(Almost) along partisan lines, Alito became an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. His lifetime appointment, along with John Roberts, will serve to undermine future rights and liberties for us!
Thank those who voted for Bush...I certainly DON'T deserve any thanks!
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Monday, January 30, 2006
Alito wins Cloture
The Senate kills off an attempt to filibuster Samuel Alito's Supreme Court nomination with a 72-25 vote to end debate (CNN.com).
Oh boy...
Oh boy...
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Filibuster Alito Confirmation
FILIBUSTER ALITO!
Recently, I sent word to Kentucky's ultra-conservative senators, Bunning and McConnell, that I do not support Alito's confirmation as associate justice. Of course, being die-hard Bush lackeys, it fell on deaf ears, but they need to know not everyone in Kentucky supports Bush. After all, Kentucky is traditionally Democrat territory!
Democrats.com has started their Alito 48 campaign to support Senator John Kerry's leadership of a filibuster against this tragic nomination. We need to get all Democratic senators to join this cause and block the Sam Alito vote next week. Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has already called for a cloture vote on Monday and then a final roll call on Tuesday morning!
Alito only needs a simple majority (51 votes) to be confirmed and take Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's place on the Supreme Court of the United States. We must support a more moderate stance on the Court. George Bush has been able to award a lifetime appoint to his conservative buddy, John Roberts, to the Court. Will we really allow him to appoint another Scalia or Thomas-wanna-be to the highest court in our land?
Our civil liberties are at stake; not for four years, or eight, but for a lifetime! Remember, a member of the Supreme Court serves at their own pleasure, which means they can retire when they wish (if ever). So in many cases, like with former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, you have to wait for the grim reaper to show up! NO JOKE!
How many more years can a 50-something man live in the 21st century?! Really, you have to consider 20+ years on the bench!
Please make sure you contact your state's TWO senators!
FILIBUSTER ALITO!
Monday, January 23, 2006
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Alito loses key Democrats
Today, three Democrats on the Senate Judicial Committee stated they would not support Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation for the associate justice.
Further, they stated the Supreme Court stands as a final check for the over-zealous Bush Administration. The focus is on recent illegal use of the Executive authority to wiretap American citizens without court approval. I agree with their assessment, but I want to take it a step further.
The Supreme Court is not the only check to the president. The Congress of the United States has the authority and mandate to call the president to answer for his abuses of power. Accordingly, the Constitution gives them a little power called "impeachment." The United States House of Representatives has the authority to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president. I truly believe after the 2006 elections, there will be a change in the United States Congress. I have a great hope the Democrats will come to control both houses, but at least one of them.
In my final opinion, it is not the Supreme Court's exclusive authority to question the policies of the President of the United States. All branches of the federal government have the authority, and requirement, to keep each of the other branches in compliance and flying straight!
Further, they stated the Supreme Court stands as a final check for the over-zealous Bush Administration. The focus is on recent illegal use of the Executive authority to wiretap American citizens without court approval. I agree with their assessment, but I want to take it a step further.
The Supreme Court is not the only check to the president. The Congress of the United States has the authority and mandate to call the president to answer for his abuses of power. Accordingly, the Constitution gives them a little power called "impeachment." The United States House of Representatives has the authority to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president. I truly believe after the 2006 elections, there will be a change in the United States Congress. I have a great hope the Democrats will come to control both houses, but at least one of them.
In my final opinion, it is not the Supreme Court's exclusive authority to question the policies of the President of the United States. All branches of the federal government have the authority, and requirement, to keep each of the other branches in compliance and flying straight!
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Clinton v. Bush
I was never more proud when I saw Hillary take on George Bush. It takes someone like Hillary to make a point regarding the issues relating to abuses and illegal actions taken by the "worst administration" in the history of our nation!
I also agree with her assessment of the United States House of Representatives as being a simple megaphone for Bush policies, or in words it's run like a "plantation." I think if Bush wanted to strip all Americans of their citizenship, the House would vote for the bill!
I am glad Hillary is talking like a candidate!
I also agree with her assessment of the United States House of Representatives as being a simple megaphone for Bush policies, or in words it's run like a "plantation." I think if Bush wanted to strip all Americans of their citizenship, the House would vote for the bill!
I am glad Hillary is talking like a candidate!
Hillary 2008!
Monday, January 16, 2006
eBay has poor customer care
I recently discovered the wonderful world of ebay. Or at least I thought it was wonderful.
I decided to sell an item. It was was a brand new--still in the wrapper even--and I had no use for it. So I decided, "Sell it on ebay!" I do the American thing and put it out there for sell. I get lots of hits and bids. I was overly excited. The person who won the item, however, decided they didn't want to pay for it. Ebay states clearly that non-bidders are still liable for entering a legal contract with the seller. I got an email from the buyer with some lame-ass story about how their home was broken into, their computer hacked, and then the perp magically bidding 3 times on my auction to drive the price up (go figure). I contact ebay and they inform me to make peace with the bidder, give them the benefit of the doubt, and let them out of the contract. Of course, instead of calling the bidder a flaming retard asshole for thinking I was so stupid, I follow ebay's advice (woe the negative feedback that I could have incurred). Now what does ebay do? Do they offer me my auction fees back for being a "good" guy? Do they let me relist my item without further cost? No, they stiff me for the cost of the auction!
Now, does this sound like good business practice? Of course not!
I have lodged a complaint with ebay over their policy. They told me to let the bidder out of the contract; thereby, leaving me still holding the item I don't want and also the charges for the auction because the bidder bailed! Don't get me wrong, it's not the $2.75 they allege I owe and I, subsequently, will refuse to pay, but the principle of the matter.
I informed them the first tenant of good business is to make the customer happy and leave them feeling in charge so they will come back for more. I was left holding a wet blanket and told to suck it up and be a good sport....oh, and pay them their $2.75. BAD BUSINESS! In the words of some ebayers, "F-, will not do business with again!"
SUCK IT!
I decided to sell an item. It was was a brand new--still in the wrapper even--and I had no use for it. So I decided, "Sell it on ebay!" I do the American thing and put it out there for sell. I get lots of hits and bids. I was overly excited. The person who won the item, however, decided they didn't want to pay for it. Ebay states clearly that non-bidders are still liable for entering a legal contract with the seller. I got an email from the buyer with some lame-ass story about how their home was broken into, their computer hacked, and then the perp magically bidding 3 times on my auction to drive the price up (go figure). I contact ebay and they inform me to make peace with the bidder, give them the benefit of the doubt, and let them out of the contract. Of course, instead of calling the bidder a flaming retard asshole for thinking I was so stupid, I follow ebay's advice (woe the negative feedback that I could have incurred). Now what does ebay do? Do they offer me my auction fees back for being a "good" guy? Do they let me relist my item without further cost? No, they stiff me for the cost of the auction!
Now, does this sound like good business practice? Of course not!
I have lodged a complaint with ebay over their policy. They told me to let the bidder out of the contract; thereby, leaving me still holding the item I don't want and also the charges for the auction because the bidder bailed! Don't get me wrong, it's not the $2.75 they allege I owe and I, subsequently, will refuse to pay, but the principle of the matter.
I informed them the first tenant of good business is to make the customer happy and leave them feeling in charge so they will come back for more. I was left holding a wet blanket and told to suck it up and be a good sport....oh, and pay them their $2.75. BAD BUSINESS! In the words of some ebayers, "F-, will not do business with again!"
SUCK IT!
Saturday, January 14, 2006
How would we respond?
If Mexico, Canada, or some Caribbean nation launched missiles into the United States, how would we react?
I think it is unconscionable for us to be so arrogant as to launch missile strikes into the airspace of other nations. The United States, however, does not feel it is obligated to respect any other nation's sovereignty. Of course, I refer to the recent missile attack coordinated by the CIA and launched into Pakistan.
Who cares what the reason is. It is unfair of us to use our might to bully others. If Cuba launched a missile into Miami to try to kill some Cuban dissidents we'd be outraged and destroy Cuba for attacking our country, even if they are attempting to "weed out" Cuban terrorists/radicals.
So what's with the double standard?
I think it is unconscionable for us to be so arrogant as to launch missile strikes into the airspace of other nations. The United States, however, does not feel it is obligated to respect any other nation's sovereignty. Of course, I refer to the recent missile attack coordinated by the CIA and launched into Pakistan.
Who cares what the reason is. It is unfair of us to use our might to bully others. If Cuba launched a missile into Miami to try to kill some Cuban dissidents we'd be outraged and destroy Cuba for attacking our country, even if they are attempting to "weed out" Cuban terrorists/radicals.
So what's with the double standard?
Friday, January 13, 2006
Alito
I watched a small portion of the Alito hearings held by the Senate Judicial Committee. I was never surprised by anything the man said. He answered each question with the stealth of a politician; he never answered any question at all. I did notice, however, with some questions he becomes agitated. He had obviously been taught a defense mechanism to deal with his frustration and not outwardly show his anger. Several times he would almost be rubbing his thumbs together. He also would allow his hand to slam down against the table as he testified. This wasn't an occurrence that happened always. It only seemed to happen when Democrats questioned him.
Mostly, from his previous writings, he is a bigot who sees the world through an ultra-conservative agenda. He was the member of a Princeton club that advocated against the admittance of minorities and women to the ivy league school. Conveniently, he seemed to have "forgotten" he was ever a member of such a club, even though he listed it on a 1985 application for a job in the Reagan Administration. I find it a bit hard to swallow and highly suspicious.
We certainly do not need him on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States. His record is clear...conservative. I have a filibuster in the back of my mind. So we can hope, at least.
I agree with what Senator Joe Biden of Delaware said regarding the hearings held by the Senate Judicial Committee on prospective federal judges. We simply should eliminate the process. They do not answer questions in a black and white manner. They always lean toward the middle. The Senate should simply vote on the record of the individual and dispense with the grand-standing and back slapping. It's the simple.
Mostly, from his previous writings, he is a bigot who sees the world through an ultra-conservative agenda. He was the member of a Princeton club that advocated against the admittance of minorities and women to the ivy league school. Conveniently, he seemed to have "forgotten" he was ever a member of such a club, even though he listed it on a 1985 application for a job in the Reagan Administration. I find it a bit hard to swallow and highly suspicious.
We certainly do not need him on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States. His record is clear...conservative. I have a filibuster in the back of my mind. So we can hope, at least.
I agree with what Senator Joe Biden of Delaware said regarding the hearings held by the Senate Judicial Committee on prospective federal judges. We simply should eliminate the process. They do not answer questions in a black and white manner. They always lean toward the middle. The Senate should simply vote on the record of the individual and dispense with the grand-standing and back slapping. It's the simple.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Smoting
The perennial presidential candidate and ultra-conservative loon, Pat Robertson, says God 'smote' Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for seeking peace in the Middle East. So essentially, God punished Sharon with a cerebral hemorrhage for "dividing" Israel. Wow! That's SOOOO logical!
Instead, could it be he is a very fat 77 year old man????? I can't honestly believe anyone would listen to the crap Robertson says. He's slowly losing his mind, because he's saying so much crap these days. I think it even embarrasses his "community" of loyal patrons.
I just wonder what we did for God to send the wrath of George Bush upon us? We've definitely been living in sin! Geesh!
This is one for the theologians, for sure!
Instead, could it be he is a very fat 77 year old man????? I can't honestly believe anyone would listen to the crap Robertson says. He's slowly losing his mind, because he's saying so much crap these days. I think it even embarrasses his "community" of loyal patrons.
I just wonder what we did for God to send the wrath of George Bush upon us? We've definitely been living in sin! Geesh!
This is one for the theologians, for sure!
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Padilla Remanded
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States ordered the military to turn over "enemy combatant" American citizen Jose Padilla to the civilian courts. This is his first request with further filing for Petition for Writ of Certiorari (can Mr. Bush hold Americans and deny them their rights). I think this case should be handled by the inferior courts, initially, and then move along with the inevitable appeals process. I do think, however, the SCOTUS (through the writ) has the mandate to determine if such imprisonment of Americans is constitutional.
He is to be remanded to the jurisdiction of the US District Court of Southern Florida in Miami. He will be set free from a navy brig in South Carolina where he has spent the past several years. Habeas corpus is the right of every American, but this person has been denied this right for years, which is simply outrageous. I have the Constitutional right to know what charges are levied against me by the state in a court of law with due process; ergo, habeas corpus.
This is more than a simple test of individual liberties, but whether the president will comply with the Order of the SCOTUS and their final decision regarding this over zealous and illegal treatment of Americans by authorizing the military to hold them indefinitely without due process. Of course, the military loves to argue they are outside the jurisdiction of civilian courts, but even military courts are under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (every American court--martial or civilian), considering they have the final word on all law.
An even further stretch is regarding the foreigners held by the US. The SCOTUS should order the military courts to present their cases against all foreign nationals they have in custody, such as the political prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or release them. The countries where these people are citizens should be outraged their citizens are being held incommunicado.
He is to be remanded to the jurisdiction of the US District Court of Southern Florida in Miami. He will be set free from a navy brig in South Carolina where he has spent the past several years. Habeas corpus is the right of every American, but this person has been denied this right for years, which is simply outrageous. I have the Constitutional right to know what charges are levied against me by the state in a court of law with due process; ergo, habeas corpus.
This is more than a simple test of individual liberties, but whether the president will comply with the Order of the SCOTUS and their final decision regarding this over zealous and illegal treatment of Americans by authorizing the military to hold them indefinitely without due process. Of course, the military loves to argue they are outside the jurisdiction of civilian courts, but even military courts are under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (every American court--martial or civilian), considering they have the final word on all law.
An even further stretch is regarding the foreigners held by the US. The SCOTUS should order the military courts to present their cases against all foreign nationals they have in custody, such as the political prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or release them. The countries where these people are citizens should be outraged their citizens are being held incommunicado.
Monday, January 02, 2006
Roberts wants a raise
Chief Justice Roberts is just a few short months into his tenure as America's top jurist and he is ready for a....raise.
When you give up a job like being a high profile D.C.-attorney you give up some BIG bucks. I guess the six digit salary paid by the American taxpayer, John Q. Public, to his judges isn't quite enough. If I was pulling down seven figures as a private litigator then I'd be pissed too. It's a nice, fancy title, but the pay is lousy, I agree!
Let all hardworking Americans get a raise...not just the suits in Washington!
When you give up a job like being a high profile D.C.-attorney you give up some BIG bucks. I guess the six digit salary paid by the American taxpayer, John Q. Public, to his judges isn't quite enough. If I was pulling down seven figures as a private litigator then I'd be pissed too. It's a nice, fancy title, but the pay is lousy, I agree!
Let all hardworking Americans get a raise...not just the suits in Washington!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)