So I’m hearing.
UPDATE: NBC is confirming. NPR has it.
Here’s what I wrote about this a little while back:
But, should a Supreme Court vacancy come up – which is more likely than not to happen a few times over the next 8 years – you must nominate a competent, well qualified liberal to the bench. We have to live for likely several decades with the George W. Bush picks of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, and anything less than an ideological counterweight to those two would be an extraordinary mess.
Glenn Greenwald would be nice
Thank god we have an adult as president now.
FWIW, a family member of mine was on the fence leading up to the Obama election (I know, I know). I reminded her that the next prez would probably nominate a couple o SCOTUS judges. As a woman, she realized then that she had to vote for Obama. A lot of women felt the same way.
Glenn Greenwald would be nice
If we wanted to turn the Supreme Court into a very unfunny joke, sure.
Thank god we have an adult as president now.
Jaim brings the stupid again. In heaps.
Of course, people may not like Alito and Roberts, but they’re both well qualified and intelligent jurists.
So now Obama gets to replace a liberal justice with another one liberal (which will of course be declared by the media to be a ‘moderate’). Whoopee.
Notice that Jay doesn’t mention Thomas; and Alito was only respected by the wingnuts, there’s a reason he had the nickname “Scalito” long before he was nominated.
Adult = reality-based individual who makes decisions based on facts and reasoning.
Yup. Thank god we have an adult as president now. Please go back to wetting your diapers Jay.
I think if he retired a couple of months ago, Obama would have tried to find an acceptable middle-of-the-road person. Now that he knows who he’s dealing with, and that he will face an impotent fight no matter what, he will go with a capable intelligent Liberal.
I hope.
There hasn’t been a moderate named by a Democrat since before FDR. Every single Democratic SCOTUS appointment has been reliably liberal. So don’t act like, now that the Republicans have four reliable conservatives on the bench, that aw shucks, now you have no choice but to play that game.
The first court-packer was FDR. Conservatives never changed the way they approach appointments. Scalia, Thomas, Alito, those guys would have fit in with any pre-New Deal court nicely.
Ginsberg and Souter, on the other hand, had they sat next to John Marshall, he would have turned to them and said, “The government has the power to do WHAT?! Are you freakin’ kiddin’ me? I don’t see that anywhere in the Constitution!”
I would like to see a young, female, minority progressive. I would love Hispanic, or better yet, Asian. I believe Asians are especially under-represented in government.
Yeah, and before Brown so-called intelligent people used the constitution to justify segregation and before that slavery. It’s time to get over this conservative fairy tale that the role of the Supreme Court is not to interpret the constitution but rather act as if a 233+ year old document is etched in stone.
If you don’t like the 223 year old document, there is a prescribed way to change it. The court ain’t it.
I maybe a minority opinion, but I want a judge with no ideological bent. NO D or R by the name. I know its super boring for most ideologes but justice is niether conservative or liberal.
Notice that Jay doesn’t mention Thomas
That’s because I was talking about George W. Bush’s nominees.
Yup. Thank god we have an adult as president now. Please go back to wetting your diapers Jay.
Yeah and let me know when an intelligent thought runs through your head. I’ll call Ripley’s.
Yeah, and before Brown so-called intelligent people used the constitution to justify segregation and before that slavery.
Oliver, they didn’t use it to “justify” segregation and slavery. I know it may be hard to comprehend, but prior to the ratification of the 13th amendment, slavery was not unconstitutional. That doesn’t make slavery right but it certainly doesn’t mean the justices who ruled in that case were ‘justifying’ it. They interpreted the constitution and as a result of that ruling, it became necessary to amend the constitution to end slavery. That’s how it works in a civil society.
It’s time to get over this conservative fairy tale that the role of the Supreme Court is not to interpret the constitution but rather act as if a 233+ year old document is etched in stone.
Uhh…I’m sorry but how does the fact that the constitution is 233+ years old change its meaning? You don’t want an interpretation of the constitution, you want policy disguised as interpretation of the constitution.
Jay,
Why don’t you tell us where Glenn Greenwald is wrong?
Because I agree, a civil liberties attorney would be a GREAT choice for the SCOTUS.
Got anything against civil liberties?
That’s because I was talking about George W. Bush’s nominees.
Ok, you didn’t say that, but ok. So there is no defense of Thomas, right?
Uhh…I’m sorry but how does the fact that the constitution is 233+ years old change its meaning? You don’t want an interpretation of the constitution, you want policy disguised as interpretation of the constitution.
Please explain constitutional interpretation of 5 conservative justice in the case of Bush v Gore. The key problem with Scalia/Thomas et al is their complete lack of consistency; they’re capable of great conservative activism while claiming to be strict constructionists.
Elections have consequences, bitches.
But please keep on railing against Teh Ghey Marriage and what have you so you can lose some more. Losers.
Bwahahahahahahaha!
I would like to see a young, female, minority progressive. I would love Hispanic, or better yet, Asian. I believe Asians are especially under-represented in government.
How about the best person qualified, regardless of ethnicity?
How about the best person qualified, regardless of ethnicity?
Indeed.
I suppose I could make a case that given equally qualified male and female justice nominees I’d skew towards the female to balance out potential differences in gender perspectives, but I don’t feel passionately enough about it to dig in for a fight over it.
John Hinderaker? Paul Mirengoff? Mark Levin?
-just keeping the spirit of a very unfunny joke.
How about the best person qualified, regardless of ethnicity?
Sounds good. But what does “best qualified” mean?
A strong argument could be made for someone who has a minority view (black, Latino, Asian, gay, female, what have you) and could bring a perspective shared by a significant amount of the country but lacking in the current court over someone who has “better” judicial credentials.
Sounds good. But what does “best qualified” mean?
How about their experience? Or the clarity and logic of authored opinions? Those are two factors just off the top of my head. Plainly some people are better qualified than others, otherwise you could just have a lottery.
As for your perspective argument, do you believe that only a Hispanic can represent another Hispanic? Do ethnic groups all have monolithic experiences and perspectives?
Further, what is a Hispanic? My girlfriend’s last name is Ruiz, if we get married and have a kid would they be Hispanic? I have a friend that is ethnic Filipino and married a white guy — are their kids Asian?
Colin -
Not to be punctilious, but I’d bet you mean Filipina.
As a wildly underrepresented atheist, I’d like to see a avowed non-believer up on the bench.
Colin: How about their experience? Or the clarity and logic of authored opinions? Those are two factors just off the top of my head. Plainly some people are better qualified than others, otherwise you could just have a lottery.
I’m not suggesting that any random minority member picked off the street would be a better choice than an experienced jurist. Obviously.
But “how about their experience?” What is more valuable to someone on the bench? Someone with fifteen years as a judge who comes from an upper-class family with a history of being judges, or someone with 5 years as a judge who comes from an immigrant family and has first-hand childhood experience as a minority?
As for your perspective argument, do you believe that only a Hispanic can represent another Hispanic? Do ethnic groups all have monolithic experiences and perspectives?
Again, you’re setting up a bunch of strawmen here. Either because you are ignorantly missing the point or willfully ignoring it.
So that argument I didn’t feel passionate about to get make? Sean does feel passionately enough.
Rock it, Sean.
And, another vetting nightmare ignored by the Blow-bama media in 3, 2, 1…
And another not-funny Obama name joke in 3…2…
Oh I’m late. It already happened.
But “how about their experience?” What is more valuable to someone on the bench? Someone with fifteen years as a judge who comes from an upper-class family with a history of being judges, or someone with 5 years as a judge who comes from an immigrant family and has first-hand childhood experience as a minority?
I would be more interested in their ability to interpret law and the soundness of their opinions.
But yes, plainly qualifications are subjective. That said, we shouldn’t pretend that justices also can’t be separated and that one is as good as another.
Again, you’re setting up a bunch of strawmen here. Either because you are ignorantly missing the point or willfully ignoring it.
What are the strawmen? You raised the issue and I would like some clarification on what you mean. Does Clarence Thomas provide the black perspective on the court? What is a black perspective?
You beat me to asking that question, repack, although I would have added the codicil “and please phrase your response to avoid any use of the phrase ’sock puppet’.” Because as far as I can tell, all discussion of Greenwald in the wingnutosphere proceeds as follows:
1. Glenn cites extensive past history, news articles, and legal decisions issued under conservative judges and even His Holiness, St. Ronald Reagan, showing that waterboarding, or warrantless surveillance, or extraordinary rendition is illegal and morally unconscionable.
2. Several scores of wingnuts all write variants of “Noted sock puppet Glenn Ellensburg sure wrote a lot of words today. Haw haw haw.”
Now from the wingnut perspective, Levin would be an A#1 Supremo. He has the only qualification that matters… he worked with Reagan (fluttery hearts & butterflies), and he completely disregards any data contradictory to his preconceived ideas. Case in point: I was listening to him the other day as I sometimes do during my commute home, and he was once more railing about the evils of national health care. A woman called in, a nurse, and explained directly from her own personal experience things she had seen which contradicted his mantra of “anyone can get health care by going to the emergency room.” He cut her off and shouted her down, telling her she was clearly a leftist ideologue who didn’t know what she was talking about.
Eric,
Q: How many Obama supporters does it take to change a light bulb?
A: THAT’S NOT FUNNY!
Now that the messenger’s dead (oh. ouch. quick, someone get me a band-aid.), do you have anything to say about the message?
I’ll be over here, not holding my breath…
Kathleen Sullivan. She’s a lesbian.
I think if they nominated her, the wingnuts would spontaneously combust. Also, it would be great for the LGBT community to have representation on the Supreme Court.
matt621: “Q: How many Obama supporters does it take to change a light bulb?
A: THAT’S NOT FUNNY!”
So you tell an unfunny joke and then complain when people tell you it’s not funny? Interesting.
“Now that the messenger’s dead (oh. ouch. quick, someone get me a band-aid.), do you have anything to say about the message?
I’ll be over here, not holding my breath…”
What was your point? You were attacking Obama and the media for something that hasn’t happened yet. What do we need to say?
Hey, take it easy on Matt621, he thinks Steven Colbert is an awesome Conservative.
And, another vetting nightmare ignored by the Blow-bama media in 3, 2, 1…
And another scenario in which conservative culture warriors take to the trenches and make utter fools of themselves before the entire country …
(Seriously, conservatives will probably see the nomination process as a chance to rally the base and appear relevant, especially after the tea bag fizzle, and so in classic Terri Schiavo-circus fashion they will start firing off a whole lot of pure wingnut craziness that will only further marginalize them in the eyes of most Americans. It’s gonna be awesome.)
So there is no defense of Thomas, right?
Sure there is. Care to offer up some reasoned analysis as to why Thomas is not a good Supreme Court justice beyond useless parroting of he’s nothing but a clone of Scalia and doesn’t ask many questions during oral arguments?
Please explain constitutional interpretation of 5 conservative justice in the case of Bush v Gore.
Actually, the ruling was 7-2 on the basis of whether or not Florida’s recount procedures violated equal protection under the 14th amendment. The 5-4 split was over whether or not their was sufficient time to establish standards for a new recount.
As for Glenn Greenwald, the man does simply not have the temperament to be appointed to the Supreme Court.
If you want to go with somebody that tilts left, why not somebody like Lawrence Tribe?
According to another board, Sheila Jackson Lee.
“What do we need to say?”
Nothing, obviously. Because that would require a) thought, and b) an admission of obvious past failures by the Messiah, which can never ever happen.
He inherited these vetting problems, I guess, huh?
A few thoughts:
1) Would ANYONE care to take a wager on Obama’s nominating a heterosexual white male? I would stake the odds on that as about a zillion to none — the nominee will be a minority in at least one aspect, possibly more than one.
B) I only hope that Obama is as satisfied with his eventual appointee as George H. W. Bush was with Souter.
III) Souter described his position as “the world’s best job in the worst city,” or words to that effect. Does that constitute a hate crime against the residents of DC?
d) Souter, especially after his vote in the Kelo decision, is not very popular here in New Hampshire. (There was a move to seize his house under eminent domain and convert the property to a hotel.) I strongly suspect he’ll return to being largely a hermit down in Weare.
J.
I can only hope we get a nominee that’s up to date on their taxes. Of course, given the candidate pool and Obama’s vetting, we may not get that nominee for years.
Jay tea, you goofy moron, your “thoughts” are as usual, completely irrelevant nonsense, but your outline system is simply baffling. I mean WTF organizing principle possibly governs this:
1)
B)
III)
d)
matt621: Because that would require a) thought, and b) an admission of obvious past failures by the Messiah
Y’know, nobody but those who are opposed to Obama simply because he is Obama ever refer to him as the “Messiah” or even any term close to it. That’s completely a fabrication of his critics, something they like to claim his supporters say, so that they then have a convenient straw man to point to.
Now there are reasons to be critical of Obama, as many of his supporters including several here have on occasion listed, but you don’t want to come up with valid criticisms yourself “Because that would require a) thought”.
fafaroo, I stole that schtick from “Car Talk.” Had I tossed out a fifth point, it would have been iiiii.
Are you saying you don’t listen to NPR’s finest program? Good lord, you philistine!
J.
fafaroo, I stole that system from “Car Talk.” Had there been a fifth item, it would have been “iiiii).”
What, you don’t listen to NPR’s finest program? You PHILISTINE! Burn the heathen!!!!
J.
Jay Tea: A few thoughts ["thoughts". Hee!]:
1) Would ANYONE care to take a wager on Obama’s nominating a heterosexual white male? I would stake the odds on that as about a zillion to none — the nominee will be a minority in at least one aspect, possibly more than one.
Well that’s a pretty safe bet, given that it’s near impossible to find a person who isn’t a member of SOME minority (black, Jewish, gay, female, etc) there’s hardly anyone who doesn’t belong to ANY minority of some kind.
But far more to the point, so what? What is inherently wrong with having a minority on the bench?
B) I only hope that Obama is as satisfied with his eventual appointee as George H. W. Bush was with Souter.
III) Souter described his position as “the world’s best job in the worst city,” or words to that effect. Does that constitute a hate crime against the residents of DC?
In a discussion on Supreme Court Justices that’s the level of legal reasoning you look for? Explains a lot.
d) Souter, especially after his vote in the Kelo decision, is not very popular here in New Hampshire. (There was a move to seize his house under eminent domain and convert the property to a hotel.) I strongly suspect he’ll return to being largely a hermit down in Weare.
Again, so what? His public service completed he goes to live his life quietly. Would that more (*cough* Cheney) would do so.
fafaroo, I stole that schtick from “Car Talk.”
You’ve never written an original thought, have you?
Jay Tea: What, you don’t listen to NPR’s finest program?
I dunno, for weekend listening “Says You” and “Wait, Wait Don’t Tell Me” are pretty damn good as well.
You’ve never written an original thought, have you?
Fafaroo, you could bring down the mood at an Irish wake. Lighten up, Francis.
He inherited these vetting problems, I guess, huh?
Two words for you.
Sarah Palin.
What are the strawmen? You raised the issue and I would like some clarification on what you mean. Does Clarence Thomas provide the black perspective on the court? What is a black perspective?
Shorter Colin: Like National Treasure and non-ironic arch conservative Stephen Colbert, I don’t see race.
Fafaroo, you could bring down the mood at an Irish wake.
Yes, of course, because the life of the party is always the pompous, loud doofus who’s either wrong or stealing someone else’s material.
Sure there is. Care to offer up some reasoned analysis as to why Thomas is not a good Supreme Court justice beyond useless parroting of he’s nothing but a clone of Scalia and doesn’t ask many questions during oral arguments?
You’ve got me nailed. Because what is there to Clarence Thomas? All I have against Thomas is the complete absence of any sign of thoughtfulness or independence whatsoever. I suppose in your view, Thomas’ complete silence and lock-step record negates any ability to criticize him, but that is entirely backwards. Unlike other judges, Supreme Court judges actually bear a responsibility to question, rather than just accepting the details laid before them by attorneys. It’s a key component of their duties, and the only one they do completely for themselves (much of the work in their decisions is written by clerks). You admit the Thomas does not take part in questions at all (he has reportedly not spoken during a case for 3 years), which means he is only doing part of his job. I don’t really care whether he’s disinterested or completely out of his depth (he had no court experience before becoming a DC district judge, and only 16 months experience there), either way, he doesn’t do the job.
As far as his record, if you can discern any clear thoughts or independence, you’re either a fortune-teller or completely deluded, and having read your comments, most here will go with the latter. Functionally, Thomas could be replaced with a cardboard cutout and his vote given to Scalia and the change would never be noticed (at this point any difference in their votes results in a surprised news article).. I recognize that all this may make him one of your heroes (or at least a fan), but it certainly does not, in any way, make him a “good supreme court justice”.
I can only hope we get a nominee that’s up to date on their taxes. Of course, given the candidate pool and Obama’s vetting, we may not get that nominee for years.
I hope we can get one that doesn’t advocate making waterboarding a national sport.
How about the best person qualified, regardless of ethnicity?
Not bad in theory, but there are some cases, where personal experience can be important.
“Again, so what? His public service completed he goes to live his life quietly. Would that more (*cough* Cheney) would do so.”
Agreed. Incidentally, has anyone noticed how Republicans are speaking out against Cheney’s criticism of Obama, because past administrations aren’t supposed to criticize the current one? Yea, me either. Funny because whenever Clinton was on Tv talking about the Bush administration cons got all fainting couch.
The Obama administration has made a pastime out of criticizing the Bush administration. Considering Cheney’s hunting experiences, and your side’s attitude towards the guy, why the hell did you think he might not shoot back?
J.
Considering Cheney’s hunting experiences
Shooting tame birds while drunk? Not scary.
Thayer: The Obama administration has made a pastime out of criticizing the Bush administration.
Right. Because the motherfuckers GAVE OBAMA EIGHT YEARS OF HORRENDOUS POLICIES to correct!
Unlike other judges, Supreme Court judges actually bear a responsibility to question, rather than just accepting the details laid before them by attorneys. It’s a key component of their duties
According to whom? Is there some rule that I don’t know about? Where does it say that a key component of the duties of a Supreme Court justice is to question? Show me. Again, you’re doing nothing but parroting the sophistry of his critics who felt the need to make up something to be critical about.
Unless of course you’re willing to slam William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall who like Thomas, also did not speak much during oral arguments.
and the only one they do completely for themselves (much of the work in their decisions is written by clerks)</i.
That’s not true and you should educate yourself more on the workings of the current court before spouting such ignorance. Both Thomas and Justice Stevens write the majority of their opinions themselves.
As far as his record, if you can discern any clear thoughts or independence, you’re either a fortune-teller or completely deluded, and having read your comments, most here will go with the latter. Functionally, Thomas could be replaced with a cardboard cutout and his vote given to Scalia and the change would never be noticed
And right on cue we get the other anti-Thomas shibboleth. I’m not going to go into a long argument about it. Your simplistic conclusion is enough for me to see that you’re more comfortable repeating negative talking points about Clarence Thomas rather than actually educating yourself about his opinions, many of which I am certain you have not read. If you had, you’d come to accept the “Thomas just rules as Scalia does” accusation is nonsense.
Incidentally, has anyone noticed how Republicans are speaking out against Cheney’s criticism of Obama, because past administrations aren’t supposed to criticize the current one? Yea, me either. Funny because whenever Clinton was on Tv talking about the Bush administration cons got all fainting couch.
Actually the “unwritten rule” is past Presidents not speaking out against current Presidents. To be honest, I don’t remember Clinton doing it all that much except towards the end of 2007 and into 2008 when he was supporting Hillary’s presidential run. Mild criticism is acceptable simply because they’re going to be asked questions.
Al Gore on the other hand, couldn’t shut his blowhard mouth which increased his carbon footprint more than his house.
Then of course there was Jimmy Carter who couldn’t keep his mouth shut either as part of his overall plan to be loved and adored by every dictator and thug around the world.
If you had, you’d come to accept the “Thomas just rules as Scalia does” accusation is nonsense.
In fact, and I’m not necessarily making any value judgement about this, from 1994-2004, Scalia and Thomas voted together 86.7% of the time. Less than Roberts and Alito in the 2006-7 term, but still higher than anyone else over that period.
Unless of course you’re willing to slam William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall who like Thomas, also did not speak much during oral arguments.
I can’t get that worked up about him not asking questions, either. It’s the adversarial system. It’s the lawyer’s job to bring the info. I’m not sure why asking questions would be so key to the duties of an SCJ.
Al Gore on the other hand, couldn’t shut his blowhard mouth which increased his carbon footprint more than his house.
What wss that about the repetition of talking points, Jay? Just because conservatives don’t understand carbon offsets doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Shorter Colin: Like National Treasure and non-ironic arch conservative Stephen Colbert, I don’t see race.
Ridiculous. But I would like to know: what is a black perspective? You do realize that the black community isn’t monolithic right? That a first generation immigrant from Africa has a different perspective than someone who can trace their family back several generations?
Ridiculous. But I would like to know: what is a black perspective? You do realize that the black community isn’t monolithic right? That a first generation immigrant from Africa has a different perspective than someone who can trace their family back several generations?
Just because the extreme – that a culture is monolithic – is untrue does not make the notion of there being cultural similarities between many in a minority any less probable.
What Sean was suggesting when this got started was that choosing someone whose experiences closely mirror those of many in a significant minority group could give the court a richer understanding of issues that affect many Americans.
I think it would be helpful to focus our discussion on what Sean was saying and not on an absurd escalation of his point.
In fact, and I’m not necessarily making any value judgement about this, from 1994-2004, Scalia and Thomas voted together 86.7% of the time.
That’s not surprising. It doesn’t mean that Thomas simply looks at how Scalia rules and does the same as is the accusation. Souter and Ginsburg vote together 90% of the time. Which one is the lackey following the other?
What wss that about the repetition of talking points, Jay? Just because conservatives don’t understand carbon offsets doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Take it easy. I was just being sarcastic.
The Village Idiot wrote: “The Obama administration has made a pastime out of criticizing the Bush administration.”
Why yes…for that we have to apologize. It’s not as if Republicans have ever made a pastime of criticizing Clinton, or Carter, or FDR, or…
oh…right…
Eric Sipple: I think it would be helpful to focus our discussion on what Sean [or anyone - SDM] was saying and not on an absurd escalation of his point.
You’re new here, aren’t you? *
Yes, it would be nice if folks did that. But it hardly ever happens.
.
* BTW, have really enjoyed your recent posts (in this thread and elsewhere. They do seem uncommonly reasonable.
But I would like to know: what is a black perspective?
Why don’t you introduce yourself to a black person and ask them. You may have to drive a ways.
Or you could keep pulling a non-ironic Colbert. Please feel free to so. As a modern Republican, unintentional comedy is your specialty.
That’s because I was talking about George W. Bush’s nominees.
Oh, right, Harriet Myers. Good one.
“Jay” finally reveals himself to be the kind of loathsome right wing extremist that is still claiming that “SLAVERY” is part of a “civil society.”
“Jay,” it’s completely disgusting to argue that slavery and segregation weren’t un-Constitutional so the Supreme Court didn’t have the “right” to right that wrong.
It’s especially loathsome considering that the current crop of extreme right wing Supreme Court Justices regularly ‘invent’ law and warp clear language to justify their corrupt ideology.
The right wingers on the Supreme Court are the very definition of “activist judges.”
Right winger Jay has now added defending SLAVERY to his defense of TERRORISM.
We’re still praying for you though, Jay.
“Jay Tea,” the sociopathic Commentary Magazine sockpuppet, is never done lying, is he?
“Jay Tea,” the Obama administration has gone out of its way to not criticize the mountain of Bush’s misdeeds.
If the Obama administration had, as you asserted, “made a pastime out of criticizing the Bush administration[,]“ they would have rounded up those sadistic Republican war criminals who lied US into war and looted our tax payer dollars, and with Republican Bush’s “enemy combatant” designation, put them into cells next to Jose Padilla and treated them the same way those Republican sociopaths treated Padilla.
Instead, the Obama administration has occasionally pointed out some facts to the corporate press that has made you faint on your couch.
“Jay Tea,” I know how facts make you and your fellow deceivers uncomfortable, but lets be very clear, the COURTESY that Obama has given the former administration has been consistent and professional and completely undeserved.
And then there is “Colin,” the right winger who thinks a Supreme Court appointment is about the “best person qualified” and “their ability to interpret law and the soundness of their opinions” but fails (or chooses not) to recognize that Clarence Thomas was clearly unqualified and that Scalia, Roberts, and Alito “interpret law” based on their corrupt, immovable ideological prism that warps plain language and produces sleazy lawyerly ‘legal’ “opinions.”
Right winger’s like “Colin” pretend (or is genuinely too ignorant to understand?) that THE RIGHT WINGERS ON THE SUPREME COURT WERE CHOSEN FOR THEIR IDEOLOGY RIGIDITY.
Nothing else mattered to the Republican Party, except, perhaps, their Supreme Court nominee’s ability to use lawyerly language to manipulate and rationalize their predetermined conclusions.
It was the right wing that made a mantra of “no more Souters,” Souter being the Justice appointed by Republican Bush I who got on the court and then betrayed a, GASP, conscience.
And to the right wing a “conscience,” especially someone with “empathy,” is about as unforgivable as it gets.
It’s funny/sad, for as much as I detested Bush I, Bush II really makes me miss his old man.
News Reference, as usual, lets his liver do his thinking for him, substituting spewing bile for actually saying things of substance.
The courts, prior to the Civil War, had NO authority to strike down slavery. The courts’ role is to INTERPRET the Constitution, and slavery was clearly and explicitly sanctioned by the Constitution for nearly the first century of our nation’s history. The courts do NOT have the authority to rewrite the Constitution.
Article I, Section 2, specifies slaves will be counted as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of determining Congressional representation. Article IV, Section 2 reinforces slavery’s position as a Constitutionally-sanctioned institution.
This is repugnant. This is shameful. This was eventually corrected, through Constitutional amendments.
That is reality.
After 2000, Bush and his administration did NOT make a common practice out of bashing the Clinton administration. Likewise, Clinton didn’t spend his first 100 days trashing the first Bush administration.
George W. Bush, himself, has remained quiet — giving assholes like “News Reference” the chance to say he’s finally discovered a conscience and doesn’t dare contradict the “truth.” Cheney, on the other hand, is openly saying that the Obama administration is only giving one side of the story, and challenging the administration to release other records that show the full story. The underhanded SOB is actually asking them to prove their case, saying the facts are on his side, and daring them to “put up or shut up.”
News boasts of having the ugliest site on the web, and I think it’s appropriate — such an ugly soul should have such an ugly site. It’s a truly fitting reflection of a chaotic, unorganized, incoherent mind.
He/she/it also has his own lexicon. “Criticize” doesn’t mean to blame things on and say bad things about, it has to involve a poltical purge and sending those News doesn’t like into some American gulag (after appropriate show trials to demonstrate to the world just how wonderfully sorry we are).
What. An. Ass.
J.
After 2000, Bush and his administration did NOT make a common practice out of bashing the Clinton administration.
I think it could be fairly argued that it’s been a while since a president has had a predecessor so deserving of scorn as George W. Bush.
George W. Bush, himself, has remained quiet
I’m pretty sure I know what the first question will be when he decides to come out of his hiding place.
Bush has created a unique status among former president: Pariah. While Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter can travel the world as respected senior statesmen and receive tumultuous greetings, Bush can’t leave the United States for fear of arrest and can’t even take a question from the press, because he knows what it will be about.
This guy is isolated with his shame, as it should be.
“Jay Tea”, you remind me of reading Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn when I was a kid.
At the end of the book Twain went on and on and on describing Tom Sawyer’s “ingenuous” solutions to getting Jim, Tom’s loyal guardian, out of prison for the crime of being black.
The point was the Jim was always Free.
The modern neo-Republican party: still rationalizing slavery.
“Repugnant,” “shameful,” but ‘lawful’ Right Wing, right?
Is that what the Commentary Magazine genocidal psychopaths are supporting these days? Criminality based on blood is OK if the “law” says it is?
Jay Tea, it’s bad enough that your buddy Norman Podhoretz has genocidal fantasies, but here you are claiming that SLAVERY is fine as long as it’s written as “law.”
Is your next slip into degeneracy, “Jay Tea”, the claim that GENOCIDE is fine if it’s written as “law?”
Because that’s where your Stormfront logic-train is headed.
News Reference, as usual, lets his liver do his thinking for him, substituting spewing bile for actually saying things of substance.
Jay Tea, as usual, gets the facts (in this case, biology) completely wrong. Bile is produced in the spleen, which is why “spleenless” refers to someone kind, gentle, and mild. Jay Tea, is there no detail so insignificant for you to fuck up?
After 2000, Bush and his administration did NOT make a common practice out of bashing the Clinton administration.
Right, George W Bush’s people lied about the Clinton administration trashing the white house (check the GAO report). They blamed the Chinese spy blame fiasco on Clinton’s weak stance. They claimed their problems with North Korea were due to Clinton’s “appeasement strategy”, which was proven far superior to anything the Bush administration could come up with. Then they blamed the economic woes on Clinton. Not all of this was baseless, but there wasn’t much else they could blame on Clinton, since he handed off a fairly strong economy (except for the tech bubble, which was a simple correction), a balanced budget, and generally strong America. To claim W’s administration didn’t try to blame problems on Clinton is pretty funny.
News boasts of having the ugliest site on the web, and I think it’s appropriate — such an ugly soul should have such an ugly site.
Dude, you write for Commentary, glass houses, meet stones.
NR, I generally love your comments mate, but JT is absolutely right. The Courts could not have struck down slavery prior to legislative constitutional revision. He’s not saying that’s okay, only that the courts’ hands were tied.
As you probably already are aware, where they were involved was the question of slavery spreading into the territories, and the Dred Scott case, with its implication that slaves were slaves anywhere in the union. They certainly blew it there, but the fact remains, the SCOTUS could not tell the southern states they couldn’t have slavery.
“Criticize” doesn’t mean to blame things on and say bad things about, it has to involve a poltical purge and sending those News doesn’t like into some American gulag (after appropriate show trials to demonstrate to the world just how wonderfully sorry we are).
American gulag, huh? Jesus. I bet you clowns were just fine with going after Clinton.
Oh sweet Jesus, I’m a moron. Bile, liver, gall bladder, etc. I’m going to go STFU for awhile…
Sean: You’re new here, aren’t you?
Hehe, no, just a hopeless idealist.
Sean: BTW, have really enjoyed your recent posts (in this thread and elsewhere. They do seem uncommonly reasonable.
Thanks, man, it goes both ways.
Republicans enabled Republican Bush’s monarchical power to throw “into some American gulag (after appropriate show trials to demonstrate to the world just how wonderfully sorry we are)” anyone Bush designated an “enemy combatant,” “Jay Tea”.
And Republican Bush planned on holding those designated “enemy combatants” (on his word alone) in an archipelago of secret prisons forever, initially without trial, and subsequently through “Military Tribunal” that he set up as Soviet type show trials.
Republican Bush authorized war crimes that included torture that was euphemistically labeled “enhanced interrogations”.
Beyond the Republican administrations knocking on Godwin’s door with their “Verschärfte Vernehmung”, Republican Bush’s torture teams were also using Communist Chinese torture techniques that were used on American servicemen to force false confessions, and Republican sadists even authorized torture that America had previously prosecuted as a war crime.
Those are the facts.
Here’s some theories:
Republican Bush authorized torture in order to force false confessions out of his designated “enemy combatants” to ‘prove’ a link that never existed. There was NO link between 9/11 and Saddam, Bush knew it, and waterboarding a prisoner 183 times was meant to force a false confession.
Republicans Bush and Cheney used torture not to terrorize the bad guys, in fact the bad guys used Bush’s torture as a recruitment tool.
Republicans Bush and Cheney used torture to terrorize domestic critics.
Bush and Cheney need to be prosecuted as war criminals or some future nutter President WILL use those tactics again.
Not prosecuting Bush and Cheney for war crimes is, as has been said before, like leaving a loaded gun on the table to be used by a subsequent administration.
RIGHT WINGERS DON’T WANT TO LEARN FROM HISTORY BECAUSE THEY PLAN ON REPEATING THOSE TORTURE TECHNIQUES IN THE FUTURE.
Why are Republicans intent on precipitating the Doom of the Republic?
I just read NR’s comments, re-read my own, and can’t quite figure out how his alleged responses relate to what I actually said. I roundly condemned the institution of slavery, calling it all kinds of bad things because I knew that he would want to spin my pointing out the limitations on the courts in striking down something specifically allowed under the Constitution into an endorsement of the practice, and he did it anyway.
Back to the “torture” thing: it’s the same principle. Over-educated morons like NR can’t quite grasp that the law is very clear, and means precisely what it says — not what they want it to mean.
Torture is illegal. The problem is, what precisely is “torture?” Where is the line drawn between aggressive interrogation and actual torture?
One way to draw the line is to ban certain techniques explicitly. The problem there is that humans are endlessly inventive — just look at the variety of torture devices invented during the Middle Ages.
Another way is to define torture not by the techniques, but the effects. That is the one the federal law uses. Whether something constitutes torture or not is based on studying the consequences of the technique, and seeing if it fits the legal standard.
With waterboarding, someone some time got the idea of replicating the SENSATIONS and IMPRESSIONS of various partial drowning tortures without actually introducing water to the subject’s body. They sent a note to the Justice Department and described it in detail, and asked “does this violate the laws on torture?”
The lawyers looked at the legal standard, as defined by the US Code:
A very high standard — and it should be. “Torture” is a very powerful term, and it should not be diluted through casual overuse. Similarly powerful terms are “treason,” “rape,” “genocide,” and “murder.”
The lawyers studied the matter carefully, consulted experts (including, I believe, physicians and psychologists), and came to the conclusion that the simulated drowning inflicted no physical harm and did not reach the point of “severe” or “prolonged” mental suffering. Their studied, expert opinion was that it did not reach the legal standard of torture.
Oh, and NR, nice citation of Andrew Sullivan. Nice to see him spend some time NOT obsessing on Sarah Palin’s uterus.
(What IS it with idiotic publicity whore gay men lately, anyway? Perez Hilton as a judge of feminine beauty and ideals, Andrew Sullivan as an amateur obstetrician… I suppose one could make the “disinterested, objective observer” argument, but come on…!)
And that Nazi obsession of yours, NR… quite unpleasant. Not at all becoming. You remind me more and more of Islamist terrorists when they talk — at least, when they take such Onanistic glee in comparing Jews to Nazis. I’m waiting for you to adopt the other two legs of their rhetorical tripod — saying that the Jews deserved the Holocaust, and that the Holocaust didn’t really happen.
NR, you might want to actually read the article in question, instead of repeating Greenwald/Rick Ellensburg/Ryan/Ellison/Thomas Ellers/Wilson’s hysterical interpretations. I’ve finally gotten around to poking through it, and it’s considerably less heinous than you’d like people to believe.
I’d go on, but I really don’t want to play along with your little “chase the bouncing topic” game. It gets tedious.
J.
With waterboarding, someone some time got the idea of replicating the SENSATIONS and IMPRESSIONS of various partial drowning tortures without actually introducing water to the subject’s body.
I believe that “someone” was actually quite a few of our servicemen, captured in North Korea. At that time, I believe we called it torture.
Over-educated morons
So you’re saying you’re, by contrast, an under-educated moron?
Tell me, why should we trust the intelligence of someone who derides intellect?
With waterboarding, someone some time got the idea of replicating the SENSATIONS and IMPRESSIONS of various partial drowning tortures without actually introducing water to the subject’s body. They sent a note to the Justice Department and described it in detail, and asked “does this violate the laws on torture?”
Next you’re going to tell me that Abu Ghraib was permitted as well. This NEVER happened Jay (Tea), no matter how much you want it to have happened.
Several Japanese army-men were prosecuted for war crimes in the U.S. for waterboarding our troops. Which actually gives legal precedent for treating waterboarding as such. [url=http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/20090.html]For more info.[/url]
“The problem is, what precisely is ‘torture?’”
This is only a problem for wing-nuts like yourself.
Water-boarding was considered to be torture by the US through WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. It only changed under Bush/Cheney.
I realize obfuscation is the only trick you’ve got, since you don’t do logic, but stop playing coy.
“Water-boarding was considered to be torture by the US through WWII, Korea, and Vietnam”, and beyond that, during the Inquisition and under Pol Pot’s terrorist Khmer Rouge dictatorship.
Waterboarding is a euphemism for what has historically been called WATER TORTURE, at least until OJ Simpson’s lawyer Alan Dershowitz decided to re-brand WATER TORTURE as “waterboarding” according to this account.
Alan Dershowitz explicitly advocated for “torture warrants” even while he was marketing euphemisms for ‘water torture’.
According to historical accounts, “water torture” has been variously called a “form of torture known as the ["]water cure["],” “the water treatment,” “forced drownings,” “the Oriental ‘water torture.’”“an ancient Oriental torture called ‘the water treatment’”, “a type of simulated drowning”, and “simulated drowning technique”.
The reality is that <a href=”water torture is “real drowning that simulates death.””>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
And Republicans Bush and John Yoo, amongst others, are war criminals for having authorized torture.
The reality is that “water torture is “real drowning that simulates death.”
Jaim blattered:
“The problem is, what precisely is ‘torture?’”
This is only a problem for wing-nuts like yourself.
Geez, it must be difficult to be as much of a fuckhead as you are, Jaim.
Torture, in this context, is a legal term. We got people who, acting on legal advice from the Department of Justice, did things they were assured were legal. Now, there’s talk about putting them on trial for violating the law.
“Hey, Bob, is what we’re doing considered torture, or just some serious interrogation?”
“Dunno, Mike. Guess we’ll have to wait until a bunch of asshats on the internet decide whether or not we should go to jail.”
“But we got advice from lawyers at the Department of Justice! Real advice, in writing!”
“Doesn’t matter. New president comes in, all that goes right out the window.”
J.
Ok, I don’t know what happened to my last post, but here it is again:
Over-educated morons like NR can’t quite grasp that the law is very clear, and means precisely what it says — not what they want it to mean.
So you’re saying that you’re, by contrast, an under-educated moron?
Why should we trust the intelligence of someone who derides intellect?
The lawyers studied the matter carefully, consulted experts (including, I believe, physicians and psychologists), and came to the conclusion that the simulated drowning inflicted no physical harm and did not reach the point of “severe” or “prolonged” mental suffering. Their studied, expert opinion was that it did not reach the legal standard of torture.
Next you’re going to argue that Abu Ghraib was sanctioned by the Justice Department. Hate to break it to you, but that never happened.
Also, the U.S. prosecuted Japanese interrogators that used waterboarding on American troops during WWII for war crimes. That seems to be pretty clear precedent for waterboarding to be considered as such. For more info.
“Hey, Bob, is what we’re doing considered torture, or just some serious interrogation?”
They wouldn’t consider that. They don’t care about information. They’re just torturing for shits and giggles, to satisfy their sick desire for vengeance. You know, same reason you support socialized vengeance.
Right. I’m a fuckhead for pointing out the the Bush/Cheney allowance of water-boarding goes against American military policy since, oh, forever. That it’s an aberration. That it’s an affront to the moral credibility we built up over the decades that was flushed down the shitter by Cheney and the Republican party during 2001-2009.
A cowardly little chickenhawk you are Jay Tea, and a cowardly little chickenhawk you shall always be.
US torture law is quite explicit:
Title 18 Chapter 113C § 2340
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
—(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
—(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
—(C) the threat of imminent death; or
—(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
—————————-
§ 2340A. Torture
(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
—(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
—(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
—————————-
§ 2340B. Exclusive remedies
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as precluding the application of State or local laws on the same subject, nor shall anything in this chapter be construed as creating any substantive or procedural right enforceable by law by any party in any civil proceeding.
Republican President George Bush and many of his inner circle are explicitly guilty of authorizing the CRIME OF TORTURE.
Prisoners DIED from the TORTURE that Republicans euphemistically referred to as “enhanced interrogations”.
The torture methods devised by Republican Bush’s legal henchmen John Yoo and Jay Bybee were explicitly “procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality”.
In fact, Republican Bush and his henchmen are clearly guilty of violating nearly every section of the legal standard of torture listed in the US code.
Republican Bush’s legal henchmen explicitly and secretly attempted to REWRITE THE LAW on torture to avoid the clear LEGISLATIVE language, which is NOT AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH FUNCTION. As I recall, Republican Bush also subsequently claimed that the JUDICIARY wasn’t allowed to oversee the EXECUTIVE’S decisions, which is also NOT A FUNCTION OF THE EXECUTIVE.
Though the current right wing activist judges (Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/&Alito) would assuredly find some Dredfully warped lawyerly reasoning to ignore the clear language of the law as written by the Legislative Branch.
“Jay” finally reveals himself to be the kind of loathsome right wing extremist that is still claiming that “SLAVERY” is part of a “civil society.”
Wow! Could your reading comprehension be any worse? I never said any such thing. You’re either:
1. Sadly mistaken as you totally warped what I had written
2. A liar.
Take your pick.
“Jay,” it’s completely disgusting to argue that slavery and segregation weren’t un-Constitutional so the Supreme Court didn’t have the “right” to right that wrong.
I never mentioned segregation with regard to the constitution (again with the poor comprehension or knack for bullshit. I can’t tell which). I believe Plessy v. Ferguson was wrongly decided and Brown vs. Board of Ed. was correct. And while you may find it “disgusting” to say that slavery was was constitutional, I’m not attaching emotion to it. I was merely stating a fact. Was slavery moral? Absolutely not. Were the rights of slaves being violated? Without a doubt. But unfortunately, slavery was not unconstitutional. It became unconstitutional upon the passage and ratification of the 13th amendment. You don’t right a wrong by having the courts play the role of executive and legislator. That is why we have separation of powers.
Right winger Jay has now added defending SLAVERY to his defense of TERRORISM.
News Reference, you either need to take a pill or see a professional psychiatrist. In fact, perhaps both would be better.
You’ve got some serious issues to deal with.
Republicans Bush, John Yoo, and Jay Bybee conspired to torture.
Bush, Yoo, and Bybee’s conspiracy to torture directly authorized the torture of an American Citizen on AMERICAN SOIL.
Republicans Bush, Yoo, and Bybee’s conspiracy to commit torture on an American Citizen on American soil explicitly inflicted severe physical and mental pain and suffering on an American citizen within the custody and physical control of agents acting on behalf of Republican President George W. Bush and Principals within his administration.
The acts of torture that Bush, Yoo, Bybee (and others in the Bush administration) conspired to inflict included, but were not limited to, prolonged mental harm caused and resulting from the administration and application of procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses and the personality.
That’s just what has documented to have been done to an American Citizen on American soil and does not include the more severe torture methods used on foreign prisoners of war held on American controlled territory and tortured in direct violation of American treaties.
“Jay Tea’s” defense of torture crimes is the equivalent of ‘first they came for Republican Bush’s designated ‘enemy combatant’, but Jay Tea wasn’t (yet) designated an ‘enemy combatant’….”
But, still, he was an AMERICAN CITIZEN and the standard that the Republicans have set to allow their dear leader to independently declare any AMERICAN CITIZEN an “enemy combatant” who could then be effectively held forever and tortured at leisure is clearly and explicitly criminal.
“Jay” exclaims: “slavery was not unconstitutional.”
“Jay’s” interpretation of the Constitution sounds like a NAMBLA defense, ‘But it’s not un-Constitutional, judge.’
“Jay” is unfortunately why we’re stuck with so many Laws and Amendments.
If it’s not explicitly unlawful, and even more explicitly, un-Constitutional, ‘it’s okay with “Jay.”‘
In “Jay’s” world, certain violations might not be moral but if they’re not un-Contitutional, well, that’s just part of civil society until immoral violation becomes un-Constitutional “upon the passage and ratification” of an Amendment.
It’s deeply ironic that Randian ‘libertarians’ like “Jay,” who want a smaller government, end up allowing for things that enlarge the government because those ‘not un-Constitutional’ things so repulse ‘civil society’ that another law is added or another Amendment is ratified.
“Jay” ironically enables the predators.
At some point it’s hard to tell the difference between the enabler of the predator and the predator.
We’re still praying for you though, Jay.
“Jay Tea” has asserted that “slavery” was part of the US Constitution.
For the record: the US Constitution does not include the word “slave” or “slavery.”
Relevant parts of the Constitution (since amended and/or superseded):
Article I Section 2 (relevant part, now superseded by Amendment XIV)
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
Article IV Section 2 (relevant part, now amended by Amendment XIII)
“No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”
—-
“those bound to Service for a Term of Years”
“three fifths of all other Persons”
“Person held to Service or Labour”
Those innocuous sounding words enabled the toxic ‘peculiar institution’ of the selling of children and the children of those children in perpetuity.
“For the record: the US Constitution does not include the word “slave” or “slavery.””
Needs to be Amended: Not until 13th and 14th Amendments are the words “slave” and “slavery” included in the Constitution.
Until those Amendments, “Jay” and “Jay Tea” essentially assert that “Jay Tea” could sell “Jay’s” family unless “Jay” could prove he and they were “free Persons”.
However, unless someone can point it out to me, the Original Constitution does not define “free Persons”, “three fifths of all other Persons”, or “Person held to Service or Labour”. Those terms are not defined in the Original Constitution nor in the first ten Amendments.
Read as written I don’t see how the Original Constitution explicitly allows for “slavery.”
The argument is that it’s ‘implicit,’ and part of ‘history,’ but doesn’t ‘implicit’ require a Judge to ACTIVELY interpret what is implied? And isn’t looking back before America’s history to ‘interpret’ ‘implied’ law also by definition an ‘activist’ Judge?
And aren’t right wingers against activist Judges?
Aren’t “Jay” and “Jay Tea” explicitly repudiating activist judges.
ONLY AN ACTIVIST JUDGE COULD INTERPRET AN IMPLICIT ADVOCACY OF “SLAVERY” IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION.
The closest thing to slavery in the Original Constitution is “those bound to Service for a Term of Years”.
But the most clear, logical reading of “a Term of Years” would certainly NOT be ‘in perpetuity’ and absolutely NOT include the children of “those bound to Service”.
Nor does the Constitution define that “three fifths of all other Persons” as being the same as “those bound to Service for a Term of Years”, in fact, the Constitution separates those Persons from those “bound to Service”, only an activist Judge could interpret they were the same Persons.
Again, the only way the Constitution could be interpreted as supporting “slavery” is by an activist (right wing) Judge’s interpretation of things not explicitly written into the Constitution.
All the Supreme Court needed to assert was that the Constitution did NOT define “three fifths of all other Persons” nor did it define “free Persons”, and as such anyone who claimed, under the Constitution that they were NOT “three fifths” of a Person and further made the claim that they, under the Constitution, were “free Persons” could therefore be so, by the power granted to the Judicial Power under Article III of the Constitution.
And the Judicial Power explicitly trumps everything else.
From the first part of Article III Section 2:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; which explicitly states that the US Supreme Court DID in fact have the power to Judge who “three fifths of all other Persons” were and could, in fact, have declared that as the Constitution did not define such “other Persons”, and it was a designation explicitly put into the Constitution and not delegated to the States, the Supreme Court could have rightfully said that those “three fifths of all other Persons”, having not be explicitly defined, would henceforth be regarded as “free Persons”.
Which is a long way of saying that I read the Constitution as giving the Supreme Court the Power to rule that SLAVERY WAS NOT RECOGNIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION.
Oh, geez, must have touched a nerve if NR’s going to resort to volume (in both senses of the word) to make his/her dubious points.
Yes, the Constitution didn’t include the WORD “slavery” at the outset. But all concerned knew exactly what those references meant — a sanction of the institution without mentioning it by the too-crass (and too honest) name. Instead, they euphemised it as “other persons” and “Person held to Service or Labour in one State” That’s precisely why it took those Amendments to (if you’ll pardon the expression) “call a spade a spade” and outlaw it.
In fact, a contextual analysis of the Constitution — as well as an examination of the original intent of the authors — shows that NR is utterly talking out of his ass. The Founders clearly stated that slavery would be permitted to continue, and said that such was the price of getting the slave states to participate. Further, the first mention of “bound to service for a termo of years” is distinct from those “person held to service or labor in one State” — no time limit specified.
It’s a pity that NR wasn’t alive back then to share his/her wisdom with the people of the time. For one, he’d now be long dead and not around to irritate people with his pointless blather.
NO ONE is endorsing slavery here. What those with common sense are saying is that the Constitution, as amazing a document as it was, had a horrific flaw from its outset that tolerated slavery, and it took nearly a century, a civil war, and a couple of Amendments to finally correct that mistake.
It is, however, completely revealing of NR’s mindset — if something is BAD, it must be abolished by any means necessary. No matter what harm might be done.
NR is reminiscent of the character Roper from “A Man For All Seasons:”
J.
Oh, and back to the topic at hand…
When Roberts and Alito were nominated, Obama stated that both men were qualified, but voted against them based on ideology. My, isn’t that an inconvenient precedent for him to have set? He shoulda just tried to vote “present.”
I wonder who will be the first Republican to quote those words during the upcoming hearings…
J.
smack down
Good work, Jay Tea.
Referring to News Reference for any ‘news’ is like referring to Andrew Sullivan for Winston Churchill’s views on prisoners of war.
Hey, here’s a fun thought. If having a minority is so important to Obama, might I suggest a two-fer? A justice who is not only black, but a woman?
Say it with me: “Associate Justice Janice Rogers Brown.”
J.
Jay Tea are you in fact saying that words do no matter?
Only the feelings behind them?
I’ve said a lot here, Grumpy. Could you be a bit more precise?
If you’re referring to the Constitution, it’s not the “feelings” that matter, but what the words mean. And while the Constitution didn’t specify slavery, it certainly meant it when it used such circuitous, evasive language. The authors made it clear that the euphemisms and paraphrasings were about slavery. The “for a period of time” references referred to indentured servants, and the mention that didn’t put the time limit certainly could not refer to anything else besides slavery — unless someone would like to put forth an alternative explanation.
J.
What Sean was suggesting when this got started was that choosing someone whose experiences closely mirror those of many in a significant minority group could give the court a richer understanding of issues that affect many Americans.
Which do you think has an experience that more closely mirrors that of black Americans, Barack Obama or Clarence Thomas?
Why don’t you introduce yourself to a black person and ask them. You may have to drive a ways.>/i>
Or simply turning around in my office. The guy that sits directly behind me is an immigrant from Ghana. He’s also a registered Republican.
Or you could keep pulling a non-ironic Colbert. Please feel free to so. As a modern Republican, unintentional comedy is your specialty.
Your inabilty to respond with actual substance speaks volumes. Yet again, what is a black perspective? If you want to define it simply as a view shared by a majority of black people, then I guess you would like to see a SC justice that opposes same sex marriage.
Also, according to my voter registration card I’m not a Republican.
Right, George W Bush’s people lied about the Clinton administration trashing the white house (check the GAO report).
WTF?
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/12/us/white-house-vandalized-in-transition-gao-finds.html
The General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said today that ”damage, theft, vandalism and pranks did occur in the White House complex” in the presidential transition from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush. The agency put the cost at $13,000 to $14,000, including $4,850 to replace computer keyboards, many with damaged or missing W keys.
Which do you think has an experience that more closely mirrors that of black Americans, Barack Obama or Clarence Thomas?
Yes, please keep taking things other people brought up and throwing them at me as if I should have to respond to them. At no time did I suggest that an African American candidate was needed, nor did I even use that particular minority group as an example (I actually suggested a woman). Neither did Sean suggest a preference toward any minority group, and it was Sean’s original point that I was defending.
I don’t want to turn a discussion of a philosophical idea – that there is more to experience than what cases you’ve tried – into some tired exercise of arguing over one or two specific examples.
“Jay’s” interpretation of the Constitution sounds like a NAMBLA defense, ‘But it’s not un-Constitutional, judge.’
Yes, but I am not building a defense of slavery. You seem to be forgetting that.
If it’s not explicitly unlawful, and even more explicitly, un-Constitutional, ‘it’s okay with “Jay.”‘
In “Jay’s” world, certain violations might not be moral but if they’re not un-Contitutional, well, that’s just part of civil society until immoral violation becomes un-Constitutional “upon the passage and ratification” of an Amendment.
This is what we call a paradox. In the first sentence, NR claims that I am “okay” with somebody if its unconstitutional, but then in the very next sentence concedes that I said slavery was immoral. He then goes on to warp (again) what I wrote by saying a violation is part of a civil society. I said no such thing. I said the remedy for that violation is what makes up a civil society.
It’s deeply ironic that Randian ‘libertarians’ like “Jay,”
Actually, I am not a Randian libertarian.
Yes, please keep taking things other people brought up and throwing them at me as if I should have to respond to them.
If you don’t want to respond to them, don’t defend them. You can let Sean speak for himself. You are either part of the discussion or you aren’t.
At no time did I suggest that an African American candidate was needed, nor did I even use that particular minority group as an example (I actually suggested a woman). Neither did Sean suggest a preference toward any minority group, and it was Sean’s original point that I was defending.
No, he didn’t suggest a preference towards a particular group, but he did defend the idea of incorporating race into the selection criteria as it supposedly adds a certain perspective that would otherwise be lacking. I find this rather silly as the Obama vs. Thomas example illustrates.
NR just keeps piling on the stupid with the NAMBLA analogy.
No, pedophilia is not unconstitutional. It simply isn’t a matter for the federal government to regulate, unless it crosses state lines or somehow involves interstate commerce (like sharing child pornography).
It’s one of many things left up to the several states, which all have laws about ages of consent.
The 10th Amendment is the essence of the Constitution, and the philosophy of the Founding Fathers — they said, essentially, “all power naturally resides in the states and the individuals. We choose to grant power to a federal government in specific areas, with these restrictions, but the rights of the states and the people are sacrosanct — they are not granted by governments, but only recognized by them. For rights granted by governments can be withdrawn by governments.”
Which is why kiddie porn usually involves the FBI, but most cases of child abuse are not. And any idiot who tries to use a Constitutional argument to defend their pedophilia deserves an extra-long sentence for being aggressively stupid on top of their other offenses.
J.
I find this rather silly as the Obama vs. Thomas example illustrates.
It does illustrate silliness, that’s for sure.
“Jay Tea” at 10:42 AM, May 3:
“slavery was clearly and explicitly sanctioned by the Constitution”
“Jay Tea” at 6:14 AM May 4:
“Yes, the Constitution didn’t include the WORD “slavery” at the outset. But all concerned knew exactly what those references meant — a sanction of the institution without mentioning it by the too-crass (and too honest) name. Instead, they euphemised it as “other persons” and “Person held to Service or Labour in one State”…”
“Jay Tea” at 8:21 AM May 4:
“… while the Constitution didn’t specify slavery, it certainly meant it when it used such circuitous, evasive language. The authors made it clear that the euphemisms and paraphrasings were about slavery.”
In under 24 hours “Jay Tea” redefines “clearly and explicitly” into “euphemised” and subsequently into “circuitous, evasive language”.
Which is perfectly illustrative of right wing Scalito lawyer-type argumentation: start with a predetermined outcome and then change positions like a gymnast in order to achieve that predetermined outcome even if it means that today’s position refutes yesterdays positions.
“Jay Tea” falsely claimed that “slavery was clearly and explicitly sanctioned by the Constitution” when it clearly and explicitly wasn’t.
After “Jay Tea” was confronted with that fact he changed his argument into an ad hominem attack, ignored his false assertions as if they were never typed, and literally redefined language.
Jay Tea decided to ‘interpret’ the Constitution based from implied ‘euphemisms’ and “circuitous, evasive language”, that is clearly not in evidence.
“Jay Tea” bases his interpretation on “context”, a method that has been repeatedly repudiated by the right wing and particularly repudiated by Republican Cheney’s hunting buddy, Supreme Court Justice Scalia (at least when it’s been convenient).
My thought experiment used Scalia’s purported approach: I looked at the Constitution in isolation and interpreted it from within it’s own boundaries, just as Scalia has claimed to do.
I didn’t cut any laws out, I just interpreted the document on it’s clear language.
“Jay Tea” and his right wing cohorts, on the other hand, have bizarrely and regularly used the approach he claims that I’m using: cutting down the laws in ways that would favor the devil.
And yet where I’ve asserted that those devils Bush and Yoo and Bybee have clearly broken the US law against torture and the US law against war crimes, right wingers like “Jay Tea” are suddenly doing gymnastics and are cutting down “every law” that pertains: the US torture statute, international treaties, the Geneva convention, etc..
When convenient “Jay Tea” redefines ‘clear and explicit’ language into “circuitous, evasive language” and vice versa: “circuitous, evasive language” is suddenly ‘clear and explicit’ language when convenient.
Having discourse with “Jay Tea”, and right wingers like him, is like talking to the Red Queen in Alice’s Wonderland.
Even when their own logic doesn’t supports their conclusions, through the power of right wing magic they claims that up is down and their falsehoods are true.
It’s the kind of right wing logic that redefined Republican torture as anything but torture, redefined Republican debt as anything but debt, and redefined Republican lawlessness as anything but lawlessness.
Right wingers are masters at rhetorical evasiveness. It’s stomach churning ‘”cut down every law” in America’ to reach their desired conclusions kind of deviltry.
On one level the right wing argumentation is completely insane, on another level it’s the kind of slippery duplicitousness that can destroy a country and therefore must be vigorously responded to.
The right wing’s ‘cutting down’ America’s financial regulations certainly had profound consequences: the right wingers deregulation created the Greatest Recession since the Great Depression (which itself was arguably precipitated by right wing ‘deregulation’ aka: cutting down all the [inconvenient] laws in America).
Right wingers LITERALLY took a chain saw to America’s laws.
Cutting down every financial regulation in America brought US a Devil of a Recession.
Some Republicans and right wingers and libertarians really don’t understand the horrific national consequences of their actions. Most of those are the suckers and theocrats that make up the Republican base.
But the right wing predators like “Jay Tea” and “Colin” DO KNOW that their actions hurt America and Americans and DON’T CARE.
Right wing predators, the bulk of the Republican leadership at this point, really don’t care about America or Americans as long as they can skip to Dubai or the Cayman Islands with their loot and still get the suckers and theocrats to fight their wars which they ‘magically’ profiteer from.
Right wingers will cut down every law in America to get what they want: power and money.
And Republicans have misused all three branches of the American government to attain their ends: the Executive Branc, the Legislative Branch, and even the Judicial Branch have all just been tools to loot America and Americans with.
Republicans have made a perversion of the Republic.
Under Republican leadership the law is alternately ignored, broken, warped, and wherever possible, cut down.
And if Republican voters ever wake up and figure out what the Republican leadership has down to America and their fellow Americans, those right wing Devils will definitely have hell to pay.
“The White House vandal scandal that wasn’t[,]” regarding the “w key” on the computer keyboards “Now it seems those closely detailed stories were largely bunk. Last week it was revealed that a formal review by the General Accounting Office, Congress’ investigative agency, “had found no damage to the offices of the White House’s East or West Wings or EOB” and that Bush’s own representatives had reported “there is no record of damage that may have been deliberately caused by the employees of the Clinton administration.”"
I could use that chainsaw to cut through NR’s blather.
So, Newsy, impress us all with your brilliance. Tell us what the references to “servitude” (excluding the one that specified of a limited duration) really meant? Dance, little monkey!
His little gotcha game reminds me of a couple of idiots I once overheard.
“That car’s a Ford.”
“You liar! It’s a MUSTANG! It says so right on the trunk lid!”
“Slavery” was the common term. “Servitude” was the high-faluting language. They meant the same thing. Interchangeable.
Much like “News Reference” and “asshat.”
J.
“Jay” : “NR claims that I am “okay” with somebody if its unconstitutional, but then in the very next sentence concedes that I said slavery was immoral.”
“Jay” fails to understand the distinction between unconstitutional and immoral.
Yes, “Jay”, you said slavery was “immoral” and you also said there was nothing that the Supreme Court could do about it.
I disagreed. I’m NOT ‘okay’ with the Supreme Court Justices sitting on their hands and failing to do what is right when the Constitution grants them broad power and authority over the Laws of the United States.
Clearly you are a ’sit on your hands’ and watch people get sold kind of guy, “Jay”.
So far I’ve counted Commentary Magazine sociopath “Jay Tea” use at least four F’ words, but this is the first time he’s used “monkey” as an insult.
Macaca much, Jay Tea?
How’s that working for you right wingers?
Thanks, Newsy, for proving my point earlier with the quote from “A Man For All Seasons.”
No, it’s a “fix it RIGHT so we don’t have to come back and fix it again later, or make things worse in some other ways.”
It’s called “thinking.” It’s called “understanding the process.” It’s called “being responsible.”
I understand that such things are foreign concepts for you, but try to stretch a little…
J.
“Jay Tea” : ““Slavery” was the common term. “Servitude” was the high-faluting language. They meant the same thing. Interchangeable.”
FALSE. Painfully, ignorantly, false, “Jay Tea.”
see: “indentured servitude”
“Servitude” and “Slavery” are NOT the same thing and are NOT interchangeable.
Try again.
Uhm, “Jay Tea,” at this point you are just flaming yourself.
You need to try again, Newsy. The indentured servitude was what was meant by the “bound in service for a period of years.” They got recognized as as full persons for representation.
The question was about the “other persons” who were in “bound in service” that did not specify a time limit. That, dipshit, was slavery.
Or servitude.
Or bound in service.
Or whatever they wanted to call it. That which we call a rose…
It is absolutely indisputable to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that the Constitution, as originally crafted, sanctioned slavery. And it is equally indisputable that to remove that sanction, a Constitutional amendment (or two or three) needed to be passed.
Only an absolute idiot, so wrapped up in “proving” that others are “wrong,” could deny that.
And only such an idiot would say that those who acknowledge such truths are endorsing slavery.
Yes, Newsy, I’m talking about you.
j.
SDM (paraphrased): There is more to “experience” than just legal/judicial qualifications. There are benefits to be had from the perspective “life experience” would have given to someone from a minority group. When considering nominees consideration should be given to the whole of their “experience” and not just their narrower slice listed on their legal resume.
Colin: do you believe that only a Hispanic can represent another Hispanic? Do ethnic groups all have monolithic experiences and perspectives?
Further, what is a Hispanic?
…
Does Clarence Thomas provide the black perspective on the court? What is a black perspective?
…
Which do you think has an experience that more closely mirrors that of black Americans, Barack Obama or Clarence Thomas?
….
Yet again, what is a black perspective?
And, again, you are ignorantly missing the point or willfully ignoring it.
Who said black? Who said any one individual would represent an entire group’s view? Who said any group even has a single view?
You’re narrowing it down to a single example in an attempt to dismiss the broader observation. Essentially doing very much what my original post had suggested shouldn’t be done: focus on one narrow aspect instead of considering the value of things seen in the wider view.
Colin: No, he didn’t suggest a preference towards a particular group, but he did defend the idea of incorporating race into the selection criteria as it supposedly adds a certain perspective that would otherwise be lacking.
No, I didn’t defend the idea of incorporating race. In my original list I did mention a race (”black…”) but I also specifically and deliberately included ethnicity, sexual orientation, sex and misc other categories (”…Latino, Asian, gay, female, what have you”). The idea , again, was that when considering a nominee more than just their legal curriculum vitae should be considered.
Frankly, I don’t get your repeated need to narrow this down to just race and then dismiss the idea because no one person could represent an entire group. Are you really saying it should all come down to just years on the bench? Then why not just let a computer pick?
Jay Tea: “The 10th Amendment is the essence of the Constitution, and the philosophy of the Founding Fathers”
erm, I would have said that the Constitution is the essence of the Constitution though I would agree that the Bill of Rights has been essential to securing our American liberties.
If I had to chose a favorite Amendment it would have to be the First Amendment, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I’d suggest that the forefather agreed, that’s why they made it the first.
Though for your oddly fanatic attempt at arguing that the “Founding Fathers” “clearly” sanctioned “slavery”, “Jay Tea”, I’m definitely getting a renewed appreciation for the 13th and 14th Amendments.
It’s oddly perverse that you would go out of your way to mis-paraphrase your favored 10th Amendment when it would have been shorter to just quote the Amendment verbatim.
The ACTUAL LANGUAGE of Amendment X:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
It’s telling, though, that considering your fanatic belief that the Constitution “clearly” sanctioned “slavery” that you would cite as your favorite Amendment the ’states rights’ 10th Amendment which was and still is used as the battle cry of racist secessionists.
Myself, I’m an American first and last.
Clearly right wingers like yourself don’t share my strong American patriotism.
Perhaps you’re skipping out for Dubai with Cheney’s old corporation once you’ve got yours, hmmm?
Now I finally have a concrete example to cite for “stuck on stupid.” Newsy can’t deal with the reality of the situation, so he has to invent his high moral dudgeon and resort to patent silliness — all presented with an air of smug superiority.
Yes, the 1st Amendment is great. (And the 3rd is just silly. That was NOT such a big issue that it needed enshrining in the Constitution.) But it is dependent on other Amendments — it’s the 2nd and the 10th that give the Bill of Rights its real teeth.
But for the pedantically stupid out there (yes, I mean you, Newsy, plus anyone addle-pated enough to go along with you), let me spell out a few things that apparently escaped your notice:
* Slavery is and always was morally wrong.
* The Constitution, as originally crafted, sanctioned slavery.
* Since the sanctioning of slavery was written into the Constitution, it took amending the Constitution to undo that wrong.
J.
Also, according to my voter registration card I’m not a Republican.
Colin, you are adorable: pretending to be “independent” when you consistently line up for more Republican gruel and non-ironically claiming not to see race. Thanks for the yuks. By all means, keep ‘em comin’.
Who said black? Who said any one individual would represent an entire group’s view? Who said any group even has a single view?
You said black, among other examples.
No, I didn’t defend the idea of incorporating race
Yes, you did. You said:
A strong argument could be made for someone who has a minority view (black, Latino, Asian, gay, female, what have you) and could bring a perspective shared by a significant amount of the country but lacking in the current court over someone who has “better” judicial credentials.
You said “minority view” and then gave race, gender and sexual orientation as examples. I really don’t think I am going out on a limb here to think that you are in favor of incorporating race into the selection criteria.
Frankly, I don’t get your repeated need to narrow this down to just race and then dismiss the idea because no one person could represent an entire group.
I focused on race because I find it particularly odious.
Are you really saying it should all come down to just years on the bench? Then why not just let a computer pick?
I am saying it should come down to one’s strength as a judge and legal scholar. How one decides this is an inexact science, but I would hope that race could be left out.
Remember, the original statement that I responded to was the notion than an explicit effort should be made to find someone that was Asian. Starting a search for someone to sit on the SC based on race is repulsive.
Colin, you are adorable: pretending to be “independent”
I’m a registered Libertarian, idiot.
and non-ironically claiming not to see race.
Ah, arguing with something I never said. Where did I say that I don’t see race?
“Jay Tea” typifies the right wing’s hostility, anger, irrationality, hypocrisy, ignorance, and duplicity all in one overwound package.
That he “works” for the neo-con–artist Commentary Magazine also says a lot about the current caliber of Neoconservatives “intellectuals”.
At this point “Jay Tea” is arguing with himself, both literally and figuratively. Literally in the sense that he’s fighting multiple sides of some of his arguments, and figuratively in the sense that he’s screaming obscenities like an angry old man shaking his fist at those durn kids who keep getting on his lawn.
Clearly I’ve overestimated him as an intellectual sparing partner.
Libertarian = Right Wing, Colin.
While some Libertarians actually vote their conscience, most fall in line like lemmings behind the Republican Party.
Modern day Libertarianism is seductive to young boys, it appeals to the ME, ME, ME impulse of the two year old in them. Most adults grow out of that and recognize that it’s not all about them.
There is a streak of LIBERTARIANISM that is at the heart of LIBERALISM, though: The Liberty of the Individual, Intellectual Freedom, the Liberty of Worship, the Freedom to Speak Ones Mind, and the tenacious protection of Civil Liberties especially as codified in the Bill of Rights.
“I find it particularly odious” that right wingers feel compelled to focus on race.
I’m a registered Libertarian, idiot.
Still adorable. How old are you, 14?
Did you ever ask any black people about their perspectives? Here’s a thought: maybe you could go to South Carolina. Talk to the South Carolina Republican Party (or Alabama). Pretend you want to join up! I bet they would have some interesting ideas to share with you.
Jay Tea: * The Constitution, as originally crafted, sanctioned slavery.
sanctioned? “gave effective or authoritative approval or consent to”??
Sanctioned, or something like more “didn’t prohibit”? (I.e., “No comment.”)
There is a streak of LIBERTARIANISM that is at the heart of LIBERALISM, though: The Liberty of the Individual, Intellectual Freedom, the Liberty of Worship, the Freedom to Speak Ones Mind, and the tenacious protection of Civil Liberties especially as codified in the Bill of Rights.
Glad to hear it. Then I suppose you are outraged over the Obama’s Administration’s position on wiretapping as a violation:
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/04/05
I also imagine you despise McCain-Feingold as a travesty against free speech and campus speech codes.
I am a believer in the primacy of the individual and individual liberty. Big government is incompatible with that, given its attendant regulations and restrictions on behavior.
Did you ever ask any black people about their perspectives? Here’s a thought: maybe you could go to South Carolina. Talk to the South Carolina Republican Party (or Alabama). Pretend you want to join up! I bet they would have some interesting ideas to share with you.
I’m still waiting for you to show me where I said I don’t see race. Get back to me on that when you get a chance.
I am a believer in the primacy of the individual and individual liberty…
…And tiresome adolescent Ayn Rand bulljive tropes.
(Yes, I realize that’s redundant.)
Colin: You said black, among other examples.
Yes. Among other examples. But you keep ignoring that it was an example among many to illustrate the general idea, not the specific thing that had to be particularly considered. You keep trying to force things into your little, narrow box to discuss something else and I’m not going to follow you there.
I really don’t think I am going out on a limb here to think that you are in favor of incorporating race into the selection criteria.
I love it when people tell me what it is I think (Yea! An other nickel for me!).
Allow me to me more clear: I am not specifically in favor of incorporating race or making a case for including any other specific attribute. I am in favor of taking a broad view of what constitutes someone’s “qualifications”. You apparently seem (see what I just did there?) to see this as my saying race should be part of the selection criteria when actually at most I’m saying it could be incidentally. Not because someone is saying “let’s look specifically at race” but rather “let’s look at the experiences you’ve had (which, BTW, you’ve probably had because of your race”).
I focused on race because I find it particularly odious.
And far easier than, y’know, responding to what I actually said.
I am saying it should come down to one’s strength as a judge and legal scholar. How one decides this is an inexact science, but I would hope that race could be left out.
We seem to absolutely agree that it’s an inexact science. But if it is wrong to specifically consider a particular aspect of a person isn’t it similarly wrong to specifically exclude it? Particularly when assessing someone’s strength as a judge and legal scholar, something informed not just by one’s studies but also by one’s experiences? Wouldn’t it benefit the people the Court is supposedly serving to have people up there who can view the law not only from a legal scholar angle but also from a perspective originating outside the ivory tower?
There is a minimum level of “legal qualifications” a nominee for the SC should have. But I’d say once that threshold is reached, start looking for those who have experience not currently represented in the Court. I don’t need the top graduate, as long as they’re in the top x%. After that I’d say “OK, you’ve got enough legal creds. Now, what else you got?”
I’m still waiting for you to show me where I said I don’t see race. Get back to me on that when you get a chance.
And I guess I won’t have to wait for you to keep pretending you didn’t imply that you don’t see race. (At least Colbert says it outright, but then again he’s parodying Bill O’Reilly type blowhard wingnuts, you’re merely self-parody).
Hey, did you ever get to South Carolina (or Alabama)? Did you learn anything? Get back to me when you get a chance! Stay free! Cheers!
Poor Jay (Tea), he can’t admit that he’s wrong, so he ignores my posts. You can’t run away from your problems, you know. Or maybe he’s just too busy stalking News Reference to notice. Who knows?
By the way, Colin, I posted a link as to why the experience of a non-white male can be important in rendering decisions. People just have a natural tendancy to be myopic about issues that don’t affect them.
Zython, I’m at work — gonna be a LONG week of it. But a quick partial response:
Abu Ghraib? You mean the abuse committed by a small group of assholes? Abuse that was reported by another soldier to the Army, broken by the Army, resulted in an internal investigation that convicted all the involved parties and resulted in the discipline of the prison’s commanding officer? That incident?
The system worked there, Zython. A wrong was committed, and it was handled responsibly. By the Army.
J.
“Zython” : “Poor Jay (Tea), he can’t admit that he’s wrong,” … “maybe he’s just too busy stalking News Reference to notice. Who knows?”
Clearly I need a better class of stalker.
“Jay Tea” : “Abu Ghraib? You mean the abuse” authorized by the Republican Bush’s administration in order to “Gitmoize” Abu Ghraib?
An investigation that was explicitly told NOT to look up the chain of command?
An Army investigation that was censored by the Pentagon?
An investigation that prosecuted low level thugs while protecting the chain of command at the highest levels, a chain of evidence that led directly to the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and his Principals?
The primary Army investigator of the Abu Ghraib scandal called for an investigation of the Republican Bush administration just a few weeks ago.
Read that very slowly, the primary Army investigator of the Abu Ghraib torture prison called for an investigation of the Republican President Bush administration for war crimes.
“Major General Antonio Taguba called for an independent commission to investigate war crimes committed by senior members of the Bush Administration”
Major General Taguba explicitly stated that, “”there is no longer any doubt as to whether the [Bush] administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”
“Jay Tea,” right wingers like yourself have been consistent apologists for WAR CRIMES.
Where is your conscience, “Jay Tea”?
I am not specifically in favor of incorporating race or making a case for including any other specific attribute.
Yet again, this is what you wrote:
A strong argument could be made for someone who has a minority view (black, Latino, Asian, gay, female, what have you) and could bring a perspective shared by a significant amount of the country but lacking in the current court over someone who has “better” judicial credentials.
Now you can keep spinning away, but the fact remains that you are in favor of incorporating race into the selection criteria. If you don’t believe this then why on earth did you cite inclusion in various racial groups?
You can defend this as merely trying to incorporate “minority views” but by definition such an approach will lead to the incorporation of race, among other factors. You are saying something and then refusing to follow it to its logical conclusion.
In any case, given that each individual is unique then we all have a minority view.
And I guess I won’t have to wait for you to keep pretending you didn’t imply that you don’t see race. (At least Colbert says it outright, but then again he’s parodying Bill O’Reilly type blowhard wingnuts, you’re merely self-parody).
Arguing with something I never said. Having fun with that? I bet you win all such arguments.
Hey, did you ever get to South Carolina (or Alabama)? Did you learn anything? Get back to me when you get a chance! Stay free! Cheers!
Actually I have lived in both Alabama and South Carolina. I also live in a majority-black city. I have no idea what your point is. Then again, I suspect you don’t either.
…And tiresome adolescent Ayn Rand bulljive tropes.
It’s instructive that you believe individual liberty is a “bulljive trope.” Such is the state of the modern left.
“Jay” fails to understand the distinction between unconstitutional and immoral.
Yes, “Jay”, you said slavery was “immoral” and you also said there was nothing that the Supreme Court could do about it.
No, YOU’RE the one that doesn’t understand the difference. Because I said slavery was not un-constitutional, you equated that with me being “okay” with slavery and I never said any such thing. I also didn’t say there wasn’t anything the Supreme Court could do about it. They had a constitutional issue to decide. Their role was not to “do something about it.” You need to take a civics class pal.
when the Constitution grants them broad power and authority over the Laws of the United States.
No, the constitution does not grant them “broad power and authority over the laws of the United States.” You are wrong. They are merely a check against the other two arms of our government and have no more or no less power than the executive or legislative branches of our government.
Colin: Yet again, this is what you wrote:
Yes, it was. And I’ve written more since then in an attempt to elaborate, clarify and explain. But don’t let that stop you from moving past your very first thought. I know how having two thoughts a day can be a strain.
In any case, given that each individual is unique then we all have a minority view.
Absolutely! Why, rich white people of privileged make up such a small percentage of the total population that we should make sure they get a voice in things.
So it seems that Jay (Tea) can’t bring himself to admit that his imaginary situation of legalized waterboarding goes against actual legal precedent. Can’t say I’m surprised.