• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens retiring

Are you really so stupid you won't back up your claims with sources?

See, more than one can play that game...

By the way, did I mention ethnicity?

Yawn

you don't like what i said so you are going to play the stupid contrarian game

Here are a few things to ponder. If you need help understanding them just ask

Democratic Racism: The Real Reason Behind the Borking of Estrada by Robert Alt

FOXNews.com - Democrats Plan Filibuster of Estrada Nomination - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

and another one


“Among those waiting for a vote is Peter Keisler, Mr. Bush's highly regarded nominee for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. … He is widely seen as Supreme Court material, presumably the reason Mr. Leahy hopes his nomination will go the way of Miguel Estrada, a legal star blocked by a Democratic filibuster in Mr. Bush's first term.”
The comparison to Miguel Estrada is an interesting one. Estrada was blocked not only because he is “Supreme Court material,” but also because he is Hispanic. Democrats fear the nomination of a conservative Hispanic to the Supreme Court, because blocking a Hispanic nominee would anger a core Democratic constituency. Is the fact that Keisler is Jewish similarly contributing to his obstruction by Democrats? There is no way to know. But it’s worth noting that, of the nine appeals court nominees currently being obstructed, three are Jewish

Committee for Justice Blog: Today?s Dramatic Showdown over Judges
 
Yawn

you don't like what i said so you are going to play the stupid contrarian game

Here are a few things to ponder. If you need help understanding them just ask

Democratic Racism: The Real Reason Behind the Borking of Estrada by Robert Alt

FOXNews.com - Democrats Plan Filibuster of Estrada Nomination - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

and another one


“Among those waiting for a vote is Peter Keisler, Mr. Bush's highly regarded nominee for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. … He is widely seen as Supreme Court material, presumably the reason Mr. Leahy hopes his nomination will go the way of Miguel Estrada, a legal star blocked by a Democratic filibuster in Mr. Bush's first term.”
The comparison to Miguel Estrada is an interesting one. Estrada was blocked not only because he is “Supreme Court material,” but also because he is Hispanic. Democrats fear the nomination of a conservative Hispanic to the Supreme Court, because blocking a Hispanic nominee would anger a core Democratic constituency. Is the fact that Keisler is Jewish similarly contributing to his obstruction by Democrats? There is no way to know. But it’s worth noting that, of the nine appeals court nominees currently being obstructed, three are Jewish

Committee for Justice Blog: Today?s Dramatic Showdown over Judges

So two hatchet job editorials, and one that shows something other than you claim.

Democrats argue he is too conservative for the bench.

On Wednesday, Kennedy told his Democratic colleagues, "If we allow a stealth right-winger on this court, we have only ourselves to blame."


Got anything reliable that backs up your claim? Only thing reliable so far actually supports the idea you are wrong.
 
So two hatchet job editorials, and one that shows something other than you claim.




Got anything reliable that backs up your claim? Only thing reliable so far actually supports the idea you are wrong.

You really are not up to this argument. The fact that Keisler's Jewish ethnicity is even raised suggests that many of us who follow this issue closesly believe it plays a part.


You want to explain why Estrada and Keisler were blocked when they both were emminently qualified. (and had the ABA's top rating)
 
What do you think the political fallout of blocking the nomination by republicans will have, and the use of the "nuclear option" will have? Will this have an effect in November?

I don't know anything about any of the people on the "short list", sorry.

I can hope that Obama picks a moderate, and the moderate is confirmed in the normal fashion without hoopla, excessive delay, nuclear options or any of that... big hope, huh?

I think the fallout factor will depend on the candidate. If the Reps fillibuster an actual moderate, that won't look good. OTOH if the candidate is pretty far left, and the Dems break with the nuclear option, I think that will tarnish them badly, perhaps critically, for the midterms.
 
I am a source, I handle federal appellate cases and I know many of the players

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ok, we'll play that game then, what is your name, place of work so we can VERIFY that you are indeed a CREDIBLE source?
 
You really are not up to this argument. The fact that Keisler's Jewish ethnicity is even raised suggests that many of us who follow this issue closesly believe it plays a part.

Your "belief" does not make it fact nor does it back up your claims.
 
Your "belief" does not make it fact nor does it back up your claims.

I couldn't care less

at least one of the moderators on this board knows where I went to law school since she asked me advice about applying to law school. another poster knows my name and knows I am telling the truth

that you are mad that I iknow more about this issue is not my concern and since you don't matter to me I couldn't care less what you think
 
I couldn't care less

at least one of the moderators on this board knows where I went to law school since she asked me advice about applying to law school. another poster knows my name and knows I am telling the truth

that you are mad that I iknow more about this issue is not my concern and since you don't matter to me I couldn't care less what you think

Yeah yeah yeah and I'm George W. Bush :roll: If you are not going to provide your name and where you work, then you are NOT a CREDIBLE source nor does it change the FACT that your "belief" does not make it fact or back up your claims.

Please take your internet bragging to someone that might actually believe you.
 
Yeah yeah yeah and I'm George W. Bush :roll: If you are not going to provide your name and where you work, then you are NOT a CREDIBLE source nor does it change the FACT that your "belief" does not make it fact or back up your claims.

Please take your internet bragging to someone that might actually believe you.


You sure seem upset

must have hit a nerve with you

call up Peter Keisler and ask him

Like I am going to tell you who I am

you seem obsessed enough to stalk me and trust me, I really don'[t need that.
 
Well, I'm glad this thread has been civil and free from hyperpartisan rants... :mrgreen:
 
Well, I'm glad this thread has been civil and free from hyperpartisan rants... :mrgreen:

I was pssed the way my friend was treated by the dems

TheNextAirhead seems rather agitated.
 
Well, I'm glad this thread has been civil and free from hyperpartisan rants... :mrgreen:

It was going ok for awhile...
 
You sure seem upset

must have hit a nerve with you

call up Peter Keisler and ask him

Like I am going to tell you who I am

you seem obsessed enough to stalk me and trust me, I really don'[t need that.

Upset? Not at all, but you are the one acting upset which is evident by your personal attack. I just know that without the information as to who you are and where you work, you are not a credible source as you claim. You are upset cause you got called on it and can't back up your claims.

Not my fault you made a claim you can't back up.
 
Upset? Not at all, but you are the one acting upset which is evident by your personal attack. I just know that without the information as to who you are and where you work, you are not a credible source as you claim. You are upset cause you got called on it and can't back up your claims.

Not my fault you made a claim you can't back up.

stop humping my leg You losers started the personal attacks

as I said I don't need stalkers

for all I know you are some pervert who is gonna show up at my door some day and I really don't ever want to have to shoot someone again;)
 
I am still waiting for the two libs to explain why Estrada was the first appellate judge fillibustered. Why did all four former DEM SOLICITOR GENERALS endorse his appointment if he was some sort of "Stealth rightwinger"

in discrimination law, if a reason is given for an action and it turns out that the reason is false, the jury can assume a discriminatory reason really motivated the decision maker (Manzer vs Diamond Shamrock in the 6th Circuit).

Since it is obvious that the reason the dems gave was a pretext or a facade, we can assume a racist motive really was the reason.


And lets compare Bush and Obama. Bush picked Roberts who was generally seen as the best available conservative. Appointing a White Catholic was not going to gain him any votes based on that. No one believed that Sotomayor was the best available liberal jurist--she probably was the best available Hispanic female jurist though so clearly Obama did see the ethnicity or gender of his first nominee as important to gain votes.


Next let's look at Harriet Meier. Yes she was a woman but most commentators said Bush initially wanted her because she was loyal to Bush. He was trying to pay off someone for their loyalty rather than gain votes especially since he wasn't going to be running again. was she qualified-objectively yes, subjectively no since she was no where near the best available jurist or legal scholar.

ALito was way up on everyone's list and again, picking a white catholic male was not designed to gain the GOP votes in elections-merely votes on controversial cases.

Thus, based on what we have seen so far, Obama has made the ethnicity and gender of his picks more important a factor than Bush did, BOth engaged in politics-but different forms
 
Still waiting for you to provide a legitimate source to your claim of racism and anti-semitism.
 
Still waiting for you to provide a legitimate source to your claim of racism and anti-semitism.

I did

I noted that the reason why the dems claimed they were against Estrada was specious

once I have done that the presumption is that racism is what motivated them

ROberts was well known as extremely conservative but he was not fillibustered


Estrada had the ABA and four leading heavyweights on the left-four former Solicitor Generals endorse Estrada including his former Boss, Clinton's Solicitor GEneral all of whom said he was both extremely qualified and was not a "Stealth right winger

so tell me why was he fillibustered-the first time in at least the last 75 years that a nominee to a circuit court was fillibustered.
 
Still waiting for you to provide a legitimate source to your claim of racism and anti-semitism.

I guess you also ignored the comments I posted demonstrating many other people also believe that the dem position was BS and racism was the reason

I realize when one is a hack you don't want to admit that your side can be racist-especially when you are a dem and you pretend that racism is only a rightwing disease
 
Uh, Redress, a least this poster's claim of racism has at least a hint of plausibility...which is far more reasonable than the Demcocrats claims that people like me are racist because we opposed Obamacare...
 
Uh, Redress, a least this poster's claim of racism has at least a hint of plausibility...which is far more reasonable than the Demcocrats claims that people like me are racist because we opposed Obamacare...

Redress is upset that what I said is widely believed among many attorneys and legal scholars
 
Honestly, I think both the Republicans and Democrats need to appoint justices based on their duty to uphold the Law and the Constitution, not to force an ideologue to judge based off of his opinions and not judicial and lawful facts. We need open minded, objective judges without bias or affiliation who will see that justice will be served and not ideology supported. Both Republicans and Democrats have failed at this.
 
Honestly, I think both the Republicans and Democrats need to appoint justices based on their duty to uphold the Law and the Constitution, not to force an ideologue to judge based off of his opinions and not judicial and lawful facts. We need open minded, objective judges without bias or affiliation who will see that justice will be served and not ideology supported. Both Republicans and Democrats have failed at this.

true but as of late-both at the appellate level and the supreme court-the GOP has been less influenced by quotas.
 
I guess you also ignored the comments I posted demonstrating many other people also believe that the dem position was BS and racism was the reason

I realize when one is a hack you don't want to admit that your side can be racist-especially when you are a dem and you pretend that racism is only a rightwing disease

Many people believe that 9/11 was an inside job, and Obama is not a natural born citizen, and aliens visit the earth, and the moon landing was fake....

I could care less what people speculate, I prefer those pesky facts, which you don't seem to have.
 
Many people believe that 9/11 was an inside job, and Obama is not a natural born citizen, and aliens visit the earth, and the moon landing was fake....

I could care less what people speculate, I prefer those pesky facts, which you don't seem to have.

Nah you are a hack

I posted strong facts that suggest that there can be no rational reason for the first fillibuster of a circuit judge

one that was backed by four leading liberal legal icons as well as the ABA

so see if you can rebut my arguments

but I know you cannot-you don't have the training or the intellect I suspect

I pose a question you cannot answer

Roberts and Alito were well known conservatives

Estrada was backed by four solicitor generals who served dem adminstrations
Estrada worked for the Clinton Solicitor General and clerked for swing justice Anthony Kennedy, The ABA gave him its highest rating

so tell me again-why was he fillibustered and Roberts-going to a higher court-was not

you seem rather unwilling to even address the issue
 
Nah you are a hack

I posted strong facts that suggest that there can be no rational reason for the first fillibuster of a circuit judge

one that was backed by four leading liberal legal icons as well as the ABA

so see if you can rebut my arguments

but I know you cannot-you don't have the training or the intellect I suspect

I pose a question you cannot answer

Roberts and Alito were well known conservatives

Estrada was backed by four solicitor generals who served dem adminstrations
Estrada worked for the Clinton Solicitor General and clerked for swing justice Anthony Kennedy, The ABA gave him its highest rating

so tell me again-why was he fillibustered and Roberts-going to a higher court-was not

you seem rather unwilling to even address the issue

No you did not. I was actually able to quote out of one of your sources a strong reason why they blocked one of the appointments that had nothing to do with race. You have proven nothing. You have not even really backed up your claim. You have called names alot.
 
Back
Top Bottom