Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< What's crazy is, despite the CBS reporter's distastefully phrased question about seconds, you have to wonder how someone like Harriet Miers, who I ovbjected to solely because she was completely lacking in Supreme Court qualifications, gets selected before someone like Alito, who has a very good judicial background. >>> And notice how the coverage from the noise machine emphasized the CBS reporter's poor choice of terminology. During most of the day today, the blaring headline on Drudge Report was about the "sloppy seconds" comment, assigning it more prominence than the nomination itself. Only when the quote from Alito's mom about him being "of course" against abortion did the headline change. Compare this emphasis to that by what some would call the "liberal media": despite that one reporter's poor choice of words, the coverage all day has been about the substantive issue of the nomination itself and Alito's background and qualifications, rather than simply a tool to advance some other agenda (such as drilling home the "liberal media" message). The way this has been covered by Drudge et al also conveniently sidesteps the substance behind the question: how do we judge Judge Alito's qualifications in the light of Miers being chosen ahead of him, and the President representing to us that Miers was the best person for the job? Does this make Alito less qualified than Miers? That's a far more important question than the choice of words by the reporter, but look what gets covered and what doesn't. BTW, I think that Miers' nomination was plainly a mistake, and doesn't reflect negatively on Alito whatever. As far as I can tell, Alito seems to have high qualifications for the job, and almost certainly should have been considered in the first round.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "As far as I can tell, Alito seems to have high qualifications for the job, and almost certainly should have been considered in the first round.' Agreed. Miers was simply a train wreck of a candidate. Another looming hypocrisy and/or irony. The far right wanted Miers out, not because she wasn't qualified, but because they were afraid she wasn't one of "them". In no way did they want an "up or down" vote on her, because they were afraid enough Bush puppets and Democrats would vote her in. Early indications are that there will be a partisan fight over Alito, which I think is wrong, and there are already rumblings about how "he should get an up or down vote." More hypocrisy than irony, actually.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< More hypocrisy than irony, actually. >>> There's plenty of both going around.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> how do we judge Judge Alito's qualifications in the light of Miers being chosen ahead of him, and the President representing to us that Miers was the best person for the job? Does this make Alito less qualified than Miers? << Remember "heckuva job, brownie" right before firing him? How is that any different from saying mier's was "the best person for the job" right before squeezing her out? Never believe a word this man says.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<Never believe a word this man says.>> What if he says: Snow is white Disneyland is in California Disney World is in Florida Texas is big Ford made a Pinto Water makes you wet 360 degrees forms a circle.
Originally Posted By jdub I think the CBS reporter's choice of terminology is foul, but really, it can't be surprising anymore in a time where "s-cks" seems to be acceptable, common language. People just don't care what comes out of their mouths anymore.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Yes, it is always amazing what people let slip out of thier mouths. Gotta love the attempt of even some on here to marginalize some voices by calling it "the noise machine". Just proves that politics is a dirty business. So why exactly is it ok for the Democratic talking points to try to compare Alito with Scalia just because they are both Italian? Though not necessarily offensive, it is still insensitive.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I don't think it is "just because they are Italian" - I think they are trying to say their points of view are similar. But in fairness they could have probably said Thomalito, but that doesn't have the same ring to it.
Originally Posted By ecdc A question for the lawyers on the boards: How would Roe V. Wade be overturned, technically? Would someone have to sue over the current law, and if so, who? Can you paint us a picture of a likely scenario? I only ask because *both* sides act like the second another conservative gets in there, women might as well start stocking up on their coat hangers. Maybe I'm just naive, but I don't see Roe V. Wade ever going away.
Originally Posted By itsme >>So why exactly is it ok for the Democratic talking points to try to compare Alito with Scalia just because they are both Italian? Though not necessarily offensive, it is still insensitive. ----- Where are all those people on the right that are always complaing about the left being so pc and how they are make it bad to say anything? Why is the right now getting upset over a non-pc joke?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Why is the right now getting upset over a non-pc joke?>> That's easy. It's because the subject of the joke is a White Christian Conservative.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Because it proves that "PC thinking" is a hypocritical attempt to marginalize view points. Most conservatives would agree to the concept of being sensitive to the feelings of people, but that is not what "PC" is about and we get sick of it's overuse leading almost to Orwellianism. It's fun to throw it back in liberals face. Oh and Tom, if they were idealogically the same, why not just come out and say that instead of making a play of words out of thier Italian heritage? God forbid that anybody admit there could have been a better way to come about this. But then again it is ok for liberals to be "not PC".
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Oh and Tom, if they were idealogically the same, why not just come out and say that instead of making a play of words out of thier Italian heritage?<< Because it's politics in this day and age, and it's all about getting your message out there in a memorable way. "Scalito" is quick, it is memorable, and it establishes the "brand" that they are trying to sell in very effective way.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>God forbid that anybody admit there could have been a better way to come about this.<< Better as in a more honest discussion about his judicial philosophy? Of course there would be a better way. I think it involves an honest discussion about his qualifications instead of a drawing the usual battle lines of Democrat versus Republican and taking cheap shots and disproportionate umbrage, though.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer And on that note, how about we talk about Alito? Do I think he's qualified? Absolutely. Do I agree with all of his decisions, at least as I am aware of them now? No. Do I think he should be confirmed? As far as what I know about him now, yes.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Why is "scalito" any more offensive than, say "bennifer" for j-lo and ben affleck? Or any of the fractured amorphisms that disney does routinely like "environmentality", "tencennial", "streetacular" etc. It's short n' punchy and not derogatory to either judge or italians in general. Some people look for excuses to be offended.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I agree. He's also had that moniker for years now in New Jersey; it's not something the "liberal media" invented for him just recently. He's said he admires Scalia, and often rules with similar thinking; it's just as likely the moniker was originally given to him by supporters as by detractors.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Dabob and I are so often in agreement, people call us Karbob or Dab2oon all the time.
