Alito Confirmation

Bothwell · Post by **Bothwell** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 2:11 am

Addicted as I am to all politics and US in particular imagine my joy at discovering the hearings are being given wide coverage on Fox (Unfair, Unbalanced and in Hannity's case Unhinged) over here. I would give my left arm to see our high court judges facing the same type of scrutiny. I know that a lot of the questions are single issue (Roe v Wade, Gun Control etc) but at least the prospective candidate has to go through this proccess and his record is scrutinised to the ength degree.

Seems to me though that Alito is a shoe in, any thoughts?

I suppose it might be a bit tricky to get this over here as we have neither a Supreme court or a written constitution for it to rule on,a revolution is in order perhaps!!!!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 2:51 am

posted by alito

I suppose it might be a bit tricky to get this over here as we have neither a Supreme court or a written constitution for it to rule on, a revolution is in order perhaps!!!!

There is a lot wrong with our legal system perhaps-especially the sentences some of our judges hand down but I am not convinced a supreme court system would be any better. Especially with the likes of TB selecting the judges. Nor would i want to see a President Tony.

We had our revolution and Parliament won out as the sovereign power if only our MP's remembered where the power is and stopped being nice to Tony.

Raises other issues as well, not least the fact that scotland has a different legal system to England so we don't want toi be foisted with laws we find unacceptable. (take clamping for instance, the scottish high court ruled it was a form of extortion, at a stroke no private clampers ripping people off) English common law has a lot going for it though. The problem with a written constitution is debate tends to centre round what was intended and the words used.

Do we still need a queen or should Britain now become a republic and all the royal estates sequestrated by the state?:sneaky:

Bothwell · Post by **Bothwell** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:05 am

Do we still need a queen or should Britain now become a republic and all the royal estates sequestrated by the state?Hey GMC did you see "Who owns Britain" the other night. I reckon the Duke of Buccleugh must own where you are standing right now and lord Vestey owns where I am.

A 2 Billionestate in central London, Lord Portland i think, was given his land for supplying Henry VIII goats milk!!!! Bring on the Giullotine

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:49 am

If you have broadband, you can watch the hearings live.

http://www.c-span.org/watch/cspan_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS

This link will automatically try to find your RealPlayer, but the column to the right has other options.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:57 am

not to mention Fox, CNN, MSNBC and Court TV are running it constantly, i had to go rent a 5 hour 'pride and prejudice' to prevent dying from boredom.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:01 am

HGTV, dear, HGTV

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:02 am

posted by Bothwell

Hey GMC did you see "Who owns Britain" the other night. I reckon the Duke of Buccleugh must own where you are standing right now and lord Vestey owns where I am.

A 2 Billionestate in central London, Lord Portland i think, was given his land for supplying Henry VIII goats milk!!!! Bring on the Giullotine

Don't get me started on that one. Why should we allow the descendents of a medeival war lord keep what his ancestor took by force of arms? Or allow companies to buy up estates. Then again some of the proponents of alternatives and what they propose I would trust even less.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:04 am

Accountable wrote: HGTV, dear, HGTVbleh:p ....but history channel has some hope.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:13 am

Bothwell -

I saw where Senator Kennedy (D-MA) had his questions prepared by Senator Fienstien (D-CA). Does it work that way in Parliamnet, too? Do the Lords and Ladys of England prepare each others work?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:20 am

Bothwell wrote:

I suppose it might be a bit tricky to get this over here as we have neither a Supreme court or a written constitution for it to rule on,a revolution is in order perhaps!!!!
You don't have a tiered court system?? Do you have appeals like we do?

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:05 pm

The Democrats drove Mr. Alito's wife to tears. I know things get heated in the Parliament. Does that sort of thing ever happen to an England politician's spouse in a similar setting as Mrs. Alito was in? I think that was in gross violation of proper decorum. How would the English public view such an event in your country?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:44 am

ChiptBeef wrote: The Democrats drove Mr. Alito's wife to tears. I know things get heated in the Parliament. Does that sort of thing ever happen to an England politician's spouse in a similar setting as Mrs. Alito was in? I think that was in gross violation of proper decorum. How would the English public view such an event in your country?

why would she be involved?

We don't have a supreme court the way you do. There is no written constitution. we have magistrates courts, sheriff courts, high court and house of lords is the final arbiter where the law lords make the final ruling. High court judges are appointed by by the lord chancellor to the high court. senior judges can end up as law lords. There are suggestions we should have a supreme court with the govt of the day appointing judges but it is prompted more by a desire of TB and his cronies to control the courts who have stopped our home secretary in particular exceeding his power and trying to overrule the courts.

Just to complicate things Scotland has a seperate legal system from England with procurator fiscals instead of a crown prosecution service, advocates instead of barristers, courts of session for civil cases, sheriffs courts district courts a high courts depending on the severity of the crime and a more codified system of laws rather than english common law, danelaw and statute law although the influence is there as well.

Bothwell · Post by **Bothwell** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:57 am

A politicians spouse or any other member of their family would not be attacked in either house (Lords or Commons = Senate and Congress). there are very strict rules under what is termed Parliamentary privilige. I believe that it is the case that you cannot legally slander someone in either house. In other words you can say what you like and it is not legally enforcable, however this very rarely if ever happoens and the speaker of the house will eject memebers for any percieved misconduct. This in part is the reason why in both houses members are never referred to by name but as either The Honourable member (if it's an opposition Mp you are referring to) of My Honourable Friend. In the lords they are either My Noble Lord of The Noble Lord.

Having said all that you have to understand the power of our tabloid press and they certainly do not shirk from dishing the dirt true or otherwise about politicians and their families

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:16 am

Bothwell wrote: A politicians spouse or any other member of their family would not be attacked in either house (Lords or Commons = Senate and Congress). there are very strict rules under what is termed Parliamentary privilige. I believe that it is the case that you cannot legally slander someone in either house. In other words you can say what you like and it is not legally enforcable, however this very rarely if ever happoens and the speaker of the house will eject memebers for any percieved misconduct. This in part is the reason why in both houses members are never referred to by name but as either The Honourable member (if it's an opposition Mp you are referring to) of My Honourable Friend. In the lords they are either My Noble Lord of The Noble Lord.

Having said all that you have to understand the power of our tabloid press and they certainly do not shirk from dishing the dirt true or otherwise about politicians and their families

Thank you for verifying what I assumed. The caustic events I referred to took place in one of our Senate's committee rooms, an extension of the Senate Chamber. While the press (save for the tabloids) has access to this event, I was questioning more the specific events that led up to the nominee's wife bursting from the room in tears, at the hands of the politicians in opposition to the nominee. I thought it abhorant.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 7:24 am

Bothwell wrote: A politicians spouse or any other member of their family would not be attacked in either house (Lords or Commons = Senate and Congress). there are very strict rules under what is termed Parliamentary privilige. I believe that it is the case that you cannot legally slander someone in either house. In other words you can say what you like and it is not legally enforcable, however this very rarely if ever happoens and the speaker of the house will eject memebers for any percieved misconduct. This in part is the reason why in both houses members are never referred to by name but as either The Honourable member (if it's an opposition Mp you are referring to) of My Honourable Friend. In the lords they are either My Noble Lord of The Noble Lord.

Having said all that you have to understand the power of our tabloid press and they certainly do not shirk from dishing the dirt true or otherwise about politicians and their families
She wasn't attacked. She was tortured by the verbal bludgeoning her husband was taking. Nothing was said directly to her, except apologies after the fact.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:44 pm

Accountable wrote: She wasn't attacked. She was tortured by the verbal bludgeoning her husband was taking. Nothing was said directly to her, except apologies after the fact.
Along with the attacks against her "after the fact," accusing her of staging the event or acting for the cameras. But who's keeping track, right? :rolleyes:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:12 pm

ChiptBeef wrote: Along with the attacks against her "after the fact," accusing her of staging the event or acting for the cameras. But who's keeping track, right? :rolleyes:Ouch! I didn't hear about that. I just had CSpan on background & listened to a little talk radio. Somebody actually said she staged it?!?

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 12:26 am

Accountable wrote: Somebody actually said she staged it?!?
As reported by talk radio. If I see a report on the net, I'll post it.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 8:00 am

ChiptBeef wrote: As reported by talk radio. If I see a report on the net, I'll post it.Thanks.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 9:24 am

JAB wrote: Jeez oh pete! Does everyone have to have an ulterior motive? She's not a seasoned politician who is used to a barrage of people questioning her motives each time. If I were in a room of people attacking my husband on everything he believed in, I'd probably lose it too.
That's the point Jab. She was simply a concerned wife feeling for her husband. I did, however, find that AirAmerica.com said it was all staged.

http://www.airamericaradio.com/node/1477

The fringe of both sides of the controlling party (Repubicrats) are disgusting.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:52 am

Here's the hypocrisy:

Democrats, led by Ted Kennedy, attacked Alito as a "closet racist" by trying to plaster him with 15 year-old articles from Prospect, a magazine from the Concerned Alumni of Princeton. Alito didn't write the articles, but merely received the magazine as a member of the association. Altio testified under oath that he wasn't active in the group.

Where is Ted Kennedy and Co.'s outrage for one of their own with provable bonafides as a racist. Senator Robert Byrd is a former Kleagel in the Klu Klux Klan and strongly opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1965.

Maybe Ted Kennedy and Co. could focus on Byrd's prior active, leadership (Kleagel) role with the Ku Klux Klan. I'm sure there are photographs somewhere of Byrd in his Klan robes. He might even have them in storage for use after he retries as a career politician. Or, Ted Kennedy and Co. could simply pull the Congressional Record and highlight the former Klansman's record of opposition for landmark civil rights legislation.

Just make sure there are plenty of microphones around, because Ted Kennedy and Co. like to hear themselves talk. :wah:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:34 pm

JAB wrote: Sad commentary on the state of politics in our nation, isn't it though? I'm a registered Independent which means I'm equally disgusted by both sides. Makes me :-5 in frustration even more.Absolutely! Either they're boviating about How things ought to be one way while simultaneously voting the other way, or they're accusing the other side of hypocrisy.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:53 pm

Or lumping all elected officials into the category of one "controlling party (Republicrats)." Some folks do like to straddle the yellow line in the middle of the road, becuase they can't decide which side they should be on. Same as the folks that try to stay on top of the fence, thin as it is. I guess some fences are strong enough to hold for awhile though...... :rolleyes:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 2:06 pm

Yup that's me. I'm a waffle.

[smilie=1,30,17]

Right, Jives?

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 11:37 am

ChiptBeef wrote: Or lumping all elected officials into the category of one "controlling party (Republicrats)." Some folks do like to straddle the yellow line in the middle of the road, becuase they can't decide which side they should be on. Same as the folks that try to stay on top of the fence, thin as it is. I guess some fences are strong enough to hold for awhile though...... :rolleyes:

Chiptbeef....Just because some people are for a moderate approach in politics and don't ascribe to your rabid, radical republican views in no reason to mock, ridicule, slant, and deride them!

There are far more people in this country who are for a balanced approach than are for your holier-than-thou rightist views.

Most people, in fact, swing from right to left and back again depending on the issue at hand.

That is a far better approach to the shifting issues of our country than to automatically rubber-stamp a certain parties zealous views as you do.

BTW, Accountable is one of the most clear-headed, concrete posters on this board. He knows what he's for and what he's against and you'd darn well better have your ducks in a row before you debate him. (He slaughtered me in the Walmart thread, but hey! I was tired!)

To accuse him of waffling is as absurd as an umbrella in the superdome.

If you react to this post as I suspect you will, accusing me of attacking you and insulting you, please be aware that you have attacked, belittled, and scorned every value and belief I have since you've been here.

What I'd like to see, and this is a long shot but I'm asking, is for you to actually post something positive instead of negative, then, if at all possible for you, to leave your politics out of the subject.

In the meantime, since Alito is the subject, let me say this: Alito is another example of the Right wing's pressure to shift the court slowly to the right, step by step.

You are winning, so why are you so worked up?

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:42 pm

Jives wrote: don't ascribe to your rabid, radical republican views... your holier-than-thou rightist views... automatically rubber-stamp a certain parties zealous views as you do... Accountable is one of the most clear-headed, concrete posters on this board... To accuse him of waffling is as absurd... you have attacked, belittled, and scorned every value and belief I have since you've been here... leave your politics out of the subject... You are winning, so why are you so worked up?
Your diatribe seems full of speculation and unfounded accusations. But you do have a right to your own opinion, wrong as I, or others, might think it to be. You assume my political affiliation by imposing venimous labels. I never accused Accountable of "waffling." I used the terms "some folks" and "the folks" in the most general sense. Just a general observation. A reveiw of my posts will prove that I have never "attacked," "belittled," or "scorned" you, or your screenname, personally. I have an absolute right to express my political views as I see fit. I'm not "so worked up." I'm simply expressing my views and supportive facts under color of our beloved Constitution. Thank God for the American Revolution, which earned us many of those cherished freedoms.

:yh_flag :yh_flag :yh_flag :yh_flag

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:45 pm

LOL! Fascinating.:rolleyes:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:53 pm

Oh no, officer! I did not run over that man. While it is true that I own the car, and that the bumper of that car came in contact with the man's shirt, and that two of the tires came in contact with the waistband of his trousers ... twice each, and that my actions may have had some periphery type of involvement - if defined loosely - in that my hands were in contact with the car's steering wheel and my shoe (actually a gift) was in contact with the accelerator pedal, I did not run over him. I have an alibi: I was driving at the time! [smilie=2,33,32]

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:58 pm

Nice spin, fellows. Odd thing is, Post #22 in "Virginia Liberals Resort to Plagiairsm" thread in the "Politics" forum section under "Current Events" shows were the assumption, speculation and venom began, just one day after I joined this foum. That doesn't seem very tolerant and inclusive. I thought that was supposed to be one of the hallmarks of liberalism, or just being members of the human race. I must have been misinformed on that.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 3:09 pm

ChiptBeef wrote: Nice spin, fellows. Odd thing is, Post #22 in "Virginia Liberals Resort to Plagiairsm" thread in the "Politics" forum section under "Current Events" shows were the assumption, speculation and venom began, just one day after I joined this foum. That doesn't seem very tolerant and inclusive. I thought that was supposed to be one of the hallmarks of liberalism, or just being members of the human race. I must have been misinformed on that.
It may very well be a hallmark of liberalism. I wouldn't know. I do know that I welcomed you with respect until I found that your initial show of concern for balance and respect was a Trojan horse. I don't take kindly to duplicity.

If you are concerned about inclusion, note that you have not been banned. If you are concerned about inclusion, show some deference or find a place that will welcome your views.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 3:17 pm

There was no mention of "liberal politics," Liberalism," or the "British Liberal Party" in the post of mine that you quoted. I referred to "some folks" and "the folks" as a general observation. Not to beat a dead horse, but facts are facts.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 3:18 pm

Accountable wrote: If you are concerned about inclusion, note that you have not been banned. If you are concerned about inclusion, show some deference or find a place that will welcome your views.
Intimidation won't work. Better luck next time. :-6

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 3:27 pm

ChiptBeef wrote: Intimidation won't work. Better luck next time. :-6What intimidation?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 3:32 pm

ChiptBeef wrote: There was no mention of "liberal politics," Liberalism," or the "British Liberal Party" in the post of mine that you quoted. I referred to "some folks" and "the folks" as a general observation. Not to beat a dead horse, but facts are facts.

See Arnold? This is the kind of tripe I was alluding to in post #30. :wah:

Funny how ol' Chip ridicules people he calls sittin' on the fence, yet doesn't have the balls to own up when everybody knows he's using general words in a disengenuous fashion.

For awhile I thought he might be a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure little gets past the "wanna" stage with him.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 4:00 pm

ArnoldLayne wrote: if you shout in peoples ear long enough and loud enough they begin to stop listening.
Who's shouting? I'm just posting like everyone else. Your responding to some of those posts. Does that mean you are shouting too?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 4:04 pm

Bothwell wrote: Addicted as I am to all politics and US in particular imagine my joy at discovering the hearings are being given wide coverage on Fox (Unfair, Unbalanced and in Hannity's case Unhinged) over here. I would give my left arm to see our high court judges facing the same type of scrutiny. I know that a lot of the questions are single issue (Roe v Wade, Gun Control etc) but at least the prospective candidate has to go through this proccess and his record is scrutinised to the ength degree.

Seems to me though that Alito is a shoe in, any thoughts?

I suppose it might be a bit tricky to get this over here as we have neither a Supreme court or a written constitution for it to rule on,a revolution is in order perhaps!!!!
Yes, Bothwell. The hearings are done, I think. there are some written questions one senator says he has to look over, but really everything's done but the vote.

Sorry for the hijack.

Bothwell · Post by **Bothwell** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:52 am

Thanks Acc. One thing that I have noticed (i have commented o it here before) is how polarised US politics have now become, more so to my eyes than at any time previously, would you agree. I have no idea how I could get the stats but I would love to know how many "Middle ground" voters there are who will make up their mind depending on the policies that a particular government introduces, are there any or are you either Democrat or Republican and thats it?

It surely cannot be good for any democracy to allow it's leaders to distill government down to a couple of issues that appeal to their core voters rather than make decisons that are good for the country as a whole. We have a leader that is obsessed with his image and his place in history rather than making tough decisions

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 7:00 am

I'm frustrated every day watching these guys bicker over issues already decided (abortion) and other minutia (sp?) while glibly signing away our freedoms.

These last two presidents seem only to have their own legacy in mind. I have faith the country is strong enough to survive, but this next president needs to be a more selfless patriot.

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:15 am

Well.. I think that Bothwell hit upon an important fact that has been made even more evident during these hearings.. that the political arena has become very polorized and partisan during recent years. I really believe that the era of bipartisanship and compromise has become the time of attack politics. Unfortunately this breeds a political atmosphere that isn't conducive to creating legislation that is beneficial to the general public. Unfortunately I don't see any end to it in the near future. And this is not only happening on a national level, I see it occuring daily on a state and local level too... it is like some disease or something that politicians seem to catch when the annouce thier candidacy for office...

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:51 am

At least all the bickering ought to produce gridlock, but it's not even doing that!

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:58 am

Hell Acc.. they are politicians.. even agreeing to disagree is beyond them.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:42 pm

ChiptBeef wrote: If I see a report on the net, I'll post it.

"The Top 10 Conservative Idiots (No. 228), Cry Me A River Edition, 1/16/06

"It was business as usual at Samuel Alito's confirmation hearings until Mrs. Scalito and Friends turned on the water works and reminded us just what wimps conservatives are. But anyway, once Graham was done inserting his nose into the nominees's anus, Alito's wife, perhaps literally bored to tears, broke down and had to be escorted from the room. Republicans were fighting each other to see who could get in front of a TV camera first to blame the Democrats for making Mrs. Scalito cry. Gee, I bet that wasn't planned in advance."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/06/228.html

Notice the intentional misspelling of "Scalito" as a reference to Justice Scalia.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:45 am

Democraticunderground.com ....

That's probably where most democrats wish they were as well.

Worst thing that ever happened to politics was the influx of politicians.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:47 am

Accountable wrote: Worst thing that ever happened to politics was the influx of politicians.
In particular, career politicians. :-5

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:48 am

ChiptBeef wrote: In particular, career politicians. :-5
:yh_clap :yh_clap