• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

New York Times says Alito can't be stopped......

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The New York Times hardly a advocate for Judge Alito said in and article this morning that he can not be stopped in his nomination for the SCOTUS.

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/13/123540.shtml

Friday, Jan. 13, 2006 12:31 a.m. EST
N.Y. Times: Alito Can't Be Stopped

"After Alito’s testimony, Democrats still dislike him but can’t stop him.”

That’s the Friday morning headline in the New York Times as even the liberal Gray Lady concedes that Samuel Alito will be confirmed as the newest member of the Supreme Court.

While Democrats signaled on Thursday that they would not support Alito, "they saw little chance of blocking his confirmation, even with a filibuster,” the Times reports.

Senate aides said they expected the Judiciary Committee to split along party lines when it votes on Alito’s confirmation, according to the Times. The committee has 10 Republicans and eight Democrats.
 

Stu Ghatze

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The N.Y. Times is correct, ..this time anyway. (which is amazing):smile:

On a serious note, ..the senate dems are committed in trying to stop Alito; at least most will vote against him, & i do not believe it would have mattered in how Alito would have answered his questions.

The repub/dem ideologies which used to have only about a dimes bit of difference about 4- decades ago, ..are SO far apart today, this is what it ALWAYS seem to come down to now.

In the old days, ..it was one thing to be a democrat, a republican ..& one thing to be a liberal.

Of course in the old days, ..the word "liberal" stood for things that would not be recognized by MODERN liberals these days such as ie, ..religious missionary work, a hostility for immorality hidden under the guise of civil rights, ..& there would have been MANY liberals vocally, & loudly OPPOSED to abortion, ..& they would have NOT appreciated seeing their christian traditions trumped out by ambitious ACLU lawyers defending the right of one person who felt offended by a christian holiday display so that the rights of the many would be stepped on.

The senate dems (most) DESPISE judges who refuse to tamper with the constitution, ..& see things that do not, nor EVER existed in the constitution.

The MODERN democratic party, ..which is NOW (for the most part) heavily invested in deep modern liberalism,.. cannot stand a judge who "might" be a threat to their "holy grail". (abortion)

What gets me is this: IF the senate democrats think that NOTHING is wrong with the concept of KILLING a growing person within the womb, ...why don't they simply stop HIDING under the word; "choice"?

IMO, ..those that advocate abortion as a constitutional right, ..do not want people's consciences to be pricked about taking the life away of a growing infant, & want to use the word "Choice" cause' it does not sound quite as bad. They SHOULD be more honest, & call it what it really is, "PRO-ABORTION".

Everybody KNOWS that w/abortion there is NO choice! Its the very same thing w/ regards to the word; "homosexual" too.

I do not care whom does what with whom, ..really I do not. I might not agree with same sex relationships, ..but what THEY do in their own privacy bothers me not among consenting ADULTS.

But why CHANGE the meaning of the word; "gay"...just to have it mean, or imply "homosexual"??

Same with the word "homosexual"; & they should STOP usng the word; "gay"...because gay means happy, or frivolous behavior, ..certainly it does not mean homosexual.
See.....gay doesn't sound as bad as homosexual.

If Liberals really believe in things they claim, ..THEY would STOP disguising thier words; ..just ALSO as they disguise WHOM they really are, & what THEY really believe in when THEY are campaigning on issues.

Modern democrats/ liberals want almost ANYTHING to be protected under the "constitution"; ..but let me tell you, they are reaching for things that do not, nor EVER existed within the constitution.

Liberals DO NOT EVER WANT ANYBODY TO BE JUDGEMENTAL on personal behavior, ...because for them, there are NO absolutes. THEY want NOTHING to EVER be denied to people, ..no matter how immoral, vile...or in some cases even illegal; & to attain this concept THEY MUST BE WILLING TO SEE THINGS THAT DO NOT EXIST IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE CONSTITUTION, & THEN HIDE UNDER most any types of reprobate behavior by calling it a ''CIVIL RIGHT"!

This is ANOTHER reason as to why it appears that democrats, liberals etc in the acadamia, & sciences etc are SO WILLING to destroy the concept of traditional christian belief; or more accuratley THEY describe it as nothing more than a fairy tale, ..while they embrace evolution as a proven fact. Evolution STILL has NOT EVER been proven as FACT, ..but IT is being taught as "established" fact!

That also explains why most liberals/democrats have FOUGHT like hell to do away with the equal concept of allowing "creationist" teaching to go along with their evolutionary teachings. (they refuse to admit that "evolution" is ALSO a religion)

All of this is nothing more than the priciples of fabian gradualism, ..& once more & more people start advocating ANYTHING long enough, ..it creates precident to continue in its belief, whether factually proven or not.

Once the concept of the traditional God is slowly destroyed, ..then ALMOST anything can be ushered in as "acceptable", & or written into law.

If you doubt this; ..look right on this website, & you will see how christianity is portrayed as being hateful, discriminatory, phoney ..or simply laughed at as an old outdated archaic thought.

Once organized "christianity" is slowly destroyed, depopularized through social ostracizing, & humorous ridicule ..then immorality, atheism, excuses for crime via the old time honored standard for liberals; "socio/economic reasons' create the lawbreaking concept", socialism & placing trust in the human secular gods then becomes standard dining fare for each succeeding generation who has NO concept or concience in knowing right from real wrong. In case you might not have known, ..even the NEA is invested in similar ideology in "some" parts of the country, ..while it also helps to tear down traditional american beliefs, & concepts to embrace & teach that multi-culturalism, & internationalist law etc as "more honest, & more honorable" than American culture, & American way of life! (hard core liberals believe almost all of this)

Another GOOD example is in the fashion liberals think about guns. To them,...people don't kill people! To them, guns kill people;.. Instead of HOLDING those RESPONSIBLE for HOLDING the gun, ..THEY find fault with the gun, or the gun manufacturer & therefore the gunmaker must be guilty of assault, or murder!

The liberal democrats kNOW that Alito REJECTS their PERSONAL liberal precipts, & ideology, & thwey also know that Alito adheres to interpreting the things in the constitution, ..& will not prostitute it!

Yes...the democrats in the senate, & the house are enraged because THEY cannot get away with the things that they did for so long anymore by use of the mainstream media which has been nothing more than an advocate for liberal causes for well over 3-decades, & they cannot get away with smearing candidates out of the nomination process anymore either by implying that all conservatives are racists, exploiters, intollerant & haters anymore because they do not control the congress as they once did!

President Bush is seen as the "symbol" of all their losses, defeats, & the slow destruction of their party, & that ALSO is to why they hate, & despise him as they do.

The senate liberal democrats are simply filled with hate & rage, & bitterness because Bush will NOT kowtow to them either, or cut many deals with them, or share power with them, ..or undo his own personal convictions. What Bush says he will do, ...Mr. Bush does,... in spite of all the roadblocks, the biased media condemnation, the ridiculous conspiracy charges, & accusations that most of the democrat senate leadership has done in an attempt to destroy Bush's presidency.

The senate democrats KNOW full well that THEY do NOT represent the mainstream majority, in spite of their PHONEY claims ..if this was true,..They would have successfully destroyed Mr. Bush long ago! ;)
 

JOHNYJ

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Its amazing, democrat / liberals always talk about people getting more inviolved in govt. They were the ones that were harmed by people actualy watching the hearings.
The democrats used the hearings as photo opurtunitys.They asked few questions with their time.The worst thing was Senator Kennedy;s attempt at character assasination that realy made a lot of Americans mad. Especialy considering the senators,MURKY PAST.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It's interesting that Biden and Kennedy didn't think of the election year consequences of their grandstanding. Red state America won't forget come election day.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
KCConservative said:
It's interesting that Biden and Kennedy didn't think of the election year consequences of their grandstanding. Red state America won't forget come election day.
Its politics. Republicans also raised hell when Clinton made his appointments. It works both ways. After all, it comes down to who controls government has the right to make their own appointments. Clinton's choices, although I dont agree with them, were appropriate, and so are Bush's, with the exception of Harriet Miers. After the Miers fiasco, Bush made 2 very good choices in Roberts and Alito. As much as I bash Bush, I have to give him good marks on these 2.

Miers - I give Bush an F.

Roberts - I give Bush a B+.

Alito - I give Bush an A.

His choices got better, once he was confronted. There was nothing wrong in being against Bush over Miers, and I would do it again. However, I am quite pleased with the latest picks.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
danarhea said:
Its politics. Republicans also raised hell when Clinton made his appointments. It works both ways. After all, it comes down to who controls government has the right to make their own appointments. Clinton's choices, although I dont agree with them, were appropriate, and so are Bush's, with the exception of Harriet Miers. After the Miers fiasco, Bush made 2 very good choices in Roberts and Alito. As much as I bash Bush, I have to give him good marks on these 2.

Miers - I give Bush an F.

Roberts - I give Bush a B+.

Alito - I give Bush an A.

His choices got better, once he was confronted. There was nothing wrong in being against Bush over Miers, and I would do it again. However, I am quite pleased with the latest picks.
I have raised this notion before. It wouldn't surprise me if the Miers thing worked just as planned. They put up a patsy so the dems could have their uproar and score a point. Then came the real nominee.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
KCConservative said:
I have raised this notion before. It wouldn't surprise me if the Miers thing worked just as planned. They put up a patsy so the dems could have their uproar and score a point. Then came the real nominee.
Actually, it was Conservatives who shot down Miers. However, you raise a good point as to the possible motive for putting forth Miers.
 

BWG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
4,373
Reaction score
1,602
Location
South Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
KCConservative said:
It's interesting that Biden and Kennedy didn't think of the election year consequences of their grandstanding. Red state America won't forget come election day.

How does red state America come into play with the elections of these two Senators?

Delaware Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. was first elected to the United States Senate in 1972 and re-elected in 1978, 1984, 1990, 1996 and 2002. He is currently serving his 6th term.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy has represented Massachusetts in the United States Senate for forty-three years.


KCConservative said:
I have raised this notion before. It wouldn't surprise me if the Miers thing worked just as planned. They put up a patsy so the dems could have their uproar and score a point. Then came the real nominee.
But it wasn't the Dems in an uproar, it was the Repubs. Where was Miers 'up or down' vote?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
BWG said:
How does red state America come into play with the elections of these two Senators?

Delaware Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. was first elected to the United States Senate in 1972 and re-elected in 1978, 1984, 1990, 1996 and 2002. He is currently serving his 6th term.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy has represented Massachusetts in the United States Senate for forty-three years.
Not of those two, in particular. Just recalling the general behavior of the democrats during this nomination process. Bush hate was the general mood of the hearings and Alito was the man appointed to sit and listen.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
KCConservative said:
I have raised this notion before. It wouldn't surprise me if the Miers thing worked just as planned. They put up a patsy so the dems could have their uproar and score a point. Then came the real nominee.
It would not be the first time that President Bush has out foxed the democrats.......
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
BWG said:
How does red state America come into play with the elections of these two Senators?

Delaware Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. was first elected to the United States Senate in 1972 and re-elected in 1978, 1984, 1990, 1996 and 2002. He is currently serving his 6th term.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy has represented Massachusetts in the United States Senate for forty-three years.




But it wasn't the Dems in an uproar, it was the Repubs. Where was Miers 'up or down' vote?
I think Biden is planning a run for the presidency in 2008 and his outrageous behavior at the hearings sure as hell won't help him in that endeavor.......
 

JOHNYJ

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Navy Pride said:
It would not be the first time that President Bush has out foxed the democrats.......
President Bush has the democrats ability to create defeat from victory going for him. Senator Kennedy's attempt at character assasination was a prime example. His obvious lies about judge Alito and the vile way they were espoused has irritated many Americans.
 
T

The Real McCoy

danarhea said:
Its politics. Republicans also raised hell when Clinton made his appointments. It works both ways. After all, it comes down to who controls government has the right to make their own appointments. Clinton's choices, although I dont agree with them, were appropriate, and so are Bush's, with the exception of Harriet Miers. After the Miers fiasco, Bush made 2 very good choices in Roberts and Alito. As much as I bash Bush, I have to give him good marks on these 2.

Miers - I give Bush an F.

Roberts - I give Bush a B+.

Alito - I give Bush an A.

His choices got better, once he was confronted. There was nothing wrong in being against Bush over Miers, and I would do it again. However, I am quite pleased with the latest picks.
Roberts came before Miers.

Personally, I would have like to see O'Connor replaced with another woman (not Miers) but I have no qualms with Alito. He proved himself more than worthy at the circus that was the confirmation hearings.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The Real McCoy said:
Roberts came before Miers.

Personally, I would have like to see O'Connor replaced with another woman (not Miers) but I have no qualms with Alito. He proved himself more than worthy at the circus that was the confirmation hearings.
I would have loved to see the African American Female Janis Rogers Brown nominated.......It would be fun to see the dems stumbling all over theirselves trying to stop her........
 
Top Bottom