Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 26 May '09 18:46
    Originally posted by kmax87
    Did Dianna Ross sing?
    Ironically enough.....yes she did!!
  2. Standard member Seitse
    Doug Stanhope
    26 May '09 19:02
    Originally posted by sh76
    Who are you and which hole did you crawl out of?
    I said shut up. It's for your own good. I like you and I hate when you make a fool of yourself.
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    26 May '09 19:45
    She seems like a safe enough choice; I think Obama wanted a nominee who would breeze through confirmation. I'll be curious to see how many Republicans in the Senate vote against her. Any wagers, sh76?
  4. 26 May '09 20:12
    Originally posted by Seitse
    I said shut up. It's for your own good. I like you and I hate when you make a fool of yourself.
    Can't we all just get along? :'(
  5. Subscriber no1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    27 May '09 00:20 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    She seems like a safe enough choice; I think Obama wanted a nominee who would breeze through confirmation. I'll be curious to see how many Republicans in the Senate vote against her. Any wagers, sh76?
    Well, sh76 said this on May 3rd:

    If the GOP fights tooth and nail against someone like Sonia Sotomayor and she gets around 30 votes against her, then I'll agree that the difference between Ginsburg and Roberts was simply era and concede the debate to you.

    After reading some of the hysterical anti-Sotomayor comments from Right to Life groups, I'm inclined to think that you're wrong and that SS will get only a handful of Republicans votes (at most). Has the leader of the Republican Party i.e. Rush Limbaugh weighed in?

    EDIT: Yup, he called her a "racist" "political hack", "hoped she fails" and claims she "would be a disaster on the Supreme Court". At least he got her name right, Mike Huckabee referred to her as "Maria" when making his critical remarks.

    Still think less than 30 Republicans will vote against her, sh76?
  6. Subscriber FMF
    Main Poster
    27 May '09 00:43
    Originally posted by Seitse
    I said shut up. It's for your own good [sh76]. I like you and I hate when you make a fool of yourself.
    If I were captaining, no way would I have him in the slips. I'd despatch him to deep backward point or backward of square. If he didn't desist I'd whip him into silly mid off and tell him, sorry, the helmet's on the way, just make do for now.
  7. 28 May '09 02:39
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    She seems like a safe enough choice; I think Obama wanted a nominee who would breeze through confirmation. I'll be curious to see how many Republicans in the Senate vote against her. Any wagers, sh76?
    She'll probably sail through confirmation, because Republicans don't have the stones for bloodsport.

    The other thing is that a fair number of Republicans might as well be Democrats when it comes to the issue of judicial activism and the so called living document view of the Constitution.

    Democrats know what they stand for, and are willing to fight no holds barred for it. Republicans stand for......nothing. Well not quite. They are props to give the illusion of a two party system.
  8. 28 May '09 02:51
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Well, sh76 said this on May 3rd:

    If the GOP fights tooth and nail against someone like Sonia Sotomayor and she gets around 30 votes against her, then I'll agree that the difference between Ginsburg and Roberts was simply era and concede the debate to you.

    After reading some of the hysterical anti-Sotomayor comments from Ri ...[text shortened]... s.

    Still think less than 30 Republicans will vote against her, sh76?
    If the Pubbies want to get any serious consideration they must fight Sottamayor as best they can, most likely in a futile fight, given their argument that the tactic of fillibuster is not appropriate to Senate approval of judicial nominees.

    Opposition to her on the basis of her own statements on judicial philosophy could hardly be combined with a policy of fillibuster which they argue is not Constitutionally appropriate.

    Pragmatically, I'd like to see them do it, and force Democrats to use the "nuclear option" first.

    There aren't enough conservatives to support a filibuster anyway.
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    28 May '09 03:07
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Well, sh76 said this on May 3rd:

    If the GOP fights tooth and nail against someone like Sonia Sotomayor and she gets around 30 votes against her, then I'll agree that the difference between Ginsburg and Roberts was simply era and concede the debate to you.

    After reading some of the hysterical anti-Sotomayor comments from Ri ...[text shortened]... s.

    Still think less than 30 Republicans will vote against her, sh76?
    Honestly, I don't know how many votes she'll get. I think she'll get a tough hearing, which is fine, but I don't know how many will actually vote against her.

    I am not going to try to weasel out of what I said earlier. I stand by my earlier statement. If 30 GOP Senators vote against her, I will agree that the GOP is no better than the Dems in terms of the judicial confirmation process.

    I think that SS is qualified and should and will be confirmed, even though I don't agree with many of her positions. Roberts and Alito (especially Roberts) were just as qualified and Alito got 42 votes against.

    I would not draw a conclusion from the far right groups that many GOP Senators will vote against her. Session and McConnell and co. are itching for a fight to get back at the way Teddy "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it" and Russ Clueless from WI went after Roberts and Alito. But, when push comes to shove, I still think she'll get quite a few GOP votes.

    If she does get only 10 neas, give or take, however, I will expect your concession.

    BTW, since I've only mentioned this twice so far 😉, I predicted SS's nomination. And, yes, she was on the "list" but there were at least 5 or 6 equally qualified and likely names on that list as well. I picked one nominee against the field, which is always a long shot; and I want my props! 🙂
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    28 May '09 03:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    If the Pubbies want to get any serious consideration they must fight Sottamayor as best they can, most likely in a futile fight, given their argument that the tactic of fillibuster is not appropriate to Senate approval of judicial nominees.

    Opposition to her on the basis of her own statements on judicial philosophy could hardly be combined with a polic uclear option" first.

    There aren't enough conservatives to support a filibuster anyway.
    The filibuster is not an option. There's not a snowball's chance in Miami that Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins would not vote for cloture if the GOP did filibuster. There would have been a slightly better chance before Specter's defection since then the GOP could have filibustered with only one our Maine women (Snowe, probably, since she just won re-election); but the chances still would have been exceedingly remote.

    Also, there's a chance that Franken gets seated before the vote in which case the filibuster is simply a non-issue.
  11. 28 May '09 03:21
    Originally posted by sh76
    The filibuster is not an option. There's not a snowball's chance in Miami that Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins would not vote for cloture if the GOP did filibuster. There would have been a slightly better chance before Specter's defection since then the GOP could have filibustered without our Maine women; but the chances still would have been exceedingly remote. ...[text shortened]... that Franken gets seated before the vote in which case the filibuster is simply a non-issue.
    Would you say that there is a better chance of an astroid bursting out of the sky and falling on Washington right before confirming her to the bench than for a GOP filibuster? Come on man, give me some hope at least!! 😠
  12. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    28 May '09 03:32
    Originally posted by whodey
    Would you say that there is a better chance of an astroid bursting out of the sky and falling on Washington right before confirming her to the bench than for a GOP filibuster? Come on man, give me some hope at least!! 😠
    LOL

    Don't worry. First, her vote barely counts. Kennedy is the only person whose vote really matters at this point on political "conservative/liberal" issues. As for when the next Justice retires, well, Obama wasn't going to pick anyone to the right of Kennedy anyway.

    Second, if we can live with John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Court for multiple decades, we can live with Sonia Sotomayor.

    In any case, I'm not really that terrified with the prospect of a more liberal court. So they'll be judicial activists. So, they'll think they are supposed to legislate from the bench. So, they'll invent Constitutional doctrines from thin air because they think those doctrines are good ideas. Will that really hurt our lives all that much? Probably not. We made it through the Warren Court just fine. We'll make it through whatever type of Court President Obama can throw at us.
  13. 28 May '09 03:44
    Originally posted by sh76
    LOL

    Don't worry. First, her vote barely counts. Kennedy is the only person whose vote really matters at this point on political "conservative/liberal" issues. As for when the next Justice retires, well, Obama wasn't going to pick anyone to the right of Kennedy anyway.

    Second, if we can live with John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Court for m ...[text shortened]... ust fine. We'll make it through whatever type of Court President Obama can throw at us.
    Sure she isn't going to be a big change, but she's young enough to be there for two, maybe three decades.

    There isn't a chance of winning the fight, but it should be fought on educational grounds.
  14. 28 May '09 13:01
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Sure she isn't going to be a big change, but she's young enough to be there for two, maybe three decades.

    There isn't a chance of winning the fight, but it should be fought on educational grounds.
    On educational grounds? Does she not have a good education?
  15. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    28 May '09 13:11 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    On educational grounds? Does she not have a good education?
    I think he means to educate the public as to conservative opposition to judicial activism.

    SS actually has an excellent education; which, to her credit, she was able to achieve in spite of growing up without many advantages.