that of the Judiciary Committee, 1) Because it's much more powerful and 2) Because it has a much longer lasting impact, due to the lifetime appointments. Also, the Judiciary Committee is chosen from a much smaller pool than the Supreme Court nomination pool (theoretically at least). If the Senate Judiciary committee is too white and male, then maybe its because we're electing too many white males to the Senate. It's not the fault of those on the Committee. Just because they're overwhelmingly white and male doesn't mean that its impossible for them to have a genuine concern over such things. Not to say that all of them are expressing genuine concern, but I would imagine that some of them are, and regardless of how real their actual concern over the issue is, that doesn't add or take away from the importance of that particular issue--it's an important issue that needs to be explored regardless of the sincerity of those exploring it. |
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jan 10, 2006 17:36:53 GMT -5
Lindsay Graham is in the middle of an insane rambling right now, and seems to be struggling to figure out how to turn his ramblings into a question for Alito. Kind of disturbing, but also hilarious.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jan 11, 2006 9:07:49 GMT -5
I can't remember which paper it was, but some major newspaper did a chart this morning of the number of words each Senator spoke during his time, vs the number of words that Alito spoke to each one. The huge difference in the Senators droning vs Alito speaking when it came to Biden, Schumer, and Cornyn were hilarious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 11, 2006 10:18:02 GMT -5
Lindsay Graham is in the middle of an insane rambling right now, and seems to be struggling to figure out how to turn his ramblings into a question for Alito. Kind of disturbing, but also hilarious. Due to the fact that I spent about seven straight hours yesterday having a huge dramatic blowout with a hapless member of the opposite sex, I missed all the fun Alito stuff  However, I talked to my friend last night and she was particularly horrified by Graham, whom she found to be simultaneously completely moronic, insufferably arrogant, and borderline fascist. What's the deal here? What was he saying/asking? She said he seemed to be trying to get Alito to say that he would have agreed with Thomas (the lone dissenter) in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, but that it was all very oblique and tendentious, so it was also just kind of impossible to discern what the fuck he was really talking about. Curious what actually happened there... Cheers, M |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jan 11, 2006 10:43:39 GMT -5
Here's [/color] the transcript.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jan 11, 2006 13:20:31 GMT -5
Thanks for dropping in with that transcript, because otherwise I would have had to try to explain it, and honestly, I'm not sure that I can do justice to all of it. Or even come close. But yeah, basically it seemed as though he was giving a speech about the importance of the President's war powers, and then would occassionally drop in a little question that seemed to be trying to lead Alito into saying that just about anything the Executive Branch wants to do in wartime is completely okay.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 11, 2006 14:49:35 GMT -5
Wow. Thanks for posting the link - that IS crazy. My favorite part is when he asks Alito if he's familiar with the Geneva Convention.
"Gee, no, what's that??"
I skimmed some of the other q&a's as well, though, and I'm forced to conclude that in order to become a senator, you have to be a raving idiot with verbal diarrhea.
Cheers,
M
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jan 11, 2006 14:58:51 GMT -5
A side observation: Arlen Spector is looking pretty healthy. Good to see a full head of hair on him. Looks like he's recovering pretty well.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jan 11, 2006 15:11:24 GMT -5
A side observation: Arlen Spector is looking pretty healthy. Good to see a full head of hair on him. Looks like he's recovering pretty well. I thought the same thing! I saw him on one of the Sunday morning shows just after Christmas, and it was like he was a whole new Arlen. I have to say - (as superficial as it is!) I like this Arlen look the best. Pre-cancer, his hair was way too out of control. Obviously when he was in the middle of his cancer treatments, he didin't look good as no one going through all of that looks good. Now, he's looking healthy AND he's got under control hair. On a less superficial note, he'll always have my admiration and respect for just how much he managed to still do while fighiting cancer. Many normal people would have appropriately felt the the need to step down and focus on his health. The fact that he was willing and able to manage the hell of cancer treatments while still serving a big role in the Senate says a great deal for him. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jan 12, 2006 15:31:25 GMT -5
I need help recovering from a brain fart ... there was a case before the Supreme Court within the past couple of years where one of the justices recused himself because of a speech he'd given on the topic. Does anyone remember which justice did this?
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jan 12, 2006 15:39:48 GMT -5
Scalia recused himself from a pledge of allegience case because he gave a speech saying that it was an issue that should be decided democratically and not judicially. But its still cool to preside over cases involving your best friends.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Jan 12, 2006 16:00:39 GMT -5
Quack.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jan 12, 2006 16:22:44 GMT -5
That's it! Thank you Rocky.
|
|
However, I talked to my friend last night and she was particularly horrified by Graham, whom she found to be simultaneously completely moronic, insufferably arrogant, and borderline fascist. What's the deal here? What was he saying/asking? She said he seemed to be trying to get Alito to say that he would have agreed with Thomas (the lone dissenter) in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, but that it was all very oblique and tendentious, so it was also just kind of impossible to discern what the fuck he was really talking about.