Alito hearings

[Chick]

Once again a reasoned, intelligent, American has been forced to face the "powers-that-be" so they can demonstrate their ignorance and ineptitude! By patiently enduring the endless barrage of inane questions, Judge Alito has earned the respect and sympathy of normal Americans.

Too bad that our form of government does not require all congressmen, on both sides of the aisle, to have to sit and listen to megalomaniacs pontificate just to hear themselves talk! Every politician should have to answer questions that require 10 minutes to ask and relate to events, taken totally out of context, that happened years in the past. Bet Mr. Kennedy would love to answer some probing questions on Chappaquiddick.

Judge Alito is remarkable is his self restraint and ability to sit for hours enduring this torture all the while answering the questions posed by self-serving politicians.

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060110/i/r4139453491.jpg

[simongs]

Personally, I don't trust the guy based on his ultra conservative position. I don't want the gov't in my britches any more than they already are.

Its the inane answers to the questions that appear to be an issue to me. He really hasn't answered a single question, no surprise there..no one else ever did either in all fairness.

If he answered what was asked, maybe folks could quit asking so many questions in a million different ways.

I like the byline of one of my co-workers, seems to apply here..."there are no answers, only choices".

My choice certainly wouldn't be him. I don't understand whats wrong with a little diversity on the court and will miss the voice of reason that just left.

regards!...geo

[Chick]

Personally, I don't trust the guy based on his ultra conservative position. I don't want the gov't in my britches any more than they already are.
regards!...geo

It is interesting how we can look at the same situation and come to very differing conclusions. From my perspective, it is not the conservatives that get in my britches, it is the liberals with their taxes, trying to tell me how to raise my children, limiting what I can and can not do on my own property, and forcing their morality on me.

However, I must admit that as far as the two political parties we have in this country are concerned, I am coming more and more to the conclusion that their adgendas have nothing to do with what is best for this counrty (you and me) but what is best for their staying in power! I think it is about time to send them all home and start over with a new batch that is unpaid and allowed to stay in Washington for three months to get the country's business done.

But then again, who am I????:)

[dshealey]

I think it is about time to send them all home and start over with a new batch that is unpaid and allowed to stay in Washington for three months to get the country's business done.
But then again, who am I????:)

What we need is a totally new type of government. The best we could have would be an ELECTED dictator, with term limits. Elect him/her, then what they say goes, period. Kick them out and elect another if they go bad. If they are good, keep them.

Whatever happened to majority rule? The majority elects an official, then the loosers bitch and whine and will not go along with the majority.

[KBandit]

Once again a reasoned, intelligent, American has been forced to face the "powers-that-be" so they can demonstrate their ignorance and ineptitude! By patiently enduring the endless barrage of inane questions, Judge Alito has earned the respect and sympathy of normal Americans.

Too bad that our form of government does not require all congressmen, on both sides of the aisle, to have to sit and listen to megalomaniacs pontificate just to hear themselves talk! Every politician should have to answer questions that require 10 minutes to ask and relate to events, taken totally out of context, that happened years in the past. Bet Mr. Kennedy would love to answer some probing questions on Chappaquiddick.

Judge Alito is remarkable is his self restraint and ability to sit for hours enduring this torture all the while answering the questions posed by self-serving politicians.

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060110/i/r4139453491.jpg

chick ... i can't help but wonder if you'd feel the same way if there was evidence that the judge had a liberal agenda, and if he were nominated by a democrat.

the thing about supreme court justices is they are appointed For Life ... they will be with us until they croak or until they are blowing bubbles in their oatmeal. it makes sense to try and get a good one.

thank goodness logic prevailed in the case of harriet meyers, for instance, who appears to have been nominated because she writes really sweet thank-you notes.

that said, i think the media over-sells the power that justices have. they do not CREATE law, they interpret it. so it is possible for a very "liberal" judge to render a very "conservative" ruling, so long as the ruling ACCURATELY interprets constitutional law. don't look for the supreme court to overturn Roe vs. Wade, for instance. of course there are lots of cases that are borderline, and where a judge's inclination COULD affect his or her ruling.

[justincase]

Once again a reasoned, intelligent, American has been forced to face the "powers-that-be" so they can demonstrate their ignorance and ineptitude! By patiently enduring the endless barrage of inane questions, Judge Alito has earned the respect and sympathy of normal Americans.

Too bad that our form of government does not require all congressmen, on both sides of the aisle, to have to sit and listen to megalomaniacs pontificate just to hear themselves talk! Every politician should have to answer questions that require 10 minutes to ask and relate to events, taken totally out of context, that happened years in the past. Bet Mr. Kennedy would love to answer some probing questions on Chappaquiddick.

Judge Alito is remarkable is his self restraint and ability to sit for hours enduring this torture all the while answering the questions posed by self-serving politicians.

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060110/i/r4139453491.jpg
I agree with you on all your points. Without getting the specifics of each interrogator ...it showed just who they are. Let's face it, it's all a show, these hearings won't change any of their closed minds.

I hate the entire process and find it difficult even listening to the clips of these morons and their dumb questions which they already know the answers to.

It's hard to believe someone actually elected these guys.

Here’s an idea,,,let’s use these hearing as a torture technique against the evil-doers…This is worse then what they went through.

[rdtebeau]

I'm with Dave. What happened to the majority rule??? Let the prez nominate, put the guy up for a vote and let the representatives that we ELECTED into office vote to confirm or not. Hmmm... seems sorta simple... maybe the way it was intended to be.

For those that elected morons, well let them have their vote. I guess you have to give em some credit, if voted on they know they would lose, that is why they whine and pout and tell us that we don't know....

[rixchard]

Watch, as I put down the keyboard and mouse to walk quickly away from this thread

[justincase]

Watch, as I put down the keyboard and mouse to walk quickly away from this thread
Your mouse will find it's why back...it can't help but do so.

[NCoe]

The unending pontification by the senators (from both parties) asking questions drives me nuts. At least I can tolerate it somewhat when it is done by those I mostly agree with (Spector) and sometimes respectfully disagree with (Schumer). However, when it comes to the garbage spewing forth from people like the Chappaquiddick swimming champ, I have to walk away. His questioning Alito's integrity and ethics is laughable. People in glass houses...

[Chick]

[QUOTE=KBandit]chick ... i can't help but wonder if you'd feel the same way if there was evidence that the judge had a liberal agenda, and if he were nominated by a democrat.
QUOTE]

Short answer, yes! I think that the process as we see unfolding before us now is flawed. It is NOT about finding out whether or not a person is qualified for the Supreme Court. It is about Senators show casing for their supporters on BOTH sides of the aisle. Sad state of affairs.

[KBandit]

Short answer, yes! I think that the process as we see unfolding before us now is flawed. It is NOT about finding out whether or not a person is qualified for the Supreme Court. It is about Senators show casing for their supporters on BOTH sides of the aisle. Sad state of affairs.

fair enough. i stand corrected. and i apologize for the inference.

[Vance]

Glad you posted this. I like watching the points of view come out. I am very conservative and what sticks in my craw is not the liberal point of view...but how elected officials a long time ago were created with the intent to represent the people (the majority)...but now the system is all about being re-elected. Limited terms would take care of that.

The President should be able to pick his judges, end of story. The election should earn him/her that privilege.

Vance

[Chick]

fair enough. i stand corrected. and i apologize for the inference.

No apology necessary, you were not interfering. :)

I was simply stating my frustration with our system. For the record, I was as appalled at Linsey Graham's pontificating as I was with Chuck Schumer's.:(

Most of these people have been in Washington way too long!

[NCoe]

Most of these people have been in Washington way too long!The senior senator from my state certainly resembles that remark!

[Keith]

Here’s an idea,,,let’s use these hearing as a torture technique against the evil-doers…This is worse then what they went through.

Spending an hour with that drunken gasbag Teddy sounds like cruel and unusual punishment to me. I think most would opt for the panties on their head. :D
Ted will be the one in the lampshade. :crazy:

[TandemCyclist]

Jack Abramoff may make your wish come true of cleaning house (and senate). Then again we would have to have intelligent voters next few go rounds. Reds believe the BS on talk radio (or FOX) and the blues just don't give a damn.

It will never change.

Just Give Me Mine, Screw Everything ( or everyone) Else.

[KBandit]

Jack Abramoff may make your wish come true of cleaning house (and senate). Then again we would have to have intelligent voters next few go rounds. Reds believe the BS on talk radio (or FOX) and the blues just don't give a damn.

It will never change.

Just Give Me Mine, Screw Everything ( or everyone) Else.

i think there will definitely be some fallout from abramoff. it was the straw (well, maybe more than a straw) that broke delay's back. and i think there will be more, when all is said and done, since it appears abramoff is prepared to name names and reveal all for a reduced sentence. so, i think there will some damage, on both sides of the aisle.

[russte]

What happened to the majority rule???

Money… just follow the trail. Money talks, bullshit walks!!!!

[meese]

Too bad that our form of government does not require all congressmen, on both sides of the aisle, to have to sit and listen to megalomaniacs pontificate just to hear themselves talk!Uh, I thought that was the form of government that we have. Ever hear of a filibuster?

I am coming more and more to the conclusion that their adgendas have nothing to do with what is best for this country (you and me) but what is best for their staying in power!Many of us have already figured that out, and refuse to buy into the hype and hysteria.

It is about Senators show casing for their supporters on BOTH sides of the aisle.That's how they stay in power.

Money… just follow the trail.And that's why.

Sad state of affairs.Agreed, sadly.

[meese]

I don't know if I'd go so far as an elected dictator (carefully avoiding comparisons to our current administration), but I'd say the first task is to get all the lobbyists out of Washington. If you believe in a cause, then get yourself elected and serve. But it's much faster to just buy a politician or two.

As painful as this may all be, the whole basis of our government is that the various branches get to challenge each other. That's just not something we should give up lightly.

[rixchard]

Lobbying is not bad. It is a method of petioning the government(constitution and all that). How it is being used however, is bad.

ps to Justin: you were right

[Chick]

As painful as this may all be, the whole basis of our government is that the various branches get to challenge each other. That's just not something we should give up lightly.

You are right, Ken! I can't handle the idea of an "elected dictator" and this seems to be the best alternative. I am just frustrated with the whole system.:confused:

[meese]

Agreed, Chick.

At the risk of starting something potentially controversial, I've been meaning to ask you about you signature. You've got NRA Life Member just above your bible quote of the week. I've always been taught to never draw a gun unless you're absolutely prepared to use it. How does that fit in with Thou Shall Not Kill?

It seems like there's a potentially serious conflict there. I can see the point of having a gun purely for defensive or protective purposes (even though I've never felt the need to carry), but even defensively you'd have to be willing to shoot to kill. Otherwise, why keep a gun around at all?

Just curious.

[cfell]

From http://www.usccb.org/seia/sadhope.htm
"...
Often in the intensity of grief and rage, nations take actions that they later regret. As we enter our battle against the forces of terror, we raise the caution that a general expansion of law enforcement powers beyond those necessary to fight terrorism cannot be justified if such an expansion comes at the expense of core civil liberties principles of privacy, due process, and freedom of association. Such a Faustian bargain compromises the very idea of freedom, the idea which our adversaries have attacked, and which we are pledged to defend.

Now our nation finds itself in conflict with the forces of terrorism and hatred. We come from traditions that recognize the necessity of a conflict such as this one that is fought in self-defense and to protect innocent lives. Nevertheless, we are reminded that our traditions of just war do not give permission for limitless violence. Instead, they demand that even just wars be fought with concern for the lives of innocents and for the safety and well being of noncombatants and their property. We call on our government to be guided by these constraints as it prosecutes the battle in which we are now engaged.

Our prayers are joined for the safety and success of the men and women of our nation who fight this war on behalf of the security of our land and its people. We pray that the triumph over forces of hatred and destruction will be swift and complete. And we pray for the security innocents everywhere whose lands are now engulfed in violence and peril. May the day come soon when they --and all the men, women and children of our planet --will be able to "sit under our vines and under our fig trees with none to make us afraid." [Micah 4:4]"

From: http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/peace/catech2.htm
"...
2302 By recalling the commandment, "You shall not kill," 94 our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.

Anger is a desire for revenge. "To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit," but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice." 95 If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment." "

[Daman858]

Meese,

Here in Maryland, we have two convicted federal felons as the highest paid lobbyists to the Maryland General Assembly. You can look it up!

BTW, I do Glock, all the time!

[Chick]

Agreed, Chick.

At the risk of starting something potentially controversial, I've been meaning to ask you about you signature. You've got NRA Life Member just above your bible quote of the week. I've always been taught to never draw a gun unless you're absolutely prepared to use it. How does that fit in with Thou Shall Not Kill?

It seems like there's a potentially serious conflict there. I can see the point of having a gun purely for defensive or protective purposes (even though I've never felt the need to carry), but even defensively you'd have to be willing to shoot to kill. Otherwise, why keep a gun around at all?

Just curious.

Good question, Ken. In the '80s I joined the NRA as a hunter to help protect my rights as a citizen of this country to own fire arms and to use them for sport and to put meat on the table for my family. Later, I became a member of our local Sherriff's reserve and carried a gun (after extensive training) while on duty. I also served for three years on their drug enforcement team. Much of that time I was used in an undercover capacity because I was relatively new to the community and was not well known, by face or name, especially by the people we were investigating. During those years I confronted some people who were, shall we say, less then enthusiastic about my involvement in placing them behind bars for their illegal activities. Threats were made against my family and I legally carried a hand gun for my family's protection even while off duty.

I am very thankful that I have never had to use my gun, and hope that that situations never arises, but I was ready to protect my family if it had been necessary.

I am well aware of the Scriptural arguments against killing and have studied the text you quoted, "thou shall not kill," as well as many others. It is interesting to note that in the original languages there are differentiations between the "types" of killing to which the Lord refers in the Bible. For example, killing in war time situations is different than killing in cold blood. It is my opinion, and I know that there are many who disagree with me, that self-defense and protection of one's family do not fall under the category of "thou shall not kill," ie: cold blooded murder.

I hope this helps you understand my thinking to some degree. It was a difficult issue for me to resolve in the beginning but I feel very comfortable with the resolution to which I have come. I don't expect everyone to agree with me but I am at peace with my Lord concerning my decision.

God bless and thanks for asking. It has been some time since I have had to verbalize my thoughts on this issue -- it is good to rethink why I am where I am. :)

[meese]

Thanks for the explanation, Chick. I find it fascinating to see how people come to various conclusions, and what reasons they use. I'd never considered the sport or hunting aspect, even though my father-in-law is an avid hunter. He even chided a sister-in-law for having her first child during hunting season. :)

I also understand the need to protect yourself and your family, especially given the circumstances you shared. I've fortunately never been in a situation where I thought a gun would have been necessary, but I do appreciate that others have the right to carry, and that the vast majority of gun owners are conscientious and law-abiding.

I was curious, and you satisfied that curiosity. Thanks.

[Dave]

I can't help but be amused by the post from Conservatives saying majority rules, if majority ruled Bush wouldn't have been president the first time around.

[Chick]

I can't help but be amused by the post from Conservatives saying majority rules, if majority ruled Bush wouldn't have been president the first time around.

Good point. However, if we went by "majority rule" we would never have a president because the majority doesn't even take the time to vote.:)

[TandemCyclist]

Good point. However, if we went by "majority rule" we would never have a president because the majority doesn't even take the time to vote.:)

About the only way to get more to vote would be to give them money. When the state I formerly resided in gave us a few weeks to vote, I thought for sure the turn out would double. It picked up a few percent but really only made lines on Tuesday shrink. It was convenient.

If you forced everyone to vote somehow, the guy with the most slimy TV commercials would still win. Attention deficit and TV rule. The day someone decided we should not discuss politics and religion and family and... was the day we started downhill on staying informed. At least when you know you will be in a discussion you tend to inform yourself a little. That's the biggest reason to keep these kind of discussions on this forums. It is making us think and study our position. Bravo.

Rick

[Steve_R]

The day someone decided we should not discuss politics and religion and family and... was the day we started downhill on staying informed. At least when you know you will be in a discussion you tend to inform yourself a little. That's the biggest reason to keep these kind of discussions on this forums. It is making us think and study our position. Bravo.

Rick

I will agree with you on keeping these discussions on the forum as long as it remains civil. It is only when either side of politcal/religious center starts the name calling that it really Fries My Taters. :mad: Case in point happened over this past holiday season, in this very forum. At that point, I don't care what the moderators do to the thread, Lock It or Delete It, suits me just fine.

I guess that was a rant, so <Rant Off> . ;) :)

[gunny]

I'm embarassed for the good folks represented by some of those elected jackasses that made fools of themselves on national TV. Top of the list, Teddy Kennedy

[TandemCyclist]

Steve,

I agree Steve, some people wear their feelings on their sleeve and jump into these discussions expecting everyone to be on their side. Most fail to realize that almost all agree on 90% of other things. Maybe we should start a thread on what we agree on. I'll start. I would not give up my citizenship to the USA.

Where out west were you when you got your amateur radio license?

Rick
KC5EQU