John Kerry Calls for Filibuster on Alito

MrBadExample

MrBadExample

CAGiversary!
Feedback
1 (100%)
Not much else to report besides the title right now. Just thought I'd get the ball rolling.

I'm very interested to see where this goes. He's going to have to convince a few of the Dems who have said they would vote for Alito to change their mind or this won't last long.

But I'm glad he's doing it. As we hear more about the White House's illegal wiretapping, the last person we need on the SCOTUS is one who wants to give the Executive Branch carte blanche.
 
Sometimes it's best not to fight wars you can't win. At this point it's just democrats taking a hopeless stand, and using a tactic that many people seem to oppose. I can't imagine a fillibuster, that's doomed to fail, having a benefit other than for those who are going to vote for the democrats anyway.
 
I don't see how anyone can claim, with any certainty, that Alito lacks an agenda, and is willing to deal with individual cases on an individual basis. He is getting ready to approach a lifetime term on the Supreme Court with his mind already made up, and that's more dangerous than the views he holds (that he seems unable to view philosophies other than his own).
 
I don't think it's a given that the Dems who have said they will vote for Alito would necessarily vote for cloture knowing that it would forever end a judicial fillibuster. There may not be enough votes to end the fillibuster.*

*This of course is all based on the hope that Dems will start acting like they have a pair and quit rolling over for Dubya.
 
I'm glad Kerry is taking a stand. Like MBE said, Dems have been taking it from Bush & the GOP for too long. I just want to see some fucking leadership in the Democratic party for a change besides Reid and Dean.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I don't see how anyone can claim, with any certainty, that Alito lacks an agenda, and is willing to deal with individual cases on an individual basis. He is getting ready to approach a lifetime term on the Supreme Court with his mind already made up, and that's more dangerous than the views he holds (that he seems unable to view philosophies other than his own).[/QUOTE]

I don't see how anyone can claim, with any certainty, that Alito has a specific agenda, and isn't willing to deal with individual cases on an individual basis.

Yes, his mind is made up to follow the law. Just becuase he doesn't follow your agenda doesn't mean his mind is already made up about anything. You have no idea how he will interpret future cases, but you do a good job in repeating the standard democrat party opinion. Perhaps, just perhaps, he will listen to arguments and follow the law as it was written, instead of how he feels, or how he feels about what other people feel about cases before him like the left leaning judges with a social agenda on the SC do.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Sometimes it's best not to fight wars you can't win. At this point it's just democrats taking a hopeless stand, and using a tactic that many people seem to oppose. I can't imagine a fillibuster, that's doomed to fail, having a benefit other than for those who are going to vote for the democrats anyway.[/QUOTE]

I love the above statement. It's an abandonment of principles. You democrats and your so-called leaders have no spines and shouldn't be allowed to call yourselves human beings.

I know, lets just forget about our principles becuase we can't win this fight. This is so important but we need to save our precious time and media coverage for other, pending matters in the senate like how to get re-elected in November. Alito will bring about a republican dictatorship and will eliminate civil rights altogether but that's not important enought to make a stand !

Kudos to John Kerry for standing up for what he thinks is right. Any democrat who shares the same views on Alito and doesn't follow in Kerry's footsteps is a coward and should resign from the senate immediately for the inability to perform their duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I love the above statement. It's an abandonment of principles. You democrats and your so-called leaders have no spines and shouldn't be allowed to call yourselves human beings.

I know, lets just forget about our principles becuase we can't win this fight. This is so important but we need to save our precious time and media coverage for other, pending matters in the senate like how to get re-elected in November. Alito will bring about a republican dictatorship and will eliminate civil rights altogether but that's important enought to make a stand !

Kudos to John Kerry for standing up for what he thinks is right. Any democrat who shares the same views on Alito and doesn't follow in Kerry's footsteps is a coward and should resign from the senate immediately for the inability to perform their duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.[/QUOTE]

There are multiple goals I want accomplished. People who stand up for everything, and fight every battle, are the people who end up being ignored. When a republican stands up for a cause who gets more attention, tom delay or john mccain? Who do people take more seriously? The ones who pick their battles will attract more desirable attention. When ted kennedy speaks people who aren't in his target audience just roll their eyes and think "there he goes again". By choosing to fight battles you cannot win you reduce the chance of winning the battles that you can.

At the end of the day I want to have accomplished the greatest overal good, to change the most things that can be changed. By choosing my battles I am living up to my principles, which is to generate the most change that I can. Making myself feel good, by just running towards everything I want without concern for the consequences, accomplishes nothing.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']There are multiple goals I want accomplished. People who stand up for everything, and fight every battle, are the people who end up being ignored. When a republican stands up for a cause who gets more attention, tom delay or john mccain? Who do people take more seriously? The ones who pick their battles will attract more desirable attention. When ted kennedy speaks people who aren't in his target audience just roll their eyes and think "there he goes again". By choosing to fight battles you cannot win you reduce the chance of winning the battles that you can.

At the end of the day I want to have accomplished the greatest overal good, to change the most things that can be changed. By choosing my battles I am living up to my principles, which is to generate the most change that I can. Making myself feel good, by just running towards everything I want without concern for the consequences, accomplishes nothing.[/QUOTE]

You have to stand up and battle for the battles that are important. If you listen to the rhetoric from almost all the democrats about Alito, he's practically the anti-christ, or at least he would be if Bush wasn't alive. A supreme court nominee is the holiest of holies in the world of governmental power. It is the lasting legacy of presidential power and, if Bush's and the Republicans power is so repugnant, should be thwarted with a concerted effort. To ignore it and let him be confirmed without a fight is as admission of principless pragmatic philosophy, and the democrats are complicit in usurping individual freedoms and civil liberties.

There is no such thing as 'greatest overall good' without incidences of 'specific ' good mixed into the whole. Supposedly, this specificity would spoil the entirty of our nation and looking the other way shows that you democratic leaders have abandoned you and are laughing at your trust in them. I'm suprised at you, alonzo, for not joining Kerry in this fight. But then again, I guess I shouldn't be suprised. You have no principles save what's seems important for today or hold sacred only what you think you can win.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']You have to stand up and battle for the battles that are important. If you listen to the rhetoric from almost all the democrats about Alito, he's practically the anti-christ, or at least he would be if Bush wasn't alive. A supreme court nominee is the holiest of holies in the world of governmental power. It is the lasting legacy of presidential power and, if Bush's and the Republicans power is so repugnant, should be thwarted with a concerted effort. To ignore it and let him be confirmed without a fight is as admission of principless pragmatic philosophy, and the democrats are complicit in usurping individual freedoms and civil liberties.

There is no such thing as 'greatest overall good' without incidences of 'specific ' good mixed into the whole. Supposedly, this specificity would spoil the entirty of our nation and looking the other way shows that you democratic leaders have abandoned you and are laughing at your trust in them. I'm suprised at you, alonzo, for not joining Kerry in this fight. But then again, I guess I shouldn't be suprised. You have no principles save what's seems important for today or hold sacred only what you think you can win.[/QUOTE]


I guess you never studied any wars or even played chess. Sometimes you have to lose a battle to win the war. Sacrifices are needed occasionally, such as the lives of all the soldier in Iraq who are being sacrificed for a reason only people in Bush's inner circle really know. Democrats need to focus on the 2006 elections and make sure the pubs out of there comfy ivory towers.
 
So wimping out on preventing a fucking radical judge from being a supreme court justice is supposed to instill a feeling of hope or capacity among these schmucks?
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']I guess you never studied any wars or even played chess. Sometimes you have to lose a battle to win the war. Sacrifices are needed occasionally, such as the lives of all the soldier in Iraq who are being sacrificed for a reason only people in Bush's inner circle really know. Democrats need to focus on the 2006 elections and make sure the pubs out of there comfy ivory towers.[/QUOTE]

I do play chess and I know it's better to sacrifice a pawn than a rook. Democrats, and you, don't seem to know the difference.

If the democrats want to get elected, then they should start standing on their principles instead of pandering to the lowest common denominator. People don't like to vote for soft, weak men to be their leaders. If they can't stand for principles, why would you want to vote for them ?

And I don't even know what the hell this means:
Democrats need to focus on the 2006 elections and make sure the pubs out of there comfy ivory towers
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='bmulligan']
And I don't even know what the hell this means:[/QUOTE]


what it means is that the democrats have set back passively while the Republicans have gotten fat off the land. There was no checks and balances for the past 6 years. The people who are in their ivory towers are the people that think we are still fine as a country and has no idea whats going on with the common man. Hell New Orleans is still a fucking mess and no one seems to care.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So wimping out on preventing a fucking radical judge from being a supreme court justice is supposed to instill a feeling of hope or capacity among these schmucks?[/QUOTE]

It shows that they are losers, they admit to being losers, and they are complacent with being a loser even though they keep whining about being losers. Why would anyone vote for them now? Would you ? I would feel exactly the same way if my candidate decided to just give up on an important issue whether they are democrat, republican, or anything else.

Would you vote for any local politicians who decided to just give up and go on to more 'important' things after making a big deal about this 'important' thing? You followers of these people are being lied to then laughed at. You keep following them on every misstep, every contradiction, every misplaced alliegence. It's proof the democrats haven't just taken the black vote for granted all these years.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']You have to stand up and battle for the battles that are important. If you listen to the rhetoric from almost all the democrats about Alito, he's practically the anti-christ, or at least he would be if Bush wasn't alive. A supreme court nominee is the holiest of holies in the world of governmental power. It is the lasting legacy of presidential power and, if Bush's and the Republicans power is so repugnant, should be thwarted with a concerted effort. To ignore it and let him be confirmed without a fight is as admission of principless pragmatic philosophy, and the democrats are complicit in usurping individual freedoms and civil liberties.

There is no such thing as 'greatest overall good' without incidences of 'specific ' good mixed into the whole. Supposedly, this specificity would spoil the entirty of our nation and looking the other way shows that you democratic leaders have abandoned you and are laughing at your trust in them. I'm suprised at you, alonzo, for not joining Kerry in this fight. But then again, I guess I shouldn't be suprised. You have no principles save what's seems important for today or hold sacred only what you think you can win.[/QUOTE]

I would vote no and would look negatively upon any democrat who opposed him but still voted to confirm. I would support a filibuster if I think it can work, but they likely don't even have the votes to filibuster.

But you miss my point. I advocate choosing your battles so at the end of the day you will have won more than you otherwise would have. You fight to make change and, therefore, you should take the actions that work towards those ends. That is ingrained into my principles. Your suggestion is counterproductive, as winning fights is just as important as fighting them to begin with. Activism for the sake of activism is nothing more than self serving moral indignation. Working to maximize change is a principle in and of itself.

I've been involved with activists who have taken things too far before. I'm not saying I didn't think they were right, just that their methods negated any benefits they could have made.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So wimping out on preventing a fucking radical judge from being a supreme court justice is supposed to instill a feeling of hope or capacity among these schmucks?[/QUOTE]

If you feel that you can actually accomplish that then go right ahead, I'd support you. But I think its unrealistic to think democrats can prevent his conformation. It's not "letting" the republicans win this war in the hopes of winning a more important one, it's knowing when the fight starts to harm other issues. If something changes before monday then fine, but right now it looks like there's no way to win.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']what it means is that the democrats have set back passively while the Republicans have gotten fat off the land. There was no checks and balances for the past 6 years. The people who are in their ivory towers are the people that think we are still fine as a country and has no idea whats going on with the common man. Hell New Orleans is still a fucking mess and no one seems to care.[/QUOTE]


I don't even know why I'm dignifying this moronic response with an answer, but if you think the democrats have been passive for the last six years you are blind, an idiot, or both. I'm betting both.

If you think the democrats you revere aren't residing in their own ivory towers, you have a denial problem and should see a shrink immediately.

If you think the democrats care about anything other than the 'common' man's vote on election day, than you have a problem with reality and should seek medication for your schitzophrenia. If you mean 'poor' instead of common, then I'm guessing you are just a communist in self-denial, and if you think no one cares about new orleans then you should have Ray Nagin as the first man on your list. Sell stupid somewhere else, mon friare.
 
Ive read more than I care to of bmullet from the quotes however I can see he still plays the "dont label me" game while doing nothing but spout right wing folderol.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Ive read more than I care to of bmullet from the quotes however I can see he still plays the "dont label me" game while doing nothing but spout right wing folderol.[/QUOTE]

Ooooh, the slutmuffin learned a new word in english class today ! Undoubtedly it was used to describe him or an unintelligible paragraph of a recent essay of his and he's added it to his lexicon. And from you, "right-wing foderol" is pleonastic. Look it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top