Obama Outflanks GOP with Sotomayor Pick

I went back and read the whole thing. The author is a conservative, but thinks Obama was wise to nominate this radical activist because it fires up the kook base. We’ll see. I think it would have been far wiser for Obama to have chosen someone who did not wear their radicalism on his sleeve. Hopefully, the GOP will grow a pair and kill this dingbats nomination.

Moran the drama queen strikes again!

Moran is Smerconish redux.

Cue the Republicans to roll over on their backs.

It makes you wonder who Obama really wants on the Court?

You’ve got to remember our other turncoat, who has never in his career voted to decline any Supreme Court Nominee, including Ginsberg. Even though he is tasked with voting up or down, he still claims it’s not his duty to review these justices qualifications.

This is one of the main reasons I would never vote for this man.

She’s a racist.

And a sexist.

“As I understand it, one Republican needs to vote to get her out of the Judicial Sub-Committee. Otherwise her nomination dies there.”

This is a technical fallacy that has been perpetuated by some like Rush “I’m too lazy to do my homework” Limbaugh. The Senate Committee on the Judiciary is nothing more than a non-binding tradition of the Senate. According to the Constitution and written law, the confirmation only needs the approval of a majority of the Senate.

I am not sure when the tradition began but at one time it did and the tradition is that it would be nice to have the best lawyers of the Senate (the Committee on the Judiciary Committee members) check out the credentials of the nominee and make a recommendation.

First, the recommendation is non-binding. Even if they give a negative or no recommendation at all, the nominees still goes to the full Senate for an up or down vote. Second, a nominees doesn’t have to go to the Committee at all and this has been done numerous times in history especially when the judicial nominees is a sitting Senator (another silly tradition).

Lastly, even if this were the case that they need at least one minority party member to get out of the Committe on the Judiciary, the current minory members are Sessions, Hatch, Grassley, Kyl, Gramnesty, Cornyn and Coburn. This wouldn’t be a problem especially since Hatch has already confirmed her twice before and the rest well, there’s only one or two spines among them to vote down a hispanic woman at this level of political theater.

Here is a full read on the process of Judicial Nominations with the considerations of the Constitution, law and historical precedents and tradition:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31989.pdf

Nice. I agree. He gets brownie points for nominating this incompetent, then gets the benefit of nominating a second idiot, perhaps not quite so bad or even just as bad, who sails through.

We’ll see. I hope the second is not as bad. Heck, right now I just hope we can nail the first one.

For the record, I’ve not heard Rush make this claim.

I appreciate your comments. Too bad you had to soil them with a put down of Rush, whether he did or didn’t make the claim.

The legality stands on it’s own, and has nothing to do with Rush.

“I appreciate your comments. Too bad you had to soil them with a put down of Rush, whether he did or didn’t make the claim.”

He did make the claim and I have had probably 4 or 5 conversations where people have asserted this claim after hearing it from him and it got a bit tedious having to debunk the claim, hence my testiness and put down of Rush.

But my disdain for the lack of research and intellectual rigor of people like Rush, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, et.al. is nothing new around here. I prefer the Bill Buckley, David Brooks, Colin Powell, GHW Bush, Nixon, Eisenhower, Rockefeller, Teddy Rooselvel et. al. wing of the party by a large margin. But the hardcore movement conservatives are running me and my ilk out of the party so eventually my concerns will no longer matter anyway.

Okay Jack. I see where you are coming from. If Rush did say it, you have every right to take him to task for it. I still didn’t care for the tone. That’s my stance, and I recognize others will agree/disagree with it.

You state that you are more of the Colin Powell Republican. Does that mean you agree with his latest stances, voting for Obama, and siding with him on a number of issues?

Look, I’m not trying to be mean here. It does seem to me that when I keyed on your attitude regarding Rush, I was spot on to do so.

It represented a core values thing that I knew stood for more than just Rush.

Look, Rush isn’t perfect. Reagan wasn’t perfect. Humans aren’t perfect, but these two men get/got it right more often than not, by a very wide margin.

I do not side with the wing of the party you seem to. I don’t because many of those people’s core instincts, did not stay within the guidelines of the Constitution of the United States.

Nixon signed on to wage and price controls. Papa Bush thought the New World order was a great new direction (only it wasn’t new at all).

I voted for both these men, but truth be told, they weren’t Conservative. Some people see the word Conservative and think radical right wing extremists.

Why am I always having to defend Conservative’s views that seek nothing more or less than to stay within the guidelines of the U. S. Constitution? Is that radical? Is it extremist? Is it extremist to show displeasure with those who do not limit their governance to the founding documents and the ideals our founders codified for us?

The left doesn’t give a damn about that document. Many of the Republicans today don’t either. I’d just like to have a party that is made up of people who do. Is that too much to ask?

What nation can survive, with seeming well intended people who disregard the laws that brought it into existence, and still remain on the books?

I think that it is important that you and I share a lot more ideals than we don’t. I suspect that we both abhor abortion, think racial quotas, aka affirmative action, is just as immoral as bigotry against blacks, will defend the 2nd amendment to our deaths, believe the free market typically trumps government beauracracies when it comes to efficiency and productivity, need to always have a strong military posture to deter enemies, etc etc.

But there are other areas where I disagree with idealogues like Rush Limbaugh and I especially am not a fan of his disdain for academic and intellectual rigor. In this respect, I am a pragmatist. If someone brings forth a program that might be considered typically left of center but has data, research, a track record and historical data to support its use, I will endorse it. I will not give it a blanket denial because it is anathema to a Republican platform entry.

When you spoke of staying within the guidelines of the constitution, I have no problem with that. But it is important to remember that just because it isn’t specifically authorized by the constitution, it does not mean that it is unconstitutional. Thomas Jefferson wanted guaranteed, universal education for all US citizens from first grade to 12th grade and wanted the government to pay for it collectively, aka, by using socialism.

Now the constitution never authorized this system of education but it was likewise found not to be unconstitutional and since the majority of the electorate concurred, it was implemented.

It is very rare that unconstitutional programs stick around for much time. Most of the New Deal was tossed out by the end of the 1930s after being found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and many after that decade have been as well. Our checks and balances are in pretty good shape.

I have been watching the Democrat movements in Congress very closely since jan 2007 and have been watching the bills moving through the pipeline since Obama came in through the thomas.loc.gov and vote-smart.org and I have yet to see anything that seems unconstitutional. Liberal and socialist? Yes of course, but not unconstitutional.

But remember, Republicans are for socialist institutions as well so we have to be careful not to be seen as hypocrites when throwing that label around. After all, socialist institutions include the entire military, police forces and fire departments, the FDA that protects the food supply, the SEC that is SUPPOSED to keep Wall Street scum like Madoff in check, publicly funding primary schooling (preferably through vouchers), road construction, etc etc. And I have yet to see any Republican with the balls to really go after the king of kings of US socilaism, Social Security and Medicare. Remember how the congress ran and hid when Bush made a single speech about privatizing a small portion of SS?

I think that it is important that you and I share a lot more ideals than we don’t. I can agree with that.

I suspect that we both abhor abortion, think racial quotas, aka affirmative action, is just as immoral as bigotry against blacks, will defend the 2nd amendment to our deaths, believe the free market typically trumps government beauracracies when it comes to efficiency and productivity, need to always have a strong military posture to deter enemies, etc etc. I certainly agree with all of this.

But there are other areas where I disagree with idealogues like Rush Limbaugh and I especially am not a fan of his disdain for academic and intellectual rigor. In this respect, I am a pragmatist. If our universities were closer to 50/50 in ideological terms, I think you'd probably agree that Rush wouldn't be addressing them in the manner he does now. I don't see him continuing to do that at all. So I'm not conviced he is as much against higher education, as he is the people who are doing the higher educating. I don't think he has a single thing against higher education per se. He has quite a bit against a higher education system of universities that are focused on talking down our system of gernance in favor of the Marxist, Communist, and now even Fascist tactics.

If someone brings forth a program that might be considered typically left of center but has data, research, a track record and historical data to support its use, I will endorse it. I will not give it a blanket denial because it is anathema to a Republican platform entry. If it veers away from the founding principles, I'll probably object to it. There are many programs out there that looked swell, until we had to put up with them for decades. Romneycare is one of them. His premise was that if a method of insurance was implemented, that would see everyone insured, the costs would go down and everyone would get coverage. That sounded great up front. A whole slew of people bought into that program, even here. And now today the costs to Mass. are at 500% of what they were when Romney was in office.

When you spoke of staying within the guidelines of the constitution, I have no problem with that. But it is important to remember that just because it isn’t specifically authorized by the constitution, it does not mean that it is unconstitutional. Thomas Jefferson wanted guaranteed, universal education for all US citizens from first grade to 12th grade and wanted the government to pay for it collectively, aka, by using socialism. Okay, was he right? Look at the problems we have today. You can lay almost all those problems at the feet of a well meaning federal government.

Now the constitution never authorized this system of education but it was likewise found not to be unconstitutional and since the majority of the electorate concurred, it was implemented. Even a loose interpretation of the Tenth Amendment would most certainly have found this to be unconstitutional. However, I'm not sure when the Tenth was implemented. I woul think it was very early on though. How did this pass that test?

It is very rare that unconstitutional programs stick around for much time. Most of the New Deal was tossed out by the end of the 1930s after being found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and many after that decade have been as well. Our checks and balances are in pretty good shape. How about Social Security? Not only has that hung around, it's now covering services that it was never intended to cover. That's the main reason it's going belly up. Besides, it's a very unsound premise from the get go. People should be incentivised to fend for themselves, and given tax breaks to encourage it. Of course that's if the Federal Government should be taxing us in the first place.

I have been watching the Democrat movements in Congress very closely since jan 2007 and have been watching the bills moving through the pipeline since Obama came in through the thomas.loc.gov and vote-smart.org and I have yet to see anything that seems unconstitutional. Liberal and socialist? Yes of course, but not unconstitutional. If it is socialist, then I would argue that it is on very shakey ground Constitutionally. I'm not a Constitutional scholar, so I can't quote you the verbage I should be able to, but I still think I would be safe in advancing this premise. Certainly from the federal level, the Tenth Amendment should interfere with the Federal Government doing many things that it does today.

But remember, Republicans are for socialist institutions as well so we have to be careful not to be seen as hypocrites when throwing that label around. After all, socialist institutions include the entire military,

The federal government is expressly tasked with the military. That is a Constitutionally sound premise. It was originally tasked with handling trade negotiations as well. Tariffs were supposed to help finance the federal government, specifically the military and what few other things it was tasked with.

...police forces and fire departments... generally taken care of with local taxation (whatever funding does come from the feds, and it's probably a lot these days, it shouldn't)

...the FDA that protects the food supply... purists would probably agree this isn't true to the Tenth Amendment, but I'm going to state that I do see a role, but it would be a role at a very reduced state

...the SEC that is SUPPOSED to keep Wall Street scum like Madoff in check... well my main complaint is that it didn't keep him in check, in a complex society there will be a need for oversight (we have certainly seen what happens when there isn't) When I run into problems like this, I generally ask others what their thoughts are, and you'd be surprised... some folks think that these agencies should be self-policing, funded by the private sector and run within sound guidelines, then the government could keep it's sticky fingers out, and I don't think there is any chance whatsoever that would see these institutions lending to people who couldn't service the loands, if the feds hadn't been involved.

...publicly funding primary schooling (preferably through vouchers)... I would suggest local communities should raise funds to support their own schools, and the federal government should go pound sand. It has failed miserably.

...road construction... should be paid for out of gas tax funds paid for at the pump

And I have yet to see any Republican with the balls to really go after the king of kings of US socilaism, Social Security and Medicare. Well, you've just met one guy who will. If in the past we could not see the dangers of government funding of programs, getting to the point that the populace would vote in anyone who would give them a free ride, we certainly can today. So it's time to take these programs and find a way to return them to the private sector.

Individuals should save a significant portion of their income. There would be a number of advantages. 1. Within five years of starting to work, people could be self-insured 2. They could cover the first $10,000 of any insurance they needed, and pay a small fee to cover anything above that. 3. This could work for auto, home, dental, ophthalmic, and medical. 4. Continued savings would allow folks to up their deductable 5. eventually these people would cover their own retirement and medical needs in full

This is a very sketchy outline. Still, if we could put our minds to it, we could turn what we're doing now on it's head, and be far better off for having done so.

BTW, we should never have had this level of economic downturn. The government's involvement in things it had no business being involved in, brought us to this point. That must change, for any private sector fixes to be able to work properly. Otherwise you'll get the left monkeying with the system to do what it has just done, cause an economic catastrophe on our nation.

Remember how the congress ran and hid when Bush made a single speech about privatizing a small portion of SS? Of course. And remember that Congress was under Republican control for the first six years of his presidency?

“The federal government is expressly tasked with the military. That is a Constitutionally sound premise. It was originally tasked with handling trade negotiations as well. Tariffs were supposed to help finance the federal government, specifically the military and what few other things it was tasked with.

generally taken care of with local taxation (whatever funding does come from the feds, and it’s probably a lot these days, it shouldn’t)

purists would probably agree this isn’t true to the Tenth Amendment, but I’m going to state that I do see a role, but it would be a role at a very reduced state

I would suggest local communities should raise funds to support their own schools, and the federal government should go pound sand. It has failed miserably.

should be paid for out of gas tax funds paid for at the pump”

But you do agree that these things are still socialism. Even if you privately raise funds from the community for schooling, that is collectivism and certainly a communal (or communist) system. All the rest are socialism by definition. You can’t deny that.

My point is that a sizable chunk of our economy and services are socialist systems, heck, even the Catholic church, Protestant Churches, etc are socialist institutions.

I just don’t like how people around here throw around the term socialism as if it isn’t yet here and we sould fear it. It is here and it provides some great services such as churches, the military, road construction, NASA, NIH, etc. The word socialism is too often used as the unthinking person’s boogeyman.

Now a purely socialist system with tyrannical rule, that is truely something to fear. But a mixed economy with goods and services being provided via capitalism and some needs being provided via socialism currently is and will be for a long time, as American as apple pie.

Obama "outflanks" the GOP?

The GOP has flanks? Who knew?

I thought all they had was a fat a$$ upon which hangs a large "KICK ME!" sign.

But you do agree that these things are still socialism. Even if you privately raise funds from the community for schooling, that is collectivism and certainly a communal (or communist) system. All the rest are socialism by definition. You can’t deny that.

My point is that a sizable chunk of our economy and services are socialist systems, heck, even the Catholic church, Protestant Churches, etc are socialist institutions.

I just don’t like how people around here throw around the term socialism as if it isn’t yet here and we sould fear it. It is here and it provides some great services such as churches, the military, road construction, NASA, NIH, etc. The word socialism is too often used as the unthinking person’s boogeyman.

Now a purely socialist system with tyrannical rule, that is truely something to fear. But a mixed economy with goods and services being provided via capitalism and some needs being provided via socialism currently is and will be for a long time, as American as apple pie.

Jack, I have gone back over a number of your posts here for and for the life of me I don't find you supporting Conservatism in a single one of them. Some comments appeared here, and some on other threads. Yes, you did make a statement of some things we could agree on, but I'm not convinced that when push comes to shove you actually support what you said you do. (1) (2) I have seen you run interference for leftist ideology. (3) You fault Limbaugh for not doing his research. Not surprisingly, you placed Palin and Glen Beck in the same category. (4) And now you've moved on to explain that Socialism is well ensconced in our nation and you're tired of seeing Conservatives make statements against it. The manner in which you present these things is more like talking points from the left, rather than the reasoned acknowledgment that examples can be found in our nation that don't adhere to the Conservative mindset. When you fault people, who do you zero in on? Why it's the same folks the DNC does.

You provided a rather extensive list of people you admire. Here they are, "Bill Buckley, David Brooks, Colin Powell, GHW Bush, Nixon, Eisenhower, Rockefeller, Teddy Rooselvelt." Where is Ronald Reagan? What perked up my ears in the current political climate was Colin Powell. I asked if you supported his vote for Obama, and his support for what Obama is doing. You didn't bother to answer. Do you support his most recent trash talk tour, or do you favor Cheney's stance?

I provided you with a suggestion that would see our nation back away from Socialism, privatizing a number of things our government has taken over on behalf of our citizens. I explained how this would help people become self insured, providing for the bulk of their insurance needs, as well as medical, and retirement. You ignored that to post what you did above.

Here's another of your gems. "But the hard-core movement conservatives are running me and my ilk out of the party so eventually my concerns will no longer matter anyway." What the Sam Hell are you talking about?

On another thread you trashed our nation for using water boarding. LINK You claimed it was undoubtedly torture, and the international community had recognized it as such. What you didn't mention was that our military uses water boarding during the training of our own troops. So let me ask you this. Do you think our military trainers should be prosecuted for torture, and peace time war crimes level infractions of justice? In that post you offered up this, "Terrorism can be combatted and prevented more efficiently and more effectively with brutality, tyranny, oppression....and yes, torture. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Saddam Hussein, Tito, Stalin, Bashar al Assad, etc. have proven that." Are you inferring that our military trainers are of the same caliber as these men? You tossed out the Christian canard rather extensively, but have no problem comparing our men to these world class tyrants. Is that what Christians do?

Here you stated that you would not take up arms to defend this nation. You stated that you wouldn't defend a nation that as killed 49 million children under the cover of law since 1973. So I have to come to the conclusion that you weren't being honest when you said our nation needs to maintain a strong military posture. How could it do that, if it wasn't worth defending, and it's citizens failed to defend it on the same premise you have? Most right to lifers are pretty careful about the terminology they use. They address the issue of abortion on the basis of the rights of the unborn. I don't generally see them talking about "killing children". This leads me to question if your are a right to lifer, or someone trying to destroy the validity of defending this nation. You admitted you'd pull up your roots and fell this nation rather than defend it. And you want me to assess that you are a bon a fide Republican or Conservative? Good grief.

On another thread you even went out of your way at one point to defend the latest nominee to the Court, Sotomayer. You made some gratuitous comments about her being a leftist, then proceeded to make other comments intended to deflate any issues of substance raised about her. You even tried to deflect on the issue of her talking about setting policy from the judicial level. She is not authorized to set policy. She is only authorized to determine if judicial determinations have remained faithful to constitutional guidelines and other pertinent case law. And what stands out the most about this, is that Sotomayer herself disagrees with your take on her comments. She knew they were out of line and admitted it on audio, possibly video.

It bothers me that you focus on our side to exclusion of the other side. You talk about Limbaugh's lack of research, then ignore when a guy at the very top of our government, nominates five or six people who were tax dodgers to be department heads.

I'm not buying for a minute that you are a Conservative, and I'm not convinced you're even a Republican. It's one thing to carry on discussions in a detached academic manor, but it's another to have to totally disconnect with reality to do it. You have pushed too many buttons for me to just think you're here under honest pretenses.

Thomas Jefferson wanted guaranteed, universal education for all US citizens from first grade to 12th grade and wanted the government to pay for it collectively, aka, by using socialism.

Citation please.

Thomas Jefferson wanted guaranteed, universal education for all US citizens from first grade to 12th grade and wanted the government to pay for it collectively, aka, by using socialism.

In your opinion, is paying collectively to build and maintain the interstate highway system socialism?

Look what the Dems did to Miguel Estrada.