I havent really gotten to read much on todays events outside of the painful post-breakfast promo that GWB cut this morning after their breakfast.

This dude prbly aint really of a similiar thinking on a lot of issues as me, but I do give the benefit of the doubt to the party/philosophy that can ACTUALLY WIN SOME FUCKING ELECTIONS to get their choice in these things so I figure he's in and maybe deservedly so.

I didn't catch anything on this today, but I do know that Bush's photo-op of the week was just up the road in Glen Burnie, Maryland, which might be the foulest den of ignorance and backwash that doesn't start with "Shreve" and end with "Port".

What a pivotal Presidency, two Supreme Court seats to fill.

You're so right about Republicans, they know how to get elected and they rarely ever waiver from positions, although I rarely ever agree with them on anything.

I'm not sure if abortion rights will be the big issue with this group of justices or if it will even be entertained, but his stance on the issue is interesting nonetheless.

He did rule that the Constitution does not grant protection to the unborn.

I share this view of Port Shitty.

Tim Brando would be so dissapointed in you two.

Democrats can't win elections, Republicans can't govern. Look for Dems to make an issue out of "privacy" while Republicans try to gin up some gegortion talk, and call a spade a spade.

Funny thing at play here, they actually need a protracted fight to distract from Abramoff, so look for this one to be bitter.

Funnier still is the way Republicans tiptoe around their dirty secret: THEY WILL NEVER OUTLAW ABORTION. Read what this dude says "I am personally against it but the law's the law." Then when Ted Kennedy calls him out for having said there is no inherent right to an abortion under the privacy clauses of the constitution, he says "That was just a job application."

Abortion is like The Gay to Republicans. They know they can't stop it, but they also know they can gin up a crisis of "librulism" anytime they need to with these issues.

I love observing public farces.

I just don't see what the point of these hearings is anymore. Everyone knows the opposing side is going to give the nominee a hard time, but for the most part they can't really ever do anything to stop the nomination. Unless, they uncover that they killed a homeless guy in the 80's or sexually harassed a co-worker or something.

OH WAIT, I forgot, the sexual harassment thing doesn't seem to stop nominations either.

yeah, but doesn't this flop over every decade or so? I mean, it's easy to make broad, sweeping statements about both parties, but this doesn't mean they don't pull some trading places type shit every 8 years.

and I agree that abortion is a complete fake issue (as are a majority of issues), but that doesn't make Alito remotely more appealing to me.

yep. why would you ever kill a boogeyman?

i see your point, but i think you're wrong. Most republicans wouldn't outlaw abortion, but Alito happens to be one of the few who would. this morning, he stated that roe vs. wade was decided incorrectly (questions regarding his 1985 memo). he then goes on to state that this is his personal view, and how that he will do what the law demands and put his personal feelings aside (bullshit, judges are subjective, just like everyone else). 'what the law demands' is code for 'do you respect precedent,' otherwise known as stare decisis. Alito then testified that stare decisis "is not an inexorable command," meaning that in his mind, it is not binding. this is coming from the judge who was oveturned by the supreme court in the last two major abortion cases, each time trying to severely limit the rights a woman has regarding abortions. from his testimony so far, it seems that Alito believes Roe was wrongly decided and the only reason he would not overturn it is if stare decisis compells it. His previous actions and beliefes indicates that he is not very compelled. You do the math.

Abortion is only one troubling subject so far, as he was also questioned this morning about the limits of presidential power. He basically refused to say that 'the president is not above the law,' which at this particular moment with this particular administration, is extremly troubling.

I hope he never makes it out of committee, although that's a pipe dream.

I thought the Republicans were doing an ok job of governing with Clinton at the Helm, now they control everything is where you see the major problems and their utter lack of proper governance. The same could be said with Carter and Clinton working with a fully Democratically controlled Congress.

i've been glued to the hearings all week. i've got to say that the man definitely comes across well--bork he ain't. i've also read some of his opinions and he isn't scalia either. he's a conservative through and through, but i haven't seen any of the flaming dissents or ludicrously inflated language scalia is famous for (i.e. his disgraceful dissent in lawrence v. texas). i disagree with him on just about everything, particularly his death penalty decisions, but sandra day was a helluva lot more conservative than people give her credit for, and i haven't seen a lot of good evidence that alito will be substantially worse.

also, it's damn near impossible to predict how judges are going to vote. remember it was a nixon appointee that wrote roe v. wade, and managed to bring half the conservative wing of the court with him. there's many examples of supreme court justices turning to the left once they're appointed to the bench.

politically, i don't think the dems could sucessfully mount a filibuster, and it would just distract from abramoff and provide a rallying point for the wingnut base. the dems can have their cake and eat it too--allow a vote but vote against him.

It should be noted though that if Nixon were around today, he'd look more like a moderate Democrat than a conservative Republican. The Republicans were an entirely different breed before the "Reagan Revolution."

Some would argue that almost all of his public policy then was more democrat than republican.

i am as pro-choice as they come, but in studying Roe - it is very interesting just how far the Court stretched the doctrine in that case. I think it is a "right" decision, but whether the justices exceeded the scope of their job is a valid question. The Court got pretty wacky in the 60s and 70s.

*cough* GOLDWATER *cough*

I have heard him referred to as "The Last Liberal President"

and Rodney -- I think that is what a lot people who personally don't care one way or the other about gegortion think. It is kind of an affront to the law.

Well, he was definitely a hardcore conservative on economics, but on social issues he wasn't exactly a Dubya Bush or a Ronald Reagan.

Maybe not but he is considered to be the father of the current republican idealism.

But he lost...and his brand of conservatism is NOT what you see today in the White House.

The real father of this horseshit Neoconservatism isn't Reagan or Goldwater, it's Wolfowitz. But the Wolf is a monumentally unelectable character--diabolical even. Bush is the face for what is anything but traditional conservatism (expanded Federal powers, especially witht he Executive; Nation Building!; free trade giveaways; massive deficits; expanded federal programs and funding...)

I'm not really debating. Just kind of stating that he is considered by many to be the father of the modern republican party.

I thought it was one of his teachers...I wanna say Leo Strauss but that sounds wrong...

Actually, there's this dude who was hugely influential on Thatcher....Damn I watched this whole fucking documentary and now I'm coming up blank...

Maybe who you're thinking of Cotton.

But the Wolf has access to power.

Mind you, this is just my theory. I am just positing that Wolfowitz is really who we should blame for NeoConservatism. He didn't dream it up on his own, but he was positioned to implement it and taht's where we are today.