Is Samuel Alito a trustworthy and honest nominee for the Supreme Court?

[phcatlantis]

I don't find you comments humorous, nor do I believe you intended these to be so.

Well, can't win'em all.

Rather I find these to be nothing but canned Republican garbage with lack of real thought on your part.

Right on both points, with reservations on the "garbage" part.

Agreeing to disagree does not dismiss the lack of evidence to support your position (or asserted Republican Party position for that matter--like any Party can put claim on something like "traditional values" as being solely theirs. ).

I'm glad to see we agree on this point as well.

The original thread on Bush and how he is NOT honest and trustworthy consisted if extensive documentation with links to sources, in which many points are now accepted facts (such as his failure to serve his full term in the National Guard, etc.) A more recent thread can be found on the second page of this section in PF.

Here we're going to disagree. The thread reads as a list of personal gripes, many recycled, of PF posters, bloggers, and occasionally mainstream columnists. Citations are sporadic and the whole mess smacks of original research. I'm sure you disagree on these points, but seeing as I've readily conceded that my "Republican garbage" is canned, I invite you to go back to the thread and add some genuine substance to your "left wingnut garbage."

Now do you have anything to say on the Alito confirmation, or do we have nothing more to say to each other?

 

[SOS2008]

Here we're going to disagree. The thread reads as a list of personal gripes, many recycled, of PF posters, bloggers, and occasionally mainstream columnists. Citations are sporadic and the whole mess smacks of original research. I'm sure you disagree on these points, but seeing as I've readily conceded that my "Republican garbage" is canned, I invite you to go back to the thread and add some genuine substance to your "left wingnut garbage."?

I can't speak for posts that aren't my own. I know I provided verbatim quotes, and usually links to credible sources supporting my position. For my original thread on Bush's history, from lying about his D.U.I. to present, I spent a great deal of time researching and documenting everything. Unfortunately that thread has long expired (it's old news here). I feel no compunction to go back and add anything, especially at your behest. All these things are available to anyone who really cares to learn the truth. Bush’s lies are so numerous and obvious, it is absurd to even debate this.

Now do you have anything to say on the Alito confirmation, or do we have nothing more to say to each other?

I've already posted what I have to say about Alito above. Only to reiterate that to have a democracy there needs be at least two differing parties (preferably more parties, and preferably more differentiation). Republican controlled executive, congressional, and judicial branches are hardly democracy. I believe congress will shift more into balance after 2006, and hopefully the executive in 2008 (preferably earlier due to impeachable offenses). Stacking the Supreme Court ultimately will change nothing in regard to abortion being made illegal, or ID being taught in public schools, or any other attempts to erode civil liberties and separation of church and state. The team known as America will prevail. I hope you'll join it.

 

[phcatlantis]

it is absurd to even debate this.

You know. You're right. End of discussion on that point.

Only to reiterate that to have a democracy there needs be at least two differing parties (preferably more parties, and preferably more differentiation).

That doesn't track so well with any definition I can find in the political science literature. Is this your personal view?

Republican controlled executive, congressional, and judicial branches are hardly democracy.

Then why have elections? Why not represent all relevant political perspectives equally? Would that be your view of democracy? Or do you propose something else, maybe statutory limits on the size of a majority a single party can take in a legislature, or number of consecutive terms a single party can be represented in the White House.

I believe congress will shift more into balance after 2006, and hopefully the executive in 2008 (preferably earlier due to impeachable offenses).

That may be a pretty smart bet, especially with a naive constant value and separation between Congressional and Presidential approval ratings could lead up to a 50 vote swing in the House (to the Dems); your guys only need 16 seats to take the majority. It's difficult to weigh the impact of Congressional approval ratings, even by party; neither has risen above 50 percent except in a narrow gate around 9/11. Of course, incumbant reelection is above 95 percent in the House, and 2006 is still a year away with the President's approval rating creeping up towards 50 percent. I'm betting on the Republicans to at least retain their majorities and I'll go on a limb and put the spread at one pickup in Senate seat and ten in than House seats.

Stacking the Supreme Court ultimately will change nothing in regard to abortion being made illegal, or ID being taught in public schools, or any other attempts to erode civil liberties and separation of church and state.

No, I don't imagine overturning Roe v. Wade would lead to the national criminalization of abortion, I'm no authority on the law so I don't pretend to predict how three fifths of a judiciary appointed by Republican presidents will ultimate decide ID's fate in public schools, and I can't find any Republican Party literature advocating the erosion of any of our constitutional rights. I think this is another area where we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The team known as America will prevail. I hope you'll join it.

Already on it, and there's room for more.

 

[Informal Logic]

Christ!

A one party system is usually equated with dictatorship, and a dominant-party system is usually equated with communism. Here is something that may be of interest to you:

In a democracy, a high degree of political legitimacy is necessary, because the electoral process periodically divides the population into 'winners' and 'losers'. A successful democratic political culture implies that the losing parties and their supporters accept the judgment of the voters, and allow for the peaceful transfer of power - the concept of a "loyal opposition". Ideally political competitors may disagree, but acknowledge the other side's legitimate role, and ideally society encourages tolerance and civility in public debate. This form of political legitimacy implies that all sides share common fundamental values. Voters must know that the new government will not introduce policies they find totally abhorrent. Shared values, rather than democracy as such, guarantee that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Proportional_versus_majoritarian_representation

The key here is a legitimate electoral process, and it became obvious after the 2000 and even 2004 elections that reform is needed in the US. Also, the Bush regime has not acknowleged the other side in regard to anything. Another point made is citizens cannot find policies to be totally abhorrent. There are about 50 percent of Americans who view Bush and the GOP as completely unacceptable, most recently manifested in the Abramoff scandal.

And to that point, you may want to view the thread about the 2006 election and predictions.

 

[phcatlantis]

Christ!
A one party system is usually equated with dictatorship, and a dominant-party system is usually equated with communism.

I do believe you just made that up. Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress and the President for a quarter century. The GOP held both houses and the White House three fifths of the interval between the Civil War and the 1936 election. Democratics then controlled the Congress for sixty years. We seem to get by without any serious charge thast we're a dictatorship or a Communist totalitarian. And what country with a ruling Communist government has legally sanctioned alternative parties?

Here is something that may be of interest to you:

Original research on Wikipedia? Who would've thought!

The key here is a legitimate electoral process, and it became obvious after the 2000 and even 2004 elections that reform is needed in the US.

Seems to me that Republican rule is more widely perceived as legitimate than it was in 1861. So what's the big deal?

Seriously, what about intraparty political dynamics? Realignments? The birth and extinction of entire political parties in the process? The political interests of the two major parties today barely resemble the ones they held a century and a half ago, so perhaps partisan evolution--driven by a federalist division of power--adds legitimacy to our electoral process. Of course, all this is idle speculation; but I imagine there's plenty of scholarly literature out there addressing these questions.

There are about 50 percent of Americans who view Bush and the GOP as completely unacceptable, most recently manifested in the Abramoff scandal.

Unfortunately, the bulk of them are concentrated in coastal cities and nearby suburbs, very few of them participate in the all volunteer force, and mosto f them are surrounded by counties full of red-votin', gun-totin' Wolverines. Right?

And to that point, you may want to view the thread about the 2006 election and predictions.

I'll take a look at it. Link?

 

[Informal Logic]

1)I do believe you just made that up.

2) Original research on Wikipedia? Who would've thought!

3) I'll take a look at it. Link?

1) You asked why a system with one party would not be a democracy. I was merely replying to that. Feel free to do some research on one party systems if you believe I made that up.

2) At least I provided a link, which is more than I have seen you do.

3) The thread on 2006 election predictions can be found by scrolling through the menu for this section.

I agree you are trolling - by taking the thread off topic for purposes of fruitless confrontation. I have a policy of ignoring these kinds of posts.

 

[phcatlantis]

1) You asked why a system with one party would not be a democracy. I was merely replying to that. Feel free to do some research on one party systems if you believe I made that up.

Feel free to provide some research to assure me you haven't. But I can assure that I never brought up one party systems. I certainly didn't ask; in fact, I don't think I've asked for authority on any of these issues.

2) At least I provided a link, which is more than I have seen you do.

I didn't know I needed to provide a link to express skepticism. As for your link, how do I know you didn't write up that bit for my edification?

3) The thread on 2006 election predictions can be found by scrolling through the menu for this section.

Scrolling through the whatzit for the whatwhat?

I agree you are trolling - by taking the thread off topic for purposes of fruitless confrontation. I have a policy of ignoring these kinds of posts.

Then start. And God bless you.

 

[Skyhunter]

Sure it is. It's a high stakes game but a game nonetheless. Not everybody likes the game, but enough people find it enjoyable enough to participate and keep it going. And I identify with politically with my team. Why wouldn't I root for them?

Because it is not a game it is real life. Learn what is going on and stop drinking the right-wing koolaide.

How is partisan politics destroying this great nation? Or, I should say, what's so bad about identifying with the agents of political ideas you and I find agreeable?

not partisan politics, mindless politics.

Great. That's Democratic idea, not a Republican one. Get behind them. May the best team win. :D

No, it is not an idea it is a fact. He has frequently been the lone dissenter in 3rd circuit rulings. (Out of the mainstream) He said himself that he opposed abortion just to get hired by the Reagan administration. (dishonest) He stated during his confirmation hearing for the 3rd circuit that he would recuse himself if any cases came before him concerning the Vangaurd group or Smith Barney brokerage. (untrustworthy)

And from the Republican point of view, he's trustworth, honesty, and well within whatever we're calling the judicial mainstream. We disagree, great. At least we have this great system for resolving our differences. :D

See previous examples, and feel free to provide support for your assertions that he is honest and trustworthy.