ALITO WIFE LEAVES HEARING IN TEARS AFTER DEM ATTACK

[madape]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

as for the wife leaving the hearings in tears, she's going to need a thicker skin if she is going to stay in dc.

Yeah, and that rape victim "shouldn't have been wearing that short dress"

... and when Russian parents watched their children slaughered at the hands of terrorists in Belsan, they were just "reaping what they sowed"

get some class, asshole

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I would say that it is business as usual, which is to say that nothing has changed in washington over the last 50 years

Oh really...Is that why Ruth Bader Ginsburg (obviously as liberal as they come) got a 96-3 confirmation. It is business as usual (but of course getting worse) for democrats.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by MikeB

When was the last democratic nominee...would be a better question.

Breyer and Ginsburg in '94 and '93 respectively. And because it was business as usual then you would expect to see a down the line partisan vote like you have by the dems. But NO...Ginsburg 96-3 confirmation and Breyer 87-9...

What's the difference...In one case adults were in opposition, in the other democrats.

And all that about the party of slavery and yada yada is blatantly stupid. Politics is a dirty business and just because your favorite mud slingers are getting muddy for once does not allow you to get all high and mighty like you don't do it too.

Not stupid, true.

[dude1394]

Maybe I really shouldn't fuss about kennedy and the democrats. They are the gift that just keeps on giving. As varifrank illustrates.

Thats It???

That's it? Thats all they brought? Thousands of man hours, Senate aides working through the night, private investigators pouring through everything that the man has touched or stood next to in 40 years, and this is all they got for it?

Is this the "Big Bad Democrat Machine"? This is supposed to make me quake in my conservative right wing fanatic boots?

Are you kidding me? It's like hearing Kerry is running for President again, you salivate for this sort of match.

Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden, the Mt. Rushmore of modern liberalism.... ( no wonder their party is going into the dumpster faster than undercooked airline food).

Why would anyone ever give a dime to support these frauds? Its not like they get anything for their money, These guys arent even "good TV".

I cant get over the asinine nature of the questions they asked. Did they really think that he would just pop out there and say " Yes Senator, I want Womenfolk to be barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen cookin' me and my menfolk a nice big possum supper every Sunday"

Come on.... 24 minutes of posturing, with Alito answering the issue in about 30 seconds, only to have the gasbag Senator say " you didnt answer my question". Only he did, and it was obvious to everyone that he did.

Every public display of pompus bloviation from Teddy is worth another electoral vote for the Republicans. Everytime Biden smiles, its another 100,000 votes for Republicans. Everytime Schumer looks over his glasses, another Generation X kid says 'whoa, dude. Youre harshing my mellow..."

I was worried about Miers getting through the dreaded "Democrat Gauntlet" but after this pitiful display I think one of the Bush twins could get in.

Why would any liberal give money to a Democrat? I mean if you are going to lose anyway ( and after this sad pathetic display in a long series of sad pathetic displays you have to finally agree that you are going to lose), why not give money to a Green or a Socialist which is where you heart is anyway? If you are going to lose, you might at least go down fighting for something you believe in, even I can respect that idea. How can anyone believe anything these frauds say?

These guys are just pathetic. But I didnt vote for them and I dont support them. I wonder how someone who has supported them in the past feels about their heroes now?

This is the day the Democrats finally lost their "moral authority" badge. It took them kicking a man in the face and humiliating him while his wife watched for them to do it, but the finally showed the world for the disgusting power drunk bullies that they really are.

[dude1394]

Or from scrappleface

(2006-01-11) — Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito told reporters today that despite Sen. Charles Schumer’s hostile questioning in yesterday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, the federal appeals court judge would “keep an open mind” about the New York lawmaker.

The remark reflected the same approach that Judge Alito told the committee he would take toward any abortion cases that might come before him as a Supreme Court justice.

“Despite the precedent of Sen. Schumer’s disparaging questions yesterday, and his implication that my testimony is dishonest,” Judge Alito said, “I will treat him as if the slate is clean and evaluate his performance today on its merits.”

The judge declined an invitation to characterize the senator’s long history of hostile questioning to Republican nominees as “super-precedent” or “super-duper precedent.”

“Any sort of categorization like that with regard to Sen. Schumer reminds me of the size of the disposable diapers in the supermarket,” Judge Alito said.

[dude1394]

What was that about Biden hating Princeton???

[dude1394]

More Biden... Funny now he's asking Katie Couric if she is a member of the KKK? Maybe he should go ask the senior Democrat Senator?

Both Biden and Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, D-Fla., an anti-Alito witness before the committee, compared Alito’s membership in CAP with membership in the Ku Klux Klan, which lynched blacks in the South. “I take him at his word that he didn't know what the group stood for,” Biden told Today Show host Katie Couric. “But I'm sure required to ask him, just like me asking you, `Katie, were you ever a member of the Ku Klux Klan?’”

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no, it hasn't. you said "The dems of late have completely lost sight of that to the point of manufacturing lies about Alito. It is disgusting.",and I asked for any example of these supposed "lies". I'm still waiting. you've failed to show any lies. my expectation is you cannot provide ANY.

I see you are still committed to being an obtuse dickhead. The dems have gone out of their way to portray Alito as a bigot, a racist, a woman hater, etc. That is contrary to the truth, contrary to his testimony and is decietful in the most pathetic and sickening manner. It is not true and therefore is a lie. I am sickened at how this great man is being treated by these senators. Senators should have more decorum, respect and courtesy. Period.

Please from now on end all of your posts with the following:
/dickhead

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by madape

Yeah, and that rape victim "shouldn't have been wearing that short dress"

... and when Russian parents watched their children slaughered at the hands of terrorists in Belsan, they were just "reaping what they sowed"

get some class, asshole

after you, like the scarecrow you so much resemble, get a brain.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Oh really...Is that why Ruth Bader Ginsburg (obviously as liberal as they come) got a 96-3 confirmation. It is business as usual (but of course getting worse) for democrats.

it's interesting that you bring up ginsburg, who answered the questions in a very direct manner. maybe that is why she was approved with the vote of 96-3.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Drbio

I see you are still committed to being an obtuse dickhead. The dems have gone out of their way to portray Alito as a bigot, a racist, a woman hater, etc. That is contrary to the truth, contrary to his testimony and is decietful in the most pathetic and sickening manner. It is not true and therefore is a lie. I am sickened at how this great man is being treated by these senators. Senators should have more decorum, respect and courtesy. Period.

Please from now on end all of your posts with the following:
/dickhead

no, that dubious honor falls upon those like you who make grandiose claims, such as stating people are "manufacturing lies", only to NOT be capable of sustantiating that claim.

of course, at the same time it seems that a wonderful case of irony has occured, for you clearly have been shown to be the one"manufacturing lies" about what the committee members have said. really funny!

great job. keep up the good work.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

it's interesting that you bring up ginsburg, who answered the questions in a very direct manner. maybe that is why she was approved with the vote of 96-3.

do you honestly believe this?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

it's interesting that you bring up ginsburg, who answered the questions in a very direct manner. maybe that is why she was approved with the vote of 96-3.

I thought there were ginsburg rules about giving what her votes were going to be. I'll have to look it up.

So when someone asked her if she would overturn Roe she said no?
When someone asked her if she would overturn affirmitive action she said no?

Then why the heck would republicans vote for her?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

do you honestly believe this?
I thought there were ginsburg rules about giving what her votes were going to be. I'll have to look it up.

So when someone asked her if she would overturn Roe she said no?
When someone asked her if she would overturn affirmitive action she said no?

Then why the heck would republicans vote for her?

that she answered the questions posed to her by the committee? yes, she did. ginsburg was VERY clear in her answers.

yes, ginsburg did say with NO qualifications that she supports a women's right to terminate her pregnancy. yes, ginsburg stated her support for afirmitive action.

perhaps the vast majority of republicans voted for her because she was extremely qualified.

[Drbio]

mavdoggie forgot the /dickhead. Like the dem senators he has no courtesy.

If it weren't for Deus you would quite possibly be the most ignorant poster here.

great job. keep up the good work.

The classic mavdog punt. It only lacked the yuck yuck yuck....

[Drbio]

You forgot your /dickhead again mavdoogie. It is clear to everyone but you what Kennedy and the dim element implied. And it is clear that Alito is no racist and has no bias against women despite their best efforts.

[kg_veteran]

Mavdog - You're incorrect about Ginsburg. I listened to a soundbite collection today on the radio of all the instances where Ginsburg answered in exactly the same manner as Alito -- and she was treated with courtesy and respect.

Try again.

[Usually Lurkin]

And while we're talking about hypocrisy, how many of the people who are willing to condemn Alito for a very weak association with a college advocacy group who's philosophy may have ranged from "advance on merit" to "bigotry" were also year ago trying to excuse John Kerry's active involvement in an anti-war group who's philosophy definitely included "presidential assassination"?

[dude1394]

I guess the democrats (except Feinstein) weren't really interested in the opinions of fellow judges (at least two of which were Clinton appointees). Yea Mavdog...I'm sure the only reason Ginsburg got 3 no votes and John Roberts got 22 was because of the "openness" of Ginsburg. But I guess the Democrats can't be bothered by hearing other judges opinions on the nominee. Or probably because they weren't allowed to speak they just weren't really interested because they already know how they will vote.

powerline

Judge Alito's colleagues speak

Judge Alito's colleagues on the Third Circuit have been testifying this afternoon. You can get a sense of the high esteem in which they hold him by checking out NRO's Bench Memos.

One of the witnesses is Judge Timothy Lewis, an African-American, "pro-choice" judge appointed by President Clinton. Judge Lewis testified about Judge Alito's “intellectual honesty,” stating “I cannot recall one instance when Judge Alito displayed anything remotely approaching an ideological bent.” Senator Coburn asked Judge Lewis and his colleague Judge Marianne Trump Barry (also a Clinton appointee) if they had ever seen anything that would lead them to believe Alito would be hostile to the rights of women or minorities. Both testified that they would not even be in this hearing room if they had.

To her credit, Senator Feinstein stayed in the hearing room to hear and question these witnesses. However, she apparently was the only Democratic Senator to do so.

JOHN adds: This is truly extraordinary. Extraordinary that Judge Alito's colleagues have turned out to defend him against the Democrats' smears; extraordinary that the Democrats themselves couldn't be bothered to stick around to hear what this distinguished group of judges had to say. After all, if the Democrats were actually interested in what kind of judge Sam Alito is, these are precisely the witnesses who could tell them. If the Democrats really thought that Alito's judicial opinions reflect poorly on him, these are exactly the people who could answer their questions, and, if they are correct, confirm their fears. But the Democrats apparently knew that wasn't going to happen. The only conclusion one can draw is that the Democrats knew they were smearing a fine man and a fine judge. But the fact that they didn't even have the decency or respect to stay and listen to Alito's colleagues is disgusting.

[Mavdog]

Ginsburg was direct in her answers, she was emphatic aout women's rights. if she didn't make a stance on the death penalty ok, tho that was only one of many issues.

I don't view alito as being evasive, he was clear with some of the issues- he acknowledged the importance of following precedent, which seems to me as signaling he was not on a mission to overturn roe. alito was very clear on his view of limited executive power. I was pleased with his comments about the civil rights being maintained in all times, even in times of war (as they should).

like I said above, he will be confirmed.

the issue of his membership in CAP is important, and has now been laid to rest. it's hard for me to understand any furor about the committee members investigating this issue, that's part of their job. it was examined and the bottom line is alito was at worst a peripheral member.

UL, as for bork, his statements IMO showed an arrogance and a preset ideological mission that was not acceptable. it wasn't how he was open, it was that when he was open it wasn't what people wanted to hear.

[dude1394]

So mavie...want to venture how many democrat votes this obviously well-qualified jurist will get? Betcha it won't be 96-3 in favor, you think?

[madape]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

after you, like the scarecrow you so much resemble, get a brain.

Keep on blaming the victim, dude. Show us what kind of person you are.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Mavdog - You're incorrect about Ginsburg. I listened to a soundbite collection today on the radio of all the instances where Ginsburg answered in exactly the same manner as Alito -- and she was treated with courtesy and respect.

Try again.

Come on kg......Mavdog has never let facts get in the way of his misdirection filled drivel.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

Ginsburg was direct in her answers, she was emphatic aout women's rights. if she didn't make a stance on the death penalty ok, tho that was only one of many issues.

I'm wondering where you purchase your rose colored dem sasche' glasses and how much they cost? Oh, and you once again the mandatory /dickhead for all of your posts.

[Usually Lurkin]

Mavdog, please google "Ginsburg Rule" or "Biden Rule Ginsburg".
She was definitely not open with all her answers. She did openly admit that she was pro-abortion (not what republicans wanted to hear, and they didn't Bork her for it). She did not answer questions on death penalty, homosexuality, first amendment, and other issues.

Biden was the man in charge who suggested that senators not ask questions about issues the court might confront, Ginsburg followed Biden's suggestion that she not have to answer those questions.

[Drbio]

I just cannot fathom how someone could think that Ginsberg was open and direct. It is dumbfounding.

[kg_veteran]

Weird. I had a post just disappear. I'll try again.

Mavdog - You just got through trying to draw a distinction between Ginsburg and Alito by saying that Ginsburg was "direct in her answers." Now you concede that Alito wasn't evasive. The truth (and you know this) is that there is no distinction between how the two responded to questions during confirmation proceedings. Both refused to answer questions about issues that might come before them on the Court (as they are REQUIRED by judicial ethics canons to do). The ONLY difference, as dude has astutely pointed out, is how the two were treated by the opposition party. Ginsburg was treated respectfully and confirmed by a near unanimous vote. Alito was treated like a bigot and liar and the vote will fall along party lines.

The difference is that the Democrats are a pathetic, failed, bitter party that is becoming irrelevant.

As far as CAP, what furor was there over investigating Alito's membership in CAP? The furor is over calling the man a liar when he says he doesn't remember it and/or wasn't very involved in it. Of course, CAP records proved that he was telling the truth about his involvement. Also, I'm still not clear on what CAP actually believed that was offensive. You never responded to my post yesterday about the quote you posted. For all I know, they may have just been opposed to affirmative action. I don't have a problem with that, honestly.

As for Bork, he was imminently qualified. The only reason his confirmation was defeated is that Reagan had other issues going on at the time that had weakened his clout, and the Democrats actually had some relevance and power at that point. Ted Kennedy lied about Bork and completely distorted his views in an effort to scare the public about Bork. Unfortunately, Kennedy still had a voice at that time, and it worked. Now, he's just a toothless liberal lion.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Mavdog, please google "Ginsburg Rule" or "Biden Rule Ginsburg".
She was definitely not open with all her answers. She did openly admit that she was pro-abortion (not what republicans wanted to hear, and they didn't Bork her for it). She did not answer questions on death penalty, homosexuality, first amendment, and other issues.

Biden was the man in charge who suggested that senators not ask questions about issues the court might confront, Ginsburg followed Biden's suggestion that she not have to answer those questions.

I'll do it for him:

The Ginsburg Rule
by Edwin Meese III and Todd Gaziano
July 27, 2005

When Sen. Joseph Biden chaired confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993, he established certain rules for questioning nominees -- rules that some of his fellow Democrats seem to have conveniently forgotten.

Ginsburg, while a smart lawyer, had been a radical activist. Her record as an ACLU litigator placed her far outside the mainstream of American law. She had argued for legalizing prostitution, against separate prisons for men and women, and had speculated that there could be a constitutional right to polygamy.

Some Republican senators wanted to know whether she still held such extreme views. On question after question, though, she refused to answer: The Biden rules stipulated that she had no obligation to answer questions about her personal views or on issues that might come before the Court. Despite her silence, the Senate confirmed Ginsburg, 93-3.

Yet as President Bush and Judge John Roberts left the White House podium last week, three Democratic senators -- Patrick Leahy, Richard Durbin and Chuck Schumer -- were already promising to violate the “Ginsburg Rule,” not to mention the Model Code of Judicial Conduct.

Canon 5 of the Model Code, among others, forbids judges or judicial candidates from indicating how they will rule on issues likely to come before the courts or making any statement that would create the appearance they are not impartial. This rule is critical to an independent judiciary. Justices must remain open-minded when an actual case comes before them. They must not even hint how they would rule.

The obstructionists’ ploy will be either to twist Roberts’s arm to make him answer unethical questions, or if he refuses, to make hay with his (appropriate and ethical) silence. Yet Ginsburg’s confirmation hearing entirely deflates this argument.

Sen. Biden began the hearing by noting that nominees almost never testified during their confirmation hearings prior to 1955. In 1949, one nominee was called to testify but refused and was still confirmed. Biden warned senators not to ask questions about “how [Ginsburg] will decide any specific case that may come before her.” Ginsburg, then serving on the same court as Judge Roberts does today, followed Biden’s roadmap.

Sen. Leahy asked about the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Ginsburg responded simply: “I prefer not to address a question like that.” Leahy pressed for her interpretation of Supreme Court precedent on the subject, but Ginsburg again demurred: “I would prefer to await a particular case.” Leahy finally backed off: “I understand. Just trying, Judge. Just trying.”

Sen. Strom Thurmond asked whether Ginsburg thought states could “experiment with and provide for diverse educational environments aided by public funding.” Ginsburg refused to give an answer: “Sen. Thurmond, that is the kind of question that a judge cannot answer at-large.” The senator asked a narrower question about the “constitutionality of some form of voucher system.” Ginsburg replied, “Sen. Thurmond, aid to schools is a question that comes up again and again before the Supreme Court. This is the very kind of question that I ruled out.”

Ginsburg refused two senators’ requests to address homosexual rights. “[A]nything I say could be taken as a hint or a forecast on how I would treat a classification that is going to be in question before a court.” In fact, she exercised the Rule to avoid answering any questions relating to sexual orientation: “I cannot say one word on that subject that would not violate what I said had to be my rule about no hints, no forecasts, no previews.”

When pressed on another issue, she refused to discuss her “personal reactions” to a particular Supreme Court case. “I have religiously tried to refrain from commenting on a number of Court decisions that have been raised in these last couple of days.” Indeed.

Near the end of her hearing, Ginsburg explained, “my own views and what I would do if I were sitting in the legislature are not relevant to the job for which you are considering me, which is the job of a judge.” The same job, it should be noted, for which Judge Roberts has been nominated.

Sens. Leahy, Durbin and Schumer already have announced they won’t honor the Ginsburg Rule for Republican nominees. They are certain to ask inappropriate and wrongful questions of John Roberts, and he is certain not to violate the Code of Judicial Conduct. If senators then pretend to oppose him because of this, their shameful conduct should be seen for what it is.

[Drbio]

yeah....she was completely cooperative and direct. sheesh....

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Weird. I had a post just disappear. I'll try again.

Mavdog - You just got through trying to draw a distinction between Ginsburg and Alito by saying that Ginsburg was "direct in her answers." Now you concede that Alito wasn't evasive. The truth (and you know this) is that there is no distinction between how the two responded to questions during confirmation proceedings. Both refused to answer questions about issues that might come before them on the Court (as they are REQUIRED by judicial ethics canons to do). The ONLY difference, as dude has astutely pointed out, is how the two were treated by the opposition party. Ginsburg was treated respectfully and confirmed by a near unanimous vote. Alito was treated like a bigot and liar and the vote will fall along party lines.

there was no attempt to draw this supposed "distinction". dude asked why ginsburg was approved by 96-3, and I responded.

frankly, I don't see that alito was disrespected. he was NOT treated "like a bigot and liar".

As far as CAP, what furor was there over investigating Alito's membership in CAP? The furor is over calling the man a liar when he says he doesn't remember it and/or wasn't very involved in it. Of course, CAP records proved that he was telling the truth about his involvement. Also, I'm still not clear on what CAP actually believed that was offensive. You never responded to my post yesterday about the quote you posted. For all I know, they may have just been opposed to affirmative action. I don't have a problem with that, honestly.

there was expressions of a "witch hunt" by kennedy's demand to look thru the records on CAP. even here on this thread is this:
"So you actually think this charade of a hearing, pulling up 30 year old fraternity/club notes is relevant? Or like pulling up a judges video rental records is relevant?"
CAP tecords showed that his involement was peripheral, but he himself said he was a member. voluntary membership indicates support. this needed to be looked at, and it was. case closed.

the quotes posted yesterday are clear in the intent of CAP to protest/stop admitting women and minorities to princeton. it had very little to do with any question of affirmitive action.

you may not, but I do find those who attempt to exclude women and minorities from schools simply due to their gender and race to be offensive.

As for Bork, he was imminently qualified. The only reason his confirmation was defeated is that Reagan had other issues going on at the time that had weakened his clout, and the Democrats actually had some relevance and power at that point. Ted Kennedy lied about Bork and completely distorted his views in an effort to scare the public about Bork. Unfortunately, Kennedy still had a voice at that time, and it worked. Now, he's just a toothless liberal lion.

actually I recall it was arlen spector's questioniong that led to borks defeat.

personnaly, I see bork as much more radical in his positions than what best suits our country on the court. being intellectually qualified is not the same as being qualified to serve.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I'll do it for him:

the phrase "radical activist" reveals a certain prejudice in that review of ginsburg's hearings KG....

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the phrase "radical activist" reveals a certain prejudice in that review of ginsburg's hearings KG....

God forbid mavdog would focus in on one phrase in the whole article and avoid the factual content.

[Mavdog]

here's a different (and objective) remark about ginsburg's hearing:

While judicial nominees should not (and Justice Ginsburg did not) express views
on unresolved legal issues that might come before the Court, that does not mean that
inquiries into controversial issues are precluded. Justice Ginsburg provided frank answers
to questions relating to a broad range of current and controversial legal issues without
sacrificing her impartiality or independence. These answers provided significant insight
into her fundamental constitutional values.

thIS review of her proceedings also comments:

This is not to say that there were no questions that Justice Ginsburg declined to answer. For example, Justice Ginsburg did not answer a question regarding the constitutionality of school voucher systems because the Court was likely to face the issue in the future. Ginsburg Hearings, at 140-141. Indeed, Justice Ginsburg was correct – the issue did come before the Court in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002). She also declined to answer questions regarding the status of sexual orientation under the Equal Protection Clause for the same reason (Ginsburg Hearings, at 146, 322-323, 341, 359), which was the central question three years later in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

http://www.acsblog.org/judicial-nomi...-hearings.html

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

So mavie...want to venture how many democrat votes this obviously well-qualified jurist will get? Betcha it won't be 96-3 in favor, you think?

hmm, my guess would be 65 to 70 votes for.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

there was no attempt to draw this supposed "distinction". dude asked why ginsburg was approved by 96-3, and I responded.

Don't act like I'm stupid, Mavdog. You said that Ginsburg answered questions directly, implying that Alito didn't. You can choose whatever semantics you want. I call that drawing a distinction between the two nominees.

frankly, I don't see that alito was disrespected. he was NOT treated "like a bigot and liar".

Then, to be honest, you are not looking at the proceedings objectively.

there was expressions of a "witch hunt" by kennedy's demand to look thru the records on CAP. even here on this thread is this:
"So you actually think this charade of a hearing, pulling up 30 year old fraternity/club notes is relevant? Or like pulling up a judges video rental records is relevant?"
CAP tecords showed that his involement was peripheral, but he himself said he was a member. voluntary membership indicates support. this needed to be looked at, and it was. case closed.

Witch hunt? No one here said that. dude questioned how relevant CAP was, and it turns out he was right. It wasn't relevant at all.

the quotes posted yesterday are clear in the intent of CAP to protest/stop admitting women and minorities to princeton. it had very little to do with any question of affirmitive action.

No, Mavdog, the quotes weren't clear, which is why I tried to engage you in a discussion regarding the context of the quotes, but you ignored me.

you may not, but I do find those who attempt to exclude women and minorities from schools simply due to their gender and race to be offensive.

Look, I treat you with respect. Don't be a prick to me by putting words in my mouth. I find exclusion based on gender and race offensive, too. But I don't find it offensive if admission is based on merit. Those are two very different things, and you know it.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Don't act like I'm stupid, Mavdog. You said that Ginsburg answered questions directly, implying that Alito didn't. You can choose whatever semantics you want. I call that drawing a distinction between the two nominees.

you seem to choose what implication which best suits your goals. ginsburg was approved with 96 votes. as the question was how ginsburg was approved with 96 votes, and alito hasn't yet been voted on, your connecting the two in my response is of your own choosing. my very first post in this thread mentioned alito's frank responses.

Then, to be honest, you are not looking at the proceedings objectively.

interesting, that's the very same thought that i had about your (and other republican supporters) description of the hearings.

Witch hunt? No one here said that. dude questioned how relevant CAP was, and it turns out he was right. It wasn't relevant at all.

the issue is VERY relevant. the facts were able to absolve alito of any participation, which doesn't make the issue irrelevant. it makes the issue not a basis to deny his nomination.

No, Mavdog, the quotes weren't clear, which is why I tried to engage you in a discussion regarding the context of the quotes, but you ignored me.

how ironic that you begin your post with "don't act like I'm stupid" and than you take the poistion that the quotes aren't clear that the writer condemns the introduction of women and minorities to princeton.

how else can one see the meaning of "a body of men, relatively homogenous in interests and backgrounds, who had known and liked each other over the years during which they had contributed much in spirit and substance to the greatness of Princeton..I cannot envisage a similar happening in the future with an undergraduate student population of approximately 40% women and minorities, such as the Administration has proposed."

why would "women and minoroties" not be capable of contibuting "to the greatness of princeton"? to a rational person devoid of prejudice they could.

Look, I treat you with respect. Don't be a prick to me by putting words in my mouth. I find exclusion based on gender and race offensive, too. But I don't find it offensive if admission is based on merit. Those are two very different things, and you know it.

if you believe that exclusion on gender and race to be wrong then you should stand against the aims of CAP as I (and the princeton administration) have done. to cloak this prejudice in a honest disagreement about affirmitive action is disingenious. they didn't want the end to a princeton with a "body of men..homogenous..in background."

[Drbio]

retreat!!!! retreat!!!!!

[dude1394]

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

it's interesting that you bring up ginsburg, who answered the questions in a very direct manner. maybe that is why she was approved with the vote of 96-3.

If Ginsburg was approved by such a majority because she answered in a direct manner, and you draw no distinction between the directness of Ginsburg's and Alito's answers, how do you predict 25-30 votes less for Alito?

You said earlier that a party line vote on Alito would be "business as usual" for Washington, that nothing has changed in 50 years. The votes on Ginsburg and Breyer prove otherwise.

here's some others. Whatever you want to read of this list, 22 votes against, or 35 votes against such qualified candidates as Alito and Roberts is not the norm.


Roberts 78-22
Thomas was 52-48
Kennedy was 97-0
Bork was Borked 42-58
Scalia was 98-0
O'Connor was 99-0
Stevens was 98-0
Rehnquist was 68-26

[dude1394]

Mavie is really an intelligent guy but he just can't bring himself to admit what a pathetic excuse for an honest political party his dems have become. They are willing to blow up any and all institutions to try and get Ted Kennedy back in charge of the the Senate Judicial Panel.