Sen. Boxer to oppose Supreme Court nominee Roberts

[dissention]

Sen. Boxer to oppose Supreme Court nominee Roberts
Posted on Wed, Sep. 21, 2005
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., announced Wednesday that she will oppose the nomination of John Roberts to be Supreme Court chief justice.

"I said I could only vote for a nominee who would protect the rights and the freedoms of the people that I represent ... This nominee fails that bar," Boxer said on the Senate floor.

"I don't buy into this reasoning either: Let's support this nominee because the next one might be worse," she said.

The announcement by California's junior senator, a liberal who opposes many Bush nominees, was not a surprise. Still unknown is how the state's senior senator, Dianne Feinstein, will vote when the Judiciary Committee convenes Thursday to decide on the nominee.

Feinstein, a moderate, is the only woman on the Judiciary Committee.

Boxer's announcement came as a number of other Democrats were revealing their decisions on the nominee to replace Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

The Senate Judiciary Committee's senior Democrat, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, announced his endorsement for Roberts. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, liberal stalwart Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and former presidential candidate John Kerry of Massachusetts decided, like Boxer, to vote no.

Boxer said she was concerned about the views Roberts expressed in memos written while a lawyer in the Reagan administration, and about his failure to assist in the release of his writings from his years in the solicitor general's office under the first President Bush.

"With so many of our fundamental rights hanging in the balance, it is not good enough, in my view, to simply roll the dice, hoping a nominee will change his past views," Boxer said.

[irishgrl]

YAY Thats my girl! I really LOVE her! :nod:

[EnchantedSLN]

Was there ever any doubt? :wavey: I know you hate him, but Kerry says he's voting no too.

[amber]

Kick!!! I hope Feinstein does, too. It's good a couple other people have some balls as well.
Thanks for posting. :woohoo:

[dissention]

Was there ever any doubt? :wavey:

Not on my part, I love Boxer. :D If they were smart, they would run her in '08 instead of that shill Hillary.

I know you hate him, but Kerry says he's voting no too.

I don't hate him, I just think he's an incompetent fool who suffers from foot-in-mouth syndrome. :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

What is up with Leahy? :confused:

[irishgrl]

What is up with Leahy? :confused:

apparently he made his decision after a confab with Bushwad...which by all accounts was a one sided discussion (Bush musta been asleep).

Maybe he is saving his clout for the next nominee? on the surface his reason seems legit (he says he thinks Roberts is a man of honor and he is counting on him not changing horses in midstream philosophically speaking) Isnt Leahy the expert on Constitutional Law?

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Not on my part, I love Boxer. :D If they were smart, they would run her in '08 instead of that shill Hillary.

Either one would work for me. But I have to say I'd go with Ms. Clinton.

[irishgrl]

Either one would work for me. But I have to say I'd go with Ms. Clinton.
ok, I'll bite: WHY? why would YOU of all people hope for Hilary running instead of Barbara Boxer? there's something disingenuous about your post.......unless you are engaging in veiled sarcasm, in which case nevermind.

[EnchantedSLN]

ok, I'll bite: WHY? why would YOU of all people hope for Hilary running instead of Barbara Boxer? there's something disingenuous about your post.......unless you are engaging in veiled sarcasm, in which case nevermind.

If I may venture a guess, he was implying that neither of them are electable, thus it would make it that much easier for the Republican candidate to win. Of course, Hillary might as well BE a Republican candidate, so maybe that's why he favors her... more of a win/win situation for conservatives if the first scenario doesn't play out ;).

If they were smart, they would run her in '08

The thought of Boxer as president gives me warm fuzzies all over. I don't think she wants to, though.

[dissention]

ok, I'll bite: WHY? why would YOU of all people hope for Hilary running instead of Barbara Boxer?

Because he thinks that Hillary is a loser candidate (which she is, to be perfectly frank). Why wouldn't he want the Dems to nominate a surefire loser? She has as much of a chance of winning as Noam Chomsky.

[amber]

Because he thinks that Hillary is a loser candidate (which she is, to be perfectly frank). Why wouldn't he want the Dems to nominate a surefire loser? She has as much of a chance of winning as Noam Chomsky.
I thought it was because she was secretly just like all the rest of the scummy ones, only...slightly less scummy... :confused:

[dissention]

Of course, Hillary might as well BE a Republican candidate, so maybe that's why he favors her... more of a win/win situation for conservatives if the first scenario doesn't play out ;).

There's that, too. Good thinking. :xoxo:

The thought of Boxer as president gives me warm fuzzies all over. I don't think she wants to, though.

I squeal at the thought of her running. I agree that she never would, but we can dream, anyway. Unless the Dems can rally behind and support a candidate like Moseley Braun or Kucinich or Boxer, a candidate who will bring liberalism back to the party, I can't imagine myself being enthusiastic about any of their choices.

[irishgrl]

If I may venture a guess, he was implying that neither of them are electable, thus it would make it that much easier for the Republican candidate to win. Of course, Hillary might as well BE a Republican candidate, so maybe that's why he favors her... more of a win/win situation for conservatives if the first scenario doesn't play out ;)

ok....I thot as much. :shrug:

[dissention]

I thought it was because she was secretly just like all the rest of the scummy ones, only...slightly less scummy... :confused:

Boxer or Clinton? Hillary is uber-scummy. Boxer is a saint next to that monstrosity. :laugh:

[ShangriLaTroubl]

WOO HOO BOXER FOR PRESIDENT 2008!! Let's start a campaign

Chris

[irishgrl]

She has as much of a chance of winning as Noam Chomsky.
Now THERE would be an interesting candidate....I really admire that man~

[amber]

Boxer or Clinton? Hillary is uber-scummy. Boxer is a saint next to that monstrosity. :laugh:
I know. I meant I that's what I thought your reason was for not wanting Hill, not the whole "she can't win" thing.

[dissention]

Now THERE would be an interesting candidate....I really admire that man~

I love him. "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance" is one of his best reads; a very good book. Have you ever read it?

[dissention]

I know. I meant I that's what I thought your reason was for not wanting Hill, not the whole "she can't win" thing.

Oh, she's scummy for sure, but she also could *never* win. Never in a million years, she'd be positively slaughtered. :shocked:

[irishgrl]

WOO HOO BOXER FOR PRESIDENT 2008!! Let's start a campaign

Chris
theres already a website that sells tshirts and buttons and bumperstickers and all that...it was posted on this board awhile back when Boxer stood up and challenged the Senate to investigate the Ohio Voting fraud...I forget who runs it but she is determined to get Boxer to run~ I hope she succeeds! :thumbsup:
here's the link (http://www.boxer2008.com/)

[amber]

Oh, she's scummy for sure, but she also could *never* win. Never in a million years, she'd be positively slaughtered. :shocked:
I know, but my point is I didn't think that was your reason. Boxer couldn't win, either. :shrug: (IMO)

[irishgrl]

I love him. "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance" is one of his best reads; a very good book. Have you ever read it?
No, I have something along the lines of Conversations with Noam Chomsky, which I cant find dangit~ it was a series of essays on various topics. and now Im ticked because I couldnt find it to get the exact title. sorry.........

[dissention]

I know, but my point is I didn't think that was your reason. Boxer couldn't win, either. :shrug: (IMO)

I'm not sure if she could win, but I'm positive she'd fare better than Hillary. :laugh:

[amber]

I'm not sure if she could win, but I'm positive she'd fare better than Hillary. :laugh:
You're kidding?! Name recognition alone... :shrug:

[irishgrl]

You're kidding?! Name recognition alone... :shrug:
I think Boxer would carry California, which is quite a lot of electoral votes, not too shabby ya know......

[amber]

I think Boxer would carry California, which is quite a lot of electoral votes, not too shabby ya know......
Not shabby, but hardly the whole country. I don't think all the middle would vote for either of them. Can't decide who they would hate more... :laugh:

[irishgrl]

Not shabby, but hardly the whole country. I don't think all the middle would vote for either of them. Can't decide who they would hate more... :laugh:
Nah, thats easy: they hate Hilary more. btw: is it spelled Hillary or Hilary?
I get confused :lol:

[SuzeQuze]

Was there ever any doubt? :wavey: I know you hate him, but Kerry says he's voting no too.

Wow, I'm shocked he's actually going to make a stand. Its a day late and a dollar short but I'll take it! Ms Boxer is a godsend.

[SuzeQuze]

Because he thinks that Hillary is a loser candidate (which she is, to be perfectly frank). Why wouldn't he want the Dems to nominate a surefire loser? She has as much of a chance of winning as Noam Chomsky.

She really is. To run her will just be dumb and a waste of money. She is not electable. People don't trust her.

[irishgrl]

She really is. To run her will just be dumb and a waste of money. She is not electable. People don't trust her.

Whyever not? I certainly do.......

[amber]

Nah, thats easy: they hate Hilary more. btw: is it spelled Hillary or Hilary?
I get confused :lol:
That's what I thought, but I think when everyone learns really what Boxer is all about, they wouldn't go for it. You know, she's right, she has some integrity, she's actually 50% or so working for the actual people she represents, she understands the issues and can explain them without using strawman, and misdirection, and blah etc.
She has balls, she often stands up strongly for what she believes...

naw...America is to dumb for that...ie..."I don't think they're ready for this jelly...her platform's too bootylicious for 'us', bayb." ;) :laugh:

[amber]

She really is. To run her will just be dumb and a waste of money. She is not electable. People don't trust her.
And rightly so, to some extent. She isn't the worst, and she's extremely intelligent, and she almost...has integrity...but not quite. Although, compared to *most* politicians, she would be better.

*Hilly and Boxer are both Scorpios, kick ass*

[SuzeQuze]

Whyever not? I certainly do.......

Well, she would get my vote. But the other side hates her and spreads their venom and lies and you know how big that propoganda machine is. People take what they are spoon fed. Plus she is a woman. I think many wouldn't vote for her because of that. Sadly, many still do not see a woman as capable of being president. But wouldn't that be something?

[irishgrl]

Well, she would get my vote. But the other side hates her and spreads their venom and lies and you know how big that propoganda machine is. People take what they are spoon fed. Plus she is a woman. I think many wouldn't vote for her because of that. Sadly, many still do not see a woman as capable of being president. But wouldn't that be something?

Well, I havent heard any venomous things about her really, only the ballsy "damn the torpedoes" kinda attitude I can get behind. I think the other side hates Hillary more (btw: did we decide Hilary or Hillary?) They are already undermining her "possibly" running which I find hilarious! What are they SO afraid of?

[amber]

Well, she would get my vote. But the other side hates her and spreads their venom and lies and you know how big that propoganda machine is. People take what they are spoon fed. Plus she is a woman. I think many wouldn't vote for her because of that. Sadly, many still do not see a woman as capable of being president. But wouldn't that be something?
Um, no offense, but you've ignored the part where she's been shady, wishy washy, and solely politically motivated. :)
Of course I'd vote for her before the other. I have some large measure of respect for her, but it's tempered by her obvious political pandering.

[dissention]

Whyever not? I certainly do.......

You do? You might as well trust the Resmuglicans, then.

[dissention]

Well, she would get my vote. But the other side hates her and spreads their venom and lies and you know how big that propoganda machine is. People take what they are spoon fed. Plus she is a woman. I think many wouldn't vote for her because of that. Sadly, many still do not see a woman as capable of being president. But wouldn't that be something?

She wouldn't get my vote. Not in a million years would I be caught voting for that woman. My dream team would include:

Carol Moseley Braun: President
Dennis Kucinich: Vice President
Jamie Rubin: Secretary of State
Anderson Cooper: Secretary of Take No ****

But, alas, it's a dream. I gotta get my feet back on the ground and wake up to the fact that this country will be in the ****ter for my entire span on this Earth.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I still don't understand how Hillary is a definite loser candidate. There have been polls comparing possible 08 candidates, and have put Hillary against various republicans and she has come out on top of the polls..While I know polls dont determine much, they definetely say SOMETHING..

[dissention]

I still don't understand how Hillary is a definite loser candidate. There have been polls comparing possible 08 candidates, and have put Hillary against various republicans and she has come out on top of the polls..While I know polls dont determine much, they definetely say SOMETHING..

Those are polls taken before the Republican smear machine has revved up for the actual election. If she runs and gets the nom, it'll be WWIII.

[EnchantedSLN]

If she runs and gets the nom, it'll be WWIII.

See, I figured that would break out before the end of W's term :laugh:

[Moony]

Kick!!! I hope Feinstein does, too. It's good a couple other people have some balls as well.
Thanks for posting. :woohoo:
I don't think Feinstein will oppose him. But, hurrah for Boxer. Love that biotch.

[amber]

I don't think Feinstein will oppose him. But, hurrah for Boxer. Love that biotch.
Yeah, Feinstein is a bad Cancer.
She's a good politician, but I nominate Feinstein as "most slippery ever".
Middle of the road people freak me out, you never know where they stand. I know everyone else likes that, but it's just not for me. It's not real. I understand that middle of the road is part of political savvy, but I just can't respect it very much.

[sparky]

Yeah, Feinstein is a bad Cancer.
She's a good politician, but I nominate Feinstein as "most slippery ever".
Middle of the road people freak me out, you never know where they stand. I know everyone else likes that, but it's just not for me. It's not real. I understand that middle of the road is part of political savvy, but I just can't respect it very much.

Homegirl, your pm box is stuffed.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Yeah, Feinstein is a bad Cancer.
She's a good politician, but I nominate Feinstein as "most slippery ever".
Middle of the road people freak me out, you never know where they stand. I know everyone else likes that, but it's just not for me. It's not real. I understand that middle of the road is part of political savvy, but I just can't respect it very much.


Some people although are really in fact middle of the road..

Chris

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Because he thinks that Hillary is a loser candidate (which she is, to be perfectly frank). Why wouldn't he want the Dems to nominate a surefire loser? She has as much of a chance of winning as Noam Chomsky.

Hand the man a prize.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Of course, Hillary might as well BE a Republican candidate, so maybe that's why he favors her... more of a win/win situation for conservatives if the first scenario doesn't play out ;).


If Hillary is a republican then I want a new party.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Well, she would get my vote. But the other side hates her and spreads their venom and lies and you know how big that propoganda machine is. People take what they are spoon fed. Plus she is a woman. I think many wouldn't vote for her because of that. Sadly, many still do not see a woman as capable of being president. But wouldn't that be something?

Hey if dems. are going to run her, then I say reps. get Elizabeth Dole out there! There is talk about Condi, which would be O.K. But I'm more for Mrs. Dole if it were to ever happen.

[amber]

Some people although are really in fact middle of the road..

Chris
Right, that's why it works. I just don't think middle of the road is always appropriate. I think there are lots of things people shouldn't be MIR about. I also think people shouldn't sell out because of politics and money, but that is what Feinstein does. Like I said before, she is a very skilled politician.
But you know, I don't think that's right. I'm not middle of the road. I don't think other people should be middle of the road, if they really know what is good, and logical.
But that is me. On the theory that politicians should represent their contingency, Feinstein might be okay for Middle of the Road people. But for starters, I don't like the city building contracts she awarded to her husband's contracting business when she was mayor here.
For starters. :)
There are many other things as well. For instance the Harvey Milk thing.
Basically, I find that middle of the road people are often the most skilled politicians, which I *somewhat* abhor. Try to please both sides, but please neither. Try to get things done, but only maintain the status quo. That is my opinion of MIR.
No offense to anyone, that's just what I think.

[amber]

Homegirl, your pm box is stuffed.
okay, Sparkles, all cleared. :wavey:

If Hillary is a republican then I want a knew party.

Oh, do you want a knew party? :laugh: :laugh:
Me, too, I want a party where there is enough funding for education so that people will *rarely* write "knew" in place of *new*.

Which is not the repub party.

[Moony]

Yeah, Feinstein is a bad Cancer.
She's a good politician, but I nominate Feinstein as "most slippery ever".
Middle of the road people freak me out, you never know where they stand. I know everyone else likes that, but it's just not for me. It's not real. I understand that middle of the road is part of political savvy, but I just can't respect it very much.
I agree with you to extent, mostly for the reason that I am a very opinionated person. Moderate doesn't cut it for me, but I guess it works for a great deal of people (obviously). Then again, things aren't always black and white, left and right; once in a while I find myself stuck in the grey area. But anyway I'm rambling.

"most slippery ever" :) most appropriate :wavey:

[Moony]

Oh, do you want a knew party? :laugh: :laugh:
Me, too, I want a party where there is enough funding for education so that people will *rarely* write "knew" in place of *new*.

Which is not the repub party.
ouch! :laugh:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Oh, do you want a knew party? :laugh: :laugh:
.

Holy Crap it is SOOOOO 3:35 AM. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I need sleep....

Of course I spelled the word incorrectly (which was obviously a careless mistake) and now I'm the poster child for sorry-education-funding. Hmmm. That argument almost works.

[amber]

Holy Crap it is SOOOOO 3:35 AM. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I need sleep....


NOW!
yeah, get some. I'm sure that will make it better. Probably when you wake up you will suddenly be a logical, well educated person. :)
I'm down with their, they're, and there - I type so fast that sometimes they are confused, and I have to go back and edit.

good luck with that. :) Take Care.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

yeah, get some. I'm sure that will make it better. Probably when you wake up you will suddenly be a logical, well educated person. :)
I'm down with their, they're, and there - I type so fast that sometimes they are confused, and I have to go back and edit.

good luck with that. :) Take Care.

God I love a smart ass! :xoxo: A woman after my own heart!!!

[amber]

God I love a smart ass! :xoxo: A woman after my own heart!!!
wow. I can't believe you sucked that up.

I'm not with you, but your self control *might* be admirable.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

wow. I can't believe you sucked that up.

I'm not with you, but your self control *might* be admirable.

Come on, I feed off that stuff! :laugh: I have to love smart ass remarks from others when I spend most of the day making them myself.

[amber]

Come on, I feed off that stuff! :laugh: I have to love smart ass remarks from others when I spend most of the day making them myself.
er...great - but I meant it - I think you are incredibly wrong.
S'okay, though. :shrug: At least, if nothing else, you can say you are more even tempered than I am. :shrug:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

er...great - but I meant it - I think you are incredibly wrong.
S'okay, though. :shrug: At least, if nothing else, you can say you are more even tempered than I am. :shrug:

Wrong about what?

Chances are you are always going to think I'm wrong...you know the whole "left-wing" "right-wing" thing! lol

[amber]

Wrong about what?

Chances are you are always going to think I'm wrong...you know the whole "left-wing" "right-wing" thing! lol

I call it "left wing", "broken wing" thing. ellohell.

[strandinthewind]

As for Boxer, who cares. Roberts will pass because the Clintons, according to most of the press, support him - period. People are not for the most part going to go against the Number 1 and Number 2 fundraisers of the D party. So, I think all of this grandstanding by the periphery is fluff and a dog and pony show. In fact, it may even be orchestrated by the Clintons to show the D's put up a tiny and vain fight :eek:

[irishgrl]

You do? You might as well trust the Resmuglicans, then.
WAIT! Im talking about Boxer--who are YOU talking about? I thought you liked Boxer....and I havent heard any bad stuff about her, so Im a little perplexed where people get the idea shes "shady" or "wishy washy". That sounds more like Diane Feinstein to me.....and I even like her :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

WAIT! Im talking about Boxer--who are YOU talking about? I thought you liked Boxer....and I havent heard any bad stuff about her, so Im a little perplexed where people get the idea shes "shady" or "wishy washy". That sounds more like Diane Feinstein to me.....and I even like her :shrug:

I think he thought you were talking about Hillary - I did as well.

As for Boxer, I like her as much as I like any politician :cool:

[irishgrl]

As for Boxer, who cares. Roberts will pass because the Clintons, according to most of the press, support him - period. People are not for the most part going to go against the Number 1 and Number 2 fundraisers of the D party. So, I think all of this grandstanding by the periphery is fluff and a dog and pony show. In fact, it may even be orchestrated by the Clintons to show the D's put up a tiny and vain fight :eek:
sometimes I think you give them too much credit...I mean to hear you tell it the Clintons are still pulling strings behind the scenes and creating policy and who knows what...If they were as powerful as you said they are, I wish they'd remove a certain sock puppet....:rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

sometimes I think you give them too much credit...I mean to hear you tell it the Clintons are still pulling strings behind the scenes and creating policy and who knows what...If they were as powerful as you said they are, I wish they'd remove a certain sock puppet....:rolleyes:

The Clintons are not powerful enough to elect a Pres., though I suppose we may see with Hillary. They are, however, the undisputed leaders of the D Party and the largest money makers, which gives them clout o plenty. Put it this way, when was the last time the D did anything significantly against them or at least without their consent.

[irishgrl]

I think he thought you were talking about Hillary - I did as well.

As for Boxer, I like her as much as I like any politician :cool:

ok, that explains it, but I started off talking about Boxer and Suze and I were discussing Boxer...but ok, I think I understand the confusion....
and I guess Hillary's name is spelled with two L's. mystery solved.

I wont be able to respond much today, my shoulder is hurting like fire, and I cant move my arm in any direction. it hurts to type this. Im going to say "carry on" and will try to read this later...:wavey:

[strandinthewind]

ok, that explains it, but I started off talking about Boxer and Suze and I were discussing Boxer...but ok, I think I understand the confusion....
and I guess Hillary's name is spelled with two L's. mystery solved.

I wont be able to respond much today, my shoulder is hurting like fire, and I cant move my arm in any direction. it hurts to type this. Im going to say "carry on" and will try to read this later...:wavey:

Sorry to hear about your shoulder.

[SuzeQuze]

Sorry to hear about your shoulder.

Me too, take care of yourself.

Brown Eyes' new sig takes the cake when it comes to low class comments. Equating liberals to animals is highly offensive. But then, he knows this.

[strandinthewind]

Me too, take care of yourself.

Brown Eyes' new sig takes the cake when it comes to low class comments. Equating liberals to animals is highly offensive. But then, he knows this.

. . . and it is ironic considering the sow saying it.

[gldstwmn]

apparently he made his decision after a confab with Bushwad...which by all accounts was a one sided discussion (Bush musta been asleep).

Maybe he is saving his clout for the next nominee? on the surface his reason seems legit (he says he thinks Roberts is a man of honor and he is counting on him not changing horses in midstream philosophically speaking) Isnt Leahy the expert on Constitutional Law?

I don't know. He may well be.

[Sapphire Girl]

Kick!!! I hope Feinstein does, too. It's good a couple other people have some balls as well.
Thanks for posting. :woohoo:
Sen Barbara Boxer has balls??!! :shocked:
I knew it! I just knew it! :lol:

[Sapphire Girl]

Brown Eyes' new sig takes the cake when it comes to low class comments. Equating liberals to animals is highly offensive. But then, he knows this.
Yes, it is highly offensive.... to the animals, that is. :)

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Hey if dems. are going to run her, then I say reps. get Elizabeth Dole out there! There is talk about Condi, which would be O.K. But I'm more for Mrs. Dole if it were to ever happen.

Mrs. Dole has tried it before, and her party didn't have enough faith to give her the nomination, I doubt they would now. Besides, republicans would NEVER run a woman--that would require acceptance of equal rights or something CRAZY like that...no way

Chris

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Well Feinstein might be "middle of the road" but she also is opposing Roberts.

CNN
"Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the committee's only woman, announced Thursday she would oppose Roberts.."

Feinstein told a packed Judiciary Committee hearing room that her vote was decided after Roberts refused to fully answer questions from her and other Democrats in his confirmation hearing last week.

"I knew as little about what Judge Roberts really thought about issues after the hearings as I did before the hearing. This makes it very hard for me," said Feinstein, an abortion rights supporter.

"I cannot in good conscious cast a 'yea' vote," she said. "I will cast a 'no' vote."

[dissention]

WAIT! Im talking about Boxer--who are YOU talking about? I thought you liked Boxer....and I havent heard any bad stuff about her, so Im a little perplexed where people get the idea shes "shady" or "wishy washy". That sounds more like Diane Feinstein to me.....and I even like her :shrug:

I thought you were talking about Hillary, not Boxer.

[SuzeQuze]

Yes, it is highly offensive.... to the animals, that is. :)

Why? Because we value the truth? Because we value peace?

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Yes, it is highly offensive.... to the animals, that is. :)


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

:wavey:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Why? Because we value the truth? Because we value peace?

Oh God here it comes...

Run Sapphire Girl, run now!

[strandinthewind]

Roberts nomination advances

Senate Judiciary Committee votes 13-5 in favor

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved John Roberts' nomination as the next Supreme Court chief justice, virtually assuring the conservative judge confirmation by the Senate next week.

Three Democrats joined the committee's 10 majority Republicans in a 13-5 vote to advance the nomination to the full Senate.

Five Democrats -- Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California, Joseph Biden of Delaware, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Charles Schumer of New York and Dick Durbin of Illinois -- opposed Roberts.

Feinstein, the committee's only woman, announced she would oppose Roberts, while Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin, decided to support making the conservative judge the nation's 17th chief justice.

"I will vote my hopes today and not my fears," Kohl said.

Feinstein told a packed Judiciary Committee hearing room that her vote was decided after Roberts refused to fully answer questions from her and other Democrats in his confirmation hearing last week.

"I knew as little about what Judge Roberts really thought about issues after the hearings as I did before the hearing. This makes it very hard for me," said Feinstein, an abortion rights supporter.

"I cannot in good conscious cast a 'yea' vote," she said. "I will cast a 'no' vote."

Panel vote assured
A vote in Roberts' favor was assured, with the panel's majority of 10 Republicans united behind him.

The only question was which way some of the panel's eight Democrats would go.

By late morning Thursday, the tally was two Democrats for Roberts and two against, with others yet to speak their mind.

The first of the group to come out against Roberts was liberal stalwart Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, who announced on Wednesday that he would vote against Roberts in committee and on the Senate floor when the final vote is called late next week.

Senate Democrats, however, are split on whether Roberts will make a suitable successor to the late William H. Rehnquist and over whether they can or should mount even symbolic opposition.

Leahy backs Roberts
The Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, decided Wednesday to vote to confirm Roberts.

"I take him at his word that he will steer the court to serve as an appropriate check on potential abuses of presidential power," Leahy told the committee and former Sen. Fred Thompson -- Roberts' escort through the confirmation process -- who watched from the crowd.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, who called Leahy "my courageous colleague" Thursday morning, said Roberts has the ability to end the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 splits on issues important to Americans.

"I think he has a real sense for building consensus," said Specter, who is an abortion rights moderate.

Leahy and Kohl were not the only Democrats supporting Roberts.

Sens. Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Max Baucus of Montana announced their support for Roberts.

Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana indicated they were leaning toward voting for the nominee. Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota was viewed as a possible vote for him, as well.

Roberts is "very well credentialed," Landrieu said Wednesday.

Full Senate votes next week
Roberts' nomination now goes to the full Senate for a final vote next week. The White House wants Roberts to be in place as the nation's 17th chief justice when the Supreme Court begins its new term on October 3.

Leahy was one of four senators who met with President Bush on Wednesday to discuss the second opening on the high court, a replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

The stakes become greater with the next nominee. The conservative Roberts would replace Rehnquist, a reliably conservative vote on the court.

O'Connor has been one of the court's swing voters on affirmative action, abortion, campaign finance, discrimination and death penalty cases. Replacing her could give the president a chance to swing the court to the right on many issues.

Democratic support for Roberts has upset some liberal interest groups. Ralph Neas, head of People for the American Way, on Wednesday called Leahy's decision "inexplicable and deeply disappointing."

Senate Democrats opposing Roberts so far include Democratic leader Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer of California, John Kerry of Massachusetts and New Jersey Sens. Jon Corzine and Frank Lautenberg.

O'Connor replacement
Specter, Leahy, Reid and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, met with Bush at the White House over breakfast Wednesday to discuss O'Connor's replacement. While the senators offered some names, the president did not share his own opinions.

One potential nominee discussed was Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a longtime favorite of the president who would become the first Hispanic named to the court.

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus is opposing Roberts.

Reid and Leahy also suggested other Hispanic candidates, including Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Ed Prado of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo Hinojosa, officials said. These officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of the meeting.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush was considering a diverse list.


Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/22/roberts.ap/index.html

(emphasis supplied)

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Oh God here it comes...

Run Sapphire Girl, run now!

Oh how sweet you find you an ally...One thing I have noticed about you is, you do like to talk a lot about how we don't want to hear any difference of opinion, but in fact you portray to me that you don't want to. Instead of just debating, you do exactly what you claim we do. You just denounce every argument as one of those "oh I've heard this a million times" things..instead of actually trying to think about.

I bet you even bought into the whole Kerry "flip flop" spin machine didnt you? You walked around saying "that Kerry is just a big flip flopper." I can imagine it now.

Chris

[gldstwmn]

Five Democrats -- Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California, Joseph Biden of Delaware, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Charles Schumer of New York and Dick Durbin of Illinois -- opposed Roberts.



Holy ****e! :shocked:

[strandinthewind]

Holy ****e! :shocked:

To me, she is not person bad Amber and them make her out to be. Then again, I did not mind the contracts stuff or the gun totin' :laugh:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I bet you even bought into the whole Kerry "flip flop" spin machine didnt you? You walked around saying "that Kerry is just a big flip flopper." I can imagine it now.

Chris

There was a machine? hmmm...never heard about it. And you can imagine it now, yet you have no clue who I am or what I look like? Actually I don't spend every hour of the day pondering about politics. I check the drudge report every morning, Ann's website every week for her new article, I chat with people in real life and on the net about what's new, and watch Fox News a few hours out of the day...I do actually have a life though.

[amber]

To me, she is not person bad Amber and them make her out to be. Then again, I did not mind the contracts stuff or the gun totin' :laugh:
Then, dare I say it, you may be underinformed about the extent of Feinsteinness. But, if you don't mind the contracts and the gun totin' you might not mind anything.... :shocked: :laugh: :distress:

She's definitely not the worst, but she could be a lot better. And i still think she is very slippery and somewhat unpredictable.

[strandinthewind]

Then, dare I say it, you may be underinformed about the extent of Feinsteinness. But, if you don't mind the contracts and the gun totin' you might not mind anything.... :shocked: :laugh: :distress:

She's definitely not the worst, but she could be a lot better. And i still think she is very slippery and somewhat unpredictable.

I am not against gun ownership as long as its regulated. The wrath of the Calif. crazies may descend on me now :laugh: :rolleyes:

[amber]

I am not against gun ownership as long as its regulated. The wrath of the Calif. crazies may descend on me now :laugh: :rolleyes:
I wasn't talking about that so much as the way she did it. She's just slippery and two faced and pandering, darnit! :laugh:
um....California crazies? Oh, honey, did you actually type that with a straight face??? :laugh:

[dissention]

I am not against gun ownership as long as its regulated. The wrath of the Calif. crazies may descend on me now :laugh: :rolleyes:

Hon, you think everyone but you is crazy. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Hon, you think everyone but you is crazy. :laugh:

Oh no child - I can lead the pack - actually, as I mentioned years ago, there we'd be - me, you, Glodie, and a few others marching in a human rights parade - arms locked in a sign of unity and mouths a flapping with the bitching about the details :laugh:

But, to the issue - doesn't everyone :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

I wasn't talking about that so much as the way she did it. She's just slippery and two faced and pandering, darnit! :laugh:
um....California crazies? Oh, honey, did you actually type that with a straight face??? :laugh:

Your telling me California is not known for its crazies :laugh:

If so, I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn :wavey:

Hell, NOLA is and I am proud of it :cool:

[ShangriLaTroubl]

There was a machine? hmmm...never heard about it. And you can imagine it now, yet you have no clue who I am or what I look like? Actually I don't spend every hour of the day pondering about politics. I check the drudge report every morning, Ann's website every week for her new article, I chat with people in real life and on the net about what's new, and watch Fox News a few hours out of the day...I do actually have a life though.

Ooooh ok, I get it now...Fox News a few hours of the day would turn any normal person into a right wing nut job (not that I'm insinuating that is what you are....although you're right I do not know you so you may well be)....and hearing Ann speak for more than 5 minutes certainly could turn a highly educated persons' brain into mush...so yeah you're excused for your ignorance

Chris

[Sugar]

Run Sapphire Girl, run now!

She always does. ;)

[estranged4life]

Ooooh ok, I get it now...Fox News a few hours of the day would turn any normal person into a right wing nut job (not that I'm insinuating that is what you are....although you're right I do not know you so you may well be)....and hearing Ann speak for more than 5 minutes certainly could turn a highly educated persons' brain into mush...so yeah you're excused for your ignorance

Chris

and I am am definitely not a "right wing nut job"...Nor am I a "left wing nut job", Just someone who is considered a "both major political parties are a sick joke nut job" :nod:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

She always does. ;)

Oh no! Really, that must be why I don't remember her posting here...ever! :laugh:

Oh well I suppose me, Nancy and HomerMcVie are the only Conservatives who stick around! :shrug:

[dissention]

HomerMcVie are the only Conservatives who stick around! :shrug:

He's a conservative? :shocked: Since when?

[strandinthewind]

He's a conservative? :shocked: Since when?

I know - well, I guess that is one more "fact" missed :laugh: and the sow doesn't even know Homer - so that one is home made :laugh:

BTW - where is that site to support all those rescinded donations for the Katrina benefit :laugh:

[amber]

Your telling me California is not known for its crazies :laugh:

If so, I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn :wavey:

Hell, NOLA is and I am proud of it :cool:

i'm telling you for you to call someone crazy is hilarious. ;) :xoxo:

[ShangriLaTroubl]

got this email today :



Today we have the latest episode of Conversations with Hillary. Hillary talks to Representative Nita Lowey about women's rights, the Court and our country.



Our first Conversation, of Hillary speaking with Representative John Lewis, about what is at stake for civil rights, can be viewed here.


Dear Friend:

With the future of women's rights, civil rights, and privacy rights at stake, I cannot vote to confirm John Roberts.

I have an obligation to my constituents to make sure that I cast my vote for Chief Justice of the United States for someone I am convinced will be steadfast in protecting fundamental women's rights, civil rights, privacy rights, and who will respect the appropriate separation of powers among the three branches. After the Judiciary Hearings, I believe the record on these matters has been left unclear. That uncertainty means as a matter of conscience, I cannot vote to confirm despite Judge Roberts' long history of public service.

In one memo, for example, Judge Roberts argued that Congress has the power to deny the Supreme Court the right to hear appeals from lower courts on constitutional claims involving flag burning, abortion, and other matters. He wrote that the United States would be far better off with fifty different interpretations of the right to choose than with what he called the "judicial excesses embodied in Roe v. Wade."

When questioned about his legal memoranda, Judge Roberts claimed they did not necessarily reflect his views and that he was merely making the best possible case for his clients or responding to a superior's request that he make a particular argument. It is hard to believe he has no opinion on so many critical issues after years as a Justice Department and White House lawyer, appellate advocate and judge.

It is telling that President Bush has said the Justices he most admires are the two most conservative justices, Justices Thomas and Scalia. It is not unreasonable to believe that the President has picked someone in Judge Roberts whom he believes holds a similarly conservative philosophy, and that voting as a bloc they could further limit the power of the Congress, expand the purview of the Executive, and overturn key rulings like Roe v. Wade.

I will, therefore, vote against his confirmation. My desire to maintain the already fragile Supreme Court majority for civil rights, voting rights and women's rights outweighs the respect I have for Judge Roberts' intellect, character, and legal skills.

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

[irishgrl]

Well Well! two surprises in one day :D Feinstein votes no (I wasnt surprised!) and Hilary stands up for basic Dem values :)
nice way to start the weekend :]

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Well Well! two surprises in one day :D Feinstein votes no (I wasnt surprised!) and Hilary stands up for basic Dem values :)
nice way to start the weekend :]


Feinstein is more of a surprise than Hillary to me...

Chris

[strandinthewind]

. . . I will, therefore, vote against his confirmation. My desire to maintain the already fragile Supreme Court majority for civil rights, voting rights and women's rights outweighs the respect I have for Judge Roberts' intellect, character, and legal skills.

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Hmmmmm - interesting and I was wrong.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Hmmmmm - interesting and I was wrong.


now the real wild card is Lieberman!! lol yeah right!


Chris

[irishgrl]

Hmmmmm - interesting and I was wrong.
Lord Luv Ya, you're a good man Gunga Din

[BombaySapphire3]

While I'm pleased Ms. Clinton made that choice I can't help but wonder if the usual expediency is behind it.If Roberts turns out to be the type of Supreme court Justice I believe he will be .her voting for his confirmation could alienate much of the national Democratic party. hindering the ambitions that we all know she has.

[irishgrl]

While I'm pleased Ms. Clinton made that choice I can't help but wonder if the usual expediency is behind it.If Roberts turns out to be the type of Supreme court Justice I believe he will be .her voting for his confirmation could alienate much of the national Democratic party. hindering the ambitions that we all know she has.
HOOOOOOLD on Thar.....(Quiksdraw MeGraw) These ambitions you say she has??? Im not sure I agree with you....I havent seen anything yet that would indicate she would run. In fact, with her husband's recent comment that he hopes she doesnt reverberating in my noggin, I just dont think this particular scenario is going to come to pass...

[gldstwmn]

HOOOOOOLD on Thar.....(Quiksdraw MeGraw) These ambitions you say she has??? Im not sure I agree with you....I havent seen anything yet that would indicate she would run. In fact, with her husband's recent comment that he hopes she doesnt reverberating in my noggin, I just dont think this particular scenario is going to come to pass...

I have no doubt that she's running.

[dissention]

I have no doubt that she's running.

That's what scares me. A DLC Dem is just another Republican, albeit with a different name.

Imagine if the race in '08 is between Mutt Romney and Hillary. :lol:

[gldstwmn]

That's what scares me. A DLC Dem is just another Republican, albeit with a different name.

Imagine if the race in '08 is between Mutt Romney and Hillary. :lol:

Funny thing is, I don't think she'll get the nom.

[irishgrl]

I have no doubt that she's running.
based on what? I havent seen any hard indications that she would be that stupid..everyone is expecting her to, and If I were her, I sure wouldnt do what people THOT I was going to do..........I think if I were her, I would wait.......especially since the GOP attack machine is already gearing up...let them spin their wheels for awhile! and hoard your resources, and wait for a better time..................that's what I'd do.........

[ShangriLaTroubl]

HOOOOOOLD on Thar.....(Quiksdraw MeGraw) These ambitions you say she has??? Im not sure I agree with you....I havent seen anything yet that would indicate she would run. In fact, with her husband's recent comment that he hopes she doesnt reverberating in my noggin, I just dont think this particular scenario is going to come to pass...


If she wasnt running she would just flat out say "I'm not running." instead of what she usually says "you know I'm thinking about 2006..take one election at a time...I havent even thought about .."
She might change her mind somewhere down the road, but I think she's planning on it..

Chris

[irishgrl]

If she wasnt running she would just flat out say "I'm not running." instead of what she usually says "you know I'm thinking about 2006..take one election at a time...I havent even thought about .."
She might change her mind somewhere down the road, but I think she's planning on it..

Chris
well, her answer sounds like a "no" to me....I dont think she is ready yet, and I betcha she is getting a big kick outa the fear in the Elephant tent....

[gldstwmn]

based on what?

She's been doing a lot of fundraising in various states.

[irishgrl]

She's been doing a lot of fundraising in various states.
so? couldnt that be for her Senatorial seat? She had a wealthy opponent the last time, determined to unseat her...I think she'd be stupid NOT to raise the bucks...

[dissention]

well, her answer sounds like a "no" to me....I dont think she is ready yet, and I betcha she is getting a big kick outa the fear in the Elephant tent....

What's she waiting for? She's no spring chicken.

[irishgrl]

What's she waiting for? She's no spring chicken.

possibly a shift in attitude against her? or a general consesus that the GOP has pretty much screwed this country over? I hate to say it but I dont see this country voting in ANY woman. This is still very much a Good Old Boys Club.

Personally, I think a woman in office would be refreshing...Other countries have done it and things worked out ok.....why not the US? :shrug:

[ShangriLaTroubl]

well, her answer sounds like a "no" to me....I dont think she is ready yet, and I betcha she is getting a big kick outa the fear in the Elephant tent....

If it was "no" she would say "no I'm not running." Maybe she really hasnt decided yet I guess, and just doesnt want to rule it out in case she does decide.
I also think a lot of people have the wrong impression of her... She has been very vocally slamming of the Bush administration.

She's also been pretty vocal lately about Bush's FEMA failures.

"FEMA was the lead agency during the Clinton administration; it was in charge," Mrs. Clinton boasted during a conference call with reporters. "James D. Witt, the director, understood how to deal with emergencies."

"FEMA took on the role of helping to prepare localities and states to be in a position to respond," she continued, in quotes picked up by the Village Voice.
"Helping localities do what they needed to do to mitigate damage - that philosophy governed FEMA during the Clinton administration," Hillary said. "It was obviously rejected by this administration."

"I feel very strongly about this," she told reporters. "This current government is not only failing with respect to Katrina but we are not planning for the future."

---------
One of her past comments about the Iraq war drew many attacks from Republicans.

"I sometimes feel that Alfred E. Newman is in charge in Washington," Clinton said referring to the freckle-faced Mad Magazine character. She drew a laugh from crowd when she described Bush's attitude toward tough issues with Newman's catchphrase: "What, me worry?"

----

HILLARY ON ABORTION

Q: What kind of justice to the Supreme Court would you support?

A: I think the fate of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance. If we take Gov. Bush at his word, his two favorite Justices are Scalia and Thomas, both of whom are committed to overturning Roe v. Wade, ending a woman’s right to choose. I could not go along with that. In the Senate, I will be looking very carefully at the constitutional views [indicating] as to what that nominee believes about basic, fundamental, constitutional rights.

Source: Senate debate in Manhattan Oct 8, 2000

----
"I am and always have been pro-choice, and that is not a right any of should take for granted. There are a number of forces at work in our society that would try to turn back the clock and undermine a woman’s right to chose, and [we] must remain vigilant. "

"I have met thousands and thousands of pro-choice men and women. I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard. "

[gldstwmn]

so? couldnt that be for her Senatorial seat? She had a wealthy opponent the last time, determined to unseat her...I think she'd be stupid NOT to raise the bucks...

There's no way Jeanne Pirro can unseat her. Too much junk in that trunk. She could be fundraising for her senate race but somehow I doubt that is her only aspiration.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

There's no way Jeanne Pirro can unseat her. Too much junk in that trunk. She could be fundraising for her senate race but somehow I doubt that is her only aspiration.


I agree..I dont think there's really much worry she will be unseated in the Senate at all

Chris

[dissention]

possibly a shift in attitude against her?

Yeah, that'll happen. Just like Anderson Cooper and I are getting hitched in an extravagant November wedding, all of the Hollywood hot shots are groveling at my feet, and I have the only winning ticket for the New York state lotto in my back pocket.

or a general consesus that the GOP has pretty much screwed this country over?

I can assure you that even when everyone realizes that, DLC Dem Hillary won't look much better to them.

I hate to say it but I dont see this country voting in ANY woman. This is still very much a Good Old Boys Club.

Personally, I think a woman in office would be refreshing...Other countries have done it and things worked out ok.....why not the US? :shrug:

Screw Hillary, I'm voting Geena Davis. Who's with me?

[GypsySorcerer]

based on what? I havent seen any hard indications that she would be that stupid..everyone is expecting her to, and If I were her, I sure wouldnt do what people THOT I was going to do..........I think if I were her, I would wait.......especially since the GOP attack machine is already gearing up...let them spin their wheels for awhile! and hoard your resources, and wait for a better time..................that's what I'd do.........
She's running. There's no way she'd be fundraising in Kentucky if she weren't.

[irishgrl]

again, who's to say she's not getting her war chest ready for her Senate seat?
and I wouldnt put it past the GOP to try and get a well heeled opponent against her. So, Pirro or some other candidate, I think she's just being prudent and getting as much in her coffers as possible just in case. Im not at all convinced shes running for President, I havent heard anything by her indicating shes thinking about that...A woman President? and Hillary knows shes not well liked
So I personally think she'll test her popularity and her chances by re-running for Senate.

In any event, time will tell, wont it? :shrug:

[ShangriLaTroubl]

"2008 is an eternity in American politics, but I think that the role I'm playing, trying to bring attention to issues, trying to get people to focus on what's at stake is a very appropriate role for me."


"Asked how Bill Clinton would cope with being "First Man", she commented: "I don't know if he'll ever have a chance to figure that out!

"I had a friend say that there will eventually be a woman president - and I hope in my lifetime and in the not too distant future - and then what will we call that person.

"Someone suggested, how about First Mate? I thought - that's a good answer."


------------

Former president discusses wife's political future

Friday, August 12, 2005; Posted: 8:20 a.m. EDT (12:20 GMT)

(CNN) -- Former President Clinton said Thursday his wife has not decided whether to run for president in 2008.

He also answered an accusation made by a potential Senate opponent that the former first lady is using New York "as a doormat to the White House."

"Jeanine Pirro is wrong. Hillary has not used any doormat and, by the way, she doesn't even have a Republican opponent yet. I don't know who the Republicans are going to nominate," Clinton told CNN.

In her speech formally launching her Senate campaign Wednesday, Pirro, a three-term district attorney in Westchester County, said Mrs. Clinton is out of touch with New Yorkers.

"She asked us to put out a welcome mat, and New York did. But now she wants to use New York as a doormat to the White House," Pirro said. "If Hillary wants to be president, she should be honest with herself and her constituents and say so."

The former president said his wife has "been a great senator for New York," and that New Yorkers "know she's been a good senator."

"I think the people will support her service in the election next year. That's what I think's going to happen."

Recent polls show Hillary Clinton is widely popular in the state and heavily favored to win re-election in 2006.

Her husband said the family follows a key political rule: "Don't look past the next election or you might not get past the next election."

So, he said, his wife is focusing on continuing her service for New York, not the 2008 presidential election.

"She's not a candidate, and I don't know that she will be," Clinton said. "I am convinced in my own mind she hasn't decided on that. And I don't want her to even think about it. I want her to focus on getting re-elected and on doing her job as a senator.

"There will be lots of time to think about that down the road."