NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Bush is continuing the politicization of American politics.

Huh?

Not surprising that it went completely over YOUR head.

On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 13:55:46 -0500, "P Fritz"
wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Bob" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 17:43:53 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Ho hum.
The man will be confirmed because there's not a thing the Democratic
minority can do to stop it.

more proof of the fact that the american middle class is virulently
anti-middle class.

That's right! I *am* middle class. Now if I could only convince the
lawmakers in Congress and the folks at the IRS that I am *indeed* middle
class...

Smart people in the middle class aspire to be in the upper class
someday.....which is why they oppose tax and other policies that would
inhibit their goals. Morons (i.e. liebrals) wish for everyone to sink to
their level.


more pipe dreams. middle class income has not increased since 1975.
you're just purveying a different version of the religious fundies who
assert this life doesn't matter...

upper class income is now, on average, over 400X that of middle class
income. tax policies have overwhelmingly favored the rich. the new
proposals now coming out of washington will eliminate the middle class
tax deductions for mortages and for local/state taxes. they'll
probably retain the cuts for the rich though.

you guys hate yourself and your children so much it's pathetic. you
live life in a cold sweat that somewhere in america a millionaire goes
to bed unhappy.








---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

OlBlueEyes wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in
:

My problem with this guy is that he is out of the mainstream. I think
all judges should be more or less apolitical, and middle of the road.

Like Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg, former legal counsel for the ACLU?

May have seen her last night...riding that broom. Don't know for sure,
they were all wearing black.

--
Skipper

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Skipper wrote:
OlBlueEyes wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in
:

My problem with this guy is that he is out of the mainstream. I think
all judges should be more or less apolitical, and middle of the road.

Like Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg, former legal counsel for the ACLU?

May have seen her last night...riding that broom. Don't know for sure,
they were all wearing black.

--
Skipper


Skippy's found himself another Jew-hating, black-hating soulmate. How
appropriate. And with Smithers fronting, you've got an act worthy of the
White Knights.

So add Breyer and Stephens to the list. Are you saying they are *apolitical
and middle of the road*?

Judges should *enforce* the law, not make it......that is the legislators
job. Unfortunately the liberal justices have deiced to do otherwise.

The real question for any SC nominee is.........will you base your decisions
on the Constitution of the United States (and Amendments) and what the
founders originally intended?

Yes, there are at times reasons for an amendment to the original
Constitution, but that is not the job of the SC.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Alito The Judicial Activist

Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito has captured the hearts of the right
wing. President Bush introduced him to the American people as a man who
has "a deep understanding of the proper role of judges in our society
[and] that judges are to interpret the laws, not to impose their
preferences or priorities on the people." Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) said
on Fox News that Alito has "shown judicial restraint in the past," and
the Heritage Foundation's Ed Meese noted that this nominee has "shown
careful and consistent fidelity to the Constitution and laws as
written." But the right wing's spin won't hold up for long. Lawrence
Lustberg, a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer who has known Alito
since 1981, described him as "an activist conservatist judge. He's very
prosecutorial from the bench. He has looked to be creative in his
conservatism." Legal scholar Jeffrey Rosen asserted that Alito has been
a "conservative activist" whose "lack of deference to Congress is
unsettling." Alito's past decisions show that as a Supreme Court
justice, he will not hesitate to actively overstep judicial boundaries
to further right-wing ideology, just like Supreme Court Justices
Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia have done.

ALITO TOOK CONGRESS'S COMMERCE POWER, GAVE PUBLIC MACHINE GUNS: In
1996, Judge Alito was the sole dissenter on the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals in U.S. v. Rybar where his colleagues upheld Congress's right
to ban fully automatic machine guns. Alito argued that Congress had no
power under the Commerce Clause to enact such a law. But he did not
stop there. He further demanded that "Congress be required to make
findings showing a link between the regulation and its effect on
interstate commerce, or that Congress or the president document such a
link with empirical evidence." The majority sharply disagreed with
Alito: "We know of no authority to support such a demand on Congress"
and the requirement would essentially require the federal government to
"play Show and Tell with the federal courts." Alito is willing to
overstep the separation of powers and actively limit Congress's
interstate commerce power, which is at "the heart of a vast number of
civil rights laws, discrimination laws and worker protections."

ALITO STRUCK DOWN FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family Medical Leave
Act (FMLA) "guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to
care for a loved one." In the 2000 case Chittister v. Department of
Community and Economic Development, Alito used his judicial position to
"prevent the federal government from enforcing civil rights
protections." Alito held that Congress overstepped its authority under
the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore had no power to require
employers to comply with the FMLA. But the only one who overstepped
authority was Alito. In 2003, the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist
led the majority that overturned Alito's reasoning. "The Supreme Court
decided that even its own path down the road of limiting Congress's
power would not go so far," said Goodwin Liu, a law professor at the
University of California, Berkeley.

ALITO WEAKENED EXISTING ANTITRUST AND DISCRIMINATION LAWS: Alito has
shown a willingness to push the boundaries of the law for the benefit
of corporate interests. In the 2001 case, LePage's v. 3M Corp. Alito
sided with the 3M Corp, arguing that its bundling techniques did not
violate the Sherman Antitrust Act. Judge Sloviter, the sole dissenter
on the 3-person panel, argued that Alito's decision would "weaken
Section 2 of the Sherman Act to the point of impotence," in addition to
weakening marketplace competition. (The Third Court eventually heard
the case en banc and sided with Sloviter, in a 7-3 decision.) In Bray
v. Marriott Hotels (1996), Marriott sought to deny the plaintiff, an
African-American woman, the right to present her case of racial
discrimination. Alito sided with Marriott, while the majority siding
with Bray criticized Alito for overstepping his judicial role and
"acting as a factfinder [and] taking it upon himself to interpret the
meaning of the deposition testimony of one of the defendants." "Title
VII would be eviscerated if our analysis were to halt where the dissent
suggests," wrote the majority. Alito's willingness to change
legislation at all levels of government show "that there's a real
chance that he will, like Justice Scalia, choose to make law rather
than interpret law," said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY).



My problem with this guy is that he is out of the mainstream. I think all
judges should be more or less apolitical, and middle of the road. By
naming a well-known right-winger, Bush is continuing the politicization of
American politics. In the long run, this is simply not the way to go.

But the guy is a qualified judge.

That last statement is all that should be required. The POTUS in power at
the time gets to nominate the judge. Ginsberg, is still an activist, but
Congress approved her nomination. As one of the Senators I heard on the
radio the other day said, it is the Presidents right to nominate, and as
long as they are qualified, they should be confirmed. He brought up
Ginsberg as an example. Their political leanings are not part of the
qualification. The fact that a President normally gets to appoint one judge
at most, keeps a balanced court. Screwed up maybe, but a balanced bunch of
screwups.

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 05:41:18 +0000, Bill McKee wrote:


But the guy is a qualified judge.

That last statement is all that should be required. The POTUS in power at
the time gets to nominate the judge. Ginsberg, is still an activist, but
Congress approved her nomination. As one of the Senators I heard on the
radio the other day said, it is the Presidents right to nominate, and as
long as they are qualified, they should be confirmed.

Except, the Constitution is clear on this. The President has the power,
"by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate". You wouldn't have our
Senators abrogate their Constitutional duty, would you?

Harry,
I love the way you group anyone who disagrees with you as a Jew Hating,
RepubliTrash or whatever.

When have I ever said anything remotely considered anti-Semitic?


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Skipper wrote:
OlBlueEyes wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in
:

My problem with this guy is that he is out of the mainstream. I think
all judges should be more or less apolitical, and middle of the road.

Like Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg, former legal counsel for the ACLU?

May have seen her last night...riding that broom. Don't know for sure,
they were all wearing black.

--
Skipper


Skippy's found himself another Jew-hating, black-hating soulmate. How
appropriate. And with Smithers fronting, you've got an act worthy of the
White Knights.

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 19:09:10 -0500, *JimH* wrote:


So add Breyer and Stephens to the list. Are you saying they are
*apolitical and middle of the road*?

Take it up with Gerald Ford, he appointed Stevens. Oh, and if you don't
like the behavior of the Supreme Court, don't vote Republican.
Republicans have appointed seven of the nine Justices.

Judges should *enforce* the law, not make it......that is the legislators
job. Unfortunately the liberal justices have deiced to do otherwise.

Liberal Justices? See above.

The real question for any SC nominee is.........will you base your
decisions on the Constitution of the United States (and Amendments) and
what the founders originally intended?

Cite please? How the hell do you know what the original founders intended?

Yes, there are at times reasons for an amendment to the original
Constitution, but that is not the job of the SC.

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 12:53:02 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:


Going beyond the more traditional and reasonable political division that
have long existed, and raising the splits to a higher level. Poor choice
of word on my part. Oh well.

Harry, I'm also very concerned with the direction of the Court, but
personally, even if Alito is confirmed, I think it may be a wash.
Rehnquist was, himself, quite conservative, and I'm actually expecting
Roberts may be more like O'Conner than some would expect. Either way, I'd
rather have a competent Justice, than a numbnut like Thomas.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Alito The Judicial Activist

Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito has captured the hearts of the right
wing. President Bush introduced him to the American people as a man who
has "a deep understanding of the proper role of judges in our society
[and] that judges are to interpret the laws, not to impose their
preferences or priorities on the people." Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) said
on Fox News that Alito has "shown judicial restraint in the past," and
the Heritage Foundation's Ed Meese noted that this nominee has "shown
careful and consistent fidelity to the Constitution and laws as
written." But the right wing's spin won't hold up for long. Lawrence
Lustberg, a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer who has known Alito
since 1981, described him as "an activist conservatist judge. He's very
prosecutorial from the bench. He has looked to be creative in his
conservatism." Legal scholar Jeffrey Rosen asserted that Alito has been
a "conservative activist" whose "lack of deference to Congress is
unsettling." Alito's past decisions show that as a Supreme Court
justice, he will not hesitate to actively overstep judicial boundaries
to further right-wing ideology, just like Supreme Court Justices
Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia have done.

ALITO TOOK CONGRESS'S COMMERCE POWER, GAVE PUBLIC MACHINE GUNS: In
1996, Judge Alito was the sole dissenter on the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals in U.S. v. Rybar where his colleagues upheld Congress's right
to ban fully automatic machine guns. Alito argued that Congress had no
power under the Commerce Clause to enact such a law. But he did not
stop there. He further demanded that "Congress be required to make
findings showing a link between the regulation and its effect on
interstate commerce, or that Congress or the president document such a
link with empirical evidence." The majority sharply disagreed with
Alito: "We know of no authority to support such a demand on Congress"
and the requirement would essentially require the federal government to
"play Show and Tell with the federal courts." Alito is willing to
overstep the separation of powers and actively limit Congress's
interstate commerce power, which is at "the heart of a vast number of
civil rights laws, discrimination laws and worker protections."

ALITO STRUCK DOWN FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family Medical Leave
Act (FMLA) "guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to
care for a loved one." In the 2000 case Chittister v. Department of
Community and Economic Development, Alito used his judicial position to
"prevent the federal government from enforcing civil rights
protections." Alito held that Congress overstepped its authority under
the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore had no power to require
employers to comply with the FMLA. But the only one who overstepped
authority was Alito. In 2003, the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist
led the majority that overturned Alito's reasoning. "The Supreme Court
decided that even its own path down the road of limiting Congress's
power would not go so far," said Goodwin Liu, a law professor at the
University of California, Berkeley.

ALITO WEAKENED EXISTING ANTITRUST AND DISCRIMINATION LAWS: Alito has
shown a willingness to push the boundaries of the law for the benefit
of corporate interests. In the 2001 case, LePage's v. 3M Corp. Alito
sided with the 3M Corp, arguing that its bundling techniques did not
violate the Sherman Antitrust Act. Judge Sloviter, the sole dissenter
on the 3-person panel, argued that Alito's decision would "weaken
Section 2 of the Sherman Act to the point of impotence," in addition to
weakening marketplace competition. (The Third Court eventually heard
the case en banc and sided with Sloviter, in a 7-3 decision.) In Bray
v. Marriott Hotels (1996), Marriott sought to deny the plaintiff, an
African-American woman, the right to present her case of racial
discrimination. Alito sided with Marriott, while the majority siding
with Bray criticized Alito for overstepping his judicial role and
"acting as a factfinder [and] taking it upon himself to interpret the
meaning of the deposition testimony of one of the defendants." "Title
VII would be eviscerated if our analysis were to halt where the dissent
suggests," wrote the majority. Alito's willingness to change
legislation at all levels of government show "that there's a real
chance that he will, like Justice Scalia, choose to make law rather
than interpret law," said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY).



My problem with this guy is that he is out of the mainstream. I think all
judges should be more or less apolitical, and middle of the road. By
naming a well-known right-winger, Bush is continuing the politicization
of American politics. In the long run, this is simply not the way to go.

But the guy is a qualified judge.

That last statement is all that should be required. The POTUS in power at
the time gets to nominate the judge. Ginsberg, is still an activist, but
Congress approved her nomination. As one of the Senators I heard on the
radio the other day said, it is the Presidents right to nominate, and as
long as they are qualified, they should be confirmed. He brought up
Ginsberg as an example. Their political leanings are not part of the
qualification. The fact that a President normally gets to appoint one
judge at most, keeps a balanced court. Screwed up maybe, but a balanced
bunch of screwups.

Since the election of 2000 the main stream of the US has been right of
center so Harry's claim that Judge Alito is out of the main stream is false.