cnredd said:According to unite people, the first thing needed would be to have two parties that would be interested in uniting...you can't drag them into "being united" kicking and screaming...
Please show where either party has shown this interest....
cnredd said:According to unite people, the first thing needed would be to have two parties that would be interested in uniting...you can't drag them into "being united" kicking and screaming...
Please show where either party has shown this interest....
M14 Shooter said:Get real. Bush will never be a "uniter" becase liberal democrats will never ever support anything he does.
Bush won the election, and so he gets to nominate and likely appoint whoever he wants. Dont like it? Stop losing elections.
M14 Shooter said:Bush has often offered the Dems a chance to get on the bus.
Instead, they stand determined in front of it.
As such, its not Bush's fault they get run over.
"Uniting", to them, means "go along with us".
If you don't lie, then you are one heck of a misinformer...aps said:First of all, I would never intentionally lie. Second, if Bush consulted with the dems, Miers was the first one. If you can prove otherwise, I'd like to see it.
Then that is the ultimate problem...If you don't HEAR or READ something that states otherwise, then the ASSUMPTION is made that he didn't?!?!?...aps said:I knew that Reid had recommended her, but I had not heard or read that it was the result of Bush seeking his recommendation. I never heard or read that he talked to other senators.
You weren't misinformed...You neglected to look for the truth...I found it in less than a minute...aps said:So while I was misinformed, I would not lie.
I didn't say you told more than one lie...I have shown that you have stated the same lie on more than one occasion...aps said:If you can prove other times where you have perceived that I lied, I am interested in seeing your evidence. If this is the only instance in which you think I lied, then saying that I "continually lie" is obnoxious and kinda pathetic.
aps said:BTW, the Constitution states that the president will select someone with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. The advice is supposed to come first and then the consent after the nomination.
ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980’s. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito’s view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]
ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.” [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]
ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito’s dissent was so restrictive that “few if any…cases would survive summary judgment.” [Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]
ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one.” The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]
ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]
ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito’s disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito’s dissent “guts the statutory standard” and “ignores our precedent.” In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito’s opinion contradicted “well-recognized rules of statutory construction.” [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]
shuamort said:Here's an interesting summation about some Alito's stances:
(WARNING, THIS IS A SLANTED ARTICLE AND SHOULD BE INJESTED WITH A GRAIN OF SALT. PLEASE CONSULT YOUR PHYSICIAN BEFORE STARTING AN EXERCISE PROGRAM)
aps said:I guess I was hoping to see Bush nominate someone that BOTH the republicans and democrats could support. As usual, the man cares only about feeding his base. I don't know enough about this judge to make an opinion yet, but I believe that the democrats had stated that his was a nomination with which they would have problems.
Bush is NEVER going to be a uniter.
Navy Pride said:aps why is it when a Clinton is president he can nominate a liberal like Ginsburg for the SCOTUS and then when Bush is president he is a divider when he nominates a conservative to the court........
Maybe you can explain that to me my friend........
Gibberish said:Ginsburg (left) replaced White (left-middle). Alito(right) will replace O'Connor(left). So infact Alitos confirmation will change the stance of the court and bring some controversial issues into the power of the right.
IMHO replacing a judge with someone with the same stance is completely different then replacing a judge with someone of an opposite stance.
Gibberish said:Ginsburg (left) replaced White (left-middle). Alito(right) will replace O'Connor(left). So infact Alitos confirmation will change the stance of the court and bring some controversial issues into the power of the right.
IMHO replacing a judge with someone with the same stance is completely different then replacing a judge with someone of an opposite stance.
galenrox said:I just don't care about these judicial nominations.
Everyone out there is being a dick about this. Bush is being a dick because his base is acting uniformly like a dick, and the left is acting like a dick because the other side is being dicks to them.
I dunno, I just hate everyone, they're all worthless to me.
wxcrazytwo said:This is a freaking farce. I will admit that he is highly qualified, but some of his decisions are rather " Tooooo Christian" for my butt, a lot of dems approve of him. I would love to see how they backtrack on this one. Good choice, but damn it, we don't need TWO SCALIA'S on the friggin court.
Dude, what else am I supposed to do?M14 Shooter said:Wow. That's constructive.
galenrox said:Dude, what else am I supposed to do?
I mean, Bush is obviously trying to add to the already extreme amount of division between the two sides, being egged on by people who also want the country more divided, and the people on my side aren't helping at all.
Well, I agree, but not for your reasons.And so I just give up, this whole government is ****ed. Scrap it, start over, it's all we can do.
Navy Pride said:You have their philosphy wrong..."Whizzer" White was a Conservative and O'Connor is a moderate to Conservative.........
wxcrazytwo said:...but some of his decisions are rather " Tooooo Christian" for my butt...
M14 Shooter said:Bush has done plenty to reach across the aisle to them, and they bite his hand off.
No, it's both of their faults, and it's a sign that you're a part of it that you say "We're divided cause they're being jerks"M14 Shooter said:Note that this "extreme division" exists because the Dems define "unite" as "agree with us". Bush has done plenty to reach across the aisle to them, and they bite his hand off.
Whatever, what are your reasons?Well, I agree, but not for your reasons.
Whatever, what are your reasons?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?