Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Right-Wing Judges...

Nov 12, 2003 9:35AM PST

For months, Senate Democrats have been heroically holding out against President Bush's nominations of extremist judges to America's most powerful courts. We've supported these Senators in this fight. Now the right wing is trying to break our resolve.

Despite the fact that the Senate has confirmed 168 of his nominees, the right wing is hopping mad that we've blocked just 4 of the most hard-core ideologues. We've insisted that only moderates be confirmed for these lifetime appointments to positions of incredible power over our lives. They're refusing this reasonable compromise.

Republicans have scheduled 30 hours of debate in the Senate on this issue, beginning TONIGHT. They're hoping that our friends there, who have courageously supported filibusters* blocking the most extreme nominees, will fold under this pressure.

We've got to buck up our friends in the Senate. Please join us in signing an important petition, cosponsored by the Democratic National Committee, at:

http://www.democrats.org/courts/moveon.html

If you sign on now, the DNC will hand-deliver your signature, along with more than 100,000 others, to Senate leaders on Thursday, in time to make a real difference in this debate.

This debate is about appeals court nominees, but we all know it's also a test run for a possible Supreme Court vacancy, which could occur soon if justices Rehnquist or O'Connor retire. Experts consider either of these retirements a strong possibility. (It looked like one might occur last summer, when we first launched this petition.)

Our campaign to stop Bush's extremist nominees has been extraordinarily successful so far. Miguel Estrada, who was widely thought to be President Bush's top pick for the Supreme Court, withdrew his name from consideration after Senators filibustered his nomination, supported by more than 40,000 phone calls from MoveOn members. This was a major victory -- the first time Bush has conceded defeat on any nomination.

Your signature on this petition will support filibusters against these other right-wing ideologues:

- Janice Brown, whom the New York Times described as "among the very worst" of Bush's nominees, also writing that: "As an archconservative justice on the California Supreme Court, she has declared war on the mainstream legal values that most Americans hold dear."

- Priscilla Owen, who represents the "far right wing" of the Texas Supreme Court. One of her many rightward dissents from that court's majority opinions was described as an "unconscionable act of judicial activism" by Alberto Gonzalez, who was then also a justice on the Texas court but is now President Bush's chief White House Counsel.

- Carolyn Kuhl, who threw out a suit brought by a woman with breast cancer whose doctor had brought a drug company salesman into the examining room where he witnessed an intimate examination of her. A unanimous appeals court later reversed Kuhl's decision.

- Charles Pickering, who took extraordinary and ethically questionable steps to try to reduce a mandatory jail sentence for a man convicted of burning an eight-foot cross on the lawn of an interracial couple.

The debate begins tonight. Please sign on now, at:

http://www.democrats.org/courts/moveon.html

Thanks for all you do.

Sincerely,

- Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn team
Wednesday, November 12th, 2003

* For more information on filibusters, see:

http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/bulletin11.html

For additional information on these nominees, see:

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=12320

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re:and you base this on.....
Nov 14, 2003 3:02AM PST

Hi, Kidd.

Yes, it's one story -- but it's the TYPICAL story of when a late term abortion is REALLY performed, as opposed to the nonsense the anti-abortionsists (they aren't really "right-to-lifers," as most approve of capital punishment!) put out, that the D&X is simply a gruesome way of getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy.

And since I'm on faculty at a medical school (though a PhD molecular biologist, not an MD), I think I have a lot better appreciation of medical ethics than you do. -- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Ahhhhh.....now I see it
Nov 14, 2003 6:43AM PST

When you don't have the facts, just your own opinion, claim to be a priest. Right?

- Collapse -
Hey, Kiddy Pete (I assume that's correct pronunciation)
Nov 14, 2003 9:00AM PST

that's exactly what you've been doing since assuming this persona.

Ian

- Collapse -
Now, there's an intelligent response
Nov 14, 2003 2:54PM PST

Right?

- Collapse -
Re: Ahhhhh.....now I see it
Nov 15, 2003 12:50AM PST

Hi, KP.

>>When you don't have the facts, just your own opinion, claim to be a priest. Right?<<

Typical conservative approach, reminiscent of global warming. When faced with expert opinion that disagrees from your doctrinaire one, simply attack the expert, his/her objectivity, and if necessary the whole field of science/medicine involved.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
It is YOU...
Nov 15, 2003 1:39AM PST

who are attempting to ignore EXPERTS Dave--not us.

You are caught up in the Liberal Big Lie and so enmeshed you can't break free.

- Collapse -
Excuse me. I didn't know I was dealing with an expert.
Nov 15, 2003 2:24AM PST

Now its all clear to mee.

- Collapse -
Me either LOL :-) (NT)
Nov 15, 2003 2:27AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Perhaps he should have, Dave...
Nov 13, 2003 5:37AM PST

Dave, perhaps he should have added that they always refer to Nixon when things are not going their way. Dave, Nixon left office in 1974. That was 29 years ago. Newt has been out of office for a long while now. but you constantly keep bringing him up, Dave. Dave why not answer my question that I have asked before about how they were able to record Newt's cell phone conversations? The present that party got for his relative couldn't pick up those frequencies by law.
It's obvious that the Democrats don't like letting people vote on things. It looks to me like they don't care for Hispanic judges. (I still wonder if there's a "Catholic factor").
But now I hear Democratic griping about this 30 hour debate. Whatever happened to free speech? Oh, I should have known, look at what Bill Clinton did to Particia Mendoza her husband. For those not familiar with it, it was in July 1996, at a festival. Clinton tried to shake her hand and she refused and said, refering to a recent bombing in Saudi Arabia, "You Su*k, and those boys died." (Had to change one letter because of the word filter). Clinton sent the Secret Service after her and they were arrested and spent 14 hours or so in the Chicago jail being questioned. (They seemed to take an unusual amount of interest in her sexual preference.)
And you keep bringing up things that happened three decades ago by a President who is long dead, Dave. The man who did that to the Mendozas is still directing aspects of the Democratic party, especially in the area of campaigning.
Oh, by the way, Dave, you used the words "the whole-cloth invention of the term". Dave, what would you call the invention of the term "cop killer bullet"? As I mentioned a while back in when we were using the old software, Neither I nor someone working at Justice were able to come up with a case of a cop being killed by a "cop killer bullet". Your accusation about whole-cloth invention of terms rings somewhat hollow.

- Collapse -
Re:Perhaps he should have, Dave...
Nov 14, 2003 3:05AM PST

Hi, J.

From what I can see, the Republican Party has not significantly changed its tactics since Nixon and Newt were around, so it's not just ancient history. Certainly Tom Delay was Newt's protege, so there's a direct connection between the nastiness in the House today (now spilling over into previously bipartisan states like Texas) and Newt's legacy.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Perhaps he should have, Dave...
Nov 15, 2003 1:54AM PST
From what I can see,...

There are none so blind as those like yourself who cannot see...
- Collapse -
What?...
Nov 13, 2003 11:23PM PST
Given Newt's Candidate's list, the whole-cloth invention of the term "partial birth abortion" to eliminate the safest method of late-term abortion,

Can you say "assault rifle" Dave? Which bit of demonizing came first and which actually DESCRIBES the object ACCURATELY?

I'll give you a hint--a baby aborted AFTER the birthing process has begun is indeed aborted during a partial birth while a non selective fire military weapon look-a-like does not meet any criteria for assault weapons.

Newt simply BORROWED the well established tactics of the Democrit Party INCLUDING EXCERPTS from their own little handbook. Get over it.
- Collapse -
Re:What?...
Nov 14, 2003 3:06AM PST

Hi, Ed.

"Assault rifle" is the official military term for those weapons -- they're slightly modified versions of military hardware, so the term is perfectly accurate. You, of course, want to pretend that an AK-47 is really a hunting rifle...
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
I do wish you would actually try to learn a bit...
Nov 15, 2003 1:52AM PST

BEFORE you make such foolish statements Dave.

Your ignorance of firearms is only surpassed by your unwillingness to actually learn about something before commenting.

The AR 15 (civilian "version" or the M16) is NOT a "slightly modified version of military hardware". They are cosmetically similar but the internal workings of an assault rifle and a semi-auto only rifle are completely different. The differences are not something I will go into but they are most definitely NOT slight modifications. Nor is the tank a slight modification of the bicycle Dave.

I do not need to "pretend" that an AK-47 is really a hunting rifle because for one I have NEVER said such and for another because it in fact does make a good brush rifle for deer similar to the venerable Model 94 .30-.30. Of course as a non hunter and one with no knowledge of firearms you would be unaware of that simple FACT.

There is no need to equate firearm suitability with hunting because unless you have seen a different bill of Rights and Blackstone's Commentaries there was NOTHING indicating that suitability to hunting was a requirement. Conversely if you are an adherent to the Militia aspect suitability for military usages would be paramount (strangely enough, that very "unsuitability" was the sole reason sawed off shotguns were proscribed by the Supreme Court).

- Collapse -
"Partial Birth Abortion"
Nov 15, 2003 1:54AM PST

Your complaint is like saying it's wrong to call a rhinoplasty a nose-job or an abdominoplasty a tummy-tuck. It is an accurate description of what is involved.

As the opinionjournal folks point out with sarcasm, the "mainstream" media likes to portray the term as what "critics call the procedure". What do enthusiasts call it?

LOL

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Re: 'partial birth abortion'
Nov 15, 2003 12:03PM PST

Hi, Evie.

There's no such thing as an enthusiast for the D&X procedure -- it's use is invariably a tragedy for the mother, because (contrary to anti-abortionist's rhetoric), and as eloquently expressed in that op-ed piece to which I linked, hardly anyone WANTS a late-term abortion. "Abortions on demand" (with which I morally disagree, btw -- I really am for the most part "pro-choice," not "pro-abortion") happen well befor eht late stages when the D&X is the least dangerous abortion procedure for the woman. The vast majority of late-term abortions are performed because of a profound problem with the fetus, either making it non-viable or subject to a very short and painful life (e.g., Tay Sachs and various other genetic diseases with grim prognosis for death before puberty), etc. One day we may be able to help fetuses of this sort -- but that time is still at least a couple of decades away (and might well involve the use of stem cells, heaven forfend!)
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
That is BS Dave...
Nov 15, 2003 10:45PM PST

and a couple of the links I provided for your viewing pleasure EXPLAIN in the words of the man who testified about the figures to Congress how he LIED about the number and reasons for such late term abortions.

They are used MOSTLY by late term "mind changers" ("well doctor I thought it over and really don't have time for this baby and my career so even though I am 8 1/2 months lets get rid of it.")

You are peddling hot air Dave. Your claims have been DEBUNKED by the very man who made them--Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers!

http://wso.williams.edu/orgs/freepress/Partial.html

- Collapse -
Don't waste your breath Ed ...
Nov 15, 2003 11:01PM PST

... Dave obviously thinks he is a qualified expert on the subject.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Re: That is BS Dave...
Nov 16, 2003 6:02AM PST

Hi, Ed.

Fitzsimmons has indeed increased his estimate -- to about 2,000 per year from 500. But he's still supports the procedure (unlike the impression given in that article). Also note that the article you link is already trying to extend the "partial birth" ban, as it talks about a D&E, which takes place entirely witin the womb and is used much earlier in pregnancy than the D&X.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
I wonder if a Republican senator ...
Nov 15, 2003 4:27AM PST

... had called minority Clinton nominees Neanderthals there would have been the non-reaction we have gotten in the wake of Kennedy's pathetic tirade Sad

Pickering testified against the KKK and has the endorsement of every major black organization in his state.

Brown has written more majority opinions than any justice on the California Supreme Court and was recently re-elected by the liberal state of CA by 70-something percent.

Mainstream opinion on abortion is NOT the NARAL position of elective abortion on demand. In fact Roe v. Wade doesn't state that.

This is all about abortion and maintaining identity politics. The last thing the libs need is a conservative woman or black or Latino -- funny how the NAACP doesn't seem to like the *advancement* of anyone who doens't spout the victim ideology.

- Collapse -
Joe McCarthy
Nov 15, 2003 5:36AM PST

He would be labelled another Joseph McCarthy, and might even make the history books.