Friday, July 01, 2005


Assosiate Justice Sandra Day O Connor has announced her retiremement from the Supreme Cour6t. O Connor, 75, was one of the «Gang of Four», who delivered the minority opinion that was one vote short of torpedoing the government's right to condemn private property for the public good. Now, G.W.Bush will make a nomination for the court. If he is smart (Yeah right), he will realise that he simply cannot get his stain-glass right-wing lacky's approved by the Senate. Consequenty, he should spare America the greif of a long, protracted comfirmation process, and simply nominate someone who will be acceptable to the Senate. Sen. McCain is a man who is important to keep in the loop for this process. So are Sens. Kennedy, Schumer, Climton and Boxer. If the 7 moderate Republicans work with the Democrats, America can have one more progressive Supreme Court Justice!

25 Vignettes:

At 2:52 p.m., July 01, 2005, Blogger B&N vignetted...

And McCain would be important, why?

He is viewed by you Leftists/Communists/Socialists/Progressives as being some sort of hero.

People like me, and I'm NOT very far to the right of center, view him as belonging to the wrong party. He is as stupid as the day is long, and he is anti-freedom and anti-Civil Liberty on every issue. Look at that dreck that he drafted with that Fuckwit Russ Feingold!

He might be important to you, but I have always counted on him voting for 'the other way' when I have to tally who will be voting for what.

And as far as O'Conner is/was concerned Howie, although appointed by Reagan, she was hardly 'conservative', or however else you care to classify her.


At 7:04 p.m., July 01, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous vignetted...

Bush would do right by trying to pick someone that is more moderate, but even if he doesn't he's not going to have it easy trying to get a far-right republican in because of the Senate. He'll have to pick someone that both Democrats and Republicans can come to some consensus on.

Moreover, even if O'Connor is replaced by an extremely conservative Justice, there is no gaurantee that he or she will be completely aigned with Bush on everything. If you look at the record of Supreme Court Justices and their party affiliation you'll see that many have often voted in unexpected directions on key issues to Republicans and Democrats.

At 7:26 p.m., July 01, 2005, Blogger MommyCool vignetted...

Many MommyCools can remember when women didn’t sit on the Supreme Court. When O’Connor took her oath, girls in the 1980’s knew that anything was possible. O’Connor’s moderate voice was like Mom intermediating with Dad. Hopefully, George Bush will appoint another female leader that casts the same qualities. Whether one agrees or disagrees with O’Connor’s past decisions, one has thank O’Connor (and Ronald Reagan) for giving women a voice and embodying integrity at the highest level of government. Another woman needs to be appointed.

At 9:22 p.m., July 01, 2005, Blogger Cecil The Ninja vignetted...

We shouldn't view issues as matters of race or sex. O'Connor was an incompetent sluggard, and people on both sides of the fence will say so. Hopefully Bush will make a better decision than Reagan did, and that his selection won't be based on sex, race OR political slant.

After all, the supreme court is supposed to be a non-political entity, the corruption needs to ceace.

At 5:51 p.m., July 02, 2005, Anonymous Lisa vignetted...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 7:19 p.m., July 02, 2005, Blogger The Whisperer vignetted...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 12:49 p.m., July 03, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous vignetted...

For an education major with a minor in history, you certainly do not know your history very well.

At 1:21 p.m., July 03, 2005, Blogger hooey vignetted...

Present a neocon with the facts amd the tnuth and recieve an ad-hominem personal attack in returm.

At 1:08 p.m., July 04, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous vignetted...


Why is it that all you can ever come up with as a retort is,

"Present a neocon with te facts and the truth, and receive an ad-hominem personal attack in return."

Can you think of nothing more original to say? Can you not stay the course on your own topic? Is your argument so weak that expanding on your original point in your posts is too much for you to muster?

Granted, some of the responses you get ARE personal attacks, but you DO have a Jesus complex with some of the crap you post, as if it is all-knowing and perfect. Get real, you are not THAT bright and gifted. You do not have all the answers, even though I am sure that you think you do.

BTW, why is it that you insist upon the moniker "Neocon"??? Is that not a branding of sorts. Is it not against the ethos of you 'Progressives'/Democrats/Party-of-the-Little-People to not make issues out of someone elses race, color, creed, socio-economic background? I always thought that you guys were suppose to be all inclusive? To brand people and vilify them is beneath you, I thought?

Fact is, Howie, you HATE people like me. You are convinced that I am 'the Problem' with the world, and that you have the solution. That is fine Howie, I hate you too. I DO look down on you with contempt and disdain. The difference is that I have the courage to admit it.

I freely admit that I am a supporter of Capitalism, the Republic, and Individual Freedoms. While none of these systems is perfect, I can not imagine it getting any better.

I have seen examples of your utopia, and it has always failed miserably.

I have a nickel's worth of free advice for you Howie, learn Mandarin and/or Cantonese and move, I'm sure you have comrades who will be happy to take you in.

At 1:16 p.m., July 04, 2005, Blogger hooey vignetted...

And this pertains to judicial nominations and confirmations how?

At 2:25 p.m., July 04, 2005, Anonymous Lisa vignetted...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 5:12 p.m., July 04, 2005, Anonymous Erik vignetted...

What the previous anonymous person was saying didn't pertain to justices and it didn't have to. Is that your only retort to beautiful analysis of your stance? I don't think there is a disclaimer on this blog that says anything posted in the comments has to pertain to the title subject matter, just that it pertains to a subject. Fact is, that person is right. You're too arrogant to admit that you have a loaded God complex--thinking that you have all the right answers when you don't.

Bravo to the previous anonymous person with proper analysis and good advice. You could learn something from them about the beliefs you support so adamantly.

At 10:50 a.m., July 05, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous vignetted...

I have visited dozens of "neocon" blogs and if anyone has a God complex it's them -- about Bush.

I've offered them straight facts, and instead of debate, they simply insisted that my sources were "suspect" or "leftist rags". These included The (London) Times, the New York Times, The Guardian, The (UK) Independent, The Washington Post, various US media sources, and many others from Europe. So, any facts I quoted were automatically thrown out on the grounds that they came from these "suspect" sources. How can anyone debate someone with that attitude? Did they expect me to go to Iraq or Afghanistan or Washington or London and report to them personally before they would debate with me??

I have never met such head-in-the-sand, wilfully blind and ignorant people before. Anywhere.

At 2:30 p.m., July 05, 2005, Anonymous RWing Nut vignetted...

How about a conservative to steer SCOTUS back to its Constitutional role instread of continuing to act as a super-legislative body. Progressives don't like the idea because it means that elected representatives of the people decide the critical issues instead of appointees. Progressives have much less success marketing their agenda to the people than they do convincing the judiciary.

Bush's astute move would be to nominate J. Rogers-Brown. The Senate just confirmed her to the court of appeals so she has been through the process, the Democrats didn't consider her nomination an "extrordinary circumstance", she's female and black. Bush could make it very difficult for the Democrats to object and get a conservative judge on the SCOTUS.

At 4:16 p.m., July 05, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous vignetted...

rwing nut,

YOU are astute to notice that Bush has not only support in minorities (Hnr. Rogers-Brown and S.State Rice), but is NOT afraid to make these appointments. He is solidifying support in African-American community in this country because of his lack of playing games with race. That is something the Donks think is their domain, the 'Black Vote'

Rather, Bush sees some of these minority leaders, who BELIEVE in conservativism, and appoints them based on their perspective and resolve on important issues. He doesn't give a shit about race, and he has PROVEN it. He respects these people based on their beliefs, as most have been hard fought lessons of life.

You are also astute to notice that the Donks hate it when the legislature does something they feel is 'backwards' or 'ill-advised'. They DO tend to flock toward the Bench in search of vindication. It is the hallmark of all liberals to abuse the courts. What was it that Shakespeare said about killing all the lawyers?

At 5:54 p.m., July 06, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous vignetted...

"The extremists at both ends of the spectrum are so far in that direction that if they turned around, they'd see eachother."

At 6:13 p.m., July 06, 2005, Blogger Beerme vignetted...


Now that Bush is going to be able to nominate a justice, shouldn't he use the Kelo decision as a litmus test? If the potential nominee is in favor of takings for the public good, then s/he's in! This will hasten the demise of private property and the communal ownership of everything. We would soon have a true worker's paradise!

Oh, and a firkin is a barrel of beer, used in a beer engine, dispensed naturally with the natural carbonation of the beer and gravity.

At 6:53 p.m., July 06, 2005, Blogger hooey vignetted...

Beer Me! Welcome to the progressive side!
So. A firkin is a good thimg then.

At 11:19 a.m., July 07, 2005, Blogger Beerme vignetted...


At 11:53 a.m., July 07, 2005, Anonymous RWing Nut vignetted...

Beerme, I agree with your idea of using the Kelso decision as a litmus test, but agreement with the decision should be an automatic disqualification for the SCOTUS nomination. If as the Dems say, Bush should appoint someone like O'Conner, recall that she joined the dissenting opinion on Kelson. Applied this way, the litmus test would honor the Dems request.

At 4:22 p.m., July 07, 2005, Anonymous howee vignetted...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 2:31 a.m., July 08, 2005, Anonymous Rocker vignetted...


Why is it that all you can ever come up with as a retort is,

"Present a neocon with te facts and the truth, and receive an ad-hominem personal attack in return."

Can you think of nothing more original to say? Can you not stay the course on your own topic? Is your argument so weak that expanding on your original point in your posts is too much for you to muster?

Rocker says : maybe the same kinda attacks require the same kinda response. Whaddya want? Paraphrasing?

At 4:07 a.m., July 08, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous vignetted...

Howie is an idiot!!!
This is my first and last visit to this site.

Good luck with your twisted view of reality!

Anyone who is open minded won't buy into your garbage and move on like myself.

At 11:02 a.m., July 08, 2005, Anonymous RWing Nut vignetted...

Let's not attack poor Howie personally. He performs a valuable function.
The quality of his writing is a far more eloquent indictment of "progressive" thought than he is capable of mounting in defense of the ideas he recites from lefty tracts.

At 6:40 p.m., July 11, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous vignetted...



<< Home