quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I see - so are you saying that people should consider Obama's history, but not McCains history on SCJ appointments? Wouldn't you say that is unfair, Jack?

No, I am saying that people should consider what sort of justices Obama says he will appoint, and what sort of justices McCain says he will support – as I have said consistently on this issue.

quote:

McCain supported both of Clinton's SCJ appointments. That is his history. McCain is co-leader of the 'Gang of 14' whose purpose is to pick centrist SCJs - a common fact - at least among those who have read about it - please see the Bob Barr comment saying the same. That is his history. To say that one must not consider the aforementioned is ridiculous.

McCain (along with all but three Senators) voted for Clinton’s appointees yes. And to be quite honest, this is one of my disappointments with the Republicans – they have a different notion of ‘advise and consent’ than do the Democrats. Generally Repubs. Have held that a President gets to appoint whomever they like, and barring some obvious ethical or capability deficiency, the Senate should support. Democrats on the other hand do not believe a President should appoint anyone with whom they disagree politically, and will pull any dirty stunt they can to defeat appointments they disagree with. In this I wish the Republicans were more like Democrats.

quote:

And, if you're going to bring up Roberts and Alito again, you must also consider that it was a Democrat-controlled Congress that put them in the seats of the SC.

Actually, you have your facts wrong – the Republicans were in control of both houses when they were appointed in 2005.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Well, to me, it's saying - you must consider Obama's past record, but, surely do not bother considering McCain's past record, statements on abortion. I feel I have supported this enough with my sources - please respond to them, point by point. Thank you in advance.

I am really not concerned with cherry picked statements by either candidate, simply what judicial philosophy they base their appointment of judges on. That is all that is important when considering judicial issues. I agree with McCain's view on judges, and disagree with Obama's.

I see - so are you saying that people should consider Obama's history, but not McCains history on SCJ appointments? Wouldn't you say that is unfair, Jack?

McCain supported both of Clinton's SCJ appointments. That is his history. McCain is co-leader of the 'Gang of 14' whose purpose is to pick centrist SCJs - a common fact - at least among those who have read about it - please see the Bob Barr comment saying the same. That is his history. To say that one must not consider the aforementioned is ridiculous.

And, if you're going to bring up Roberts and Alito again, you must also consider that it was a Democrat-controlled Congress that put them in the seats of the SC.

Peace and God bless,

See, like I've been saying all along, on this issue the dichotomy between the two major candidates is not nearly as good v evil as the McCain boosters would like to pretend that it is.

The problem here is not that the issue is, like most issues, 'shades of grey', but that the McCain-at-all-costs crowd can't bring themselves to support their candidate without commiting "inductive fallacy - fallacy of exclusion". IOW, they are kidding themselves, and they seem disturbed when the rest of us don't accept their flawed *rationale*.

quote:

1) And McCain's history is that he supported SCJ Ginsburg and Breyer appointments, and he is co-leader of the Gang of 14 - whose main goal is the appointment of centrist SCJs.

quote:

2) Jack, that sounds like you're making excuses. Why didn't McCain vote with the other 3 Republicans, then, if he believed that they were morally bad for this country? Sorry, not buying it.

quote:

3) You're right - I apologize. Still, the Democrats did not fillibuster Alito nor Roberts - either they are not a threat to the Democrats philosophies, or the Democrats deserve credit for their appointments as well. To say otherwise, is silly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana


1) John, in post #76, you did to me, what you are accusing me of: you posted only part of my sentences, quotes - anyone can plainly see this. To say otherwise is to lie.

quote:


2) Yup. There really is no other candidates out there, other than McCain, Obama.

quote:

3) In regards to SCJ nominations, I don't believe it's going to matter if you vote for McCain, or Obama for the reasons I have given.

quote:

I am not alone in this belief.

quote:


ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant

See, like I've been saying all along, on this issue the dichotomy between the two major candidates is not nearly as good v evil as the McCain boosters would like to pretend that it is.

quote:


The problem here is not that the issue is, like most issues, 'shades of grey',

quote:


but that the McCain-at-all-costs crowd can't bring themselves to support their candidate without commiting "inductive fallacy - fallacy of exclusion". IOW, they are kidding themselves, and they seem disturbed when the rest of us don't accept their flawed *rationale*.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana


1) John, in post #76, you did to me, what you are accusing me of: you posted only part of my sentences, quotes - anyone can plainly see this. To say otherwise is to lie.

Clipping something and misquoting someone are not the same thing... I didn't say you said something, make a comment that it's doesn't make sense and not post the entire quote in attempt to make my charge against you have validity. I clipped specific parts and address them directly... Major difference... So by all means make a case for me being a liar and here is the evidence...


You: There are pro-life Democrats -


Me:They are the exception not the rule and I can't recall one in the upper leadership of the party... For the record Obama isn't one... The Democratic Party as a whole supports the murder of unborn children. That is a fact...


You: some that score higher than Republicans on the nrlc.org scoreboard, as there are pro-choice Republicans - this is also a fact. Please do let me know if you'd like to see this.

Me:Fact... As a whole the Republican Party doesn't support the murder of unborn children...


In contrast to your misquote of me...

You said: LOL! I say it's good that there are pro-life Democrats, and you say, "I know there are people on both side who like yourself believe it's ok to murder children." John, that just does not make logical sense at all - are you feeling alright?


What I actually said:

You mention the few pro-life Democrats when confronted with the fact that the Democratic Party is pro-murder unborn children... Unlike yourself I don't ignore the truth of the matter I know there are people on both side who like yourself believe it's ok to murder children. As well I don't have to make things up and reply in a disingenuous fashion since I am not trying to support evil.


I said more than what you said I said... When my quote is taken in total is makes logical sense... For you to make the charge that what I said doesn't make sense you had to eliminate some of it... That's is misquoting...

quote:


2) Yup. There really is no other candidates out there, other than McCain, Obama.

So to be honest you are really pro-choice, correct? Since you are willing to vote for someone who supports abortion no matter what and even those you align yourself with believe abortion to be ok in some cases...

quote:

3) In regards to SCJ nominations, I don't believe it's going to matter if you vote for McCain, or Obama for the reasons I have given.

Do you believe that the President isn't able to exert pressure and influence apart from your personal beliefs regarding SCJ nomination?

quote:

I am not alone in this belief.

Safety in numbers?

John

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

1) And McCain's history is that he supported SCJ Ginsburg and Breyer appointments, and he is co-leader of the Gang of 14 - whose main goal is the appointment of centrist SCJs.

This is an interesting talking point, but I think you are parroting it. Name a single 'centrist' jurist appointed by the 'Gang of 14'.

quote:

2) Jack, that sounds like you're making excuses. Why didn't McCain vote with the other 3 Republicans, then, if he believed that they were morally bad for this country? Sorry, not buying it.

I already explained why.

quote:

3) You're right - I apologize. Still, the Democrats did not fillibuster Alito nor Roberts - either they are not a threat to the Democrats philosophies, or the Democrats deserve credit for their appointments as well. To say otherwise, is silly.

You are wrong on that too. Kerry tried to filibuster Alito, but failed. Not doing too good on the history scorecard here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

1) And McCain's history is that he supported SCJ Ginsburg and Breyer appointments, and he is co-leader of the Gang of 14 - whose main goal is the appointment of centrist SCJs.

This is an interesting talking point, but I think you are parroting it. Name a single 'centrist' jurist appointed by the 'Gang of 14'.

quote:

2) Jack, that sounds like you're making excuses. Why didn't McCain vote with the other 3 Republicans, then, if he believed that they were morally bad for this country? Sorry, not buying it.

I already explained why.

quote:

3) You're right - I apologize. Still, the Democrats did not fillibuster Alito nor Roberts - either they are not a threat to the Democrats philosophies, or the Democrats deserve credit for their appointments as well. To say otherwise, is silly.

You are wrong on that too. Kerry tried to filibuster Alito, but failed. Not doing too good on the history scorecard here.

quote:

1) Jack, please. The 7 Democrats agree not to fillibuster and the 7 Republicans agree not to use the nuclear option - it's a compromise on SCJs and you know it.

quote:

2) Jack, 3 Republicans did vote against Ginsburg and Breyer - if McCain was the true conservative when it comes to SCJs, he would not have voted for Ginsburg and Breyer; nor would he be the co-leader of the Gang of 14. It's pretty obvious. BTW, one could make the same arguement for the Democrats -that they were just following the order of the President at the time - that they hold no responsibilty for their vote in favor of Ginsburg or Breyer Silly, isn't it?

quote:

Therefore, either Alito and Roberts are not as conservative as you make them out to be - no fillibuster with Roberts; the Democrats did not support Kerry's fillibuster with Alito. Or, most of the Democrats deserve kudos for not fillibusterting either Alito or Kerry.

Roberts has supported gay rights and he has called RVW more than a settled precedent.

quote:

There is a difference between "Kerry (one Senator) tried to organize a filibuster of Alito" and "Democrats (the Dem caucus in the Senate) filibustered (or didn't) Alito".

Or perhaps it is the standard around here to blame the entire group for the actions of every individual within the group. Is that the case?

quote:


ORIGINAL: Lizahana


1) I don't see the difference. You left out the rest of the quote from post #75.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

There is a difference between "Kerry (one Senator) tried to organize a filibuster of Alito" and "Democrats (the Dem caucus in the Senate) filibustered (or didn't) Alito".

Or perhaps it is the standard around here to blame the entire group for the actions of every individual within the group. Is that the case?

Last I checked, Kerry was a Democrat - the claim was, "the Democrats did not fillibuster Alito nor Roberts" - obviously, this is not true - they failed in their efforts, but tried nonetheless.

quote:

Error of composition.

By that logic, "Republicans" are guilty of soliciting police officers in airport men's rooms. "Republicans" are guilty of dumping their faithful, long-waiting, cripled wives for younger, richer models. "Republicans" are guilty of running Fortune-500 companies into the ground. "Christians" assault aircraft attendants. "Christians" preach liberation theology. "Germans" murder millions in cold blood. "Italians" are organized crime. "Hispanics" are illegals. "Young black men" are yelling "Hey, wher the white women at?" "Teenagers" are lazy, self-centered dopeheads.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe

quote:


ORIGINAL: Lizahana


1) I don't see the difference. You left out the rest of the quote from post #75.

Of course you don't because you would be incriminating yourself...

And we have established you for abortion...

John

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

1) Jack, please. The 7 Democrats agree not to fillibuster and the 7 Republicans agree not to use the nuclear option - it's a compromise on SCJs and you know it.

It's a simple test Liz - you are claiming that the "main goal" of the Gand of 14 was to appoint 'centrist' jusrists - well, that is a testable claim - simply show a single 'centrist' jusrist that they got appointed. If not, then you claim can't be taken seriously.

quote:

2) Jack, 3 Republicans did vote against Ginsburg and Breyer - if McCain was the true conservative when it comes to SCJs, he would not have voted for Ginsburg and Breyer; nor would he be the co-leader of the Gang of 14. It's pretty obvious. BTW, one could make the same arguement for the Democrats -that they were just following the order of the President at the time - that they hold no responsibilty for their vote in favor of Ginsburg or Breyer Silly, isn't it?

Well, actually, fairly consistently Repubs support Democratic appointments with little fight, Dems traditionally fight tooth and nail every appointment - again, familiarity with actual history here is important.

3) Democrats did not fillibuster Roberts. Kerry tried to lead a fillibuster with Alito, Jack, but he did not get enough support from Democrats, remember?

Why are you just repeating what I said?

quote:

Therefore, either Alito and Roberts are not as conservative as you make them out to be - no fillibuster with Roberts; the Democrats did not support Kerry's fillibuster with Alito. Or, most of the Democrats deserve kudos for not fillibusterting either Alito or Kerry.

Roberts has supported gay rights and he has called RVW more than a settled precedent.

Actually, Alito and Robert, in every ruling, have been consistently conservative since appointed. And while Roberts did indeed say as an appoint for a lower court position that he was obligated to deal with RVW as precedent, as a Supreme he has no such obligation - indeed, Roberts it's noted for having written a brief arguing for the overturn of RVW.

History, Liz, history and facts, gotta have them.

quote:


ORIGINAL: Lizahana


Well, John, I am pro-life in the same way McCain and Bush are - that abortions be legal ONLY in cases of rape, incest, mothers life endangered.

quote:

I can't change your mind if that's what you believe -

quote:

I know my heart. And, quite frankly, I really don't care that you think that!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

1) Jack, please. The 7 Democrats agree not to fillibuster and the 7 Republicans agree not to use the nuclear option - it's a compromise on SCJs and you know it.

It's a simple test Liz - you are claiming that the "main goal" of the Gand of 14 was to appoint 'centrist' jusrists - well, that is a testable claim - simply show a single 'centrist' jusrist that they got appointed. If not, then you claim can't be taken seriously.

quote:

2) Jack, 3 Republicans did vote against Ginsburg and Breyer - if McCain was the true conservative when it comes to SCJs, he would not have voted for Ginsburg and Breyer; nor would he be the co-leader of the Gang of 14. It's pretty obvious. BTW, one could make the same arguement for the Democrats -that they were just following the order of the President at the time - that they hold no responsibilty for their vote in favor of Ginsburg or Breyer Silly, isn't it?

Well, actually, fairly consistently Repubs support Democratic appointments with little fight, Dems traditionally fight tooth and nail every appointment - again, familiarity with actual history here is important.

3) Democrats did not fillibuster Roberts. Kerry tried to lead a fillibuster with Alito, Jack, but he did not get enough support from Democrats, remember?

Why are you just repeating what I said?

quote:

Therefore, either Alito and Roberts are not as conservative as you make them out to be - no fillibuster with Roberts; the Democrats did not support Kerry's fillibuster with Alito. Or, most of the Democrats deserve kudos for not fillibusterting either Alito or Kerry.

Roberts has supported gay rights and he has called RVW more than a settled precedent.

Actually, Alito and Robert, in every ruling, have been consistently conservative since appointed. And while Roberts did indeed say as an appoint for a lower court position that he was obligated to deal with RVW as precedent, as a Supreme he has no such obligation - indeed, Roberts it's noted for having written a brief arguing for the overturn of RVW.

History, Liz, history and facts, gotta have them.

1) The gang of 14 is a compromise, Jack. It is well known that the hard core conservatives were pretty mad at McCain for his involvement in this because of this - please see the Bob Barr quote I included if you don't believe me. Actually, here it is:

"... Mr. McCain is a convenient convert to the cause of sound judicial appointments. He has never paid much attention to judicial philosophy, backing both Clinton Supreme Court nominees – Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He also participated in the so-called "Gang of 14," which favored centrist over conservative nominees as part of a compromise between President George W. Bush and Senate Democrats. ... "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121625042990560111.html

2) Jack, please, 3 Republicans did not vote for Ginsburg and Breyer; but McCain did vote for them. I don't know why you continue to make excuses for McCain on this. It's obvious you're giving him way too much latitude simply because of his party.

3) Kerry's fillibuster was not so due to not enough support from Democrats, Jack,. And here is the quote again from Roberts on RVW:

"Roe v. Wade is more than settled as precedent
SEN. SPECTER [as read into the record by Sen. Feinstein]: "Judge Roberts, in your confirmation hearing for the circuit court you testified: 'Roe is the settled law of the land.' Do you mean settled for you, settled only for your capacity as a circuit judge, or settled beyond that?"
ROBERTS: "Well, beyond that. It's settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the court, yes."

SPECTER: "You went on to say then, 'It's a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the Casey decision, so it has added precedental value.'"

ROBERTS: "I think the initial question for the judge confronting an issue in this area, you don't go straight to the Roe decision. You begin with Casey, which modified the Roe framework and reaffirmed its central holding."

Source: Sam Alito Senate Confirmation Hearings Jan 11, 2006 "
http://www.ontheissues.org/Court/John_Roberts_Abortion.htm

Roberts has also supported gay rights.

History, Jack, facts, Jack - you gotta have 'em!

And now McCain has said that he would not rule out a pro-choice vp. I suppose you're going to make excuses for this as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe

quote:


ORIGINAL: Lizahana


Well, John, I am pro-life in the same way McCain and Bush are - that abortions be legal ONLY in cases of rape, incest, mothers life endangered.

Very interesting claim given you are making a case for McCain to be far less than pro-life...

quote:

I can't change your mind if that's what you believe -

Of course not, I am not that gullible...

quote:

I know my heart. And, quite frankly, I really don't care that you think that!

You are for abortion by your own words... Maybe not all,(though I don't think it really matters in your mind) but you are for some and that's not a pro-life stance... And anyone who believes that a child of rape should be put to death doesn't have a very good grasp of what justice is...

John

quote:

ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

1) Jack, please. The 7 Democrats agree not to fillibuster and the 7 Republicans agree not to use the nuclear option - it's a compromise on SCJs and you know it.

It's a simple test Liz - you are claiming that the "main goal" of the Gand of 14 was to appoint 'centrist' jusrists - well, that is a testable claim - simply show a single 'centrist' jusrist that they got appointed. If not, then you claim can't be taken seriously.

quote:

2) Jack, 3 Republicans did vote against Ginsburg and Breyer - if McCain was the true conservative when it comes to SCJs, he would not have voted for Ginsburg and Breyer; nor would he be the co-leader of the Gang of 14. It's pretty obvious. BTW, one could make the same arguement for the Democrats -that they were just following the order of the President at the time - that they hold no responsibilty for their vote in favor of Ginsburg or Breyer Silly, isn't it?

Well, actually, fairly consistently Repubs support Democratic appointments with little fight, Dems traditionally fight tooth and nail every appointment - again, familiarity with actual history here is important.

3) Democrats did not fillibuster Roberts. Kerry tried to lead a fillibuster with Alito, Jack, but he did not get enough support from Democrats, remember?

Why are you just repeating what I said?

quote:

Therefore, either Alito and Roberts are not as conservative as you make them out to be - no fillibuster with Roberts; the Democrats did not support Kerry's fillibuster with Alito. Or, most of the Democrats deserve kudos for not fillibusterting either Alito or Kerry.

Roberts has supported gay rights and he has called RVW more than a settled precedent.

Actually, Alito and Robert, in every ruling, have been consistently conservative since appointed. And while Roberts did indeed say as an appoint for a lower court position that he was obligated to deal with RVW as precedent, as a Supreme he has no such obligation - indeed, Roberts it's noted for having written a brief arguing for the overturn of RVW.

History, Liz, history and facts, gotta have them.

1) The gang of 14 is a compromise, Jack. It is well known that the hard core conservatives were pretty mad at McCain for his involvement in this because of this - please see the Bob Barr quote I included if you don't believe me. Actually, here it is:

"... Mr. McCain is a convenient convert to the cause of sound judicial appointments. He has never paid much attention to judicial philosophy, backing both Clinton Supreme Court nominees – Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He also participated in the so-called "Gang of 14," which favored centrist over conservative nominees as part of a compromise between President George W. Bush and Senate Democrats. ... "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121625042990560111.html

2) Jack, please, 3 Republicans did not vote for Ginsburg and Breyer; but McCain did vote for them. I don't know why you continue to make excuses for McCain on this. It's obvious you're giving him way too much latitude simply because of his party.

3) Kerry's fillibuster was not so due to not enough support from Democrats, Jack,. And here is the quote again from Roberts on RVW:

"Roe v. Wade is more than settled as precedent
SEN. SPECTER [as read into the record by Sen. Feinstein]: "Judge Roberts, in your confirmation hearing for the circuit court you testified: 'Roe is the settled law of the land.' Do you mean settled for you, settled only for your capacity as a circuit judge, or settled beyond that?"
ROBERTS: "Well, beyond that. It's settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the court, yes."

SPECTER: "You went on to say then, 'It's a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the Casey decision, so it has added precedental value.'"

ROBERTS: "I think the initial question for the judge confronting an issue in this area, you don't go straight to the Roe decision. You begin with Casey, which modified the Roe framework and reaffirmed its central holding."

Source: Sam Alito Senate Confirmation Hearings Jan 11, 2006 "
http://www.ontheissues.org/Court/John_Roberts_Abortion.htm

Roberts has also supported gay rights.

History, Jack, facts, Jack - you gotta have 'em!

And now McCain has said that he would not rule out a pro-choice vp. I suppose you're going to make excuses for this as well.

Of all this said and done McCain is still somehow pro-life in your mind...

John

quote:


ORIGINAL: Lizahana

1) Well, he publicly stated this postition in 2000, and I have not heard different since - ie, he has publicly stated that he thinks RVW should be overturned, but with the exceptions: rape, incest, mothers life endangered. If you have heard otherwise on this matter with McCain, please post it.