That’s all you need to know about John Roberts Jr., the right-winger Bush has picked for the high court.
Sen. Reid:
The President has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry. The Senate must review Judge Roberts’s record to determine if he has a demonstrated commitment to the core American values of freedom, equality and fairness. The nominee will have an opportunity to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and make his case to the American people.
*closes eyes*
Wait. Let me guess. Rich white guy!
*opens eyes*
Yes!
Yeah- that’s Bush’s M.O. for all of his appointees. Rich. White. Guy.
Except for Powell, of course. Er- and Rice. Uh… and Powell, and Rogers-Brown, and Gonzales. Mmmm…. and Chao. Paige. Mineta. Jackson. Owens. Neilson. Saad.
Yep. Easy for you to predict rich white guys. Funny.
(And who was it that appointed Sandra Day O’Connor?)
“Pressed during his 2003 confirmation hearing for the appeals court seat for his own views on the matter, Roberts said: ‘Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. … There’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.’ “
He argued against Roe on behalf of his boss – Ken Starr and GHWB. That doesn’t signify his personal opinion on the matter. Lawyers argue on behalf of their clients against their personal beliefs all the time. That doesn’t mean he isn’t anti-Roe. It just means you can’t extrapolate too much from what he said as Deputy Solicitor General.
I’m guessing this guy is going to be a (relatively) easy confirmation. He’s probably about as middle-of-the-road as a Bush appointee is gonna get (which is not saying much, admittedly).
However, if it’s true that he has filed amicus briefs on behalf of Operation Rescue, then it’s clear where his sympathies lie; furthermore, it’s my understanding that, if in fact he felt the sense of the court had become that Roe was not sound legal opinion, then he would indeed vote to overturn it.
With that said, I think that overturning Roe would signal the end of the Republican party as a factor in national politics, and might, therefore, be the best thing that could possibly happen.
Scratch, as pointed out by every news commentator tonight, that was a non-answer. Appellate court judges *must* consider decisions by the Supreme Court “settled.” The game changes, however, once Roberts is on the Supreme Court, at which point older cases are subject to reopening, reviewing, and setting a new precedent.
Would Cellulose have preferred a homeless female alcoholic from East St. Louis?
I think rove is starting to need to please the base too, lately. In additional to a quick spotlight change.
Rhetorical indeed, Cellulose. With only a handful of exceptions, such has been the case since the beginning of our Republic. And for the most part it won’t change, regardless of who is president.
Today, we learn the opposite of rich, white male. That is, homeless, alcoholic female from East Saint Louis (I can’t tell if that’s a potshot at the city or not. Probably not). I didn’t intend to point out that rich, white men aren’t capable of being excellent judges (they are), only that it doesn’t surprise me that this justice is in fact rich and white and male. Does it surprise anyone? (Rhetorical question.)
A homeless female alcoholic from East St. Louis would probably have a far greater insight into why things like, say, the Violence Against Women Act are a good idea. Unlike Roberts.
Unlike Roberts? All he’s saying is that such laws belong in the states. Far too often we have the federal government getting involved in the crime fighting business. And why? So that a bunch of pencil necks can talk about how “tough” they are on crime.
Of course, expecting liberals to comprehend such matters is expecting too much.
A homeless female alcoholic from East St. Louis would probably have a far greater insight into why things like, say, the Violence Against Women Act are a good idea. Unlike Roberts.
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-did-roberts-single-out-violence.html
Yeah, uh-huh. Throat lozenges, anyone?
Seems like a nice guy, but noone will really know how far right he is until he actually has to make decisions. I give this story two days until its off the radar screen and we’re talking about Rovegate again.
First Latino? Another woman? Forget about it. Bush has to please his base because that’s all he has left, so he appoints a conserative white male. So much for diversity.
The anti-abortion stance is all I need to know about where Judge (2 yr.) roberts stands, but Senator Reid’s “make his case to the American people.” makes it sound like the Senate Judiciary Committee will be watching the polls to decide on Supreme Court Judges. Why does that trouble me?
That is all you need to know about a judge ? Is this single issue such a fundamental qualification for a justice ?
Since Howard Dean has the same position (5/22/05 Meet the Press), I hardly see how this can be construed as “controversial”.
The reason Oliver had to say what he said is because Democrats are so impotent as an opposition party that they only had extensive talking points ready for Edith Bunker, so right after the fact, when Bush gave the headfake, they got caught flat on their heels.
It’s just amazing how that dumb, ex-coke snortin’, Jack Daniels swillin’, Chimpy McCokespoon of a President never stops making you guys look like blithering idiots.
I have an open mind about this nomination. This guy has been a judge for a very short time, so he’s kind of a blank slate. He doesn’t seem to be a “movement conservative”, but at the same time he believes in corporate rule.
He should be filibustered IF he refuses to answer probing questions as to his idealogical bent OR if he displays clear activism. We don’t need another Scalia and his sidekick on the court, we need someone who can interpret the Constitution without regard to personal prejudices.
Unfortunately, this guy is about as moderate as you can expect from the wingers. Roe isn’t the only issue for me- I don’t think the Cons will ever overturn Roe, it is too valuable as a wedge issue. Besides the 48% of women who voted for the Chimp don’t care about their privacy rights, why should I?
PSU94,
The talking points were written months ago, and looked like a mad-lib, just insert the name. Take a look around the ’sphere and read the reactions from the left. Its all typical and highly predictable.
Cue johnnyprogressive and neoconsrloopy to tell us how they aren’t talking points because they are facts:
“That is all you need to know about a judge ? Is this single issue such a fundamental qualification for a justice ?”
No. As Jay C alludes to above it’s Robert’s reasoning behind his position on the Violence Against Women Act that’s troubling. The same reasoning that says the federal government has no right to help protect the civil liberties of American women, that it’s a job better left to the states, could be argued to roll back all manner of civil liberties and environmental regulations. Which in itself doesn’t disqulify him from the benech but it does raise legitimate questions about how he might influence the direction of the court and the law in the future. If he answers those questions openly, we’ll see.
Should Bush really want a fight, considering that he no longer has the support of the American people? Seems to me that his only support comes from the radical right. If Roberts proves to be reactionary, about the only people that will fight for him are Talibornibans and Rushbots. The sane 80% of the country will support Democratic efforts to reject this nomination.
Regardless, we need to know from Mr. Roberts the answers to some important questions before he will be cleared for a lifetime appointment. If he cannot or will not answer to America’s satisfaction, he must be rejected.
“Answer some important questions” is the Sen. Schumer trick of trying to get a nominee to commit to a position on an issue that may come before the Court. Ruth Bader Ginsberg was unwilling to answer the same types of questions that will be posed to Roberts, and was still able to get 90+ votes. Let us see if the left can be as responsible in their duties.
His nomination brings the question if there has ever been a Justice who served on the Supreme Court with another Justice for whom he previously clerked?
In any event, this guy looks eminently qualified and the leftwingnut rabid dogs, like Shumer, Boxer, etc., are already lined up for a fight — which, of course, they were going to do no matter what. Just what Bush wants.
Where’s the cynic when you need him?
Sen. Shumer, is that you? “Talibornibans”? That is witty. Boxer’s office put that out? Democrats can yell and scream all they want (it is what they are best at, after all) but watch this guy sail through. They love playing this game trying to get a nominee to commit to his/her views on abortion, etc. Of course it is against the ABA rules for a nominee to espouse a position such that it would commit them to a particular viewpoint when there are active cases pending before the court to which they are nominated. And of course no Supreme Court nominee would ever answer the questions that Shumer and his cabal demand must be answered.
So Shumer et al, can froth at the mouth and smear Roberts all they want (and they will) but in the end he is not going to give them his personal view on abortion or discuss particular Supreme Court decisions with which he diagrees (another Shumer trick). And he will still get confirmed.
Marty, a comedian, can’t remember who (one of the Kings of Comedy guys), said one way of knowing if someone’s racist is if they know how many black people have been in their house.
The point is, parading out minority officeholders and saying, “hey! look, some of our best friends are black! we can’t be racist!” is a very demeaning thing for those officeholders and shows that they were placed there because they are minority, which reeks of affirmative action, and I thought conservatives were against that. I know I am.
What facts? Is the Senate just supposed to rubber stamp any of the Presidents choices, no matter how unqualified?
If the framers intended that, why is there a confirmation process? Why can’t the President just appoint somebody and have them start tomorrow?
I’ll have to get back to you guys later, Abe Fortas is on the phone.
Too funny. President Hillary Clinton. You’re in witty form today.
And once again, good use of the “talking points” charge. Can’t refute facts so just fall back on old faithful.
When a liberal justice does not answer the questions posed, they are approved, nonetheless, by 97 votes. However, if a conservative justice does not answer the same questions, that is grounds for not confirming him.
Truly, can somebody explain this to me? Why is it that when a Democratic President appoints a liberal justice, they seem to receive a bipartisan process, and are generally approved overwhelmingly, but when a Republican President appoints a conservative justice, all hell breaks loose?
Yawn. Let’s see what tune you sing when President Hilary Clinton appoints a Supreme Court judge. Democracy is a bitch, huh?
Geez, Hedley, can you keep away from the talking points for ONE post? At least Dugger occasionally (not often) says something original.
Of course during the Clinton appointments the Republicans and Hatch were not threatening to shirk their constitutional duty and filibuster an appointment that they couldn’t accept like the arrogant elitist leftwingnuts are.
Roberts can only get confirmed with the help of Democrats. Therefore it is he that has to meet our Senators approval. Remember, Senator Reid sent the president a list of acceptable, conservative Republicans. Most of those, like Reid, are anti-choice.
Bush chose to do it the hard way. If Roberts stonewalls the judiciary committee, he must be rejected. We won’t allow him to pull a Miguel Estrada.
Mrs. Ginsberg sailed through because President Clinton showed bipartisanship- he asked Orrin Hatch to propose names of acceptable candidates, Mrs. Ginsberg was among them.
You wingnuts need to remember that the Supreme Court is for all Americans, not the 20% freeper/Talibornagain population. Americans have told us time and time again that they want a moderate Supreme Court. Bush will ignore this at his own peril.
frameone, it is true that equality and environmental regulations are federal worries.
However, I can see Roberts’ side on the issue. The VAWA does not “protect the civil liberties” of American women. All it does is fund some education programs, shelters, and the like. To say that it somehow protects civil liberties is utter bullshit.
In my view, it’s more pork money that would be better spent by the states.
Oh goodie, some new troll wants to discuss the filibuster option and its constitutionality….
However, the inner workings of the Senate are not open to Constitutional interpretation. They create their own rules and procedures, and it just so happens that the filibuster is part of their rules towards confirmation. Those rules can be changed, but the majority of American’s believe the filibuster rule is useful for the minority to have a voice.
You can whine about that all day long, but it just proves you are a partisan hack. Approving a judge is no different than approving anything else. If the minority has enough cause for concern, they should be allowed to filibuster, because they need to realize the amount of political capital that is expended for that single act.
But for this specific issue you won’t see a filibuster. Rehnquist will retire after Bush is impeached or at the completion of his term and a more liberal minded president that isn’t paying off the extreme right wing will appoint someone more like O’Connor so the balance of the court will remain the same.
Let them attack Roe v. Wade or civil rights or whatever, its just more ammunition to hold against Conservatives in 3 years. They won’t be able to overturn it, and there is a good argument for why they actually DON’T want it overturned (its a tinderbox issue for them to drag out to get a rise out of the extremists).
Absolutely there should be a confirmation process. The Senate’s role is to “advise and consent.” That means an up or down vote. If it is down, then so be it. A filibuster is neither advice, nor consent, it is partisan obstructionism.
Of course the Framers never required a potenial Supreme Court Justice to submit to questioning. In fact, that hasn’t always happened. I think around 1933 is when that began, but I am not positive. And of course the ABA rules state that candidates should not give their views such that it would commit them to a position.
So when Shumer asks for Roberts’ position on abortion, or asks him to name three Supreme Court decisions with which Roberts disagrees (as Shumer asked him before), it is a nonevent. Roberts would no more answer such questions then a Democratic nominee and yet Roberts will be held to a higher standard due to the arrogance and bile of the leftwingnuts.
Roberts is eminently qualified so the leftwinguts can’t kill him on his resume so they will try to Bork him instead. Funny thing, as noted by JD above, the Republicans didn’t play these games for Clinton’s appoinements.
Said the commentor who also offered us this:
Hedly, you’re right that the “talking points” charge is both overused and underthought. But if you’re going to call people out on it, can’t you forego using it yourself?
Unfortunately, for Hedley and JD, the notion that Hatch and the GOP rolled over for our last democratically-elected President is just delusional.
In fact, Hatch boasts in his autobiography that he suggested President Clinton’s SC nominees.
I’d support a filibuster of Bill Clinton for SCOTUS from Hillary, but only for nepotism reasons. Were someone else to nominate him, I’d call him to be defeated, but not filibustered.
I haven’t decided on Roberts, neither has the Democratic leadership, from what I can see. The reality is, if he is qualified, he will pass. If he does not qualify, he will not. The Democratic leadership has already said what they will accept. If they find out Roberts doesn’t meet these standards, he will be rejected. You can piss and cry all you want, but that is the reality.
I want to learn as much as I can about his judicial philosophy. I think it is my right to know. Apparantly, Republicans just believe that we should trust our leaders to do the right thing, and that we don’t deserve to know who John Roberts is. That isn’t the America I know.
Here is a question for the wingnuts- if President Hillary Clinton named, let’s say Bill Clinton to become Supreme Court justice, with a Democratic majority, would you support a Republican filibuster? Tell the truth, for once.
Oh, so Farris and JD you agree with me than that the filibuster is legitimate for a judicial nomination? Because using the filibuster only in extreme circumstances is also the Democratic party position.
We can argue about what is “extreme”, but it is refreshing to see that you, like most reasonable Americans, support keeping the filibuster. It is good to see that you are more on the “McCain Republican” track than the “Fristian” track.
Come on Jadegold, read your constitution, don’t you see the Hitlary Amendment of 1996? It says that any law or right that applies to the general public, and Republicans in particular, is voided when used for the benefit of Hillary or Bill or Chelsea Clinton.
I’m really surprised at you. 40 lashes for you!
No typo, JD–just reality.
BTW, I really was amused at how you argue the Constitution sets forth no qualifications for the SC but then aver our last democratically-elected President isn’t qualified because he was never convicted–let alone charged–of perjury.
Clinton and Stephanopolous (sp?) don’t support Hatch’s version of events. Neverthelss, from what I can determine a fillibuster of a Supreme Court nominee has only been used twice. Once successfully – Fortas for Chief Justice and once unsuccessfully – Rehnquist for Associate Justice.
As for Clinton, I personally don’t believe that a filibuster is appropriate for any Presidential appointment (Supreme Court, District Court, Cabinet, etc.) and would not favor a Republican filibuster of a Clinton appointment. Of course, having been disbarred should suffice to disqualify Clinton as an appointee, however, “advice and consent” requires an up or down vote. Then let the chips fall where they may. If the minority party (Democrat or Republican) can’t muster the votes to defeat an appointee, then they lose, that is whay they are the minority party. The idea bandied about here that somehow it is up to the Democratic Leadership as to whether or not Roberts is qualifiedg to sit on the Supreme Court is simple elitism.
While I agree that it is important to know his philosophy, that is different than knowing his position on any individual issue. The leftwingnuts want to get him to commit to his positions on individual isues (i.e., abortion). When he doesn’t answer, as he won’t (and neither would anyone) they will say he is unqualified. Watch for it.
Now if Rehnquist were to resign, Bush could have two appointments plus make Thomas or Scalia (or Roberts) Chief Justice. Here’s a conspiracy theory for you. What if Rehnquist has agreed to hold off retiring until Roberts is appointed at which time Bush can then appoint him to be Chief Justice. If he is qualified to be an Associate Justice then of course he is qualified to be Chief Justice (and besides would you prefer Thomas or Scalia?). Then as a compromise, Bush could nominate one of the women, such as Clement, to fill the vacant Associate seat. Probably only wishful thinking but it would be fun to watch Boxer, Shumer et al deal with that scenario.
neo,
What about future Justice Roberts indicates that he is unqualified? What does the Constitution outline as the qualifications for being on the Supreme Court?
As far as how would I respond to an appointment of former President Clinton to the Supreme Court, I think it is reasonable that since he was stripped of his bar membership and perjured himself in front of a Grand Jury, that would be sufficient to oppose his nomination.
jadegold,
I suppose that your last post had a typo, as Clinton was not the last democratically elected President, he was the last Democrat elected to the presidency.
Sorry JD, Bush and Roberts have to prove to the American public and the Senate that he is qualified. I haven’t formed an opinion, but given Bush’s track record on other appointments I’m not optimistic.
Seeing a fictional President Hillary Clinton nominate Teddy “Chappaquiddick” Kennedy to the Supreme Court would almost be fun to watch.
Senate Democrats are stupid if they give Roberts any more than a token hard time in the confirmation process. Facts: 1) Bush is never going to nominate someone who will pledge to uphold Roe v. Wade 2) Roberts is not an idiot like Clarence Thomas 3) Roberts will not be Scalia’s buttpuppy like Clarence Thomas 4) Roberts is not a fundamentalist ideologue 5) No matter how hard the Democrats fight him he’s going to be confirmed.
So, we can preoccupy ourselves and the media with a fight that is going to make us look like sorehead losers in the end, or we can get the Roberts confirmation out of the way as soon as possible and get the focus back where it should be: on the fact that Bush lied about Iraq and Rove compromised intelligence secrets for rank political gain.
You know that Bush and Rove would like nothing better for us to spend the next six weeks screaming ourselves blue about Roberts. Don’t let these bastards control the agenda!
Just for the record, I support the right to filibuster, except if the candidate is a Puerto Rican lesbian WITH tetanus, who has appeared at a Bush fund raiser in the past 10.2 months, is a Redskins fan, drove the pacecar at the 1998 Indianapolis 500, and enjoys ham sandwiches on rye bread.
neo,
Most excellent of you to put words in my mouth! We seem to be way off track, but I’ll go ahead & bite:
I’d be supportive of a filibuster *IF* it was a real filibuster (endless rambles from the podium and whatnot.) and it was limited to nepotism/corruption issues. It’s this “gentlemen’s filibuster” that I would argue most Americans see as wrong. If you doubt me, remember that Democrats kept harkening back to Mr. Smith … back during the Nuclear Option days.
So, we agree, you support a filibuster for judicial nominations. Was that really hard?
Would you support a filibuster if President Hillary Clinton was nominating Senator Ted Kennedy? Remember, you have to be consistent.
I know goalposts are heavy and hard to move, so I’ll give you a few minutes.
Surely you can come up with a more difficult filibuster test than Kennedy. It would in no way be unreasonable to filibuster the esteemed Senior Senator from Mass. until Mary Jo Kopechne came in to testify.
Pionar- You chose to miss MY point- that predicting the race and gender of this president’s political and judicial appointments isn’t always as easy as Cellulose implies.
Thus I found Cellulose’s opening comment ironic in it’s “Bush is racist and sexist” tone. Especially considering that everybody thought it would be one of the two Ediths or Alberto Gonzales. I am sure that you are just as disappointed with that comment.
Besides- I think you actually knew what my real point was, and just wanted toss out the race card against me.
Hmmm… Not that would be tough since about 95% of the people who came through my house growing up were black. Another way of knowing someone is a racist is if they read what you write or listen to what you say without seeing them and are surprised when you find out they are black.
The talking points were written months ago, and looked like a mad-lib, just insert the name. Take a look around the sphere and read the reactions from the left. Its all typical and highly predictable.
Yes, your probably right about that. Why? Because what’s also typical and highly predictable is Bush’s pick of a hard right anti-Roe conservative. So yes, you could say we were ready for this because few expected Bush to actually choose a (GASP)… moderate!
Cue johnnyprogressive and neoconsrloopy to tell us how they aren t talking points because they are facts:
Silly nawoods, we had this lesson already.
Hmmm- no previews here any more. Let’s try that sentence again:
…they read what you write or listen to what you say without seeing you, and they are surprised when they find out you are black.
Gore: “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.”
Gingrich: “In all fairness, it s something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is — and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got there, we were both part of a ‘futures group’ — the fact is, in the Clinton administration the world we had talked about in the 80s began to actually happen. You can see it in your own life, between the Internet, the computer, the cell phone.”
Clinton and Stephanopolous version of the events downplays any role Hatch may have had
Soooo,,,,Orrin is prone to self-inflating exaggeration?
WRT Iran-Contra; it’s no theory. Roberts pointed Ollie North in the direction of people who were indicted and convicted.
Seems the golden boy was not above being a bagman for real crime.
He is a politician. They are all “prone to self-inflating exaggeration.”
I didn’t say Orrin lied. Clinton and Stephanopolous’ version of the events downplays any role Hatch may have had plus they put Clinton’s selection of a safe choice (Ginsburg) in perspective. Clinton had just come through Nannygate with his multiple AG selections and could not afford a fight over a Supreme Court nominee. He wanted Babbit but there were too many democrats who were against him and then he wanted Cuomo but Cuomo was being a prima donna and Clinton tired of waiting for him to decide so he went with Ginsburg. Interesting story actually.
Can’t wait for the Iran-Contra theories.
I thought Gore invented the Love Canal?
And Newt agreed, Heddy.
Clinton and Stephanopolous (sp?) don t support Hatch s version of events.
Are you suggesting Orrin lied?
Actually, I wouldn’t mind seeing the Repugs trigger the ‘nuclear option;’ in the long run, it benefits the Dems.
BTW, it seems Roberts was hip-deep in Iran-Contra.
Gore invented the Internet, remember?
Gore never said that.
So in other words, Gore is prone to self-inflating exaggeration in that while not creating the Internet, he certainly played a signifiant role in its development — the Internet having been created well before Gore entered Congress.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Sorry for reopening those 2000 wounds.
My point stands, that ALL politicians are prone to self-inflating exaggeration.
Funny stuff for someone who takes the side of those who “never used the words ‘imminent threat,’” those who never said the word “fired,” and who never said “mission accomplished.”
So in other words, Gore is “prone to self-inflating exaggeration.”
Thanks for clearing that up.
No, in other words, what Gore said was perfectly accurate.
What did I tell you about talking points, hedcheese? You have probably been chuckling about “Al Gore said he invented the internet” for years, but you NEVER examined what he actually said, or what others who are in a position to know the truthfulness of that statement say about it.
See, you just throw out a stupid statement, that you accepted uncritically, and you expect people to be humbled. Not so easy on a liberal board, liberals by their nature are curious and don’t accept things at face value.
I spend about 2 seconds researching this claim, and found what he really said, and what context it was said. Since you are too lazy to look it up yourself, here it is.
BLITZER: I want to get to some of the substance of domestic and international issues in a minute, but let’s just wrap up a little bit of the politics right now.
Why should Democrats, looking at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill Bradley, a friend of yours, a former colleague in the Senate? What do you have to bring to this that he doesn’t necessarily bring to this process?
Clearly, Blitzer is asking Gore to offer an explanation of how he differs as a politician from other politicians in general, and his rival at the time, Bill Bradley, in particular. Here is Gore’s entire response to Blitzer’s question:
GORE: Well, I will be offering – I’ll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be.
But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I’ve traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
During a quarter century of public service, including most of it long before I came into my current job, I have worked to try to improve the quality of life in our country and in our world. And what I’ve seen during that experience is an emerging future that’s very exciting, about which I’m very optimistic, and toward which I want to lead.
http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/index.html
No, the internet didn’t exist before Gore. DARPAnet existed, which was a government entity only and was more like Compuserve than what became the Internet.
I’m not sure what exaggeration you see, except that which only you want to see.
Vinton Cerf, who actually is the “father of the Internet”: “I think it is very fair to say that the Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the vice president in his current role and in his earlier role as senator.”
If you say so.
No, Al Gore created the legislation that created the internet. Without Al Gore, it might have been awhile before anyone else did the same.
He did a great service for our country and was mocked for it. I’m sure it makes you feel like a bigger man to drag this out for your tittering friends.
I’ve noticed that this is a common tactic of wingnuts. We tell the truth, they lie, then they offer to “split the difference”.
Somehow that doesn’t quite have the same ring to it as “Nyah, nyah! Invented the Internet! Invented the Internet!” So who’s exaggerating?
I yield to the almighty elitist wisdom of the leftwingnuts who, not surprisingly, missed the point entirely and then charge anything they don’t agree with as “lies.”
Regardlesss:
Gore is great. Gore is great. Gore is great. Gore is great. Gore is great.
Gore is great. Gore is great. Gore is great. Gore is great. Gore is great.
Too bad more of you didn’t vote for him.
Quoting the almighty neo, “sigh.”
Binky, if you want to continue to split hairs, fine. To take what you are now saying, Gore did not take “the initiative in creating the Internet,” but rather, took the intitiative in creating greater public access to the Internet. Looks like an exaggeration then to me. Regardless, Gore is a great man. Happy?
ARPANET / DARPANET were not available to the public, and its availablity to universities and colleges was extremely limited and would be without increased federal funding.
Without the legislation to increase the funding, as well as legislation to make the DARPANET available to the public, the public may not have had the Internets until much later.
Binky, split hairs all you want. The Internet is widely credited as having been founded in the late 60’s with the pre-DARPA ARPANET. Regardless of how great a role Gore may have played, it was an exaggeration at best for him to say that he “took the initiative in creating the Internet.” If you don’t want to see it, so be it. My point was simply that all politicians “are prone to self-inflating exaggeration.” If you want to turn this thread into a meeting of the Gore 2008 fan club, have at it.
neo, neo, neo, what are we going to do with you? “hedcheese”? Not nearly as witty as “Taliborniban.” Work on those reading comprehension skills tonight while you are playing your video collection of those Gore-Bush debates, especially the one where Gore keeps sighing and making noises. Masterful politics. We can only hope he runs in 2008 so we can see more of that. A Gore-Kerry debate would be a treat.
Hedley, writing substance free posts since 2005. Sigh.
Allright, allright. Enough. Stop kicking Heddy.
Binky is correct.
Without President Gore, the 101st Fighting Keyboardists would be consigned to endless games of Strateg-O and Risk.
The majority did vote for him. The majority of those in Florida who voted also. The majority of votes actually counted in Florida did not.
I’m starting a new Hedley drinking game. Every time he says “elitist”, drink. You’ll be tanked in no time. Elitist, that’s a good one from someone espousing the viewpoint of “Tax Cuts for the Rich” Republicans.
We can save Florida for another day. Drink up.
That was “Stop kicking Heddy,” not “Stop kicking, Heddy.”
And you’re supposed to say, in an annoyed tone, “That’s Hedley!”
I wasn’t kicking.
Holy Sheot! Just when I thought it couldn’t get any more freaking hilarious. Now people are trying to link Roberts to Iran Contra???
Wow. I mean…..wow. And does it surprise me that Jadetin brings it up?
Not at all. He’s a Kossack through and through.
Which of Clinton’s Supreme Court nominees never got out of committee?
“Of course during the Clinton appointments the Republicans and Hatch were not threatening to shirk their constitutional duty and filibuster an appointment …”
LOL No Hedley, all they did was never let them get out of committee. That’s the same thing only worse. Many of Clinton’s nominees were never even allowed a Cloture vote.
Roberts did his job as a lawyer and did it well. Concerning the Appeals court questioning he is under no obligation to respond to questions concerning his personal views on a matter. By not wanting to tell his personal views, he protected the constitution and the laws of the land. For he knows that judges should rule based on strict interpretation of the law and the constitution. Not on the way he “feels”. And as far as filibustering of Clinton appointees by Reps goes, no judicial appointee was filibustered until now.
Thank you Sean Hannity, already knew the talking points though.