Author |
Topic: Anyone watching the hearings????? (Read 800 times) |
|
BarbaraD
CH.com Alumnus
New Board Hall of Famer
Hugs to ya
Gender: 
Posts: 5164
|
 |
Anyone watching the hearings?????
« on: Jan 12th, 2006, 1:38pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
This is about the funniest thing on TV right now. I've been trying to work and listen half way to Judge A. answering these nosensical questions.
I mean WHO CARES what he thought in 78 and if he still thinks the same thing today? What he did in college means anything today? Roe v Wade isn't going to get turned over in these hearings so why does his opinion on it matter right now? Is he personally going to put prayer back in schools? I doubt it!
Three days of comedy! Ya oughta tune in... He's holding his own better than I would. By now I think I would have told the whole Senate to take a flying leap.
Hugs BD
|
|
 IP Logged |
What don't kill ya, Makes ya stonger!
|
|
|
Charlie
CH.com Alumnus
New Board Hall of Famer
Happy to be here
    
Gender: 
Posts: 14968
|
|
Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
« Reply #1 on: Jan 13th, 2006, 12:02am » |
Quote Modify
|
Not I. I see two minutes of it on the news.
He'll be confirmed. I'm not at all worried.
Charlie 
|
|
IP Logged |
There is nothing more satisfying than being shot at without result---Winston Churchill
|
|
|
forgetfulnot
Guest
|
|
Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
« Reply #2 on: Jan 13th, 2006, 1:49am » |
Quote Modify
 Remove
|
Don't get idea that only democrats do this, the party that is out of power is the meanest bunch there is.
Lee
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
BobG
New Board Hall of Famer
Gender:
Posts: 5747
|
|
Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
« Reply #3 on: Jan 13th, 2006, 4:08am » |
Quote Modify
|
It's all just fluff and eye wash. It's not about Judge A. It's about politicians getting their face on TV.
Quote:Is he personally going to put prayer back in schools? I doubt it!
|
|
I doubt it too. I'd like a law that says evolution must be taught in Sunday School.
|
|
IP Logged |
Stay stressed. Never relax. Never sleep. Ever.
|
|
|
chewy
Guest
|
|
Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
« Reply #4 on: Jan 13th, 2006, 8:02am » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
I'd like a law that makes evolution mandatory for the Senate.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Ghost
CH.com Alumnus
New Board Hall of Famer
Farting relieves the pressure
Gender:
Posts: 4024
|
|
Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
« Reply #5 on: Jan 13th, 2006, 10:47am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 13th, 2006, 8:02am, chewy wrote:| I'd like a law that makes evolution mandatory for the Senate. |
|
   
|
|
IP Logged |
Illigitimus Non Tatum Carborundum
If all men are endowed by their creator, why was mine so short sighted?
***WARNING*** Oxygen will rust your pipes!
|
|
|
sandie99
New Board Hall of Famer
Wish it, dream it, do it - inspite the pain!
Gender:
Posts: 10429
|
|
Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
« Reply #6 on: Jan 13th, 2006, 11:29am » |
Quote Modify
|
Too bad I can't see them back here. I bet I would watch if I could.
Sanna
|
|
IP Logged |
CH happends, Live anyway! PF days to us all!
"Do what you can and let God take care of the rest. Leave your heart wide open and always wish for the best" (Sanna Hillu)
"No matter how far out your dreams are, it's possible" (Marketa Irglova)
|
|
|
floridian
Guest
|
|
Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
« Reply #7 on: Jan 13th, 2006, 11:35am » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
on Jan 13th, 2006, 8:02am, chewy wrote:| I'd like a law that makes evolution mandatory for the Senate. |
|
Reminds me of something my grandmother said - don't try to teach a pig to sing. You'll waste your time, and make the pig angry.
DeLay thought the Columbine massacre was caused because the school taught that humans "evolutionized" from apes. No classroom lecture is going to help him. Maybe he'll have a satori moment in prison.
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 13th, 2006, 11:36am by floridian » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
floridian
Guest
|
|
Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
« Reply #8 on: Jan 13th, 2006, 12:09pm » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
on Jan 12th, 2006, 1:38pm, BarbaraD wrote:This is about the funniest thing on TV right now. I've been trying to work and listen half way to Judge A. answering these nosensical questions.
I mean WHO CARES what he thought in 78 and if he still thinks the same thing today? What he did in college means anything today? Roe v Wade isn't going to get turned over in these hearings so why does his opinion on it matter right now? Is he personally going to put prayer back in schools? I doubt it!
Three days of comedy! Ya oughta tune in... He's holding his own better than I would. By now I think I would have told the whole Senate to take a flying leap.
Hugs BD |
|
But what about his ruling that there is no problem when the government wants to strip search a 10 year old girl without a warrant - that was 2003. You never know if some little girl is hiding WMD in her underwear - good thing the cops decided to look, and Judge Alito was there to back them up.
Or his ruling that a mentality retarded man was not harrassed at work by others who restrained the man when he was undressed, attempted to insert a broomstick in the mans anus, and on another occasion, rubbed his penis against the retarded man's behind. According to Alito, this was not harrasment or assault, merely macho horseplay, nothing illegal that the government should be concerned with. Macho horseplay, not perverted violence!! Shouldn't a man of "the highest judicial and ethical standards" be able to make a clear call on that one?
Alito has been consistently for the power of government and against the rights of the individual.
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 13th, 2006, 12:18pm by floridian » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
maffumatt
Guest
|
|
Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
« Reply #9 on: Jan 13th, 2006, 12:17pm » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
Thats the first place cops look when they raid a drug dealers home, one of the gaurds here was the Chief of police in a neighboring town and told me that Meth dealers always hide it on their kids, even babies and esp girls, because they don't think the police will look there. Whats worse, a woman cop looking checking the girl, or her growing up in a house dealing that crap in front of her?
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 13th, 2006, 12:18pm by Mattchew » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Jimmy_B.
CH.com Alumnus
New Board Hall of Famer
USS Missouri BB-63 Veteran
Gender:
Posts: 797
|
|
Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
« Reply #10 on: Jan 13th, 2006, 12:37pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 12th, 2006, 1:38pm, BarbaraD wrote:
He's holding his own better than I would.
Hugs BD |
|
He's a New Jersey, boy...he's heard a lot worse then these Senator's can dish out.
|
|
IP Logged |
"I'd much rather be HAPPY then RIGHT any day" Slartibartfast
Get informed! Don't vote a party ticket. Go to www.vote-smart.org and find out where your political candidates stand.
|
|
|
floridian
Guest
|
|
Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
« Reply #11 on: Jan 13th, 2006, 12:38pm » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
on Jan 13th, 2006, 12:17pm, maffumatt wrote:| Thats the first place cops look when they raid a drug dealers home, one of the gaurds here was the Chief of police in a neighboring town and told me that Meth dealers always hide it on their kids, even babies and esp girls, because they don't think the police will look there. Whats worse, a woman cop looking checking the girl, or her growing up in a house dealing that crap in front of her? |
|
Your 'gaurd' must be a little sweeping in his generalization when he said that they Always hide the stuff in in kids - no drugs were found on the girl.
The purpose of a warrant is to define and allow specific search activities - it is a basic principle of the US Constitution. If they had real evidence that drugs were likely to be in the girls panties, they could have asked for permission to search all minors present in the house.
I have no problem with investigating and arresting law breakers, but shredding the Constitution to protect the people against drugs will only result in a shredded Constitution. Police power should be controlled as the drafter's of the Constitution intended.
How bout that macho horseplay with a broomstick, Maffumat? You want that man leading your son's Boy Scout troop?
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 13th, 2006, 12:40pm by floridian » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
JJA
New Board Old Timer
Gender:
Posts: 279
|
|
Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
« Reply #12 on: Jan 13th, 2006, 1:26pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 13th, 2006, 12:17pm, maffumatt wrote:
Thats [a childs privates] the first place cops look when they raid a drug dealers home |
|
Oh man, we NEED drug law reform.
Jesse
|
|
IP Logged |
Is it illegal because it's dangerous or is it dangerous because it's illegal? Our drug laws are ruining lives.
|
|
|
burnt-toast
New Board Hall of Famer
Gender:
Posts: 1686
|
|
Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
« Reply #13 on: Jan 13th, 2006, 8:01pm » |
Quote Modify
|
It's a great show, gives politicians opportunity to pound their chests and blow smoke from both sides of the selection process. Unfortuantely these justices have become as political as the representatives conducting the hearings.
Fact is the Supreme Court has consistently overstepped the boundries of their authority of late to satisfy political agendas. Their role is to strictly interpret the law and ensure that the same standards and rule of law are applied consistently by lower courts.
If these justices were truely doing their jobs and acting appropriately, these hearings would be unnecessary.
These justices wouldn't be Liberal, Conservative, pro-government control or anti-governemnt control, etc. Each of them would only be interested in strictly enforcing the established rule of law.
Making law by selectively rewording/interpreting parts of the constitution or catering to a political agenda is not in the job description.
Tom
|
|
IP Logged |
Would the owner of the propane torch, egg beater, pipe expander and vise grips please claim these items. They're lodged in my head and I need the space.
|
|
|
Jonny
CH.com Alumnus
New Board Hall of Famer
Give me a shovel Ill dig my own grave!
Gender:
Posts: 26213
|
|
Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
« Reply #14 on: Jan 13th, 2006, 8:11pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 13th, 2006, 12:38pm, floridian wrote:Your 'gaurd' must be a little sweeping in his generalization when he said that they Always hide the stuff in in kids - no drugs were found on the girl.
|
|
Flo,
Are you so rich that you dont think theses fucks will hide their stash in a kids diaper if they they think it wont be searched?
They do it EVERY fucking day!
Get your head out of your ass and come down here where the shit is happening.......or, STFU!!
|
|
IP Logged |
It is up to YOU to educate yourself and then help your doctor plan your treatment. If you just sit down in front of your doctor and say "make me better" you are setting yourself up for a great deal of pain.
- Guiseppi
|
|
|
Charlie
CH.com Alumnus
New Board Hall of Famer
Happy to be here
Gender:
Posts: 14968
|
|
Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
« Reply #15 on: Jan 13th, 2006, 8:52pm » |
Quote Modify
|
It still turns my stomach strip seaching little girls or handcuffing them like in Florida, I believe some time ago. It isn't done.
Yup. Time to kill the DEA... Fat chance with all the moralists pretending that they can "do something" about drugs.
Charlie
|
|
IP Logged |
There is nothing more satisfying than being shot at without result---Winston Churchill
|
|
|
floridian
Guest
|
|
Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
« Reply #16 on: Jan 13th, 2006, 9:26pm » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
on Jan 13th, 2006, 8:11pm, Jonny wrote:
Flo,
Are you so rich that you dont think theses fucks will hide their stash in a kids diaper if they they think it wont be searched?
They do it EVERY fucking day!
Get your head out of your ass and come down here where the shit is happening.......or, STFU!!
|
|
Removing head .... watching hearings on TV. ... scanning the web ... ok!
I have seen the future, and it is www.abortion-travel.com And without constitutional protection against unwarranted search, women will soon have to pee on stick when leaving and re-entering the country.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Jonny
CH.com Alumnus
New Board Hall of Famer
Give me a shovel Ill dig my own grave!
Gender:
Posts: 26213
|
|
Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
« Reply #17 on: Jan 13th, 2006, 9:26pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 13th, 2006, 8:52pm, Charlie wrote:| It still turns my stomach strip seaching little girls or handcuffing them like in Florida, I believe some time ago. |
|
So I guess hiding the drugs in a little girls diaper is cool with you, Charlie?
Is it also cool to hide drugs in a 10 year olds panties to avoid arrest?
Are these children living the the life that YOU think they should live?
Get a fucking clue, Man!!!
|
|
IP Logged |
It is up to YOU to educate yourself and then help your doctor plan your treatment. If you just sit down in front of your doctor and say "make me better" you are setting yourself up for a great deal of pain.
- Guiseppi
|
|
|
maffumatt
Guest
|
|
Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
« Reply #18 on: Jan 13th, 2006, 9:28pm » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
Schumer misrepresented Alito's dissent in the Groody case, claiming that Alito had written that "a 10-year old girl could be stripped searched even though the warrant did not call for her to be strip searched." But the issue in that case was whether the warrant authorized the search (specifically, whether the warrant incorporated the affidavit attached to it that had been submitted to the court). Alito thought that it did. He did not state that, if the search was not authorized by the warrant, it was still permissible. In any event, the issue in that case was whether police officers could be sued personally for the search. In that context, the question was not what the warrant actually authorized, but what the officer reasonably thought it authorized
If the cops came into my house and stripped search my daughter for no substantial reason, I would be the first to through a fit. If they came into my house and stripped search my daughter because I was selling meth out of my house infront of my kids, it would be all on me, I would be the person responsible for putting her in that position, not the cop doing my job. People that put theirselves and their kids into that position get no sypathy from me, the kids yes, the parents are endagering their kids. They have no morals.
I dont understand the comment about the broomstick and my boy, please elaborate on that a little.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
floridian
Guest
|
|
Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
« Reply #19 on: Jan 13th, 2006, 9:39pm » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
on Jan 13th, 2006, 9:28pm, maffumatt wrote:| I dont understand the comment about the broomstick and my boy, please elaborate on that a little. |
|
Would you trust your kids or your Constitution to someone who thinks that restraining a mentally retarded person, trying to stick a wooden broom up their ass, and rubbing dick against them is merely 'macho horseplay' and not violent perversion?? Forced sex against a person with an IQ of 75 isn't play - its rape.
(I am referring to the Pirolli case)
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 13th, 2006, 9:42pm by floridian » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
maffumatt
Guest
|
|
Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
« Reply #20 on: Jan 13th, 2006, 10:02pm » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
have no idea where that came from dude......sounds like something Ginsberge would rule for. If that happened with my kid I would be arrested for murder.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
floridian
Guest
|
|
Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
« Reply #21 on: Jan 13th, 2006, 10:24pm » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
on Jan 13th, 2006, 10:02pm, maffumatt wrote:| have no idea where that came from dude......sounds like something Ginsberge would rule for. If that happened with my kid I would be arrested for murder. |
|
Nope - not Ginsberg. Alito. He has consistently ruled against people bringing suit for being harrased or discriminated against.
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 13th, 2006, 10:38pm by floridian » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
maffumatt
Guest
|
|
Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
« Reply #22 on: Jan 13th, 2006, 10:39pm » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
can you provide a reliable link? Thants not right, if he rules like that he doesn't need to be on the bench.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
floridian
Guest
|
|
Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
« Reply #23 on: Jan 13th, 2006, 11:08pm » |
Quote Modify
Remove
|
This was in the hearings:
Quote:DURBIN: I’d like to say, Judge, in many of these tough questions, as I read through cases, you end up ruling in favor of established institutions and against individuals. Let me tell you another one: Pirolli v. World Flavors. Remember this case? A mentally retarded individual, Kenneth Pirolli, physically harassed at his workplace; subjected to a hostile, abusive work environment; sexually assaulted by his co-workers. And according to his deposition testimony, he said they attempted to rape him. I could read to you what’s in that record here, but it is so graphic and it tells in such detail the sexual assault that he was subjected to that I’m not going to read it into the record, but I bet you remember it. And when it came to this case as to whether or not he should have a trial, as to whether he was entitled to bring his case before a jury, you said no. Stand by the summary judgment. Don’t take this to a jury. You dissented from the majority position here. And the reason you dissented was, I think, significant.
DURBIN: It wasn’t about Kenneth Pirolli or the merits of his case; it was about the conduct and efforts of his lawyer. You noted the fact that his lawyer had not adequately provided citations in his brief to places in the record describing the harassment. So you held Kenneth Pirolli responsible for the fact that his lawyer didn’t do a good job and denied him -- at least in your view -- denied him his day in court. How do you explain that crushing hand of fate on this man who was a victim of sexual harassment? |
|
Cops go beyond the letter of the law and what they were authorized to do - Alito want to cut them slack. An individual who was subjected to sexual assualt had a lawyer who didn't phrase things in exactly the way that Alito wanted, so he votes to throw the case out. That pattern is repeated over and over in Alito's career.
When a prosecutor repeatedly used preemptory challenges to get all white juries to judge blacks on murder cases, Alito said that's not discrimination under the law, just a statistic ... a run of all white juries is no different than a run of left handed men getting elected president. As if racism weren't a problem in this country...
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
burnt-toast
New Board Hall of Famer
Gender:
Posts: 1686
|
|
Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
« Reply #24 on: Jan 14th, 2006, 4:04am » |
Quote Modify
|
Quote:DURBIN: I’d like to say, Judge, in many of these tough questions, as I read through cases, you end up ruling in favor of established institutions and against individuals. Let me tell you another one: Pirolli v. World Flavors. Remember this case? A mentally retarded individual, Kenneth Pirolli, physically harassed at his workplace; subjected to a hostile, abusive work environment; sexually assaulted by his co-workers. And according to his deposition testimony, he said they attempted to rape him. I could read to you what’s in that record here, but it is so graphic and it tells in such detail the sexual assault that he was subjected to that I’m not going to read it into the record, but I bet you remember it. And when it came to this case as to whether or not he should have a trial, as to whether he was entitled to bring his case before a jury, you said no. Stand by the summary judgment. Don’t take this to a jury. You dissented from the majority position here. And the reason you dissented was, I think, significant.
DURBIN: It wasn’t about Kenneth Pirolli or the merits of his case; it was about the conduct and efforts of his lawyer. You noted the fact that his lawyer had not adequately provided citations in his brief to places in the record describing the harassment. So you held Kenneth Pirolli responsible for the fact that his lawyer didn’t do a good job and denied him -- at least in your view -- denied him his day in court. How do you explain that crushing hand of fate on this man who was a victim of sexual harassment? |
|
This is what happens when judges view "legal procedure" as more important than facts and the truth. It's not unusual.
In Pennsylvania you can have your case dismissed because your brief/pleadings are not bound or typed in the specific method each level of the court system wants. Facts and truth are meaningless because the document was't typed or bound the way we wanted it?
Justice costs a lot of money - if you can afford to pay through the nose for attorneys you can seek justice. If you can't, well that's your problem - case closed. The average Joe doesn't have a chance in this system.
Tom
|
|
IP Logged |
Would the owner of the propane torch, egg beater, pipe expander and vise grips please claim these items. They're lodged in my head and I need the space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Member Map
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print
test rss