Harriet Miers is the SCOTUS pick

[quote name='Sleepkyng']Wow, I can't believe I'm defending sgs89 here, but I agree that it is more important that they uphold the constitutional law (though I suppose we differ on exactly what that means) as opposed to reacting from knee jerk or even singular moral standpoints.

instead, they are a group of qualified individuals who give educated interpretations of the constitution and should handle cases accordingly.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure why you "can't believe" we agree on this issue. It is really a pretty simple principle and is the root of our system -- the rule of law. Unfortunately, many folks don't understand the principle even though it is the among the most important ideals on which our nation was founded.
 
no no no, that's not what I can't believe.

it's that I can't believe I'm agreeing with a chump like you (no offense, just bein' frank here) and disagreeing with zo' who is a classy fella.

anyways, you can take it as a quasi compliment or you can snipe back.
 
[quote name='Sleepkyng']no no no, that's not what I can't believe.

it's that I can't believe I'm agreeing with a chump like you (no offense, just bein' frank here) and disagreeing with zo' who is a classy fella.

anyways, you can take it as a quasi compliment or you can snipe back.[/QUOTE]

Every time you post, I am reminded of Mark Twain's classic refrain: "It's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Obviously I knew you were expressing surprise that you were defending a "chump" like me. We are not all as dense as you are. But the point was that in "defending" me you were actually agreeing with a very simple principle. And, frankly, I was surprised that a twit like you would agree with the sanctity of the rule of law.

I understand that you have animosity toward me because I am (a) clearly smarter than you are, (b) more successful, and (c) probably more conservative (though certainly not a toe-the-line Republican by any means).
 
[quote name='sgs89']Every time you post, I am reminded of Mark Twain's classic refrain: "It's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Obviously I knew you were expressing surprise that you were defending a "chump" like me. We are not all as dense as you are. But the point was that in "defending" me you were actually agreeing with a very simple principle. And, frankly, I was surprised that a twit like you would agree with the sanctity of the rule of law.

I understand that you have animosity toward me because I am (a) clearly smarter than you are, (b) more successful, and (c) probably more conservative (though certainly not a toe-the-line Republican by any means).[/QUOTE]

Ya know, You're really starting to grow on me. I especially like this last part /\

Keep that internet quote generator handy, never know when you'll need to rest on someone else's witticism, Stevens!

Anyways - we agree to agree here, you stil think I'm an idiot, I still think you're a chump, and that's that.

cheers
 
[quote name='sgs89']I understand that you have animosity toward me because I am (a) clearly smarter than you are, (b) more successful, and (c) probably more conservative (though certainly not a toe-the-line Republican by any means).[/QUOTE]

It's pleasing to see that you've moved beyond chastising people for sophomoric antics or ad hominem attacks to engage in them yourself. Between this paint-by-numbers internet forum insult and the preceding misogyny of the "I'd hit it" discourse of the SCOTUS hotties (while disregarding the men, who, I should point out, collectively resemble the entirety of Dick Tracy's villains), you should be blathering like a generic internet darling by the end of the month. Outstanding!

And, to use the parlance you no doubt will have gleaned by Halloween, You are teh Winnar!!!1!!1!!1
 
[quote name='sgs89']I understand that you have animosity toward me because I am (a) clearly smarter than you are, (b) more successful, and (c) probably more conservative (though certainly not a toe-the-line Republican by any means).[/QUOTE]

It's pleasing to see that you've moved beyond chastising people for sophomoric antics or ad hominem attacks to engage in them yourself. Between this paint-by-numbers internet forum insult and the preceding misogyny of the "I'd hit it" discourse of the SCOTUS hotties (while disregarding the men, who, I should point out, collectively resemble the entirety of Dick Tracy's villains), you should be blathering like a generic internet darling by the end of the month. Outstanding!

And, to use the parlance you no doubt will have gleaned by Halloween, You are teh Winnar!!!1!!1!!1

EDIT: I'm still waiting on you telling us who you are; an ambiguous claim about your conservatism (of which I've no doubt) as well as your success (of which you've not elaborated) are as useful as my claim of throwing four touchdowns in one game while quarterback for Polk High School; that is, they're useless in the absence of detail or proof. I'm not looking for a paystub; but, if you would like to be so pompous, prove your worth.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's pleasing to see that you've moved beyond chastising people for sophomoric antics or ad hominem attacks to engage in them yourself. Between this paint-by-numbers internet forum insult and the preceding misogyny of the "I'd hit it" discourse of the SCOTUS hotties (while disregarding the men, who, I should point out, collectively resemble the entirety of Dick Tracy's villains), you should be blathering like a generic internet darling by the end of the month. Outstanding!

And, to use the parlance you no doubt will have gleaned by Halloween, You are teh Winnar!!!1!!1!!1[/QUOTE]

Jolly good show, Professor Murder!

As for the SCOTUS hotties, I freely admitted that the men are no "lookers" -- see my post above.

As for the ad hominem attack, Sleepkyng started it and I, as they say, finished it. Sophomoric? Yes. But he deserved it. And, I can assure you, it was all true. (But I think you already knew that.)
 
[quote name='sgs89']Jolly good show, Professor Murder!

As for the SCOTUS hotties, I freely admitted that the men are no "lookers" -- see my post above.

As for the ad hominem attack, Sleepkyng started it and I, as they say, finished it. Sophomoric? Yes. But he deserved it. And, I can assure you, it was all true. (But I think you already knew that.)[/QUOTE]

:lol:

Man, you must have no siblings.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
EDIT: I'm still waiting on you telling us who you are; an ambiguous claim about your conservatism (of which I've no doubt) as well as your success (of which you've not elaborated) are as useful as my claim of throwing four touchdowns in one game while quarterback for Polk High School; that is, they're useless in the absence of detail or proof. I'm not looking for a paystub; but, if you would like to be so pompous, prove your worth.[/QUOTE]

I am certainly not a "traditional" conservative. I voted for Bill Clinton. Twice.

I do have certain conservative positions. On immigration. Generally on crime.

I also have many "non-conservative" positions. I am pro-choice. I am not religious.

I attended law school, as you might have guessed. A school in the NE United States. I have clerked for a prominent federal judge.

Need more?
 
[quote name='Sleepkyng']have you ever touched someone of the opposite sex?

what about your video game skills?[/QUOTE]

Yes.

And I got skilllllz.
 
[quote name='sgs89']I attended law school, as you might have guessed. A school in the NE United States. I have clerked for a prominent federal judge.

Need more?[/QUOTE]

I imagine that I can fill in some of those blanks relatively easily; I only wish you were more forthcoming in the Roberts thread. I may have already said that I like to know where people come from, as it makes taking their comments in context easier.

I'm a fan of Pierre Bourdieu, if you've read him. ;)

EDIT: Just one more round of questions:

PS2, GC, or Xbox?

SNES or Genesis?

And, what is old school for you: NES or 2600 (or, you poor ancient soul, D&D)?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I imagine that I can fill in some of those blanks relatively easily; I only wish you were more forthcoming in the Roberts thread. I may have already said that I like to know where people come from, as it makes taking their comments in context easier.

I'm a fan of Pierre Bourdieu, if you've read him. ;)

EDIT: Just one more round of questions:

PS2, GC, or Xbox?

SNES or Genesis?

And, what is old school for you: NES or 2600 (or, you poor ancient soul, D&D)?[/QUOTE]

Well, let's hear about your background so I can understand your comments in context. I think I have an idea, but it would be good to hear it from you.

PS2, GC, or Xbox? Yes.

SNES or Genesis? SNES

Old school? 2600
 
[quote name='sgs89']That is where you and I differ. You are treating the courts as political animals, and they are not. It should not be about whether a judge adheres to your views on hot button issues. That is not upholding the rule of law. That is treating the judiciary as a super-legislature.[/QUOTE]

But that's not exactly what I said. I'm not a judge, I'm not appointing judges. From my position, simply a citizen living in this country, I'd rather have more liberal judges. That's not exactly how I think it should be done if I were the one appointing them. But, at the same time, I think having a balanced court of 4 liberals, 4 conservatives and one relatively independent will giving better legal opinions compared to one filled with a majority of liberals or conservatives. I think one side being dominant will skew the rulings, then again, as a citizen, I'd like them to favor the liberal side. Basically I have different views depending on my position, but solely focused on the end result I want more liberals.

Basically, in my position, I want more liberals especially since it involved only place 1 less qualified judge (I wouldn't agree if it required placing multiple underqualified judges). But, if I were in a position to appoint them, I would agree with you.

are as useful as my claim of throwing four touchdowns in one game while quarterback for Polk High School
Click to expand...

BUNDY! BUNDY! BUNDY!
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But that's not exactly what I said. I'm not a judge, I'm not appointing judges. From my position, simply a citizen living in this country, I'd rather have more liberal judges. That's not exactly how I think it should be done if I were the one appointing them. But, at the same time, I think having a balanced court of 4 liberals, 4 conservatives and one relatively independent will giving better legal opinions compared to one filled with a majority of liberals or conservatives. I think one side being dominant will skew the rulings, then again, as a citizen, I'd like them to favor the liberal side. Basically I have different views depending on my position, but solely focused on the end result I want more liberals.

Basically, in my position, I want more liberals especially since it involved only place 1 less qualified judge (I wouldn't agree if it required placing multiple underqualified judges). But, if I were in a position to appoint them, I would agree with you.[/QUOTE]

I see your point. Thanks for clarifying.
 
Can Miers just hurry up and withdraw please? This is getting painful.

Let's get a REAL nominee, one who (a) is not totally unqualified, (b) doesn't think GWB is the "smartest man she has ever met," (c) is not an evangelical, (d) doesn't write birthday cards to GWB calling him "the greatest governor ever," and (e) has at least practiced, if not judged, in the area of constitutional law.

Really, is that too much to ask?
 
[quote name='sgs89']Can Miers just hurry up and withdraw please? This is getting painful.

Let's get a REAL nominee, one who (a) is not totally unqualified, (b) doesn't think GWB is the "smartest man she has ever met," (c) is not an evangelical, (d) doesn't write birthday cards to GWB calling him "the greatest governor ever," and (e) has at least practiced, if not judged, in the area of constitutional law.

Really, is that too much to ask?[/QUOTE]

but Bush said she was the best person for the job

:)
 
[quote name='PKRipp3r']but Bush said she was the best person for the job

:)[/QUOTE]

Yeah, in the same way Brown was the "best person for the FEMA job." We all saw how that one worked out... :)
 
[quote name='sgs89']Yeah, in the same way Brown was the "best person for the FEMA job." We all saw how that one worked out... :)[/QUOTE]

He did a heck of a job!!

:lol:
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Sounds like Cheney's office (and Alberto Gonzalez) was opposed to the nomination which really surprises me. We all know Dubya isn't in charge of the WH, but who really is? I find it strange that Andrew Card would have more political weight than Cheney.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Report_Cheneys_office_opposed_Miers_nomination_1013.html[/QUOTE]

that is kinda strange...

i always figured that the voice in Bush's earpiece was either Dick or Karl
 
[quote name='sgs89']Well, let's hear about your background so I can understand your comments in context. I think I have an idea, but it would be good to hear it from you.

PS2, GC, or Xbox? Yes.

SNES or Genesis? SNES

Old school? 2600[/QUOTE]

Oh, sorry, I didn't see your response (and how painfully slow of me, given that you responded 4 minutes later).

I'm a doctoral student at a "small midwestern university" (University of Cincinnati) in sociology. I focus on criminology (corrections) and inequality in corrections and urban housing (mostly race, but other forms as well).

Anything else?

On topic, I'm still curious as to the logic of nominating Meiers; truly, I have come to expect some sort of strategic genius behind even the most unqualified or inappropriate candidate. In this case, however, it seems to be the Karl-Rove-is-missing-and-George-is-storming-around-the-oval-office-in-his-jammies-yelling "ME PRESIDENT!" kind of logic.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Can Miers just hurry up and withdraw please? This is getting painful.

Let's get a REAL nominee, one who (a) is not totally unqualified, (b) doesn't think GWB is the "smartest man she has ever met," (c) is not an evangelical, (d) doesn't write birthday cards to GWB calling him "the greatest governor ever," and (e) has at least practiced, if not judged, in the area of constitutional law.

Really, is that too much to ask?[/QUOTE]

It looks like someone didn't learn anything from the Bolton appointment.

The key guiding principle of the Bush administration is to never, ever, ever admit a mistake. Now that Miers has been selected, they'll fight for her tooth and nail, come hell or high water. There IS a slim chance that she'll decide to withdraw on her own, but considering how much she seems to adore Bush, she's probably going to follow his lead, and he'll NEVER ask her to withdraw.
 
[quote name='Drocket']It looks like someone didn't learn anything from the Bolton appointment.

The key guiding principle of the Bush administration is to never, ever, ever admit a mistake. Now that Miers has been selected, they'll fight for her tooth and nail, come hell or high water. There IS a slim chance that she'll decide to withdraw on her own, but considering how much she seems to adore Bush, she's probably going to follow his lead, and he'll NEVER ask her to withdraw.[/QUOTE]

Hey man! Bush admited he was wrong about the whole Katrina thing...wel didn't admit he was wrong, but admited he was at fault...well, at least he did with some cajoling from the nation...well, at least took some of the blame...

Where was I getting at with this?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Oh, sorry, I didn't see your response (and how painfully slow of me, given that you responded 4 minutes later).

I'm a doctoral student at a "small midwestern university" (University of Cincinnati) in sociology. I focus on criminology (corrections) and inequality in corrections and urban housing (mostly race, but other forms as well).

Anything else?

On topic, I'm still curious as to the logic of nominating Meiers; truly, I have come to expect some sort of strategic genius behind even the most unqualified or inappropriate candidate. In this case, however, it seems to be the Karl-Rove-is-missing-and-George-is-storming-around-the-oval-office-in-his-jammies-yelling "ME PRESIDENT!" kind of logic.[/QUOTE]

Can't say that sociology is my thing, but more power to you. What are your future career plans? Teaching?

With regard to the Miers selection, I think Bush found someone who is anti-abortion, worships him, and agreed to decide cases in a way that W finds palatable. Pretty pathetic criteria for selecting a SCOTUS justice, to be sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top