• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush to nominate Judge Samuel Alito for Supreme Court

Donkey1499 said:
Ok, good. Now what is the area's poulation? Why was the bridge built? Did any of the citizens oppose its construction?

I want all the facts before I make an opinon.
Click to expand...
http://www.taxpayer.net/Transportation/gravinabridge.htm

If Rep. Young succeeds, tiny Ketchikan, Alaska, a town with less than 8,000 residents (about 13,000 if the entire county is included) will receive hundreds of millions of federal dollars to build a bridge to Gravina Island (population: 50). This bridge will be nearly as long as the Golden Gate Bridge and taller than the Brooklyn Bridge.
Click to expand...

Yup. That's right. 50 residents. Millions and millions of dollars for 50 residents.
 
Oh, forgot one part:

The Gravina Bridge would replace a 7-minute ferry ride from Ketchikan to Ketchikan Airport on Gravina Island. Project proponents tell the public that the bridge is a transportation necessity, though the ferry system adequately handles passenger traffic between the islands, including traffic to and from the airport

Few local residents are on record complaining about the short ferry ride to Gravina, and many tourists love the ferry ride from the airport to town. One Ketchikan resident told ABC News: "When people come to Ketchikan, that little ferry ride is what they remember." And still, despite the lack of demonstrated need, federal taxpayers will pay to construct and maintain the bridge and connecting roads.



Comparing the Big Dig and Gravina Bridge on a per trip basis also yields striking evidence of how wasteful the Gravina Bridge project really is. Taxpayers will subsidize each trip over Gravina Bridge to the tune of more than $43, compared to about $4 for each Big Dig trip (see Table 2). That means each trip over the Gravina Bridge would cost taxpayers more than ten times as much as a trip through the most wasteful highway project in America's history!
 
I don't know what this has to do with Alito but there are pork projects by both parties in the bill that is why the president needs a line item veto to weed them out.........
 
Navy Pride said:
I don't know what this has to do with Alito but there are pork projects by both parties in the bill that is why the president needs a line item veto to weed them out.........
Click to expand...
Agreed, it was a shame that when Clinton did the line item veto, it was found unconstitutional. I'd support an amendment to make it constitutional.
 
shuamort said:
Agreed, it was a shame that when Clinton did the line item veto, it was found unconstitutional. I'd support an amendment to make it constitutional.
Click to expand...


hmmmmm, I did not know that happened......
 
Fantasea said:
Considering all the obstruction the Administration gets from the other side, they're doing quite well. Imagine what could be accomplished if the Dems helped out.
Click to expand...

Ya think if the Dems had helped out this Admin could have managed to borrow *more* than 2.4 trillion in 5 years? Maybe you're right.
 
Navy Pride said:
hmmmmm, I did not know that happened......
Click to expand...
Here's some more info:
Brief Description of Line Item Veto
Under the line-item veto law, P.L. 104-130, which took effect January 1, 1997, President Clinton became the first president empowered to veto specific spending or certain taxing provisions of legislation. The Constitution previously allowed a president to veto an entire bill only, perhaps containing many provisions of which he approved, in order to strike down one provision he opposed.

On June 26, 1998, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, struck down the line-item veto law, declaring it unconstitutional. In the case of Clinton v. City of New York, the Court held the law unconstitutional on grounds that it violates the presentment clause; in order to grant the President line item veto a constitutional amendment is needed (according to the majority opinion). On July 17, 1998, the Office of Management and Budget announced that funding would be released for the forty-plus cancellations made in 1997 under the Line Item Veto Act and not explicitly overturned previously.
 
Navy Pride said:
I don't know what this has to do with Alito but there are pork projects by both parties in the bill that is why the president needs a line item veto to weed them out.........
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter which party the pork was for. It was Bush's job to tell Congress to get it out of the bill, and out of MANY bills, and he hasn't, therefore failing to adhere to his fiscal responsiblity promise. I don't deny he's been hit hard with crisis, and anyone can easily get lost. However when the spending increases far more than is being cut, you have to ask yourself what the hell is going on down there, and why the hell is anyone defending it, and by it I mean his record of spending.?
 
To get back on topic here (kinda) I noticed yesterday, while listening to Rush Limbaugh, that congress is being stupid about this Alito thing. They put off Alito's hearing because they're too busy, yet, they spent a day and a half debating whether or not Rush Limbaugh should be allowed on Armed Forces Radio. Is that really more important than Alito's hearing? No, it's not. But they were being stupid about Rush also. They were mis-quoting him and taking what he said out of context. They say that Rush is on AAR too long, when Rush is really only on AAR for 1 hour, 5 days a week. Then all this other liberal programming comes on. So time is being wasted in the senate, so that the democrats can debate with republicans about whether or not Rush can have Free Speech on AAR? Why can't Rush have Free Speech, but morons like Franken can? Is that very democratic of the democrats?
They're wasting time on nonsense, instead of doing their job and letting Alito have his hearing.
 
Well, if that's the case, wouldn't it make sense for the republicans to play quid pro quo and have a closed session to force the Alito thing as the dems just did?
 
shuamort said:
Well, if that's the case, wouldn't it make sense for the republicans to play quid pro quo and have a closed session to force the Alito thing as the dems just did?
Click to expand...

You'd think that they would do that, but closed sessions are dumb. I don't care who does em'.

Politicians: The world's shining stars that like to keep us in the dark.
 
Donkey1499 said:
To get back on topic here (kinda) I noticed yesterday, while listening to Rush Limbaugh, that congress is being stupid about this Alito thing. They put off Alito's hearing because they're too busy, yet, they spent a day and a half debating whether or not Rush Limbaugh should be allowed on Armed Forces Radio. Is that really more important than Alito's hearing? No, it's not. But they were being stupid about Rush also. They were mis-quoting him and taking what he said out of context. They say that Rush is on AAR too long, when Rush is really only on AAR for 1 hour, 5 days a week. Then all this other liberal programming comes on. So time is being wasted in the senate, so that the democrats can debate with republicans about whether or not Rush can have Free Speech on AAR? Why can't Rush have Free Speech, but morons like Franken can? Is that very democratic of the democrats?
They're wasting time on nonsense, instead of doing their job and letting Alito have his hearing.
Click to expand...
To get back on topic which is what you were doing until you went off topic...:2wave:

One claim I've heard was this...

Since Judge Alito has so much judicial experience, it will take a ton of time to go through all of his writings and documentation to get a better understanding of his positions and way of thinking...

Sounds legit...:shrug:
 
cnredd said:
To get back on topic which is what you were doing until you went off topic...:2wave:

One claim I've heard was this...

Since Judge Alito has so much judicial experience, it will take a ton of time to go through all of his writings and documentation to get a better understanding of his positions and way of thinking...

Sounds legit...:shrug:
Click to expand...

That's why I put "kinda" inside these little thinga-majiggs--------> ().

And it don't take 2 stinking months to do it either. I could do it in as much a 2 to 3 weeks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom