Spector has issued a statement that he will be Investigating the Judges of the Supreme Court, the Honorable Judge John Roberts, and the Honorable Judge Samuel Alito, because he says they lied to him in the confirmation process.

This is going to be fun, the Congress under the Demorats is going totally out of control, now they want to run the Decisions of the Supreme Court.

So when they do nothing they are ridiculed as ineffective wimps. When they do perform their constitutional role of oversight over other branches, you call them out of control.

Investigating allegations of lying in the confirmation process will only indirectly effect the decisions of the Supreme Court.

So when they do nothing they are ridiculed as ineffective wimps. When they do perform their constitutional role of oversight over other branches, you call them out of control.

Investigating allegations of lying in the confirmation process will only indirectly effect the decisions of the Supreme Court.

And you can't see the politics of this? Spector is now threatening the sitting Judges of the Supreme Court, what will he do call for the impeachment of Alito and Roberts, if he decides that The Honorable Judge Alito, and the Honorable Judge Roberts lied? and why is he starting this investigation? Because Spector doesn't like the decisions that are coming down from the Supreme Court, and Judge Alito and Judge Roberts are the difference in the decisions, how will Spector, with the help or leahy compel this, a subpoena?, contempt of congress? The Constitution doesn't support this and the Separation of Powers doesn't give Congress the Power to do this.

Arlen Specter is not a Democrat.

Arlen Specter is not a Democrat

Maybe he's been watching too much FOX News; they seem to think Specter's a Dem.

EEEEEeeeek! OVERSIGHT! The robed ghouls should hang in my view. All out of touch elites the Right embraces.

Arlen Specter has issued a statement that he will be Investigating the Judges of the Supreme Court, the Honorable Judge John Roberts, and the Honorable Judge Samuel Alito, because he says they lied to him in the confirmation process.

This is going to be fun, the Congress under the Demorats is going totally out of control, now they want to run the Decisions of the Supreme Court.Yeah, as is mentioned BR, Specter is a member of the Party of God (GOP):rolleyes:

Arlen Specter is not a Democrat.

Doh! I missed that.

Maybe he's been watching too much FOX News; they seem to think Specter's a Dem.
This?
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/1237/Specter_Democrat_hume.jpg

Just an honest mistake......:shrug:

Buffalo Roam

Can we start with a some sort of source on your claim? It would be much appreciated.

Here's an article that puts the issue in proper perspective. Specter is saying that the new justices have overturned precedent to a much greater extent than they led the congress to believe during their confirmation. He's accusing them of bait-and-switch. Although he recognizes that there's nothing they can do about it now, it would affect future confirmation hearings.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5099.html

Here's an article that puts the issue in proper perspective. Specter is saying that the new justices have overturned precedent to a much greater extent than they led the congress to believe during their confirmation. He's accusing them of bait-and-switch. Although he recognizes that there's nothing they can do about it now, it would affect future confirmation hearings.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5099.htmlIf it's Republican corruption BR supports it. The kind of person that only GW could appreciate.

Genji you're back? Get a computer? Or got fired?

Genji you're back? Get a computer? Or got fired?Been back a couple weeks! And no, I wasn't fired nor do I have a computer. I'm at the new bldg and can get online here & there, just not near as often.
I go to nightshift Monday!

Hmmm...didn't sandy disappear 2 weeks ago? suspicious.....

Hmmm...didn't sandy disappear 2 weeks ago? suspicious.....Sandy is a sockpuppet of Roman. A bird told me.

If true, it's pure genius.

Sandy is a sockpuppet of Roman.
Nah!

Out of control due to all these investigators? Not really and it's all called for. Heck, didn't 130+ people in the Reagan administration get convicted, arrested, indicted, or were otherwise investigated? I wonder if the Bush administration can top that. Hey, he's gotta be the best at something, may as well be the worst list.

- N

Thread title changed - a good illustration of the kind of media management we're getting from the Rep side of the aisle these days.

How'd that happen, btw?

Thread title changed - a good illustration of the kind of media management we're getting from the Rep side of the aisle these days.

How'd that happen, btw?


A request was submitted to me to change the title. I was told that the creator of this thread had a freudian slip and mixed up the names. As usual, you attempt to spin something out of nothing.

What, you've never mistaken one politician for another?

~String

So is it Leahy or Spector?

So is it Leahy or Spector?

Ugh... I don't really know. I'm not even a part of the debate. In fact, when I stopped to think about it... none of the information provided in this thread rang a bell with me, and it didn't register as important enough to google the relevant facts. But, being the diligent mod, I just complied with the request. I cannot be held responsible for the quality and/or content of information contained therein.

~String

S.A.M. ... I say let's just ride with it and see where it goes. This could actually be amusing, you know. Maybe even an enlightening peek into human nature.

Light one up, kick back, and enjoy the show.

I say we just keep renaming the thread to see if we can continue confusing the shit out of folks.

What shall I change it to next!

MAN I FEEL THE AWESOME POWERS OF THIS MOD POSITION!

MUA-HA-HA-HAAAAAAAAAA!

~String

Sounds like a Jekyll Hyde kinda show.

I find it funny but spidergoat provided the link to what I had heard on the news report, and it was Specter who started this, but Leahy as the head of the SJC would have to be in on it to start the investigation, and as I said it shows congress that is out of control.

They are picking a fight with the Executive and now they want to pick a fight with the Judicial?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5099.html


But it seems the Demorats are into it up to their necks.

The idea for a review came to Specter when he said he ran into Justice Stephen G. Breyer at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado.

Breyer, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, drew attention last month for suggesting that Roberts and the conservative majority were flouting stare decisis, the legal doctrine that, for the sake of stability, courts should generally leave past decisions undisturbed.

Do we have a case of undue influence here?

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said the testimony from Roberts and Alito was misleading in light of their rulings.

"I very much got the idea, the strong chain of reasoning, that they had great respect for stare decisis and they didn't want to be activist judges," said Feinstein, who voted against both nominees. "As you know, some of these latest cases have pretty much shattered precedent."

It is OK for a Liberal judges to be activist on the Bench, but a Conservative
is in trouble for being a strict constructionist? and being a activist about it?

Can anyone say double standard?

ps: Specter isn't a Conservative.

Arlen Specter is not a Democrat.

He is a RINO.

I say we just keep renaming the thread to see if we can continue confusing the shit out of folks.

What shall I change it to next!

Hear, hear!

How about, "Rampaging B--" . . . er, never mind.

Okay, okay. How about, "Why Democrats are Shite, chapter 6"?

Alberto Gonzales at his best

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArwXQFMF9qI

With Specter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkXGRpIKG-Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVfxPRYr0u4

With Leahy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jgkodOVRUE

I was told that the creator of this thread had a freudian slip and mixed up the names. There's nothing in the OP about Leahy, it's all about Specter, just as the original (more accurate) title had it.

There's nothing in the OP about Leahy, it's all about Specter, just as the original (more accurate) title had it.

Great. Wonderful. I could not possibly care less... I only complied with the request of the thread's original creator. I suggest you PM him and take up your petty beaf with him. Let him have it!

~String

Alberto Gonzales at his best

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArwXQFMF9qI

With Specter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkXGRpIKG-Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVfxPRYr0u4

With Leahy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jgkodOVRUE

That first video is quite revealing. I can't believe how many times he looked back at his attorneys for basic answers that he should of known.

Now it all makes sense as to why he hasn't been fired. No one in their right mind would take the A.G position after Gonzales. If they did, they'll have to do one of two things. Either expose the myriad of cover-ups, or sabotage their entire career and reputation by continuing the cover-up.

This is just another nail in the coffin for this administration.

I suggest you PM him and take up your petty beaf with him. Why PM about the main topic of the thread ?

I wasn't complaining about mod behavior, or the title change itself - just obliquely pointing out the implications of that particular request for the topic.

Why PM about the main topic of the thread ?

I wasn't complaining about mod behavior, or the title change itself - just obliquely pointing out the implications of that particular request for the topic.

Thread title changed - a good illustration of the kind of media management we're getting from the Rep side of the aisle these days.

No. You were bitching and implying some pernicious behavior where there was none. As if the left side of the aisle doesn't engage in ANY "media management". You're so grotesquely delusional ice... you actually have fooled yourself into thinking that either (a) the dems are the good guys and the reps are the bad guys or (b) that they are both somehow bad, but the reps are really bad. You talk like an informed guy, but what comes out tells another story about your awareness of the larger issues and their implications.

~String

The fact is that I wanted to show that the Congress is out of Control under the Democrats, that they ignore the Constitution, Case Law, and Congressional Law, with regularity, they are picking fights with the other two branches of the government, there is a witch hunt to criminalize anything a Conservative does, to try and use ever thing that is said by conservative to make a case for Perjury, it is becoming obvious this is nothing more than a case of getting even for the Impeachment Charges brought against Clinton.

They find it to be OK, when their people ignore the Constitution, "Stare Decisis et non quieta movere" and change Supreme Court Case Law, but two Conservative Judges The Honorable Samuel Alito, and the Honorable John Roberts, do the same thing the Liberals go nuts, and I was correct in that it was Specter who started this and Specter is no Conservative, he is a true RHINO, but he could not have started this with out Leaky Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The President has done nothing that any other President in the firing of the U.S. Attorneys, there is no law that says he can't, he is the head of the Executive Branch and these are political appointments, so they can be fired for political reasons, plus the fact of the separation of powers

The fact is that I wanted to show that the Congress is out of Control under the Democrats, that they ignore the Constitution, Case Law, and Congressional Law, with regularity, they are picking fights with the other two branches of the government, there is a witch hunt to criminalize anything a Conservative does, to try and use ever thing that is said by conservative to make a case for Perjury, it is becoming obvious this is nothing more than a case of getting even for the Impeachment Charges brought against Clinton.

They find it to be OK, when their people ignore the Constitution, "Stare Decisis et non quieta movere" and change Supreme Court Case Law, but two Conservative Judges The Honorable Samuel Alito, and the Honorable John Roberts, do the same thing the Liberals go nuts, and I was correct in that it was Specter who started this and Specter is no Conservative, he is a true RHINO, but he could not have started this with out Leaky Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The President has done nothing that any other President in the firing of the U.S. Attorneys, there is no law that says he can't, he is the head of the Executive Branch and these are political appointments, so they can be fired for political reasons, plus the fact of the separation of powers

Why not? The Dems are just as good at playing these games as the Republicans.

~String

So the idea is that the Supreme Court should not be questioned?

So the idea is that the Supreme Court should not be questioned?

No-- The problem is that Specter and Leahy want to go back to the confirmation hearing and see if they can say the Judges Lied in the process of being confirmed, and then the next step would be to look for impeachment charges.

The point that Specter is going after is the statement about their views of the principle of Stare Decisis, and as I said, Specter is not a conservative as the decisions he is upset about reinforced the Constructionist View of what the Constitution is, vs: The Living Constitution view. The decisions that were changed were 5/4 decisions that changed standing decisions from other Supreme Court Cases.

After seeing some of the US attorney hearings, I am surprised anyone even questions the legitimacy of this questioning.

Sounds like the Supreme Court is filled with a bunch of looneys who think the US public is a large brainless twit.

After seeing some of the US attorney hearings, I am surprised anyone even questions the legitimacy of this questioning.

Sounds like the Supreme Court is filled with a bunch of looneys who think the US public is a large brainless twit.

Sound like your changing the focus subject again.

If Leahy is stalking the Supreme Court, I for one would be interested to know what the dust throws up. Especially considering that the main protagonists either suffer from selective amnesia or cerebral palsy.

If Leahy is stalking the Supreme Court, I for one would be interested to know what the dust throws up. Especially considering that the main protagonists either suffer from selective amnesia or cerebral palsy.

And those being who? again I see you trying to change the focus of the thread.

And those being who? again I see you trying to change the focus of the thread.

Considering that the topic under discussion is possible perjury by the Justices of the supreme court, I would say that the very basis of the Justice department is under scrutiny. And doing verbal calisthenics on television only shows that the reason you cannot see through the water is because it is dirty.

Considering that the topic under discussion is possible perjury by the Justices of the supreme court, I would say that the very basis of the Justice department is under scrutiny. And doing verbal calisthenics on television only shows that the reason you cannot see through the water is because it is dirty.

Now sam since your so brilliant please tell me exactly what perjury was committed? "Stare Decisis" how do you make a perjury case out of a statement that they respect "Stare Decisis" when a Supreme Court Judge must still have the ability to step past that principle, to be able to render a fair and impartial verdict, on new cases that come before him? The fact is that most of the Cases that come before the Supreme Court are about the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, and that in many cases the previous decisions have over rode the "Stare Decisis" of previous case law, and original interpretations of the Constitution, there is the "Stare Decisis" of the Constitution of the Founders in writing the Constitution, so please show me were this is a case for perjury and not a mugging attempt by Congress to steal the Independence of the separation of Powers of the other two branches of the Government.

possible perjury.

possible perjury.

Not even.

The Congress under the Republicans allowed the Supreme Court to usurp individual property rights in favor of eminent domain. That Congress was out of control/asleep at the switch. Now Congress wants to investigate several members of the Supreme Court for possibly telling lies during confirmation hearings. Good. If the integrity of some of the highest judges in the land is questionable lets have it investigated. Or would you prefer the alternative?

Sounds like the Supreme Court is filled with a bunch of looneys who think the US public is a large brainless twit.

What power do the people have to do something about this anyway?

Sounds like the Supreme Court is filled with a bunch of looneys who think the US public is a large brainless twit.

No, not filled. There might be three who fit that description: Roberts, Alito, and Scalia. Thomas and Souter are tougher riddles to figure.

The other four, though, tend to act as if they're aware of why we even have a Constitution and laws in the first place. I mean, they're isolated lawyers, and therefore it's fair to say they're out of touch, anyway, but that has its good and bad side. However, Breyer, Stevens, Ginsberg, and Kennedy do seem to operate as servants of the People.


What power do the people have to do something about this anyway?

Hmm ... given that the justices serve life terms save for misconduct, and if Roberts and Alito did calculate to deceive at their confirmation hearings, and if they are not removed, the only recourse of the people--if they choose to do anything about it--would be a progression from protest to riot to revolution.

However, Breyer, Stevens, Ginsberg, and Kennedy do seem to operate as servants of the People.

In what way? In that they decide cases that sit well with your political worldview. I can trumpet out examples of people who would claim differently, who, like you are partisan idealogues.

How about, tell us HOW Breyer, Stevens, Ginsberg (are you joking?) and Kennedy are "servants of the people" and how the other's, maybe, aren't?

Hmm ... given that the justices serve life terms save for misconduct, and if Roberts and Alito did calculate to deceive at their confirmation hearings, and if they are not removed, the only recourse of the people--if they choose to do anything about it--would be a progression from protest to riot to revolution.

Good luck with that.

~String

No. You were bitching and implying some pernicious behavior where there was none. No, I wasn't.

WTF is wrong with you? I was implying that Buffalo's mental slip was probably in taking Specter for a Dem, not mixing up Specter with someone not even visible in the OP. I assumed the thread re-title was Buffalo's idea, and a comical one. I was not "bitching", not even complaining, about any mod behavior whatsoever.

I am now. If you're going to be that damn touchy, read more carefully, eh?

You're so grotesquely delusional ice... you actually have fooled yourself into thinking that either (a) the dems are the good guys and the reps are the bad guys or (b) that they are both somehow bad, but the reps are really bad. You have never heard anything from me that resembles a). Where did you get that?

As far as b) - well duh. That's your idea of a grotesque delusion ?

In what way? In that they decide cases that sit well with your political worldview. I can trumpet out examples of people who would claim differently, who, like you are partisan idealogues.

How about, tell us HOW Breyer, Stevens, Ginsberg (are you joking?) and Kennedy are "servants of the people" and how the other's, maybe, aren't?

Every time I read through a controversial decision, the more liberal portion of the court tends to argue for caution on behalf of the people. The more conservative portion tends to argue on behalf of institutions. Strangely, when the conservative portion argues on behalf of the people, the result is the empowerment of inequality.

I stopped paying attention to conservative complaints about "liberal activism" around Roper v. Skinner. For all the conservative pundits railed against liberal activism, all the court did was uphold a decision by the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri, which is not a particularly liberal court.

One of the things about the conservative wing that bugs me is that they tend to ignore the Preamble to the Constitution, which actually spells out why we have a constitution in the first place.

I side with Democrats because conservative outlooks simply don't match up with how I see the world. But the Democratic Party isn't exactly liberal these days (when I vote for Democrats, I'm conceding much territory to the right wing). On the Court, the conservative outlook rarely makes sense to me. In fact, Scalia's tantrum in Roper v. Skinner would have been funny if it wasn't the Supreme Court, and if it wasn't about capital punishment. Of course, as I recall, he wrote the opinion that was overturned that day. And he seemed to take it personally.

Good luck with that.

My Revolution doesn't require guns. For that reason, it will be a long time coming. As to the people at large, though, it really comes down how much shit they're willing to break in order to make their point. Right now, public sentiment disdains violent protest to the point that when the police attack protesters, the public at large gets upset at the protesters. The way to win any protest PR battle right now is for the police to simply run riot. That's how it worked at WTO '99. That's how it's been for a long time. Oh, the horrible protesters. In Seattle, it was everybody's First Amendment rights on the line. And yet, people still complained and pretended that nobody should have been protesting. When the foreign diplomat illegally pulled a gun on protesters, the reaction seemed to be, "Well, the protesters shouldn't have upset him by being there in the first place." Under what other circumstances would Americans accept a foreign government official threatening American citizens on American soil?

So I wouldn't worry myself about it if I was you; the majority of the people don't care, and won't until they wake up one morning and find it all gone.

And then they'll still blame the liberals for not protesting and rioting enough.

No, not filled. There might be three who fit that description: Roberts, Alito, and Scalia. Thomas and Souter are tougher riddles to figure.

The other four, though, tend to act as if they're aware of why we even have a Constitution and laws in the first place. I mean, they're isolated lawyers, and therefore it's fair to say they're out of touch, anyway, but that has its good and bad side. However, Breyer, Stevens, Ginsberg, and Kennedy do seem to operate as servants of the People.


Is there any internal review of misconduct? Who dispenses justice to the Justices?

Every time I read through a controversial decision, the more liberal portion of the court tends to argue for caution on behalf of the people. The more conservative portion tends to argue on behalf of institutions. Strangely, when the conservative portion argues on behalf of the people, the result is the empowerment of inequality.

The only caution the Liberals argue for is caution in changing their decisions, they have no problem when it comes to changing Constructionist decisions, there is no caution there, its full speed ahead, no bowing to "stare decisis et non quieta movere", of either the Constitution or Case Law, that only applies to Constructionist Judges.

The empowerment of inequality? discrimination is discrimination, to try and correct something by discrimination, and selective quotas is still discrimination, and it hasn't worked, all it has done in most cases is put under qualified people into schools and jobs they can't handle, just look at the drop out rates of minority selections in Colleges.

Every time I read through a controversial decision, the more liberal portion of the court tends to argue for caution on behalf of the people. The more conservative portion tends to argue on behalf of institutions.

Really, tiassa? So, how were John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer acting "for caution on behalf of the people... [and not] on behalf of institutions" when rendered judgement in Kelo v. City of New London?

~String