• 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.

The Federalist Society!!!

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
President Bush has made appointments of judges, aides both senior and minor and cabinet members. Many of these appointments have been from attorneys that belong to the Federalist Society. Liberal congressmen, primarily Democrats and media outlets, primarily liberal leaning outlets have been quietly (relatively) talking up the "point" that Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts is a member of the Federalist Society.

John G. Roberts name showed up in a what the New York Times only describes as "an old directory" as a member of a steering committee in the Federalist Society. Their article also points out that spokesmen say that Roberts never paid dues so wasn't a formal member. But, so what if he was?

The Federalist Society was formed in 1982 by attorneys and law students concerned about the liberal direction of our politics and judiciary. The purpose of the society was as it is today, to promote debate. That is the primary activity of the Federalist Society today. They are some 35,000 members strong, not large by any measure of national organization. They have chapters in nearly every law school in around 60 cities. They are not underground and hold meetings that are open and in accordance with their school's policy.

Why are liberals so concerned with the Federalist Society and John Roberts activities with them? The Federalist Society is conservative.

If this is the new point of attack that the Democrats will use against John Roberts who has said he couldn't remember whether he was a member of this organization or not (did I write a check or didn't I some time ago when an old directory listed me?) then I think we are in for another dead end street.

Does it surprise anyone here that President Bush would pick someone that is conservative to an appointment on the court? Would it surprise you if President Clinton picked Ruth Bader Ginsberg for the Supreme Court? Whether a conservative or liberal don't you think the job of a Justice of the Supreme Court is to hold laws accountable to the Constitution?

The Federalist Society will turn out to be a bad choice for Democrats to attempt to maul because its main focus is setting up debate forums. These forums regularly either include or at the least invite liberals to take part. Debate. You know what debate is right? Two sides presenting their opinions?

You can have a club on campus that supports Gay Pride. You can now have a club on campus that studies the "history" of the Bible. You can have a club on campus for Young Democrats. You can have a club on campus for those who wish to be conservative right? So, in the words of Scotty in "Fargo" - "What's the big deal?"
:duel :cool:
 

Mikkel

Pragmatist
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Location
Cleveland, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I see no problem with setting up debate through an organized manner (I like this forum well enough). The issue here is that the Federalist Society was a clearly CONSERVATIVE group setting up these debates. Again, there is nothing particularly wrong with that.

The main issue here is that if Roberts was a part of this society, he is staking a claim, officially in his conservative views. It is no surprise that Bush nominated a conservative, but Roberts' membership in an organization like this could brand him as somewhat of an Idealogue, leading him down 'Bork'ington road. I don't think this membership alone could be reason enough to discredit the guy, but it is certainly not to be ignored.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Mikkel said:
I see no problem with setting up debate through an organized manner (I like this forum well enough). The issue here is that the Federalist Society was a clearly CONSERVATIVE group setting up these debates. Again, there is nothing particularly wrong with that.

The main issue here is that if Roberts was a part of this society, he is staking a claim, officially in his conservative views. It is no surprise that Bush nominated a conservative, but Roberts' membership in an organization like this could brand him as somewhat of an Idealogue, leading him down 'Bork'ington road. I don't think this membership alone could be reason enough to discredit the guy, but it is certainly not to be ignored.
Sorry but you seem really confused here. "I see no problem"; "was clearly a CONSERVATIVE group"; "nothing particularly wrong with that"; "The main issue here is that if Roberts was a part of this society, he is staking a claim, officially in his conservative views."; "It is no surprise that Bush nominated a conservative"; "could brand him (Roberts) as somewhat of an Idealogue"; "I don't think this membership alone could be reason enough to discredit the guy, but it is certainly not to be ignored."

So if you are a conservative that is grounds for expulsion, deletion, failure, disapproval? Don't liberals stake their "claims" on their liberal views and should staking a claim on your views disqualify you from being appointed by a President that shares your views? Wait!!! Should a person that is a known conservative or liberal be allowed to run for President? They will appoint judges and ambassadors right? If you are a member of a group of lawyers and law students and agree with the ACLU will that exclude you from being President or a Supreme Court Justice? Oh and if you are a Christian and a liberal will that get you kicked out of church? Or........

My mom was a Democrat and my father was a Republican and I loved them both.
:duel :cool:
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
John Roberts is a Conservative..........Conservatives belong to conservative organizations...........Get use to it.......

Justice Ginsberg was a lawyer for the ACLU one of the biggest liberal organizations in this country.......
 

Mikkel

Pragmatist
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Location
Cleveland, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
gordontravels, you have absolutely no end at twisting words do you? You do realize that Supreme court nominees are not supposed to express their opinions about potential court cases, right? Any political affiliation he might have with an established organization affects this factor.

It's like you want to pick a fight or something. I wasn't saying that I thought Roberts was some sort of neo-fascist who didn't deserve a seat on the court simply because I'm liberal. I was simply explaining to you why some liberals could potentially see this as a talking point when challenging him during the senate. I was supplying a perspective, not arguing with you, so back the hell off.

Navy Pride......... you use the elipses too liberally......... that's about the only thing.......
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Mikkel said:
gordontravels, you have absolutely no end at twisting words do you? You do realize that Supreme court nominees are not supposed to express their opinions about potential court cases, right? Any political affiliation he might have with an established organization affects this factor.

It's like you want to pick a fight or something. I wasn't saying that I thought Roberts was some sort of neo-fascist who didn't deserve a seat on the court simply because I'm liberal. I was simply explaining to you why some liberals could potentially see this as a talking point when challenging him during the senate. I was supplying a perspective, not arguing with you, so back the hell off.

Navy Pride......... you use the elipses too liberally......... that's about the only thing.......
Ah but I like them.............:lol:
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Mikkel said:
gordontravels, you have absolutely no end at twisting words do you? You do realize that Supreme court nominees are not supposed to express their opinions about potential court cases, right? Any political affiliation he might have with an established organization affects this factor.

It's like you want to pick a fight or something. I wasn't saying that I thought Roberts was some sort of neo-fascist who didn't deserve a seat on the court simply because I'm liberal. I was simply explaining to you why some liberals could potentially see this as a talking point when challenging him during the senate. I was supplying a perspective, not arguing with you, so back the hell off.

Navy Pride......... you use the elipses too liberally......... that's about the only thing.......
So what did you think when Ruth Bader Ginsberg was appointed by President Clinton and wasn't filabustered by Republicans who understood that President Clinton had earned the right to appoint A FORMER ATTORNEY FOR THE ACLU? Note: Not a member of the ACLU but an active employee! And they didn't request her case files. Why? Because they were settled law and she didn't have to explain former stands in relation to how she might rule as a Supreme Court Justice until she was and a case was before her. Then and only then would you get her ruling. Why is that different for a conservative?

When you say, "The issue here is that the Federalist Society was a clearly CONSERVATIVE group setting up these debates. Again, there is nothing particularly wrong with that." I am simply asking, "If that is the "issue" why is it the issue if there is "nothing particularly wrong with that"?" Aren't you saying that it is the issue but the issue is not an issue? Is you?

Also note that I am not looking for a fight, sheesh, this is debate and I took your words out of context and kept them in order and with the full meaning you wrote intact. I twisted nothing. I never called you a liberal. I simply point out that you say a conservative is staking out a view but I also point out that liberals do it to. I never said neo-fascist in any form in reference to you or anyone on this board "ever".

You say "talking point"? I John Roberts possibly being blocked from an up or down vote. If he gets that vote he will be confirmed and with votes from Democrats who realize he is a good man. They voted for his federal bench seat nearly unanimously approx 4 years ago, both Democrats and Republicans so why not now?
:duel :cool:
 

Mikkel

Pragmatist
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Location
Cleveland, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Ginsberg had the same issues as Roberts. Nothing is different due to the fact that he's a conservative. He'll probably be appointed too. The difference in this case is that the overall balance of the supreme court could change due to his appointment. He is replacing a pivotal swing voter, and that worries many democrats. The federal bench seat did not have nearly this much power. His position on this court could likely make him the 2nd most powerful man in America behind the president.

I'm saying, in the general scheme of things, the Federalist Society is a perfectly reputable organization. Roberts may be a member. There is nothing wrong with that in general. I'm saying that it could hurt him politically to be affiliated with this group because of it's ideological leanings. Many people will draw the conclusion that he agrees with everything the Federalist Society believes, which may or not be true, but could hurt him in his confirmation.

As I said, I have little doubt that Roberts will get confirmed by the senate. I'm just saying that little things like this can build up to bigger things that can end up in a blocked confirmation.
 

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 Republicans have the votes to confirm Judge Roberts........If the Democrats try to filibuster his nomination the Republicans will use the nuclear option.....

Case closed...........
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
gordontravels said:
"What's the big deal?"
Exactly, the biggest problem is with the way we have the judiciary set-up in this country. We want our judges to be impartial, fair, and without opinion. But we also want experienced and intelligent judges. It's hard to imagine a judge that doesn't have some personal idealogies especially at his or her age upon appointment. Judges don't live in a vacuum and it's foolish to expect them to. We can only hope that they remain fair and true to the letter of the law.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Mikkel said:
Ginsberg had the same issues as Roberts. Nothing is different due to the fact that he's a conservative. He'll probably be appointed too. The difference in this case is that the overall balance of the supreme court could change due to his appointment. He is replacing a pivotal swing voter, and that worries many democrats. The federal bench seat did not have nearly this much power. His position on this court could likely make him the 2nd most powerful man in America behind the president.

I'm saying, in the general scheme of things, the Federalist Society is a perfectly reputable organization. Roberts may be a member. There is nothing wrong with that in general. I'm saying that it could hurt him politically to be affiliated with this group because of it's ideological leanings. Many people will draw the conclusion that he agrees with everything the Federalist Society believes, which may or not be true, but could hurt him in his confirmation.

As I said, I have little doubt that Roberts will get confirmed by the senate. I'm just saying that little things like this can build up to bigger things that can end up in a blocked confirmation.
And I am saying that you ignore the liberal and concentrate on the conservative whereas I see both. Ruth Bader Ginsberg did not have the same issues as Roberts because the Republicans didn't make them issues. When asked how she "came down" on a particular point of settled law she replied that she wouldn't comment other than to say that it WAS settled law and she wouldn't talk about potential decisions that could come before her. Fred Thompson who is doing the leg work for Roberts has said this is fair. Chuck Shumer has said Roberts needs to answer. Ginsberg didn't have to but Roberts does?

Why should the Federalist Society affiliation hurt Roberts when working for the ACLU didn't hurt Ginsberg?

I WRITE CAPS HERE BECAUSE I WANT YOU TO READ YOUR OWN WORDS FROM ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE. I HAVE CAPITALIZED THE WORDS I HAVE CHANGED, OTHERWISE, IT IS YOUR QUOTE:

I'm saying, in the general scheme of things, the ACLU is a perfectly reputable organization. GINSBERG may be a member. There is nothing wrong with that in general. I'm saying that it could hurt HER politically to be affiliated with this group because of it's ideological leanings. Many people will draw the conclusion that SHE agrees with everything the ACLU believes, which may or not be true, but could hurt HER in HER confirmation.

I apologize if you think I plagerize but I simply liked the way you put it and realizing it applies to both Roberts and Ginsberg I thought it would be helpful to point that out.

The difference between these two? The Republicans let President Clinton have his nominee because she was his choice. They didn't threaten to fillabuster nor did they go before the media and say they would ask X questions and expect to get answers. The Democrats have done that with Roberts who would, as you say, change the balance on the court just as Justice Ginsberg did.

Why you don't see that it is simply a liberal vs. conservative issue I don't know but you seem to think that conservative is worse than liberal. I think they are both detrimental but still, they are fact and who is President and who gets to make appointments and what is the difference between Ginsberg and Roberts if not liberal and conservative?
:duel :cool:
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Agreed, this confirmation is a go, it's only a matter of how long they(the Senate)decide to take with their questions. This group is far from stain on his record, it's more of an honor to have been included.;)
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Deegan said:
Agreed, this confirmation is a go, it's only a matter of how long they(the Senate)decide to take with their questions. This group is far from stain on his record, it's more of an honor to have been included.;)
Yes. :duel :cool:
 

Mikkel

Pragmatist
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Location
Cleveland, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
gordontravels said:
And I am saying that you ignore the liberal and concentrate on the conservative whereas I see both. Ruth Bader Ginsberg did not have the same issues as Roberts because the Republicans didn't make them issues. When asked how she "came down" on a particular point of settled law she replied that she wouldn't comment other than to say that it WAS settled law and she wouldn't talk about potential decisions that could come before her. Fred Thompson who is doing the leg work for Roberts has said this is fair. Chuck Shumer has said Roberts needs to answer. Ginsberg didn't have to but Roberts does?

Why should the Federalist Society affiliation hurt Roberts when working for the ACLU didn't hurt Ginsberg?

I WRITE CAPS HERE BECAUSE I WANT YOU TO READ YOUR OWN WORDS FROM ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE. I HAVE CAPITALIZED THE WORDS I HAVE CHANGED, OTHERWISE, IT IS YOUR QUOTE:

I'm saying, in the general scheme of things, the ACLU is a perfectly reputable organization. GINSBERG may be a member. There is nothing wrong with that in general. I'm saying that it could hurt HER politically to be affiliated with this group because of it's ideological leanings. Many people will draw the conclusion that SHE agrees with everything the ACLU believes, which may or not be true, but could hurt HER in HER confirmation.

I apologize if you think I plagerize but I simply liked the way you put it and realizing it applies to both Roberts and Ginsberg I thought it would be helpful to point that out.

The difference between these two? The Republicans let President Clinton have his nominee because she was his choice. They didn't threaten to fillabuster nor did they go before the media and say they would ask X questions and expect to get answers. The Democrats have done that with Roberts who would, as you say, change the balance on the court just as Justice Ginsberg did.

Why you don't see that it is simply a liberal vs. conservative issue I don't know but you seem to think that conservative is worse than liberal. I think they are both detrimental but still, they are fact and who is President and who gets to make appointments and what is the difference between Ginsberg and Roberts if not liberal and conservative?
:duel :cool:
I understand both sides perfectly well, thank you very much. You don't need to patronize. Roberts is just as qualified to be confirmed as Ginsberg. I'm not contesting that. I agree that Republicans didn't give her as much flak. I do contest, however that it is more than simply, "Republicans... understood that President Clinton had earned the right to appoint A FORMER ATTORNEY FOR THE ACLU". This is a MUCH bigger nomination for a SWING VOTE JUDGE, that could redifine several large political battles, something not present in the Ginsberg confirmation. THAT is why the Democrats will find anything they can to discredit this guy, and that is why they are going after his record with the Federalist Society

"Why should the Federalist Society affiliation hurt Roberts when working for the ACLU didn't hurt Ginsberg?"

It shouldn't. I'm not saying that. Why do you seem to think I'm disagreeing with you on this matter? I've never said otherwise.

I think Bush has just as much of a right to appoint Roberts as Clinton did Ginsberg. I'm just trying to explain why the democrats won't let the Roberts nomination go as easily as the Ginsberg nomination.

I DO think conservative is worse than liberal, but it really isn't playing into factor into my posts. You seem to think that because I've been ignoring your statements about Ginsberg, when really I'm ignoring it because it happened over 10 years ago.
 

Mikkel

Pragmatist
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Location
Cleveland, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Navy Pride said:
The Republicans have the votes to confirm Judge Roberts........If the Democrats try to filibuster his nomination the Republicans will use the nuclear option.....

Case closed...........
It's slightly more complicated than that...... I know a lot of republicans who are wary about using the nuclear option because of it's future political implications....... It may happen, but it isn't a certainty......
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
One of President Bush's campaign promises if he was re elected he would nominate Conservative judges for the SCOTUS...He is keeping that promise......Liberals should be glad he did not nominate a real hard core Conservative like Roger-Brown from California.........I would equate her thinking to Ginsburg only in the opposite direction..........
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Mikkel said:
It's slightly more complicated than that...... I know a lot of republicans who are wary about using the nuclear option because of it's future political implications....... It may happen, but it isn't a certainty......
The Republicans that took part in the so called "Gang of 14" have been pretty much quoted as saying that if the Democrats filibuster a highly qualified candidate without dual cause they would vote for the nuclear option.......I have personally heard McCain and McConnell say that.......Two Dems Hillary and Nelson of Nebraska have pretty much said they will vote for his confirmation

They only need 51 votes...........
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Mikkel said:
I understand both sides perfectly well, thank you very much. You don't need to patronize. Roberts is just as qualified to be confirmed as Ginsberg. I'm not contesting that. I agree that Republicans didn't give her as much flak. I do contest, however that it is more than simply, "Republicans... understood that President Clinton had earned the right to appoint A FORMER ATTORNEY FOR THE ACLU". This is a MUCH bigger nomination for a SWING VOTE JUDGE, that could redifine several large political battles, something not present in the Ginsberg confirmation. THAT is why the Democrats will find anything they can to discredit this guy, and that is why they are going after his record with the Federalist Society

"Why should the Federalist Society affiliation hurt Roberts when working for the ACLU didn't hurt Ginsberg?"

It shouldn't. I'm not saying that. Why do you seem to think I'm disagreeing with you on this matter? I've never said otherwise.

I think Bush has just as much of a right to appoint Roberts as Clinton did Ginsberg. I'm just trying to explain why the democrats won't let the Roberts nomination go as easily as the Ginsberg nomination.

I DO think conservative is worse than liberal, but it really isn't playing into factor into my posts. You seem to think that because I've been ignoring your statements about Ginsberg, when really I'm ignoring it because it happened over 10 years ago.
You may ignore Ginsberg because she was 10 years ago but we are dealing with a Constitution over 200 years old. You don't want to be reminded of 10 years ago but I quote you, " It is no surprise that Bush nominated a conservative, but Roberts' membership in an organization like this could brand him as somewhat of an Idealogue, leading him down 'Bork'ington road." You mean Robert Bork of course who happened over 10 years ago?

You think I am condescending or superior to you? Patronizing? My goodness, I am only taking your words and answering. You seem to think that the President has to be careful to nominate a swing vote. Where do you get these things anyway. I'm surprised you're not demanding a woman.

Here's another of my comments and your answer:

ME: "Why should the Federalist Society affiliation hurt Roberts when working for the ACLU didn't hurt Ginsberg?"

YOU: It shouldn't. I'm not saying that. Why do you seem to think I'm disagreeing with you on this matter? I've never said otherwise.

What about the "Borkington Road" you have referred to? Are you reading what you write. Roberts affiliation with the Federalist Society could lead him down the "Borkington Road"? Look, I have been using your own words over and over and you keep saying, "I'm not saying that" and I've never said otherwise" and yet I read and copy and present you with your own words. I don't understand why you contradict yourself so often.

It certainly makes it hard to understand your stand. I am saying simply that President Bush has the right to put forward any nominee he wants and if that person is qualified he should get an up or down vote. Democrats have already voted for John Roberts as a majority before. He is qualified. The Federalist Society isn't sinister by any definition and yet you are worried because they set up debates and are conservative. Please before you say you didn't say that go back and read your own posts.

Please don't come back and say you didn't say something you said because it's getting old.
:duel :cool:
 

Mikkel

Pragmatist
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Location
Cleveland, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
gordontravels said:
ME: "Why should the Federalist Society affiliation hurt Roberts when working for the ACLU didn't hurt Ginsberg?"

YOU: It shouldn't. I'm not saying that. Why do you seem to think I'm disagreeing with you on this matter? I've never said otherwise.

What about the "Borkington Road" you have referred to? Are you reading what you write. Roberts affiliation with the Federalist Society could lead him down the "Borkington Road"? Look, I have been using your own words over and over and you keep saying, "I'm not saying that" and I've never said otherwise" and yet I read and copy and present you with your own words. I don't understand why you contradict yourself so often.
You aren't listening.

YOU: "Why should the Federalist Society affiliation hurt Roberts when working for the ACLU didn't hurt Ginsberg?"

ME: It shouldn't. I'm not saying that. Why do you seem to think I'm disagreeing with you on this matter? I've never said otherwise.

I don't think there should be any difference between Ginsberg's history and nomination and Roberts' nomination. SHOULD BE!

What I'm trying to explain to you is that, in reality, it will be different, for a multitude of reasons. You inquired why, and I tried to provide an answer. If you don't want to accept it, fine, but don't try and fabricate some sort of debate that never existed in the first place.

If you actually took the time to read what I was actually saying, rather than taking the sentences you like to criticize, you'd realize that I, in no way, endorse what senate democrats could potentially do to block roberts.

I was simply stating facts, and you were turning them into opinion.

FACT: Ginsberg and Roberts both had similar affiliations with similarly partisan groups.
FACT: Despite the similarities, today, the Roberts nomination is a bigger deal because his appointment could alter the frame of many hotbutton issues, including the hottest of all, abortion. The Ginsberg nomination did not have this type of gravity.
FACT: In light of the previous two facts, Senate Democrats will try to block the nomination by any means possible, including using Roberts' affiliation with the Federalist Society as gunpowder.
FACT: These are the same tactics that Democrats used to reject Bork when he was nominated.

It is uncertain as to whether or not this will lead to a nomination battle. If you disagree with any of these facts, go ahead and disagree. They're all true.

"I am saying simply that President Bush has the right to put forward any nominee he wants and if that person is qualified he should get an up or down vote. Democrats have already voted for John Roberts as a majority before. He is qualified. The Federalist Society isn't sinister by any definition and yet you are worried because they set up debates and are conservative."

Please, tell me, when have I ever said I was worried about this. Never. NEVER. I personally don't give a damn. I was trying to point out to you that this is just political flak ready to be loaded into the cannon. I never said that I thought it was a good thing, or a bad thing. I'm just saying that it's there. To say I'm worried about it is putting words in my mouth. OK?
 

Mikkel

Pragmatist
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Location
Cleveland, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
"So if you are a conservative that is grounds for expulsion, deletion, failure, disapproval? Don't liberals stake their "claims" on their liberal views and should staking a claim on your views disqualify you from being appointed by a President that shares your views?"

I never said any of that, you got it from my first post which tried to convey something completely different.

"So what did you think when Ruth Bader Ginsberg was appointed by President Clinton and wasn't filabustered by Republicans who understood that President Clinton had earned the right to appoint A FORMER ATTORNEY FOR THE ACLU? Note: Not a member of the ACLU but an active employee! And they didn't request her case files. Why? Because they were settled law and she didn't have to explain former stands in relation to how she might rule as a Supreme Court Justice until she was and a case was before her. Then and only then would you get her ruling. Why is that different for a conservative?"

I don't give a crap about the first thing. It don't think it SHOULD be different. You implied that I thought it should. It IS different. Reality.

"Fred Thompson who is doing the leg work for Roberts has said this is fair. Chuck Shumer has said Roberts needs to answer. Ginsberg didn't have to but Roberts does?"

Roberts will have to answer... I'm not saying it's fair.

Just some examples of how you've distorted my words to make me seem like I approve of something I don't, or vice versa.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Mikkel said:
You aren't listening.

YOU: "Why should the Federalist Society affiliation hurt Roberts when working for the ACLU didn't hurt Ginsberg?"

ME: It shouldn't. I'm not saying that. Why do you seem to think I'm disagreeing with you on this matter? I've never said otherwise.

I don't think there should be any difference between Ginsberg's history and nomination and Roberts' nomination. SHOULD BE!

What I'm trying to explain to you is that, in reality, it will be different, for a multitude of reasons. You inquired why, and I tried to provide an answer. If you don't want to accept it, fine, but don't try and fabricate some sort of debate that never existed in the first place.

If you actually took the time to read what I was actually saying, rather than taking the sentences you like to criticize, you'd realize that I, in no way, endorse what senate democrats could potentially do to block roberts.

I was simply stating facts, and you were turning them into opinion.

FACT: Ginsberg and Roberts both had similar affiliations with similarly partisan groups.
FACT: Despite the similarities, today, the Roberts nomination is a bigger deal because his appointment could alter the frame of many hotbutton issues, including the hottest of all, abortion. The Ginsberg nomination did not have this type of gravity.
FACT: In light of the previous two facts, Senate Democrats will try to block the nomination by any means possible, including using Roberts' affiliation with the Federalist Society as gunpowder.
FACT: These are the same tactics that Democrats used to reject Bork when he was nominated.

It is uncertain as to whether or not this will lead to a nomination battle. If you disagree with any of these facts, go ahead and disagree. They're all true.

"I am saying simply that President Bush has the right to put forward any nominee he wants and if that person is qualified he should get an up or down vote. Democrats have already voted for John Roberts as a majority before. He is qualified. The Federalist Society isn't sinister by any definition and yet you are worried because they set up debates and are conservative."

Please, tell me, when have I ever said I was worried about this. Never. NEVER. I personally don't give a damn. I was trying to point out to you that this is just political flak ready to be loaded into the cannon. I never said that I thought it was a good thing, or a bad thing. I'm just saying that it's there. To say I'm worried about it is putting words in my mouth. OK?
I enjoy debate. I like to think I understand debate and not only from my side. So. You have cited "Fact". In keeping with that please tell me:

INQUIRY BASED ON YOUR "FACT": What is similar about the partisan groups that Ginsberg and Roberts belonged to? I don't believe terms such as conservative or liberal will do. My question would enjoy an explanation about what the two organizations are all about. I also look to why membership in either organization could possibly be grounds for exclusion or of benefit to a nominee; pending or not. Explanation and depth as to particulars is what I seek and since this comes under "Fact" there should be that explanation.

INQUIRY BASED ON YOUR "FACT": You cite "abortion" as the "hot button issue" that stands out in your mind and words here. Roberts has said that the abortion issue, in particular "Roe v Wade" is settled law. If you understand the term "settled law" then what are you referring to as the "hot button issue" and please, who's "hot button issue" is it and why?

INQUIRY BASED ON YOUR "FACT": In light of the previous 2 inquiries you say the Democrats will use "any means possible" to "block" Roberts nomination. The most vocal of the Democrats on this issue has been Senator Chuck Schumer of New York. I have yet to hear him even use the term "block". I would like your source (no link necessary) for who is saying they will use "any means possible" to "block" the nomination. This is one of your listings under "Fact".

INQUIRY BASED ON YOUR "FACT": How will any kind, sidelines or full member accepted, of affilation with the Federalist Society be converted to "gunpowder" by any opponent of the Roberts nomination? I am looking for why the Federalist Society is in line to be used in ANY negative way. I am not aware of anything other than it is a conservative organization made up of conservative minded attorneys and law students much the same as any liberal organization of the same membership would be considered. They organize under the rules of each individual campus where they have membership available, some 60 campuses in all. I've known of this organization for years and have attended 2 debates they organized and where both sides of issues were represented. I don't think you can have debate otherwise. Since that is the span of my information on this group your answer as to why being affiliated with this organization could be "gunpowder" is important to me.

INQUIRY BASED ON YOUR "FACT": I remember the nomination process of Robert Bork very well so that makes this question based on your "Fact" very important to our debate. What tactics exactly are you talking about and how could the "tactics" used against Robert Bork be applied to John Roberts and why? Please tell me how you perceived the actual issues used against Robert Bork and why those issues should have anything to do with John Roberts and, more importantly, what specific "tactics" would the Democrats be contemplating in view of the "issues" connects the two men.

I am glad you have finally come down to a label of "Facts" for what you say in your post because it is my desire to understand your side. Once I can do that it will only spur our debate and maybe even enlighten me to the point of agreeing with you. Of course, you hold the key. I have tried to use your words from your posts but now, here, I am asking you to explain in some detail the what, where and the why of these "Facts" you list in so few words here. Please note, I am asking for explanation so I may understand what you are saying. Then and only then will I agree or continue to debate. You will provide thorough explanations I'm sure. I'm looking forward to it.
:duel :cool:
 

Mikkel

Pragmatist
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Location
Cleveland, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
"INQUIRY BASED ON YOUR "FACT": What is similar about the partisan groups that Ginsberg and Roberts belonged to? I don't believe terms such as conservative or liberal will do. My question would enjoy an explanation about what the two organizations are all about. I also look to why membership in either organization could possibly be grounds for exclusion or of benefit to a nominee; pending or not. Explanation and depth as to particulars is what I seek and since this comes under "Fact" there should be that explanation."

Granted, these groups do not have similar roles politically. The ACLU is much more active in the political process, while the Federalist Society tends to spend more time discussing potential actions to take. I do not think affiliation with either of these groups is grounds for exclusion or benefit to a nominee. A Nominee's affiliation with these groups, however, categorizes them in a partisan manner. This does not, by itself, create a problem, but it could potentially become a building block for opposition attempts to brand a nominee as an Idealogue, rather than as someone who would be strictly interpreting the constitution.


"INQUIRY BASED ON YOUR "FACT": You cite "abortion" as the "hot button issue" that stands out in your mind and words here. Roberts has said that the abortion issue, in particular "Roe v Wade" is settled law. If you understand the term "settled law" then what are you referring to as the "hot button issue" and please, who's "hot button issue" is it and why?"

Roberts has been more ambiguous than you say he has on this issue.

"In a brief filed in 1991 on behalf of the first Bush administration, Roberts wrote: 'We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.'"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163028,00.html

He stated that this statement was on behalf of his client, and not his own personal opinion. You are most likely correct in your assumption that, when on the bench he will uphold the basic tenents of Roe v. Wade, but perhaps you can understand some people still have some concern regarding this issue.

"INQUIRY BASED ON YOUR "FACT": In light of the previous 2 inquiries you say the Democrats will use "any means possible" to "block" Roberts nomination. The most vocal of the Democrats on this issue has been Senator Chuck Schumer of New York. I have yet to hear him even use the term "block". I would like your source (no link necessary) for who is saying they will use "any means possible" to "block" the nomination. This is one of your listings under "Fact"."

This item poorly articulated what I was trying to say. Senate democrats COULD potentially try to block this nomination. If that happens, they will use whatever they can get their hands on to try and label Roberts as an Idealogue (because nothing else comes close to a feasable reason to reject this guy).

"INQUIRY BASED ON YOUR "FACT": How will any kind, sidelines or full member accepted, of affilation with the Federalist Society be converted to "gunpowder" by any opponent of the Roberts nomination? I am looking for why the Federalist Society is in line to be used in ANY negative way. I am not aware of anything other than it is a conservative organization made up of conservative minded attorneys and law students much the same as any liberal organization of the same membership would be considered. They organize under the rules of each individual campus where they have membership available, some 60 campuses in all. I've known of this organization for years and have attended 2 debates they organized and where both sides of issues were represented. I don't think you can have debate otherwise. Since that is the span of my information on this group your answer as to why being affiliated with this organization could be "gunpowder" is important to me."

I agree with you. This shouldn't be grounds for criticism of Roberts. The problem is that potential opponents of this nominee won't label it as, 'an organization meant to encourage debate'. It will become, 'a conservative organization that was, "formed in 1982 by attorneys and law students concerned about the liberal direction of our politics and judiciary." (your quote). It's horrible political spin, but that's how they'll spin it. It might work, and it might not, but I'm not prepepared to speculate that at this point.

"INQUIRY BASED ON YOUR "FACT": I remember the nomination process of Robert Bork very well so that makes this question based on your "Fact" very important to our debate. What tactics exactly are you talking about and how could the "tactics" used against Robert Bork be applied to John Roberts and why? Please tell me how you perceived the actual issues used against Robert Bork and why those issues should have anything to do with John Roberts and, more importantly, what specific "tactics" would the Democrats be contemplating in view of the "issues" connects the two men."

The tactics I am referring to are the ones in which democrats brought up minute details about Bork's life and history to try and label him as an Ideologue, including Kennedy's insistance that he have Bork's video rental history available to him. If democrats do the unlikely thing and try to block Roberts' nomination, I'm sure they will do the same thing (not his video rental history, specifically), and call up any minute detail possible to brand him as an Ideologue.

I hope this was helpful to you. Please let me know if there are any more inquiries you have.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Mikkel said:
(1) Granted, these groups do not have similar roles politically. The ACLU is much more active in the political process, while the Federalist Society tends to spend more time discussing potential actions to take. I do not think affiliation with either of these groups is grounds for exclusion or benefit to a nominee. A Nominee's affiliation with these groups, however, categorizes them in a partisan manner. This does not, by itself, create a problem, but it could potentially become a building block for opposition attempts to brand a nominee as an Idealogue, rather than as someone who would be strictly interpreting the constitution.

(2) Roberts has been more ambiguous than you say he has on this issue.

"In a brief filed in 1991 on behalf of the first Bush administration, Roberts wrote: 'We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.'"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163028,00.html

He stated that this statement was on behalf of his client, and not his own personal opinion. You are most likely correct in your assumption that, when on the bench he will uphold the basic tenents of Roe v. Wade, but perhaps you can understand some people still have some concern regarding this issue.

(3) This item poorly articulated what I was trying to say. Senate democrats COULD potentially try to block this nomination. If that happens, they will use whatever they can get their hands on to try and label Roberts as an Idealogue (because nothing else comes close to a feasable reason to reject this guy).

(4) I agree with you. This shouldn't be grounds for criticism of Roberts. The problem is that potential opponents of this nominee won't label it as, 'an organization meant to encourage debate'. It will become, 'a conservative organization that was, "formed in 1982 by attorneys and law students concerned about the liberal direction of our politics and judiciary." (your quote). It's horrible political spin, but that's how they'll spin it. It might work, and it might not, but I'm not prepepared to speculate that at this point.

(5) The tactics I am referring to are the ones in which democrats brought up minute details about Bork's life and history to try and label him as an Ideologue, including Kennedy's insistance that he have Bork's video rental history available to him. If democrats do the unlikely thing and try to block Roberts' nomination, I'm sure they will do the same thing (not his video rental history, specifically), and call up any minute detail possible to brand him as an Ideologue.

I hope this was helpful to you. Please let me know if there are any more inquiries you have.
I'm sorry but I certainly have an opinion on some of your answers and the numbers in parenthesis are my addition to your quoted words and will reference my replies:

(1) I'm also sorry to use your own words here but they are your words. "Granted, these groups do not have similar roles politically." The Federalist Society is an organization of conservative attorneys and law students independent of each other other than their membership in what both Democrats and Republicans recognize as a debating society which Democrats participate in. The ACLU is a Non-Profit Corporation that actually prosecutes law suits in court as employer/employee concern. Ruth Bader Ginsberg was paid by and volunteered to work for the ACLU. Federalist Society. ACLU. There is a clear difference in what you call their "roles politically". What in your estimation makes them similar?

(2) Roberts has stated that Roe is settled law. If any case were brought before the court it would be based on Constitutionality. If I follow your logic about "some people still have some concern regarding this issue" then they must have concern that Roe is not constitutional. Or, are you saying they already know what case may come before he court and how the court which would include John Roberts would rule? Do you think John Roberts should be asked the hypothetical question about how he would rule in a hypothetical case? If you don't, then how would those trying to block him block him using these concerns you say they have?

(3) Considering the losses the Democrats have had in elections on a regular basis including in Ohio yesterday, do you think the term "use anything they can get their hands on" is helpful to the electorate's view of how the Democrats should proceed? We already know they want to block him because you can't point to one thing President Bush has done that earns any kind of praise from Democrats including those appointees they do vote for.

(4) And sorry if I didn't make it clear that my quote that you reference here was word for word from the New York Times. So what you are speculating on is based upon how the New York Times sees the Federalist Society and not my words. This was not meant to deceive. I do have to disagree though that how the New York Times wrote this is not "horrible political spin". And just in case you think I only half understand let me say, if the Democrats try to use "horrible political spin" it will continue to define them.

(5) As far as you saying that "If democrats do the unlikely thing and try to block Roberts' nomination" I couldn't disagree more. Ok, yes I know you go on to say exploring "video rentals". It is the word "unlikely" that shoots a hole in all your arguements. If you said "likely" instead it would be closer to the mark and I don't think you can say different.

Otherwise I think you are getting closer to explaining your "Facts" but just why you consider them "Facts" still leaves this debate lacking.
:duel :cool:
 

Mikkel

Pragmatist
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Location
Cleveland, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
"(1) I'm also sorry to use your own words here but they are your words. "Granted, these groups do not have similar roles politically." The Federalist Society is an organization of conservative attorneys and law students independent of each other other than their membership in what both Democrats and Republicans recognize as a debating society which Democrats participate in. The ACLU is a Non-Profit Corporation that actually prosecutes law suits in court as employer/employee concern. Ruth Bader Ginsberg was paid by and volunteered to work for the ACLU. Federalist Society. ACLU. There is a clear difference in what you call their "roles politically". What in your estimation makes them similar?"

I agree. You don't have to linger on this point too much longer. I find very few similarities between the two organizations. I was merely trying to say that they have both been percieved as partisan organizations. The ACLU for it's activist reform, and the Federalist Society for the motive behind its creation. Other than that, they have completely different roles in the political process.

"(2) Roberts has stated that Roe is settled law. If any case were brought before the court it would be based on Constitutionality. If I follow your logic about "some people still have some concern regarding this issue" then they must have concern that Roe is not constitutional. Or, are you saying they already know what case may come before he court and how the court which would include John Roberts would rule? Do you think John Roberts should be asked the hypothetical question about how he would rule in a hypothetical case? If you don't, then how would those trying to block him block him using these concerns you say they have?"

The concerns are whether a court with Roberts would uphold Roe v Wade. I don't think Roberts should be asked the hypothetical question you pose, because that would be completely inappropriate for a supreme court nominee. If those concerned decide that they can't trust Roberts to uphold roe v wade, then they would attempt to block him by trying to brand him as an Ideologue.

"(3) Considering the losses the Democrats have had in elections on a regular basis including in Ohio yesterday, do you think the term "use anything they can get their hands on" is helpful to the electorate's view of how the Democrats should proceed? We already know they want to block him because you can't point to one thing President Bush has done that earns any kind of praise from Democrats including those appointees they do vote for."

First of all, the Democrats 'loss' in Ohio yesterday was actually a good sign for them. Their candidate got 48% of the vote in a very strictly republican district. I'd hardly consider that a bad sign for the Democratic party. I think the Democrats real decision will be whether or not to block Roberts. If they DO decide to try and block him, I think they will look better in the eyes of the electorate if they put their full effort behind it, using "whatever they can get their hands on". If it's just Kennedy and Boxer ranting on the senate floor, they will be percieved as a weaker Democratic party. This IS my opinion, but I think they will be respected if they hold firm rather than back down to Bush's demands and merely complain about it afterwards.

"(4) And sorry if I didn't make it clear that my quote that you reference here was word for word from the New York Times. So what you are speculating on is based upon how the New York Times sees the Federalist Society and not my words. This was not meant to deceive. I do have to disagree though that how the New York Times wrote this is not "horrible political spin". And just in case you think I only half understand let me say, if the Democrats try to use "horrible political spin" it will continue to define them."

The democrats will do something similar to what I did, and take an exact snippet from the NYT or other major news source and place it out of context to spin it so that it looks like the Federalist Society is a conservative group. I'm not claiming that the New York Times is spinning anything, I'm just saying that the democrats (potentially) will. As for political spin defining the democrats, I'd have to say that it defines the republicans pretty well too, with the last election as evidence.

"(5) As far as you saying that "If democrats do the unlikely thing and try to block Roberts' nomination" I couldn't disagree more. Ok, yes I know you go on to say exploring "video rentals". It is the word "unlikely" that shoots a hole in all your arguements. If you said "likely" instead it would be closer to the mark and I don't think you can say different."

So you think that it is likely that the democrats will try to block the nomination? Didn't you say at some point... "The most vocal of the Democrats on this issue has been Senator Chuck Schumer of New York. I have yet to hear him even use the term "block"." So because of this, you think it is likely that they will try to block the nomination? I think at this point it is all speculation, and that it is really alright to say different.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
QUOTES from Mikkel in Black - I agree. You don't have to linger on this point too much longer. I find very few similarities between the two organizations. I was merely trying to say that they have both been percieved as partisan organizations. The ACLU for it's activist reform, and the Federalist Society for the motive behind its creation. Other than that, they have completely different roles in the political process.

So in being partisan organizations the Federalist Society is Republican and the ACLU is Democrat. Sounds like locked doors to me but then you may misunderstand which I highly suspect since I look for opportunities for people, and I emphasise PEOPLE, can cross over when they approve or disapprove of their parties direction.

The concerns are whether a court with Roberts would uphold Roe v Wade. I don't think Roberts should be asked the hypothetical question you pose, because that would be completely inappropriate for a supreme court nominee. If those concerned decide that they can't trust Roberts to uphold roe v wade, then they would attempt to block him by trying to brand him as an Ideologue.

And I think the concern shouldn't be whether John Roberts would uphold any particular "settled law" case. I think the measure should be whether he would uphold the Constitution which is what cases are based on at the level of the Supreme Court. I didn't pose any hypothetical question and would request you to read what I actually said.

First of all, the Democrats 'loss' in Ohio yesterday was actually a good sign for them. Their candidate got 48% of the vote in a very strictly republican district. I'd hardly consider that a bad sign for the Democratic party. I think the Democrats real decision will be whether or not to block Roberts. If they DO decide to try and block him, I think they will look better in the eyes of the electorate if they put their full effort behind it, using "whatever they can get their hands on". If it's just Kennedy and Boxer ranting on the senate floor, they will be percieved as a weaker Democratic party. This IS my opinion, but I think they will be respected if they hold firm rather than back down to Bush's demands and merely complain about it afterwards.

Talk about spin!!!!! And Paul Hackett had the full support of the national media behind him for free. Go to archives and type in his name at CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC (don't forget the morning shows) and even Fox News Channel although you get more negative there because you didn't get any negative from the others. A 4% loss is a "good sign" for the Democrats? A Republican now an incumbent is a good sign for the Democrats?

The Democrat leaning media has already painted John Roberts as qualified, a good man and someone that the Democrats will not defeat with even those such as CNN and ABC reporting that he "will be confirmed if given a vote in the Senate". As far as damage goes, I don't care how the Democrats try to block him, the public will see it as Democrats trying to block him. President Bush hasn't made any demands. He has nominated a good man to the Supreme Court and expects an up or down vote. If your "opinion" is based on the President's demands, please tell me what those demands are.


The democrats will do something similar to what I did, and take an exact snippet from the NYT or other major news source and place it out of context to spin it so that it looks like the Federalist Society is a conservative group. I'm not claiming that the New York Times is spinning anything, I'm just saying that the democrats (potentially) will. As for political spin defining the democrats, I'd have to say that it defines the republicans pretty well too, with the last election as evidence.

Ok, I don't want you to lose me again. Can you tell me why Democrats will take a snippet from any major news source and spin it so it looks like the Federalist Society, a conservative group, is a conservative group? I think if the Democrats want to spin a conservative group as a conservative group I can go along with it. The Republicans say it is a conservative group or at least spin it that way.

So you think that it is likely that the democrats will try to block the nomination? Didn't you say at some point... "The most vocal of the Democrats on this issue has been Senator Chuck Schumer of New York. I have yet to hear him even use the term "block"." So because of this, you think it is likely that they will try to block the nomination? I think at this point it is all speculation, and that it is really alright to say different.

Sorry but you were the one using the term "block" as in "unlikely". You also said in your own words and I quote, "I think the Democrats real decision will be whether or not to block Roberts. If they DO decide to try and block him, I think they will look better in the eyes of the electorate if they put their full effort behind it, using "whatever they can get their hands on". It is your quote and that is what I based my "I hadn't heard even Schumer use the word block". You did.

If the Democrats try to "block" John Roberts under any method whether as a few ultra liberal Democrats or a united front, it will add to their destruction which has been on a continuous road since the 94 elections.
:duel :cool:
 
Top Bottom