goodbye liberal agenda- Bush nominates a rock solid conservative !

On 3 Aug 2005 16:57:07 -0700, "cricket" wrote:

2 years away...that's a LONG time !

and Bush's conservative Supreme Court judge will be there for decades ! snip

Lied about membership in the ultra right wing Federalist
Society...there WILL be consequences for that.

HAHAHAHAHA -- YOU'RE DELUDED!

DeserTBoB wrote:
On 3 Aug 2005 16:57:07 -0700, "cricket" wrote:

2 years away...that's a LONG time !

and Bush's conservative Supreme Court judge will be there for decades ! snip

Lied about membership in the ultra right wing Federalist
Society...there WILL be consequences for that.

HAHAHAHAHA -- YOU'RE DELUDED!




Just to show how easily you change your mind from day to day, week to
week- and how your opinion and answers to any question can't be
trusted, here is you FIRST REPLY to this opening post on this thread-
saying the man is well qualified and will be nominated. So tell us
now, which is it, your first reply, or this latest one ? You are
totally controlled by a liberal media that misinforms you on a daily
basis. Here's your previous reply- anyone reading this, just scroll up
the thread on Google Groups and read DoucheBob's first reply. Now he
changing his stance 180 degrees...


Path:
g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!newshub.sdsu.e du!logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-w!spln!rex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!ene ws3
From: DeserTBoB
Newsgroups: alt.collecting.8-track-tapes
Subject: goodbye liberal agenda- Bush nominates a rock solid
conservative !
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:27:33 -0700
Organization: Add an "ob1" to the name...screw up the spammers!
Lines: 9
Message-ID:
References: .com
Reply-To:
NNTP-Posting-Host: p-080.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564

Bush Nominates Judge John C. Roberts snip

....as he was expected to do. He'll squeak by the Senate without any
filibuster. He's well qualified for the bench.

SO WHAT?

On 4 Aug 2005 12:52:11 -0700, "DICK White"
wrote:

Just to show how easily you change your mind from day to day, week to
week- snip

They change as I receive new INFORMATION, Noodles...as any intelligent
person's opinion would.

Hey Noodles! Per LA Times, NY Times, Wash Post, Boston Globe and
others this morning:

"JUDICIAL NOMINEE THOMAS HELPED WIN GAY RIGHTS CASE"

If you could READ and UNDERSTAND, you'll already know what I'm talking
about. Of course, you'd rather be deluded by noxious morons like
Flush Limpdick and Sean Hann-ratty, like a junkie craving a fix, than
KNOW ANY FACTS.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE LAST 2 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS YOUR PARTY LOST ?

face it, you are not mainstream, I am. soon we'll remove people like
you from the country.

DICK White wrote:
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE LAST 2 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS YOUR PARTY LOST ?

face it, you are not mainstream, I am. soon we'll remove people like
you from the country.

They already are removing them, it's called the war in Iraq.

The families of all the soldiers killed this week thank you and your
political party.

You must be so proud.

they joined freely- and believed in their cause- so do their families-
and they are keeping terrorists away from our shores, and protecting
YOU too

show some respect !

shame on you !

,

THE NEXT JUSTICE

Judging While Catholic
Do journalists understand that the Constitution prohibits religious
tests for officeholders?

BY MANUEL MIRANDA
Friday, August 5, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

John Roberts will be the fourth Roman Catholic on the current Supreme
Court, but only the 10th Catholic among the 109 justices who've served
in the high court's 215-year history. A few senators and a good many
journalists have made much of it.

Earlier this week, in a span of minutes, three journalists asked me to
respond to liberals, like Sen. Richard Durbin (D., Ill.), raising Judge
Roberts's religion as a confirmation issue. As if there were a
Republican talking point in my hand, they each asked in similar words:
"What's the line on that?" Minutes before penning this column, a fourth
prominent political reporter startled me further by asking: "What
religion test clause? Where does that appear?"

Well, here, everyone jot this down. "The line" appears in Article VI of
the U.S. Constitution: "No religious test shall ever be required as a
qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."





Much bigger than the obvious problem of overreaching Democratic
senators (because it is obvious) is that Americans are depending on
journalists to catalyze the most important public debate outside an
election: the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice. The American
people already start at a disadvantage. The Pew Research Center
conducts regular polls on the thinking of the media. The preface to one
2004 report notes:

Journalists at national and local news organizations are notably
different from the general public in their ideology and attitudes
toward political and social issues. Most national and local
journalists, as well as a plurality of Americans (41%), describe
themselves as political moderates. But news people, especially national
journalists are more liberal, and far less conservative, than the
general public.
Most Americans know this by now. Some may know the result of another
Pew survey that found most journalists were overwhelmingly irreligious.
What we do not know is how many journalists read, much less understand
the Constitution. In the next few weeks, we are going to have a
glimpse. Here are two sightings from this week alone.
In Monday's Boston Globe, columnist Cathy Young, also a contributing
editor of the libertarian Reason magazine, concludes: "A candidate's or
nominee's ideology should be fair game whether it's religious or
secular in nature, whether it's rooted in conservative Catholicism or
liberal feminism."

More interesting is how Ms. Young gets to this conclusion. While
applauding John F. Kennedy's milestone election as the first Catholic
president, Ms. Young recites Article VI, but she conflates the
religious test clause with the provision that officeholders "shall be
bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution." She
interprets this to mean that "an officeholder could not be required to
take an oath or perform a religious ritual affirming his allegiance to
a particular religion or denomination, or even a general belief in
God."

Ms. Young thinks it's about cookie-cutter discrimination, and not about
protecting actual religious beliefs. In fact, the two clauses are quite
separate in their intent. Their distinct origin is itself telling. At
the Constitutional Convention most proponents of the Oath Clause sought
to ensure the public servants were "sincere friends to religion," but
greater forces than that had been lobbying to ensure that there would
be no "religious test" for public office. Not least of the lobbyists
was America's first Roman Catholic bishop, John Carroll of Maryland,
whose brother Daniel was just one of two Catholics in the Philadelphia
Convention.

Requiring an oath or affirmation in taking public office was the
Framers' nod to God, the requirement that no particular set of
religious beliefs be required of office holders was their nod to their
painful experience with the religious intolerance of England.

In Wednesday's Washington Post ("Why It's Right to Ask About Roberts's
Faith"), columnist E.J. Dionne asks: "Is it wrong to question Judge
John Roberts on how his Catholic faith might affect his decisions as a
Supreme Court justice? Or is it wrong not to? . . . Why is it wrong to
ask him to share his reflections with the public?" It would be helpful,
Mr. Dionne concludes, "if Roberts gave an account of how (and whether)
his religious convictions would affect his decisions as a justice."





Mr. Dionne's error is found is his own words: "Yes, any inquiry related
to a nominee's religion risks being seen as a form of bigotry, and of
course there should be no 'religious tests.' " Indeed. And that is the
problem, again.
Journalists believe that the religious test clause guards against
simple discrimination against Catholics or Jews or any other particular
denominations. It does not. It prohibits a probe of what the potential
officeholder believes derived of his religious convictions. It is not
about what he lists on a questionnaire under religion, as if it were
like race or sex. That is why the liberal press has mocked the concern
raised by conservatives that the abortion litmus test and other lines
of inquiry are a constitutionally prohibited religious test.

When England passed its two Test Acts, they did not prohibit Catholics
from holding public office. Rather, the "test" sought to exclude anyone
from holding public office who believed that the bread and wine in the
ritual of the Eucharist turned into the body and blood of Jesus Christ,
a fundamental tenet of Catholic belief.

Fortunately, Mr. Durbin and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) have shied
away from that line of inquiry, since their clients haven't figured out
how to profit from it. Lucky for me, because it would be hard to
explain transubstantiation using just Republican talking points.

Mr. Miranda, former counsel to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, is
founder and chairman of the Third Branch Conference, a coalition of
grassroots organizations following judicial issues. His column appears
on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.

On 5 Aug 2005 04:00:30 -0700, "DICK White"
wrote:

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE LAST 2 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS YOUR PARTY LOST ? snip

BUT WHAT ABOUT THAT SUPPOSEDLY "SOLID" CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT IN OHIO
THAT ALMOST WENT TO A DEMOCRAT?

The pundits are agreeing..the Repukes are out in Congress in '06.

On 5 Aug 2005 08:14:36 -0700, "DICK White"
wrote:

THE NEXT JUSTICE

Judging While Catholic
Do journalists understand that the Constitution prohibits religious
tests for officeholders?

BY MANUEL MIRANDA snip

Reading more delusional crap from those right wing web sites, Noodles?

Keep reading it...it won't hurt so bad when we steam roller you in '06
and '08.