Senator Dianne Feinstein was asked on Face the Nation this week about Senator Ted Kennedy's legacy in regards to his assault on Judge Bork's nomination in the 80s, and how things have changed in the nomination process as a result. She replied -- I kid you not -- "I do think it's become much more partisan; and there are many of us on that committee that are trying very hard to end that kind of partisanship. I was very surprised, for example, when Justice Sotomayor was not confirmed by more Republicans on the committee than--than voted for her."
This coming from a woman who voted against both Justices Roberts and Alito, both in committee and in the full Senate.
Sotomayor's low numbers (68-31) relative to her Democratic predecessors (Ginsburg 97-3, Breyer 87-9) are the direct result of the Republicans deciding to play the game the way the Democrats had been playing it since Bork (Thomas 52-48, Alito 58-42, Roberts 78-22).
Compare how the Republicans in the Senate Judiciary Committee treated Sotomayor, versus how the Democrats treated Alito. Honestly, does Feinstein actually believe the nonsense she's peddling?
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at September 02, 2009 11:08 PM | Email ThisThe dems misrepresent their records on TV because the press are great enablers and let them get away with it.
Posted by: johnny on September 3, 2009 06:33 AMThey have to keep up such obvious nonsense to hide their ugly policies, hypnotize their voters, continue their racism, work in tandem with their media sycophants, etc.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 3, 2009 07:10 AMWhat nonsense is that?
Schieffer asked if the SCOTUS confirmation process had changed following the Bork nomination.
Feinstein answered that they had become more partisan.
pudge thinks this is nonsense, and to prove it, he cites four highly partisan confirmation votes after the Bork nomination. Go figure...
Posted by: scottd on September 3, 2009 07:23 AM-
You don't see the hypocritical nature of this comment?
No, I don't. Her thesis is that confirmations have become more partisan. The Sotomayor vote was the most recent example of that partisanship -- it is supportive of her thesis.
Feinstein didn't claim that Republicans were solely responsible for making the process more partisan. She just said it had become more partisan. pudge thinks this is nonsense and then cites a number of partisan votes as proof. That argument is nonsensical.
Posted by: scottd on September 3, 2009 07:57 AMBut the same thing goes for the other side, too. They, the rightists, are often quoted as saying that judicial nominees should be judged on their "qualifications" only when in fact there is plenty of room when judging to put into effect your philosophy.
this brings up the hidebound plain meaning issue. Some conservatives pretend there's nothing to judging at the appellate level and the plain meaning of the constitution and statutes is always apparent. Dammit, they say, just apply the law! Don't make it up! this ignores the fact that the written words oft are ambiguous and often dn't cover the situation at hand. If you think they do, why go ahead and tell me whether you think that downstream retailers of bricks, or homeowners who are demonstrably victims of price fixing conspiracies by brick making companies (who sell to wholesalers, who sell to retailers) can sue under the antitrust laws even if one assumes the price fixing conspiracy. N.B.: the antitrust statute doesn't answer this question. Judges MADE UP the answer. In this process your views on politics, economics, even free markets and all kinds of social "facts" become relevant and your values and political leanings will enter into it consciously or not. To give another example, the plain meaning rule would indicate that the second amendment gives you the right to not have your arms amputated, because plainly it protects the right to keep your right arm and your left arm, obviously your arms are needed if you are going to be in a militia, etc. I think if you look it up in a dictionary the first definition of arm might be limbs. So the plain words aren't even understandable without context and purpose and all those other things conservatives say shouldn't enter into it; but that point of view is as wrong as Feinstein's pretense that these batttles aren't political.
They are.
Both sides should admit it and join the debate over which philosophy makes for better judging (i.e., making law).
In this context railing against Feinstein from the right wing side....well, what a joke! The right is the leader in this kabuki theater, even proclaiming that empathy can't be used or felt in judging. Try to decide what "cruel" means in the constitution without having a sense of empathy -- you tell me how you figure out what is cruel while at the same time pretending a judge shouldn't have empathy.
Cheerio. So yes, bingo, you caught a liberal in a bit of hypocrisy where the right wingers peddle the same thing by the truckload.
And this is what makes your day?
Hmppft.
Posted by: Torture Lawyer on September 3, 2009 07:57 AMThe difference being the size of the truck. The GOP carries their hypocrisy in a 2wd Chevy S-10 pick-up and the DNC carries theirs by way of a Peterbilt semi tractor-trailer.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 3, 2009 08:18 AMNo. But she DID say that SHE was trying to change it -- at all, let alone "very hard" -- which is a lie. And she said she was surprised that the Republicans were acting so partisan ... even though they were acting LESS partisan than the Democrats did with Alito.
It is sad that I have to spell out how nonsensical these things are for her to say.
Torturer: They, the rightists, are often quoted as saying that judicial nominees should be judged on their "qualifications" only ...
Really? I don't recall anyone on the right ever saying that; if they do, it is not "often." I think you're making that up. The right habitually mentions temperament and philosophy as measurements for prospective judges. That said, remember, Ginsburg was confirmed 97-3. If philosophy were historically considered, by Republicans, to be very important for the confirmation process, Ginsburg likely would not have been confirmed at all, let alone by a nearly unanimous vote.
The Republicans have not changed in how they view the judges, but -- following the Democrats' lead -- some now do consider general opposition to philosophy to be grounds for rejection. This is the first time in my lifetime that this has happened to a very significant degree for a liberal Supreme Court nominee. It's happened several times for conservative nominees.
Some conservatives pretend there's nothing to judging at the appellate level and the plain meaning of the constitution and statutes is always apparent.
Very few, if any. Again, I don't recall anyone ever saying it. It is not ALWAYS apparent. But it usually and often is, of course.
this ignores the fact that the written words oft are ambiguous and often dn't cover the situation at hand.
The words are ambiguous, yes, and courts are tasked with interpreting those ambiguous words as best they can, and people will have different interpretations sometimes. However, if they don't cover the situation at hand, then that is not for a court to fix ... if the law doesn't cover a situation, then, the law doesn't apply. No problem there.
... the plain meaning rule would indicate that the second amendment gives you the right to not have your arms amputated
Utterly, and obviously, false. This is why I call you "Torturer." Because you torture us with such tortured logic. The "plain meaning rule," while disregarding context to a large extent, still requires us to look at the obvious meaning of words. No one holds to the idea that we should follow a "plain meaning" to an absurd conclusion.
... the plain words aren't even understandable without context and purpose and all those other things conservatives say shouldn't enter into it ...
Again, you're just making things up. The greatest champion of conservative jurisprudence we've got is Justice Scalia, and his approach -- textualism -- is ALL ABOUT context. Almost no one generally adheres to "plain meaning" in matters of controversy, to the exclusion of context. Certainly no one on the Supreme Court today. "Plain meaning" is used as a first attempt to figure out how to apply the law, the "plain meaning" of it: but if any controversy over the law's meaning arises, it is quickly discarded.
Both sides should admit it and join the debate over which philosophy makes for better judging (i.e., making law).
We cannot have a debate when you don't even understand -- or intentionally misstate -- what the other sides thinks, believes, and even says.
In this context railing against Feinstein from the right wing side....well, what a joke!
Since I am the one who brought it up, presumably, you'd be able to demonstrate how I, personally, am to be faulted. Hm. No?
The right is ... proclaiming that empathy can't be used or felt in judging.
Again, you're making that up. What the right actually has been saying is that empathy cannot be used to decide cases.
Try to decide what "cruel" means in the constitution without having a sense of empathy -- you tell me how you figure out what is cruel while at the same time pretending a judge shouldn't have empathy.
Actually, that's very, very simple. You look at (our) societal standards. You do not need to feel anything to investigate the standards held by society at large. (This is the one place where I think the Constitution actually IS elastic ... "cruel and unusual" necessarily implies looking at what society deems to be cruel and unusual. Unfortunately, however, the liberals and moderates on the Court have used insane standards for this, but that's another discussion.)
yes, bingo, you caught a liberal in a bit of hypocrisy where the right wingers peddle the same thing by the truckload.
I defy you to point to where I have been hypocritical in this, or any related matters. You're being dishonest by attacking my post because of what some other people have said.
Of course, you can't even get straight what most conservatives think and say about judicial philosophy ...
But what I fear is next year a lot of career politician type RINOS are going to run as Republicans next year to surf the anti-Obama wave and we will see what we saw after the so called "Republican Revolution" in the 1990s.
And that is what led us to where we find ourselves today with Obama.
A key test will be in the eight district of Washington State. Will voters hold Reichert accountable? If they don't then the future doesn't bode well for conservatives.
We need to get away from the Republican vs Democrat mentality and instead think of things as being Conservative vs Liberal. A Republican who votes liberal is just as bad as a Democrat who votes liberal and in many ways even worse!
Posted by: Steve on September 3, 2009 09:32 AMBut you were writing about a particular response to a specific question. Feinstein said the process had become very partisan since Bork and cited the most recent confirmation as an example. You said this was nonsense and then proceeded to list a number of highly partisan confirmation votes. If you ask me, you both made a pretty strong case backing Feinstein's main point.
Posted by: scottd on September 3, 2009 09:34 AMI am not endorsing Reichert, I am just pointing out the obvious: there's no easy answer for most thoughtful conservative people on whether to support Reichert for reelection.
Yes. And then -- because you didn't get it -- I explained the (obvious) part of her response that was nonsense.
Feinstein said the process had become very partisan since Bork and cited the most recent confirmation as an example. You said this was nonsense ...
scottd, PLEASE don't lie, when everyone can see what actually happened just above. It only takes away whatever credibility you might have.
It was obvious to everyone else -- even Torturer -- from the context that what I meant was "nonsense" was her claim to be trying to make it less partisan, and her implication that the Republicans were more partisan than herself.
And then, because you apparently didn't get this, I went on to explain it to you.
And now you've had it explained it to you, and yet you continue to say that I said a different part of her response was nonsense, instead of the part of her response that a. everyone else understood I was referring to and b. I explicitly stated I was referring to. You're lying. Stop it.
Do you think Conservatives have learned anything different so that the so called "Republican Revolution" doesn't end up again like it did before?
Or do you even think beyond a few news cycles?
Posted by: Steve on September 3, 2009 10:04 AMThat's how high the stakes are there. Reichert could usher in the death of the conservative movement.
Of course this is Sound Poltics. Romneycare good Obamacare bad and all of that so the death of the conservative movement is what a lot of you people want to see happen.
Posted by: Steve on September 3, 2009 10:08 AMLuckily I believe the new generation of conservatives aren't knee jerk Republican voters even though this blog is full of them.
Politicians need to be held accountable whether it's on voting to confirm a liberal judge or voting for cap and trade.
Posted by: Steve on September 3, 2009 10:36 AMCan you put up someone better? If you can, maybe people will listen to you.
Do you think Conservatives have learned anything different so that the so called "Republican Revolution" doesn't end up again like it did before?
Absolutely. MANY middle-of-the-road Republicans have lost re-election in recent years, in this state and across the country. But how does that help the people of the 8th District when their choice is between Reichert and Burner?
If Reichert survives 2010 then don't expect any Republican to stand up for conservative principles ever again - anywhere! That's how high the stakes are there. Reichert could usher in the death of the conservative movement.
Oh, please. That makes no sense on any level. We've had moderate Republicans who tend to vote to the left on various issues for more than 100 years. Whether it was T.R. or Taft or Eisenhower or Nixon or Bush or Bush -- and even Reagan on occasion! -- let alone many of the thousands of Republicans in Congress over the years. Why do you say Reichert could kill the conservative movement, and not any of the many other Republicans in Congress who vote to the left on one issue or another?
You seem all wee-wee'd up.
Of course this is Sound Poltics. Romneycare good Obamacare bad and all of that so the death of the conservative movement is what a lot of you people want to see happen.
Steve, you are responding on my post, specifically to no one in particular -- though apparently to me -- and I've often attacked Massachusetts' health care system (and I voted for Romney for governor). I don't remember any post on this site saying Massachusetts' new system is good; are you just making that up?
Although, if not for this assault on SP not being conservative enough, I might think Gary was actually right, that you were a liberal poseur trying to get the base worked up. Most liberals couldn't pull that craziness off that well.
Obama Bailout Bad.
Posted by: Steve on September 3, 2009 10:44 AMpudge, Steve is a liberal pretending to be a conservative. Kinda like MikeBoyScout.
Steve, no one here thinks that, that I can recall ever seeing. Pretty much everyone around here was against both. Stop with your rampant dishonesty.
Gary: I do not recall MikeBS ever pretending to be a conservative.
I have noticed that the trolls (and many of their dem brethren would be this way, too) are pretty trying NOT to notice the point Pudge has made. We've all known this point for years, but it's definitely good to see Pudge put it in words for all to see, as well.
Posted by: Michele on September 3, 2009 10:54 AMFind me an example of a post here that was in favor of Republican socialism. I won't hold my breath. Certainly, you'll find none from me, or most other posters. You said "Romneycare" and "bailout" but you offer no examples of anyone here favoring it.
Luckily I believe the new generation of conservatives aren't knee jerk Republican voters even though this blog is full of them.
You keep saying that, but you have offered no examples of it. Probably because you just made it up in your own mind.
Politicians need to be held accountable whether it's on voting to confirm a liberal judge or voting for cap and trade.
And again you make the illogical implication that "hold accountable" means "don't re-elect." There's many ways to hold politicians accountable.
Steve, whether you really are a conservative or you're play-acting, you're being quite irrational.
Steve: if MikeBS pretends to be a Republican, he does a terrible job at it, because I've never noticed. :-)
You have to have a sick twisted mind not to understand that.
Keep on voting for people who are giving you socialism and they will keep on giving you socialism.
Posted by: Steve on September 3, 2009 11:04 AMWow. You're actually saying that when I voted for Romney in 2002, that I was therefore supporting a policy he didn't propose until 2004.
Please stop being irrational.
So, the politician will not do stuff that decreases the chances of getting re-elected.
If the politician knows that voting liberal will not decrease the chance of re-election because stupid conservatives always vote Republican then the politician will continue to vote liberal.
Reichert thinks that he can get away with voting for cap and trade. If he wins the next election he will have been proven correct.
And if he is correct then why change what works (politically)?
I personally thought that politically his vote for cap and trade was an ingenious move. The only way it wouldn't be is if indeed conservatives have changed the way they have behaved in the past regarding Republican incumbents.
But given past experience politically it was an act of genius.
Posted by: Steve on September 3, 2009 11:17 AMSo all the Republicans who voluntarily retire, while young and still able to get reelected ... ?
Once again, you're just making things up.
You are not serious.
In fact, many politicians vote the way they think is BEST, not for reelection, but for their country and their district. Not all do, of course, but many do. More should. And it seems to me that you are part of the problem, Steve: you are saying Reichert should vote against what he thinks is best just because YOU don't like it, using the threat of failing reelection against him.
Way to go, Steve.
Those days are over, as no one with a brain pays much attention to the fake media any more.
Posted by: Saltherring on September 3, 2009 12:13 PMDon't bother enabling him by responding to his nonsensical ramblings...maybe he'll go away to learn some new material.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 3, 2009 12:35 PMThose who do are Democrats. Unfortunately they are wrong.
Republicans only vote the way they think it less likely to hurt their chances for re-election.
And voting against conservatives historically is the way that is less likely to hurt chances for re-election because conservatives vote for incumbent republicans regardless of how liberal they vote.
Historically that is.
We will see if that's the case with Reichert.
Posted by: Steve on September 3, 2009 12:39 PMDo you enjoy saying things that are so obviously false?
You're done, Steve. Continue peddling this nonsense and I'll begin removing your comments. You're a troll, but even worse, you keep throwing out allegations without even attempting to back up your silly claims.
Why are you lying? Nothing I said could possibly be taken to be in support of Cap and Trade.
Please give me a good reason right now to not remove any further comments from you.
I believe that he voted for what he thought would be in his best political interest.
But there's a question for you. Is it better if Reichert actually voted for cap and trade because he really believed it in?
Or does him actually buying into all it make it worse?
Reichert obviously doesn't believe in cap and trade and was making a political calculation. A political calculation based on the belief that when it comes down to it in the end conservatives will not hold him accountable for his vote.
And from what I am reading here, it's a pretty sensible calculation to make. Just looking at the political ramifications of it all and not looking at the actual legislation and the actual effects of the bill, politically voting for cap and trade was a masterful move on Reichert's part. Politically speaking that is.
The only way it will not be is if conservatives change their historical pattern of voting for republican incumbents regardless.
Well then you deny your main thesis, which is that a "true" conservative should be able to win in that district; that if he wins reelection, then it says something broadly about "conservatism." Oops!
Reichert obviously doesn't believe in cap and trade ...
I agree, but it was not -- as you seem to think -- only, or even primarily, a "cap and trade" bill. There were a lot of things in that bill, some of which he agreed with and wanted.
A political calculation based on the belief that when it comes down to it in the end conservatives will not hold him accountable for his vote.
This is the third time you've directly made the error that "to hold accountable" means "to not vote for." Why do you keep making the same mistake over and over?
Reichert WAS held accountable: his office was inundated with phone calls (some even from his own district!) after that vote, and he and his office got the message. They know they will lose votes because of it, and maybe even his position in office.
Far from being a sensible "calculation," if it was calculation at all, it was a ridiculous one: unless there's a strong anti-Democratic wave that pushes independents to vote for him in 2010 -- among voters that didn't in the last two elections -- he will likely not make any gains into the liberal/indepdent voters, and he will certainly lose some conservative votes. Since he didn't win by a lot in either of the last two elections, this one vote directly threatens his position moreso than anything else that's happened in his time in office.
You seem to think he can win very many liberals ... he can't. It's not going to happen. He has to win independents and keep conservatives, and this vote won't do either.
I can tell because the things you say are fishy.
(See? I can be utterly random and illogical, just like you!)
Posted by: pudge on September 3, 2009 03:22 PMWill "being Republican" be enough for you to support a candidate next year.
Or will you ask for specifics?
And what specifics will be important for you?
Or will "being Republican" or "Hatin' Obama" be enough for you pudge?
Posted by: Steve on September 3, 2009 04:02 PMThat just leads to another Obama, only worse next time around.
We must get out of this pattern that we are stuck in, it's grindin' us down.
We have to admit that while the Republicans might play a different function but they are part of the same problem.
We must free ourselves from Bush Clinton Bush!
I am not only looking at now but a decade from now and all I see is Leftist Republicans leading us to Leftist Democrats leading us to Leftist Republicans Leading us to leftist Democrats.
Romney right now is the most likely Republican candidate. If he wins that just means like Bush he will mess up, the whole mess up will be blamed on "capitalism" and/or "conservativism" even though his policies will be everything but but since he's a republican in the end that is what it will be blamed on. And so we get another Obama. Only worse.
And no, I don't know who could be worse than Obama, but had you asked me ten years ago who could be worse than Clinton I couldn't have answered that either.
Bush ➪ Clinton ➪ Bush ➪ Obama ➪ Romney ➪ ??? It is very scary. But it is a pattern we have been stuck in. It is a pattern that re-enforced itself and it is a pattern that the only way we can get out of is by first admitting that the Republican party is part of the problem.
Actually, you asked FOUR questions, and you never answered MY questions. You make a lot of assumptions, Steve, and you refuse to answer criticisms or complaints about what YOU say. Almost everything you said was wrong, and yet, you kept right on going as though no one had any objections.
Will "being Republican" be enough for you to support a candidate next year.
It never has been.
Or will you ask for specifics?
I always do, unlike you, who rather than ask for specifics about why Reichert supported the "cap and trade" bill, you just assumed he did it for pure political calculation (a calculation that makes no sense).
And what specifics will be important for you?
I don't go into looking at a politician for specific things. I have him tell me.
Or will "being Republican" or "Hatin' Obama" be enough for you pudge?
It never has been.
all I see is Leftist Republicans
Open your eyes wider.
Romney right now is the most likely Republican candidate
Oh, right, I forgot, you have no clue what actually happened in Massachusetts, so you think he's a leftist because of the health care system there.
And no, I don't know who could be worse than Obama, but had you asked me ten years ago who could be worse than Clinton I couldn't have answered that either.
Shrug. I could've, easily. Schumer, Durbin, Feinstein, plenty of choices.
Here's how a logical and pragmatic conservative should vote:
Vote offensively in the primaries (for the most conservative candidate)
Vote defensively in the general (for the candidate likely to do the least damage)
Even President Reagan said you take 75% if you can get it, and forgo 100% obedience to some idealized conservative mold.
Would I like a much more conservative candidate than Riechert? Absolutely, and I'd vote for one in a heartbeat in the primaries. But I would NOT vote for Burner against him; he may be a moderate, but the alternative in Congress - an unabashed, ignorant liberal - is much worse.
I'm sure you (or one of your alter-egos) will twist this post, so I'm looking forward to your hilarity!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 3, 2009 05:18 PMTwenty-two years ago, the Senate rejected Robert Bork, and the right wing, forever hot-tempered and thin-skinned about absolutely everything, cannot (or will not) get past this. The vote tally for President Reagan's first appointee is not mentioned; it's just about the only fact which could make the petty, shallow, and vindictive nature of modern movement "conservatism" look even worse than it is. (Also carefully ignored in the vote tallies are the larger number of Democrats currently in the Senate than Republican numbers during the votes on Alito and Roberts, mentioning this would, amazingly, make the GOP look even more churlish.)
Well, enough of "we Republicans are justified in doing it because the Democrats did", the next Sound Politics post should be a sanctimonious lecture on the moral inferiority of the latter to the former, right?
Posted by: tensor on September 3, 2009 06:41 PMI hope you're joking that you think what Feinstein said was refreshing.
The reader searches in vain for any mention of Justice Sotomayor's qualifications or Constitutional views
I know ... instead, Feinstein talked pretty much only about her "great story." Very frustrating. And with Alito her basic complaint was "disagrees with me about abortion." Feinstein is extremely shallow on these issues.
Twenty-two years ago, the Senate rejected Robert Bork ...
Based on wholly manufactured lies by Ted Kennedy and his fellow travelers. And do you know why Bork was Borked? It's mostly because of Watergate. Watergate, and the Democrats' pathological obssession with it. Bork was the one who -- under legal orders by the President -- fired the special prosecutor. Kennedy and his friends couldn't stand to see him sitting on the bench, so they set out to destroy him. Yes, they would have fought hard against any replacement for Justice Powell, but that it was the man who fired Cox made it into the event it became.
... and the right wing, forever hot-tempered and thin-skinned about absolutely everything, cannot (or will not) get past this.
That's because the Democrats -- who could not get past Watergate -- continue to "Bork" about half the Republican appointees (all of whom are as qualified as Sotomayor), seeing as how it worked so well the first time. I defy you to give me one reason -- other than simple disagreement -- why Alito should have gotten 48 Senators voting against him, if 31 voting against Sotomayor is a high number, as Feinstein said.
The vote tally for President Reagan's first appointee is not mentioned ...
Because it's irrelevant. I also skipped his second appointee. It was when Kennedy decided to smear Bork with lies -- the third appointment by Reagan -- that this began.
Also carefully ignored in the vote tallies are the larger number of Democrats currently in the Senate than Republican numbers during the votes on Alito and Roberts ...
I don't understand the point you think you're trying to make. I am not sure you do, either.
I hope you're joking when you claim I was referring to Feinstein, esp. since you immediately admit she did her job properly:
And with Alito her basic complaint was "disagrees with me about abortion."
So, she did consider a matter of great Constitutional importance. That is the very job of a Senator, when she gives advice, and in that case, withholds consent.
Bork was the one who -- under legal orders by the President -- fired the special prosecutor.
Yes, Mr. Bork's obstruction of justice did, in fact, prevent him from becoming a Justice. Something can be legal, and yet still be considered morally wrong. (Just ask Michelle about abortion!)
I don't understand the point you think you're trying to make. I am not sure you do, either.
I apologize for any obscurity. I was pointing out that the numbers were even more lopsided than the straight tallies imply, because the Democrats have more Senate seats now than the Republicans did then. The Republican's crass partisanship, if your account is correct, was (numerically) even worse than the Democrats'.
Since you've accused a dead man of lies and slander, could you cite some? If Senator Kennedy did indeed vote against Judge Bork because of Bork's obstruction of justice, then Senator Kennedy did not lie about it.
Posted by: Tensor on September 3, 2009 08:17 PMSurely what you said did not in any way describe me. I was opposing the "naked political mud wrestling" Feinstein was engaging in. So who were you referring to?
So, she did consider a matter of great Constitutional importance
No moreso than those who voted against Sotomayor. So you agree Feinstein was full of it when she complained about Republicans voting against Sotomaor.
That is the very job of a Senator, when she gives advice, and in that case, withholds consent.
Then she has no cause to complain about Republicans who voted against Sotomayor. So you agree Feinstein was full of it when she said that.
Yes, Mr. Bork's obstruction of justice ...
Does not exist. He did not, in any way, obstruct justice. You could argue the President did by making the order, but carrying the order out did not obstruct anything.
Something can be legal, and yet still be considered morally wrong.
There was nothing morally wrong about it. At all. Whatsoever. In fact, the two people ahead of Bork -- the AG Richardson and his Deputy Ruckelshaus -- only resigned rather than carrying out Nixon's order because they promised the Congress they would not interfere, as the order required them to do. Otherwise, they would have carried out the order. Bork was under no such promise, and they -- after resigning rather than carrying out the order -- told Bork he should NOT resign, even though he wanted to, in order to help preserve the government's stability.
You must realize that no matter who resigned, Cox would be fired. Nixon could have fired Cox himself, without the AG doing it for him. Everyone resigning to not follow a legal order would be an act of selfishness. Bork should be applauded for having the courage to stay and follow the order, knowing that it would hurt his career. No one would have blamed him if he followed the AG and Deputy in resigning. He stayed only for the sake of preserving the stability of the DOJ.
The Republican's crass partisanship, if your account is correct, was (numerically) even worse than the Democrats'.
Well, no, it wasn't. With Sotomayor, 31 of 40 (77.5%) Republicans voted against. With Alito, 41 of 45 (91.1%) Democrats voted against. You're confused.
Since you've accused a dead man of lies and slander, could you cite some?
Sure:
"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is -- and is often the only -- protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy."
That is what Kennedy said on the Senate floor less than an hour after Bork's nomination, and all of it was false.
If Senator Kennedy did indeed vote against Judge Bork because of Bork's obstruction of justice, then Senator Kennedy did not lie about it.
He didn't merely vote against Bork, he spearheaded the effort to smear Bork with lies. How can you be so ignorant of this?
You described the Republicans' behavior toward Justice Sotomayor as blatant political payback, nothing more. If I were any of them, I might ask for an apology.
No moreso than those who voted against Sotomayor.
Assumes facts not in evidence. You have provided a quote of Senator Feinstein disagreeing with Justice Alito on a Constitutional issue; you have provided no such quote from any of the Republicans who voted against Justice Sotomayor.
That is what Kennedy said on the Senate floor less than an hour after Bork's nomination, and all of it was false.
Judge Bork claimed the Fourth Amendment does not contain a right to privacy; this was (and is) long-established reactionary code for banning abortion. Therefore, Senator Kennedy's statement about back-alley abortion is correct.
...but carrying the order out did not obstruct anything.
(I listened to the hearings, on public radio, and I don't recall Judge Bork using his German accent when he said, "I was only following orders!")
Seriously, firing a prosecutor to prevent him from investigating criminal acts does not "obstruct" justice? I recognize the letters as Roman and your words as English, but you've obviously assigned some new values to them.
Posted by: tensor on September 3, 2009 09:28 PMThere's that endearing verbal tic of yours again...
I wasn't lying. I merely assumed that the consecutive statements in your original post were logically connected. My mistake.
Posted by: scottd on September 3, 2009 09:31 PMYou repeated your dumb claim about what I said -- that everyone else realized was false -- after being told you were wrong. You therefore knew the truth, and repeated the falsehood anyway. You were lying. Shrug.
tensor: You described the Republicans' behavior toward Justice Sotomayor as blatant political payback, nothing more.
No, I didn't. I didn't describe it as payback AT ALL, let alone as "nothing more" than payback. I did say that the Democrats' treatment of Republicans contributed, but I didn't describe it as payback. I don't think it is payback: I think it is accepting that for the Dems, the game has changed, and so they are playing the game the same way now. Whatever the reason, I clearly disagree with how the majority of Republicans voted, so they can feel free to ask for an apology, but they won't get it: I think -- as I've said many times -- they were wrong to follow the Democrats' lead in this.
You have provided a quote of Senator Feinstein disagreeing with Justice Alito on a Constitutional issue
No, I didn't. First, I provided no quote. It was a paraphrase (apologies if you took it as a quote). I said she SAID she disagrees with Alito about the constitutionality of abortion, not that she ACTAULLY disagrees with him about it. There's no significant evidence yet that they disagree; we know Alito favors allowing some limitations on abortion, but only such limitations that Roe and Casey very clearly allow for (e.g., partial birth abortions). That said ...
you have provided no such quote from any of the Republicans who voted against Justice Sotomayor.
Shrug. There's several out there. Many disagreed with her decision that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, for example. I can provide you quotes, but you're capable of Googling "sotomayor second amendment states."
Judge Bork claimed the Fourth Amendment does not contain a right to privacy; this was (and is) long-established reactionary code for banning abortion.
No, in fact, it is not. It is "code," if at all, for expressing disagreement with a court-ordered ban on restricting abortion. "Banning abortion," and "not disallowing restrictions on abortion," are very different things.
Therefore, Senator Kennedy's statement about back-alley abortion is correct.
False. Yes, Bork is anti-abortion. No, there is no evidence that he would have outlawed abortion.
(I listened to the hearings, on public radio, and I don't recall Judge Bork using his German accent when he said, "I was only following orders!")
By drawing such a comparison, you falsely imply that the order was either illegal or immoral. There was no grounds of any kind to refuse the order; your comparison is only used when referring to illegal or immoral orders.
firing a prosecutor to prevent him from investigating criminal acts does not "obstruct" justice?
When compelled to do so, correct, it obviously does not. Any obstruction is committed by the person giving the order, who made the original decision.
You seem to forget, or not understand, that Cox himself worked for the President, and the President had complete authority to have him fired. The President could've walked down and fired Cox himself.
Bork had only two choices: resign, or carry out the order. Cox would be fired no matter which choice he made. If he resigns, he can save some personal face, at the cost of the stability of the entire Department of Justice. That was the only difference in the options: saving himself, or defending his Department of Justice. It's sad that you and the Democrats villify him for his selfless public act.
Define "everyone". After that, let me know how you know what they realized.
... after being told you were wrong. You therefore knew the truth, and repeated the falsehood anyway. You were lying.
So, you told me I was wrong. So what? I disagree. It's one of your strangest conceits that you think disagreeing with you is the same as lying.
Shrug
Yawn....
Posted by: scottd on September 4, 2009 09:06 AMEveryone else who commented.
After that, let me know how you know what they realized.
Because they commented in reference to what I actually said in the context, not your dumb made-up version of what you said I said.
So, you told me I was wrong. So what? I disagree.
You disagree about what you think I said.
It's one of your strangest conceits that you think disagreeing with you is the same as lying.
When it is about what *I said and meant,* yes, when you "disagree" with me, you are lying.
Everyone else who commented.
Aw c'mon, pudge -- that's weak, even for you!
Just how many people commented about my post? One? Two?
I guess it's not surprising that someone who claims to blog because he cares about ALL other people would think he knows what everyone thinks.
Posted by: scottd on September 4, 2009 09:26 AMSo, "following orders" is a valid defense if the order would have been carried out by someone else anyway. Good to know...
Posted by: scottd on September 4, 2009 09:29 AMIf it is true with the Obama Adminstration, which I believe it is, then it is true with Rob McKenna's Attorney General's office and it is true with the supposedly Republican King County Prosecutor's office.
And the grassroots are STUPID if they think otherwise.
The Fact that personnel from both the State Attorney General's office AND the King County Prosecutor's office, both offices held by supposed Republicans have donated to Mike McGinn shows you that the Republican Grassroots are being taken for SUCKERS!
And that is a role they play so well.
Remember PERSONNEL IS POLICY. It is true about the Obama adminstration. It was true about the how the change in the state legistilature in 1995 was only cosmetic, and regardless of how you McKenniacs might wish any differently it is true about Rob McKenna.
I meant people who commented on MY post. All of them responded to what I originally wrote, except for you, who responded to something completely different from what I wrote, falsely asserting that I wrote something I did not write.
So, "following orders" is a valid defense ...
You're lying, scottd. You only need a "defense" if what you did was wrong, but as has been demonstrated already, he did nothing wrong. Your implication that he did something wrong -- by saying this is a "defense" -- is a lie.
The President had complete legal authority to fire Cox, and as such, he had the legal authority to order his subordinate to fire Cox. There was no wrongdoing in the act. The only wrongdoing was in the PURPOSE of the act -- to obstruct justice -- which falls only on the person who made the decision: the President. Not Bork.
Again: you are saying that Bork should have made the selfish choice, to cover himself from abuse from irrational partisans like you, instead of the selfless choice to protect the Department of Justice, at his own expense.
That's a damned shame.
Well, no -- I didn't say that at all. It's weird that you think you could find that in the few words I wrote.
Does that mean you're lying?
Shrug. He had two choices: selfish (resign) or selfless (fire Cox). You very obviously apeared to imply he should have resigned, because you directly implied he needed a "valid defense" for firing Cox. If firing Cox needs a defense, it was wrong; that leaves only the option of resigning, which would have been a seflish act.
Try to keep up.
Does that mean you're lying?
Only if you tell me you did NOT mean to imply he should have resigned, and then I repeat the statement, could it be a lie.
Perhaps I just don't know how to explain it well. Let me call it "Hard Change" and "Soft Change".
We are in the "Hard Change" season right now. Pretty easy to understand. Get an avowed liberal in and push the liberal agenda as hard and as fast as possible.
Some success can be obtained by that method but only for so long. Fiction, resistance builds up. Or in that old saying "the frog begins to jump." Stay in this season too long and it all comes apart. "Captain the engines can't handle much more of this".
So, here is where the "Soft Change" comes in and where the Republicans, and unfortunately in the 1990s myself and yourselves come in.
Getting a Republican elected "takes the heat off". It dials down the anger. We won after all. But, with the Republican in office, few of the "gains" of the "Hard Change" years. And I use "gains" in a neutral sense from the leftist position. Their gains, not ours.
So, what a Republican does, and you can pick the words you think are the best. It solidifies the gains of the "Hard change" years. It acclimatizes us to the gains of the "Hard Change" years. It makes the gains of those years the "new normal" instead of rolling things back.
In some areas, instead of just staying where things are at it can even achieve "gains" (again gains in the movement forward for socialism) that couldn't be won in the "Hard Change" years. These "Soft Changes" are best understood by the saying "it took Nixon to go to China". Now I am not necessarily criticizing that specific Nixon initiative but please understand the meaning behind it. America would not trust a liberal to develop a relationship with China, but it would trust someone who was perceived as an anti-communist.
We are in the midst of this so perhaps I am risking being wrong but I don't think Obama will be successful with getting socialized medicine pass. People just don't trust him because he is too socialist.
But if the same or similar program was promoted by someone who was perceived as a "capitalist" , a Republican like Romney I think it just might get passed.
And this isn't merely speculation. After all perhaps Obama would have done his bailouts anyway, but it was so much easier for him to do it after a "capitalist Republican" like Bush did it first. That was Bush's "Going to China" movement.
There are many other cases nationally as well on the State level where Republicans pushed through socialist policies that we would have never accepted if the politician was a Democrat.
So, anyway, these "Soft Changes" years are as critical for the successful progression of socialism as that of the "Hard Changes years".
So, how do we break this pattern we are in? How do we stop from being part of the problem.
Being part of the problem again...
We tried voting for Republicans to save us from Clinton. How did that work for us? It gave us a congress that spent at a level higher than the democrats who owned the House for 40 years previously did. It gave us the Bush bailouts. And then it gave us Obama.
We can't afford to be fooled again as we were in 1994.
Very well, while Clinton was President.
We can't afford to be fooled again as we were in 1994.
We weren't fooled in 1994. We were fooled in 2000. We assumed that with control of both branches we'd finally get conservative government. We let off the reins, and the horse bucked.
How do we break out of this cycle?
First we have to admit that we were part of the problem. We have to understand that the Republican Party plays a critical role in maintaining this cycle.
Posted by: Steve on September 4, 2009 11:02 AMHell, it could happen given the state of things.
Posted by: Beth on September 4, 2009 11:06 AMBut usually socialism moves forward even in a Republican adminstration. Just at a different beat.
So how do we break free of this pattern?
Elect Romney to two terms?
Again: you are still under the odd, uneducated, assumption that Romney is a liberal.
So how do we break free of this pattern?
Stop listening to you?
Bush has passed the douch to him.
Posted by: Steve on September 4, 2009 11:31 AMDon't let the Socialist Republicans pass the douch!
Read our lips no new Bushes (even if you call them by the name Romney!)
Posted by: Beth on September 4, 2009 11:35 AMNo, in fact, he's not. Please stop being stupid, Steve. I know it's hard. But I must insist.
Beth: A vote for Romney IS a vote for Van Jones.
I hope you're just trying to be funny, because i can't even see how that makes a jot of sense.
The sleeping giant has awakened.
Also notable is that Brian Baird's town meeting in the most conservative area of his district was by far the most well behaved.
Posted by: JoeBandMember on September 4, 2009 07:26 PMWell, no I didn't do that, either.
Here's what I wrote in its entirety:
So, "following orders" is a valid defense if the order would have been carried out by someone else anyway. Good to know...
I was commenting on your logic, pudge. I didn't say or imply anything about what Bork should have done, nor did I imply that he needed a valid defense. You made that up yourself.
Posted by: scottd on September 4, 2009 07:42 PMWell, yes, you did appear to imply that. Maybe you didn't intend to, but it appeared that way.
I was commenting on your logic, pudge.
In fact, you weren't, since I said nothing about him having or needing a "defense." That was YOUR invention. That is why you appeared to be saying he NEEDED a defense, because you invented the idea that it WAS a defense.
You're not very good at this.
I "appeared" to imply that? That's a good one! But I guess that's as good an excuse as any for reading something that wasn't there. (I suppose this would be a good example of appearance being in the eye of the beholder.)
I was commenting on your logic, pudge.
In fact, you weren't, since I said nothing about him having or needing a "defense." That was YOUR invention. That is why you appeared to be saying he NEEDED a defense, because you invented the idea that it WAS a defense.
In fact, I was.
tensor was criticizing Bork's actions in firing Archibald Cox. You were defending those actions. (If you don't think your response to tensor's criticism amounts to a defense, then I would say you just don't understand the simple meaning of the word.)
In defending those actions, you made the following points (in various places)
1) The actions were legal.
2) The actions were not wrong.
3) Cox would have been fired anyway, even if Bork did not do it.
4) Bork selflessly opened himself to liberal criticism while saving the stability of the entire DOJ.
I especially liked #4, but my comments were directed at the logic of your point #3.
I've also been wondering about another comment you made @67:
You only need a "defense" if what you did was wrong,
I think this would come as a surprise to most attorneys and probably most defendants. Or maybe I just misunderstood you...
You're not very good at this.
That would depend on my goals for doing "this". Trust me, I'm quite satisfied with the results.
Posted by: scottd on September 4, 2009 09:56 PMUm. Yes. That is what I said, what you responded to previously.
tensor was criticizing Bork's actions in firing Archibald Cox. You were defending those actions.
No, I wasn't. I was attacking the idea that the actions needed any defense; e.g., he said Bork obstructed justice; I pointed out the fact that he did not.
1) The actions were legal.
Right. This is clearly true. So the actions need no defense.
2) The actions were not wrong.
In that they were not illegal or "immoral" or violative of any principles Bork had any obligation to uphold ... right. This is clearly true. So the actions need no defense.
3) Cox would have been fired anyway, even if Bork did not do it.
Right. That does not justify the act; it just points out the fact that the act itself, firing Cox, was under the control of someone else (the President). It was not Bork's decision. So the actions need no defense.
4) Bork selflessly opened himself to liberal criticism while saving the stability of the entire DOJ.
Right. This is clearly true. But this is not to defend the acts, which need no defense, it's to attack the people who are trying to smear a good public servant.
I think this would come as a surprise to most attorneys and probably most defendants. Or maybe I just misunderstood you...
Perhaps you do. There is not even a serious ALLEGATION of wrongdoing against Bork. At all, by anyone. If there were such a thing, then perhaps I and others would spend time defending against those allegations. The closest anyone's come is the obviously ridiculous claim that Bork obstructed justice, which not even the Congress at the time seriously considered, because they knew it was solely on the President, not Bork.
So, again: there's nothing to defend.
Trust me, I'm quite satisfied with the results.
Well, we've demonstrated quite clearly here that you lie, and that you don't really have a clue about Bork's role in Watergate. If you're satisified with those results, you must be a masochist.
Right. This is clearly true. So the actions need no defense.
pudge, if the actions of one are criticized, responding that those actions were legal is a defense of those actions. Denying this simply indicates a problem with understanding the English language -- or just sheer butt-headedness. I'll be charitable and just assume the latter.
"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
Posted by: scottd on September 4, 2009 11:42 PMThere was no serious criticism of Bork's actions. This is the point.
It's like if I said, "Obama is evil because he wants to sign legislation to kill all puppies." You don't need to defend against this claim. Pointing out the claim is baseless and insipid is not a defense, because there's no serious allegation to defend against.
1 - Facts
2 - Law
3 - Logic
Get with the times. This kind of dogmatic adherence to such flimsy bases for your arguments has no place in current political discourse.
Posted by: microdav on September 5, 2009 12:04 AMStrange -- when I looked up "defend" in the dictionary, I didn't see any requirement that a criticism be serious in order for a response to be a defense against that criticism.
So, one can't defend against weak or even facetious criticism or attacks? What dictionary do you use?
It's like if I said, "Obama is evil because he wants to sign legislation to kill all puppies." You don't need to defend against this claim.
Maybe not, but then I never said you needed to defend Bork. I just said you were defending Bork -- and you did.
Pointing out the claim is baseless and insipid is not a defense, because there's no serious allegation to defend against.
That only works if you make up your own definition of "defense". Of course, if anyone can do that, it's you, pudge!
Posted by: scottd on September 5, 2009 12:29 AMHe could not have outlawed abortion; he was a nominee for a judicial post, not a candidate for a legislative office. Please learn about our American Constitutional theory, specifically the part called "separation of powers."
"Banning abortion," and "not disallowing restrictions on abortion," are very different things.
Under our system, overturning Roe is a necessary prerequisite for banning abortion; both are steps toward the bloody back alley, and Judge Bork disagreed with our Constitution's basis for Roe: the inherent right to privacy clearly implied by the Fourth Amendment. To the extent a Supreme Court Justice can push us into back-alley butchery, a Justice Bork would have been comfortable with doing so. Therefore, Senator Kennedy was -- and is -- correct. If you think that a disagreement between a Senator and a Supreme Court nominee over interpreting our Constitution is not the very best reason for a Senator to oppose that nomination, please do tell us what a better reason might be.
I said she SAID she disagrees with Alito about the constitutionality of abortion, not that she ACTAULLY disagrees with him about it.
First paraphrase another person's statement, then claim -- on the basis of what, who knows? -- that she does not believe it. That's truly a classic, even by your standards. (The ALL-CAPS SPELLIGN was just icing on the cake.)
With Sotomayor, 31 of 40 (77.5%) Republicans voted against. With Alito, 41 of 45 (91.1%) Democrats voted against. You're confused.
Since you cited the numbers for Chief Justice Roberts, please do your basic arithmetic on those. (But, this time, use the correct number of significant digits in your answer. A calculator is no substitute for thinking.) I think you'll see how much better (numerically, anyway) the Democrats treated him.
I do like the overall focus on numbers, though. In terms of Constitutional law, it makes not one iota of difference whether Justice Sotomayor was confirmed on the tie-breaking vote of Vice-President Biden, or received Justice O'Connor's Soviet-style coronation.
...your comparison is only used when referring to illegal or immoral orders.
Wrong. Your logic says the person giving orders is alone responsible; that applies to all command situations, not just the questionable ones.
I can provide you quotes...
Then do your own work. I refuse to do it for you.
Posted by: tensor on September 5, 2009 12:45 AMCan any of you name anything of consequence that Robert Bork has done since he was nominated? Bork is a bitter old man and conservatives are his enablers.
Posted by: JohnnieQ on September 5, 2009 05:27 AMTalk about a frivilous lawsuit! And many of you think this is a good judge?!?!
Posted by: JohnnieQ on September 5, 2009 05:40 AMAt some point in your life, scottd, someone probably should have told you that dictionaries are an extremely poor basis for argument.
I just said you were defending Bork
And you were wrong.
Sure. Being a bestselling author, high-profile legal consultant, influential thinker, and well-respected professor is nothing of consequence.
What color is the sky in your world?
tensor: He could not have outlawed abortion; he was a nominee for a judicial post, not a candidate for a legislative office.
So you agree with me that Kennedy was lying. Thanks!
Under our system, overturning Roe is a necessary prerequisite for banning abortion
And there's no evidence that Bork would have overturned Roe.
Judge Bork disagreed with our Constitution's basis for Roe
Correct (and for good reason: Roe was very clearly wrongly decided, whether you agree with the right of abortion or not). But that doesn't mean he would overturn it, of course. So you still have no evidence that Bork would have overturned Roe.
Further, it is a lie to say that anyone would ever be forced into any abortion under Bork. Obviously. If abortion does (hopefully) become outlawed some day -- because it kills actual human beings -- then why should we feel significant pity for people who violate that law? That makes no sense whatsoever. No one would be forced into killing in a back alley; it would be their own choice to kill.
Therefore, Senator Kennedy was -- and is -- correct.
As clearly demonstrated, no, he was lying.
First paraphrase another person's statement, then claim -- on the basis of what, who knows? -- that she does not believe it.
I didn't claim she doesn't believe it. I was implying that whatever her belief, that doesn't mean her belief is true. I do believe she thinks she disagreed with Alito about abortion, but she had no evidence that this was actually the case.
Since you cited the numbers for Chief Justice Roberts, please do your basic arithmetic on those.
Why? I hope you don't think I ever implied that the vote in regard to Roberts was more partisan than the one for Sotomayor. I never did. But I note you still haven't admitted you were wrong when you said that the GOP's "crass partisanship" was worse than the Dems'.
use the correct number of significant digits in your answer
I did, in fact.
In terms of Constitutional law, it makes not one iota of difference whether Justice Sotomayor was confirmed on the tie-breaking vote of Vice-President Biden, or received Justice O'Connor's Soviet-style coronation.
So? I never implied otherwise. I was simply pointing out the fact that Feinstein was lying when she said that she was surprised by the "partisanship" of the Republicans' votes against Sotomayor, in light of the much greater number of Democratic votes -- including her own -- against Alito. And that she was lying when she said that she was trying to change it.
Wrong. Your logic says the person giving orders is alone responsible; that applies to all command situations, not just the questionable ones.
No, in fact, my logic says no such thing. Clearly you've never been in the military, or any strong command structure. That is exactly how it works: unless an order is illegal or immoral, your obligation is to follow that order, and the person who made the initial decision is the one who accepts the negative consequences of the order. If the order is illegal or immoral, it is then that the people carrying out the order become responsible for those consequences.
Then do your own work. I refuse to do it for you.
Um. I have no work to do. You wanted quotes. You asked for them. That is YOUR work to do, if you want it done.
You're ... not very good at this.
How about a more stimulating post - dealing with the here and now; like vetting the czars appointed by the POTUS, views on the POTUS speaking to school kids - indoctrination or positive reinforcement ? or more about the Health Care reform debate...
Posted by: KDS on September 5, 2009 08:33 AMOkay, I'm game. How would she provide evidence to you "that this was actually the case"? What would you accept? Or would you just keep saying, in effect, "I don't believe her because I don't believe her." (Or, more relevantly here, "I don't believe her because she destroyed my argument.")
You backhandedly admitted she'd done her job as a Senator, and your entire basis for her claim to undue partisanship consists of your assumption it was so. So, instead of just admitting all this, you make the utterly bizarre (and unfalsifiable) claim that she does not know her own mind. How about we say you don't really believe Bork was treated unfairly, you just think you believe it? How would you then prove your own belief in your own beliefs?
To clarify, the Senate's issue in Bork's firing of Cox was not that Cox was fired -- as you correctly noted, Nixon was going to fire Cox anyway -- but that Bork could have prevented Bork's firing of Cox. The Senate judged his decision as making him unworthy of the office he later sought. You claim Bork had done nothing immoral, and the Senate disagreed with you. Guess who wins in that contest?
"And that she was lying when she said that she was trying to change it."
Do please share with us your encyclopedic, insider's knowledge of the world's most powerful debating club. Show how her private conversations with other Senators there did nothing to relieve partisanship. (Oh, by the way, if she truly and honestly believes she's worked to reduce partisanship, then she's not lying. She may be wrong in her judgement of her actions, but sincere error is not deliberate falsehood. I agree with scottd on the cuteness of your verbal tics.)
No, in fact, my logic says no such thing. Clearly you've never been in the military, or any strong command structure.
Wrong; I'm in a "strong command structure" now, at my place of employment, and my decisions may indeed cost lives, so I'll just laugh at your tough-guy pretensions. No one held a gun to Bork's head and commanded him to fire Cox; as you note, two other persons had already refused to do so, so perhaps you might want to re-think your strident insistence that there was nothing immoral about it. Bork made that decision, and it cost him later. (I thought conservatives liked the concept of personal responsibility?)
So you agree with me that Kennedy was lying. Thanks!
I must decline your gratitude, as you have not even come close to making a coherent conclusion. I'm sorry if you took a Senator's rhetorical flourish too seriously; Kennedy was not seriously implying that a Justice Bork would have dictatorial powers over all Americans. He was noting that Judge Bork's reactionary interpretation of the Fourth Amendment would allow massive government invasions of our private lives; I agree with Senator Kennedy's statement.
And there's no evidence that Bork would have overturned Roe.
He agrees with your assertion that Roe was wrongly decided. If he had an opportunity to "rightly" re-decide it, he would not do so? That sounds like dereliction in his duties as a Supreme Court Justice! Why should we hire an employee who would not follow his own professed code of conduct?
That is YOUR work to do, if you want it done.
You asserted you had evidence; you provide said evidence.
...use the correct number of significant digits in your answer..."
I did, in fact
You obtained three digits' worth of information from two-digit data "41 of 45 (91.1%)"? How? Do you even know what the term "significant digit" means? (Did someone at Sound Politics draw unwarranted conclusions from meager data? NOOOOOOOOO!!!!)
You're ... not very good at this.
'That would depend on my goals for doing "this". Trust me, I'm quite satisfied with the results.'
Posted by: tensor on September 5, 2009 11:15 AMThe same way she would show it to anyone: by actually demonstrating what his view is (we know what hers are). She didn't ever do that.
your entire basis for her claim to undue partisanship consists of your assumption it was so
I am using HER STANDARD for "undue partisanship": voting against someone you disagree with. That is what the Republicans who voted against Sotomayor did, that she criticized as being partisan, that she lied about when she said she was trying to end.
you make the utterly bizarre (and unfalsifiable) claim that she does not know her own mind
No, I made no such claim, in fact, as I already explained. In fact, I said quite explicitly that I believe she does think she disagreed with him. If I say, "2+2=4," and you respond, "no it doesn't! 2+2=4!," I really will take that as you believing you disagree with me. But you'd be wrong in that belief.
To clarify, the Senate's issue in Bork's firing of Cox was not that Cox was fired -- as you correctly noted, Nixon was going to fire Cox anyway -- but that Bork could have prevented Bork's firing of Cox. The Senate judged his decision as making him unworthy of the office he later sought.
Yes, the Senate Democrats were extremely stupid, I agree.
You claim Bork had done nothing immoral, and the Senate disagreed with you.
No. You're completely wrong. They did not think this was immoral -- and couldn't have cared less about that. This was all about partisanship and turf and pride. Cox was put in place because of Congress. Having him removed (legally) by the Executive was therefore an affront to (all of) Congress. And that it was the opposition party during a scandal made it especially bad to the Democrats. Not law or morals, but having been shown up.
Do please share with us your encyclopedic, insider's knowledge of the world's most powerful debating club
It's not hard. Feinstein has, through her career in the Senate, contributed to it. If you are CONTRIBUTING to something, you cannot be said to be trying to CHANGE it. You have it backward here: if she is really trying to change it, then where's the evidence that she has changed her ways since she voted against Alito?
Show how her private conversations with other Senators there did nothing to relieve partisanship.
I don't need to, of course; all I need to show is that she has consistently contributed to it. Which I did.
Wrong; I'm in a "strong command structure" now, at my place of employment, and my decisions may indeed cost lives, so I'll just laugh at your tough-guy pretensions
You're lying. I made no "tough-guy" pretensions. And it's sad that you're in such a structure without understanding how it works.
No one held a gun to Bork's head and commanded him to fire Cox
They didn't need to: it was a legal order.
as you note, two other persons had already refused to do so, so perhaps you might want to re-think your strident insistence that there was nothing immoral about it.
Oh for crying out loud, you're so damned ignorant.
Richardson and Ruckelshaus resigned only because they promised Congress they would not interfere with Cox. They believed carrying out the order would constitute a violation of that promise. But Bork never made such a promise, and so Richardson and Ruckelshaus -- far from believing firing Cox itself was immoral -- told Bork that he should carry out the order to fire Cox, after resigning in order to avoid doing it themselves; Bork made no such promise, so he had no moral reason to not fire Cox, as the two of them had.
I'm sorry if you took a Senator's rhetorical flourish too seriously
I'm sorry that you're reinterpreting his slandeorus lies as "rhetorical flourishes."
He agrees with your assertion that Roe was wrongly decided. If he had an opportunity to "rightly" re-decide it, he would not do so? That sounds like dereliction in his duties as a Supreme Court Justice!
It's sad that you think it sounds like that. Have you never heard of stare decisis?
You asserted you had evidence; you provide said evidence.
False. I said Senators voted against Sotomayor for constitutional disagreements. scottd attacked me for not providing evidence. At that point, I gave him a pointer to that evidence, by telling him what he could Google. I never asserted before he asked for the evidence that I had evidence, although it was implied, but honestly, if you don't know that many Senators cited Sotomayor's decision in Cuomo as reason for voting against her, then you just haven't been paying attenion.
You obtained three digits' worth of information from two-digit data "41 of 45 (91.1%)"?
Yes.
Do you even know what the term "significant digit" means?
Yes. You apparently don't. Those rules do not apply to such calculations where the degree of precision itself is not of significance. I could have just as correctly, for this context, said "75%" and "90%".
Did someone at Sound Politics draw unwarranted conclusions from meager data?
Are you honestly saying that the degree of precision resulted in unwaranted conclusions? Because that would be completely stupid.
'That would depend on my goals for doing "this". Trust me, I'm quite satisfied with the results.'
Sad for you.
But they are extremely useful for learning the definition of a word -- something you are having a hard time with.
Posted by: scottd on September 5, 2009 02:24 PMNot true -- would that mean you're lying?
Posted by: scottd on September 5, 2009 02:50 PMSo, a Republican President appointed a Supreme Court Justice who agreed with a Democratic Senator from California on Roe?!? I must have missed the screams of betrayal, the cries of bloody murder, raging from every fundamentalist pulpit, every right-wing radio host, every right-wing cable TV "news" show, all throughout the land.
I said Senators voted against Sotomayor for constitutional disagreements. scottd attacked me for not providing evidence. At that point, I gave him a pointer to that evidence...
So, you made a claim, and have still failed to provide any evidence to support it. Thanks for admitting that. You get extra points for interpreting a request for supporting information as an attack, especially from a guy who constantly flings accusations of lying and ignorance against anyone who dares question him. (You do understand that repeatedly claiming, "I could do it, it is very easy," without, you know, actually doing it, does not build your credibility, right?)
And it's sad that you're in such a structure without understanding how it works.
You don't know the first thing about my job, and yet you're willing to hurl blatantly false claims about my understanding of it for anyone to see. (Talk about not understanding the very concept of responsibility!)
I do also like your continued careful ignorance of what Watergate was, and why it was important. Cox was investigating a criminal conspiracy within the White House; he was fired to obstruct that investigation. Your continued ranting about how this blatant obstruction of justice was "not immoral" simply destroys your own claim to good moral judgement.
The criminal conspiracy in question -- for which quite a few of President Nixon's associates were jailed on felony charges -- had executed an illegal attack upon the headquarters of the Democratic Party. Thanks in part to hatchetmen like Bork, not all of the criminals were ever punished, hence the Democrats' lingering resentment against enablers like Bork. That you repeatedly conflate concern for rule of law by Senators who were the intended victims of the lawbreaking with petty political payback doesn't say much for your own judgement of this issue.
False. Right there @59.
tensor: So, a Republican President appointed a Supreme Court Justice who agreed with a Democratic Senator from California on Roe?!?
I never implied any such thing. You're not very good at this, are you?
So, you made a claim, and have still failed to provide any evidence to support it.
Nope. I provided evidence as soon as I was asked for it. I told him what to Google, and everything.
You get extra points for interpreting a request for supporting information as an attack
I didn't. It wasn't a request, it was an accusation.
constantly flings accusations of lying and ignorance against anyone who dares question him
I have never done that. Ever. In my entire life. I only say people are lying when I believe they are lying, and I only say people are ignorant when they actually are expressing ignorance.
(You do understand that repeatedly claiming, "I could do it, it is very easy," without, you know, actually doing it, does not build your credibility, right?)
Only someone ignorant on the subject would think I need to prove that some Republican Senators disagreed with Sotomayor on the constitutional issues raised in Cuomo. To such people I have no desire to gain credibility.
You don't know the first thing about my job ...
I don't care to, either. I do know about command structures, and you said you've got one at your job. Shrug.
I do also like your continued careful ignorance of what Watergate was
I defy you to show how I demonstrated any ignorance on the subject. Any at all. I have proven your ignorance in several ways, culminating in your absolutely nonsensical assertion that Richardson and Ruckelshaus believed that firing Cox was immoral, when they told Bork he should do it.
Cox was investigating a criminal conspiracy within the White House; he was fired to obstruct that investigation.
Yes. And? What did I say that disagrees with this?
Your continued ranting about how this blatant obstruction of justice was "not immoral" ...
You're a liar. I never did. I said that Bork carrying out the order was not immoral. I said that obstruction of justice falls to the President, not to Bork.
Thanks in part to hatchetmen like Bork, not all of the criminals were ever punished ...
Except that I've already demonstrated clearly that Bork was merely following a perfectly legal and -- from the perspective of the chain of command -- appropriate order. To say that his carrying out that order says anything negative about him is beyond ignorance, it's just plain retarded.
That you repeatedly conflate concern for rule of law by Senators who were the intended victims of the lawbreaking with petty political payback doesn't say much for your own judgement of this issue.
Ted Kennedy's slanderous lies about Bork is ... concern for the rule of law? Ted Kennedy, whose life's mission was to do whatever he could to further his own agenda, including repeated and serious violations of the Constitution? You're kidding, right?
You're pathetic, tensor. You're worse than scottd. He's just a moron. You have some intelligence, but you regularly ignore the facts that don't suit your agenda. You pretend that Bork did something wrong, just like Kennedy, just because you're offended by what Nixon did, instead of looking at what Bork actually did. You pretend that his attacks on Bork were justified, even though you admit that were false. You pretend that Feinstein isn't lying just because ... you don't want her to be lying.
False. Right there @59.
Wrong again, pudge.
Re-read my post @99 -- then go check @59 a little more closely.
Still lying? Or maybe you're just not very good at this...
Posted by: scottd on September 5, 2009 05:56 PMDang it, tensor! I thought I was the worst!
Well, congratulations, I guess...
Posted by: scottd on September 5, 2009 06:17 PMNot remotely, no.
Dang it, tensor! I thought I was the worst!
You are, but in a different way. You're the dumb one. He's the self-delusional one.
Not remotely, no.
I think the strain is getting to you, pudge, so I'll spell it out since your reading comprehension skills have failed you.
pudge: I said Senators voted against Sotomayor for constitutional disagreements. scottd attacked me for not providing evidence.
@59:Posted by tensor at September 3, 2009 09:28 PM
By your definition, that's lying, right? But I'm the dumb one, so help me out here...
So, you really believe that Bork can justify his blatantly immoral act by claiming that Nixon told him to do it? Even after Bork's two immediate predecessors refused to commit that same act? Either Bork was incapable of deciding right from wrong, or he made a bad choice. Which explanation supports his bid for our Supreme Court?
Have you never heard of stare decisis?
You do understand the current Supreme Court is not bound by decisions of past Supreme Courts, right? Hence Brown overturning Plessey, or Lawrence v. Texas overturning Bowers vs. Hardwick -- the latter two cases were a mere seventeen years apart, and Bowers was beloved by social conservatives.
I never implied any such thing.
Ahem:
And with Alito her basic complaint was "disagrees with me about abortion."
I'm going to enjoy watching you debate yourself on this one.
You pretend that Feinstein isn't lying just because ... you don't want her to be lying.
You made the accusation of lying; you get to show she knowingly made a false statement, not just an innocent error. Get to it.
Here's my statement from comment #59:
"Assumes facts not in evidence. You have provided a quote of Senator Feinstein disagreeing with Justice Alito on a Constitutional issue; you have provided no such quote from any of the Republicans who voted against Justice Sotomayor."
Did you really interpret that as an attack? Are you really that determined to validate my comment about "hot-tempered and thin-skinned" conservatives? (And you STILL have not provided a single quote!)
Posted by: tensor on September 5, 2009 08:40 PMThere was no such act. Please pay attention.
Even after Bork's two immediate predecessors refused to commit that same act?
Um. Can you not read? THEY BOTH TOLD HIM HE SHOULD FIRE COX.
You can't even get that basic fact right, even after having it spoonfed to you. I am done with bothering with you.
Let the record show: to the bitter end, a self-described conservative cannot understand how deliberate obstruction of justice is immoral -- even long after the felony sentences have been served.
THEY BOTH TOLD HIM HE SHOULD FIRE COX.
Yes, cowardly criminals will often get hatchetmen to do their dirty work for them. I wasn't disputing that in the least.
You can't even get that basic fact right, even after having it spoonfed to you.
In case you haven't figured it out yet, pudge, I keep asking you for source citations because I do not give your unsupported pronouncements the gravity of fact.
I am done with bothering with you.
But you can keep interacting with scottd -- assuming you can tell the two of us apart. :) I think he has earned the last word:
"Trust me, I'm quite satisfied with the results."
Posted by: tensor on September 6, 2009 02:34 PMYou're lying: Bork never deliberately obstructed justice.
even long after the felony sentences have been served
You're lying: Bork never served any jail sentence.
In case you haven't figured it out yet, pudge, I keep asking you for source citations because I do not give your unsupported pronouncements the gravity of fact.
That's like asking me to provide a citation that Neil Armstrong was the first man to walk on the moon. This has been well-reported for decades. No one denies it. And it's sad -- though understandable, given your track record -- that you are debating the Saturday Night Massacre while not even understanding what actually happened.
I never wrote that he had. I was referring to Nixon's other associates, such as Liddy, who served jail time for the felonies they had committed by obeying Nixon's illegal orders. Not everyone who committed crimes in Watergate was tried; Nixon himself escaped.
That's like asking me to provide a citation that Neil Armstrong was the first man to walk on the moon.
This dispute has nothing to do with that. The entire point of this post was that naked political payback was at the root of the low Republican vote tally in Justice Sotomayor's successful confirmation. Your post claims that bitter, mean grudge-holding, going on for decades, helps to determine the composition of our Supreme Court. While that may be true, it's profoundly depressing, and I expect more from my great country than that. You then contradicted the point of your own post, and and claimed that some Republicans had, indeed, read her decisions, and voted against her for solid Constitutional reasons. (I'm not implying I would agree with them, of course, but I was hopeful they'd made informed decisions.) I'd much rather have that be the reason for their votes, and so I hopefully asked you for evidence. You have now several times absolutely refused to provide it. Do you believe it does not exist, or do you not want to contradict your original post?
Posted by: tensor on September 8, 2009 11:12 AMYou did. You wrote: "... cannot understand how deliberate obstruction of justice is immoral -- even long after the felony sentences have been served."
But my statements about obstruction of justice were specific to what Bork did. So any implication about felony sentences served must be referring to what Bork did. And neither Bork, nor anyone who acted similarly to him, was convicted of any crime.
I was referring to Nixon's other associates, such as Liddy, who served jail time for the felonies they had committed by obeying Nixon's illegal orders.
Um, because those were actually felonies they committed. Bork committed no felony. How can you still not understand this fact?
No one has ever even seriously alleged that Bork committed a crime of any sort. A few politicians have said it, but it's never been seriously proposed to, or by, law enforcement or the courts.
The entire point of this post was that naked political payback was at the root of the low Republican vote tally in Justice Sotomayor's successful confirmation.
False. I've already responded to this claim, and demonstrated it to be false. You're lying.
You then contradicted the point of your own post ...
You're lying.
... and and claimed that some Republicans had, indeed, read her decisions, and voted against her for solid Constitutional reasons.
Of course, this contradicted nothing I said, and it is also, of course, clearly true.
I'd much rather have that be the reason for their votes, and so I hopefully asked you for evidence.
And a very helpful direction to the evidence was provided, @61, as I've previously noted. I even mentioned the partial name of the case @97 and again @101.
You have now several times absolutely refused to provide it.
When I give you a very clear and foolproof pointer to the evidence, and you choose not to take it, I can only assume you are either so stupid that you won't understand the evidence if I spoonfeed it to you, or that you are just being a jerk by not following the pointer given.
Do you believe it does not exist
Riiiight. I believe that the single biggest legal battle today over the Second Amendment doesn't exist, that Sotomayor didn't express an opinion on it in Cuomo, and that most conservatives disagree with her.
What color is the sky in your world?