On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:36:56 -0700, Stuart Grey
wrote:


2) The constitution requires that in an evenly divided house, that the
president of the Senate cast the tie breaking vote.

Senate rules have perverted this.

Since when does the US Senate govern the US House?
--
Cliff

"Russ" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 01:08:18 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:


Stuart still writes to Joseph McCarthy I expect.
--
Cliff


Nah, he's probably never even heard of him.

Hawke

Which reminds me..arnt you Leftists ashamed of having trashed the
man..McCarthy, and it turns out he was right after all?

Gunner


Since when?


Actually, from the beginning. I'm certainly no fan of "Tail-gunner
Joe", but he did have the "communists in the government" thing right.
The Venona project was able to decrypt Soviet communications despite
the use of the Vernam cypher because of the re-use of one-time pads.
These decrypts point to multiple Soviet agents in all three branches
of the government, particularlt the Department of State.

Were there "Communists" within the government? I fail to find any
sane person saying otherwise.

War Joe correct? Only insofar as a stopped clock is correct... Maybe
a couple of the people he accused might have been Communists, but it
wasn't by his efforts.

Joe was a politician trying to make name recognition. Well, he got THAT,
di'n't he!

But Runner is a fascist-apologist from way back, and hardly a good source
of factual material.

Dan

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 05:55:05 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Not I. I don't think any of the conservative justices
are facists or Nazis. I do think Thomas is just a dumb
lackey for Scalia, but then Scalia is without question
the brightest justice on the court, so Thomas could
have picked worse.

Are you admitting you think Thomas is the token house ******?

Gunner

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 23:11:35 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:



That is an interesting perversion of the intent of the constitution,

No, it isn't a perversion at all. You are not
qualified to speak on the intent of the Constitution.

Odd...then based on your posts..you consider yourself to be qualified
to do that though. Your qualifications are what again?

Other than a big mouth and a Leftists mindset.

Gunner

In article , Gunner says...

Actually..Im a Republican, and Im pro-choice.

Then you understand, at its core Roe is a compromise that unites.
If that's overturned, there will be a mass exodus of moderates
from the republican party.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Rudy,

I don't know what the hell you're gibbering about this time.

Pope Secola was the one who said that there needed to be a vote to undo
a recess appointment. I asked him for a cite from the constitution (or
elsewhere) because as I understoond it, recess appointments expire when
congress comes back into session.

You started ranting going off your nut and AGREE with me, while
pretending I said something different.

You clearly just did a knee jerk reaction (keyword: jerk) and didn't
even bother to try and understand what I wrote, did you?

You're an idiot, Rudy. This is after your argument by endless repetition.

Stuart Grey.



Rudy Canoza wrote:
Stuart Grey wrote:

Pope Secola VI wrote:

But the constitution does give the president the ability to appoint a
judge or diplomat if the Senate is in recess and the person holds the
office until voted on by the next congress. (Thats two years folks)
The vote to remove a recess appointed judge or diplomat is a simple
up or down vote. If there is no vote the person holds office until
there is a vote.

So as long as Republicans can hold the white house and majority of
one in the senate the president can appoint any one he pleases to any
office he pleases.



I know about recess apointments, but I understood them to expire when
congress came back into session. Thus, I believed them to all be up
for a positive vote when congress came back into session, not a vote
to remove.


Once again, you are wrong. If no vote is held, the appointment
TERMINATES at the end of the next session.

Article II, § 2, ¶ 3

The President shall have power to fill up all
Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the
Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire
at the End of their next Session.

Just as current rules mean that a vote might not be held on an
in-session appointment, a vote might conceivably not be held after the
Senate begins its next session, and the appointment will expire.

There is no conflict with the Constitution. The Constitution does not
specify how, or even if, a vote is to be held. If a vote is never held,
for whatever reason, on an in-session appointment, the appointee never
assumes the office; if a vote is never held on a recess appointment, the
appointee is out of the office at the end of the Senate's next session.


Can you point to where this is in the constitution?


See above. That is, if you're talking about the provision for recess
appointments.

If, on the other hand, you're talking about your bizarre belief that the
Constitution dictates that the Senate must abandon its rules in order to
hold a vote...well, Stewie, that belief of your has no basis in the
Constitution.


[snip weird evidence of mental imbalance]

Dan wrote:
"Russ" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 01:08:18 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:


Stuart still writes to Joseph McCarthy I expect.
--
Cliff


Nah, he's probably never even heard of him.

Hawke


Which reminds me..arnt you Leftists ashamed of having trashed the
man..McCarthy, and it turns out he was right after all?

Gunner


Since when?


Actually, from the beginning. I'm certainly no fan of "Tail-gunner
Joe", but he did have the "communists in the government" thing right.
The Venona project was able to decrypt Soviet communications despite
the use of the Vernam cypher because of the re-use of one-time pads.
These decrypts point to multiple Soviet agents in all three branches
of the government, particularlt the Department of State.


Were there "Communists" within the government? I fail to find any
sane person saying otherwise.

You need to make a statement, rather than ask a question, when you make
the claim that other people were "saying otherwise". That is, your
gibber makes no sense.

I gather you're denying that there were commies in the government. If
so, you're an ignorant ass.

Dan wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
.net...

Stuart Grey wrote:


The Constitution clearly says it is the highest law in the land.

I don't think the Constitution says that of itself, but
no matter; it is held to be.


FYI:

Article VI, paragraph 2 states this clearly. The phrase also applies to
treaties and laws made by Congress (if they are Constitutional).

Specifically as a reference to superseding State law.

Dan

The constitution comes first; it is not co-equal with treaties and laws.
They way it is worded is obvious to an honest observer, but a lying
commie would try to pervert it otherwise.

It is funny that even you have to point out that Rudy is ignorant about
the constitution. How ironic that he claims that no one is qualified to
discuss the constitution, and yet, he doesn't seem to understand it.

In article , RAM^3 says...

Roe vs wade is a very centralizing, compromising decision.
If you toss all the moderates out of the right wing, where
do you think they'll go?

Given that there are fewer than 1,000 *true* conservatives left world-wide,
the "moderates" *ARE* what YOU call "the right wing".

And there's a very good chance they'll abandon the republican
party if Roe v wade is overturned.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , RAM^3 says...

Roe vs wade is a very centralizing, compromising decision.
If you toss all the moderates out of the right wing, where
do you think they'll go?

Given that there are fewer than 1,000 *true* conservatives left
world-wide,
the "moderates" *ARE* what YOU call "the right wing".

And there's a verygood chance they'll abandon the republican
party if Roe v wade is overturned.

Jim

Dream on!

The DNC doesn't want them.

Are you admitting you think Thomas is the token house ******?

Gunner


You can call him anything you want but it is blatently obvious that he's the
least competent member of the court. He only got the appointment because of
his race and his far right wing philosophy. He never got the job on account
of merit, it was purely political. What you want to call him is up to you
but it wouldn't be inappropriate to use your term though.

Hawke

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 18:33:45 -0700, Stuart Grey
wrote:

How ironic that he claims that no one is qualified to
discuss the constitution

Well, rather clearly, you are not.
Nor is gummer, usually.

CLUE: It's NOT published as a winger-blog.
--
Cliff

Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 05:55:05 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:


Not I. I don't think any of the conservative justices
are facists or Nazis. I do think Thomas is just a dumb
lackey for Scalia, but then Scalia is without question
the brightest justice on the court, so Thomas could
have picked worse.


Are you admitting you think Thomas is the token house ******?

I think Thomas is very unimpressive as a justice, and
probably was never qualified to be one.

Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 23:11:35 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:



That is an interesting perversion of the intent of the constitution,

No, it isn't a perversion at all. You are not
qualified to speak on the intent of the Constitution.


Odd...then based on your posts..you consider yourself to be qualified
to do that though. Your qualifications are what again?

Other than a big mouth and a Leftists mindset.

No "Leftists [sic] mindset". Roberts appears to me to
be well qualified to sit on the court, and I think he
should be confirmed.

Stuart Grey wrote:

Rudy,

I don't know what the hell you're gibbering about this time.

You give yourself away with lowbrow words like
"gibbering". I'm sure any moment now, you'll be
writing "drivel", "ilk" and "sniveling".



Pope Secola was the one who said that there needed to be a vote to undo
a recess appointment.

No, he did *not* write that, you slob. He wrote,
"...and the person holds the office until voted on by
the next congress. (Thats two years folks)." That's
not quite right, but it is NOT saying that a vote is
taken to "undo" the appointment. You simply cannot
read well.

Stuart Grey wrote:

Dan wrote:

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
.net...

Stuart Grey wrote:



The Constitution clearly says it is the highest law in the land.


I don't think the Constitution says that of itself, but
no matter; it is held to be.



FYI:

Article VI, paragraph 2 states this clearly. The phrase also applies to
treaties and laws made by Congress (if they are Constitutional).

Specifically as a reference to superseding State law.

Dan


The constitution comes first; it is not co-equal with treaties and laws.
They way it is worded is obvious to an honest observer, but a lying
commie would try to pervert it otherwise.

It is funny that even you have to point out that Rudy is ignorant about
the constitution.

He has pointed out no such thing. YOU, however,
consistently parade your ignorance around in claiming
there is some "perversion" of it by the Senate
following its rules in determining HOW a confirmation
vote is to be held. There is no perversion. The
Senate controls the procedure by which a judicial
appointment is voted on. The Senate debates, and
Senate rules currently allow for filibusters, on any
matter before the Senate. If the filibuster prevents a
vote from being held, that is in NO WAY in "conflict"
with the Constitution. You simply are wrong to assert
there is one, and your error is based on your appalling
ignorance of the Constitution.

"Stuart Grey" wrote in message
...
Dan wrote:
"Russ" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 01:08:18 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:


Stuart still writes to Joseph McCarthy I expect.
--
Cliff


Nah, he's probably never even heard of him.

Hawke


Which reminds me..arnt you Leftists ashamed of having trashed the
man..McCarthy, and it turns out he was right after all?

Gunner


Since when?


Actually, from the beginning. I'm certainly no fan of "Tail-gunner
Joe", but he did have the "communists in the government" thing right.
The Venona project was able to decrypt Soviet communications despite
the use of the Vernam cypher because of the re-use of one-time pads.
These decrypts point to multiple Soviet agents in all three branches
of the government, particularlt the Department of State.


Were there "Communists" within the government? I fail to find any
sane person saying otherwise.

You need to make a statement, rather than ask a question, when you make
the claim that other people were "saying otherwise". That is, your
gibber makes no sense.

I gather you're denying that there were commies in the government. If
so, you're an ignorant ass.

And Stuey wonders why intelligent people think he is a dumb ass...

And he probably always will!

Dan

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

Are you admitting you think Thomas is the token house ******?

Gunner


You can call him anything you want but it is blatently obvious that he's
the
least competent member of the court. He only got the appointment because
of
his race and his far right wing philosophy. He never got the job on
account
of merit, it was purely political. What you want to call him is up to you
but it wouldn't be inappropriate to use your term though.

The key is that the other Justices have him type up the opinions for their
side.
A glorified secretary...

Dan

Dan wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
nk.net...
Dan wrote:

Supreme Court decision WRT taking of private property

Well, I suspected something immediately when I read Justice Thomas
was in opposition. Went back to the original doc, and sure enough, the
file-clerk-in-a-dress was wrong, yet again.

The Constitution clearly says the government can take any property they
want, FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE,

No, *not* for whatever purpose: for public *use*:

...nor shall private property be taken for public
use, without just compensation.


Public USE, dummy, *not* public purpose.

Public use: sell at a discount to a developer in order to generate:

tax money
economic growth (tax money included)
lower crime

No. That's the whole issue. Public use means a public - that is,
state agency - ownership and operation.



The development was to be a mall (with private businesses but
standard public access laws applying) replacing supposedly
"blighted" areas of the city.

Of course, if you argue that this is not public use, then the
government agency is off the hook WRT just compensation,
isn't it! Because, if it is not public use, all that is required of
the government is due process, which there definitely was.
How is this substantially different from a person SUSPECTED
of a crime having his assets removed BEFORE A TRIAL
because he might use them in his self-defense? Damnedest
thing, precedence.

Just because I don't LIKE it doesn't mean it is not legal.

But then, holding someone (U.S. citizens, in fact) without
bail, without counsel, and without trial might just be going
across the Constitutional line.


Dan

Rudy Canoza wrote:
Stuart Grey wrote:

Rudy,

I don't know what the hell you're gibbering about this time.


You give yourself away with lowbrow words like "gibbering". I'm sure
any moment now, you'll be writing "drivel", "ilk" and "sniveling".

You're gibbering. You don't like my pointing out that you gibber
stupidly, so you gibber something about not liking the word gibber.

LOL!

You're pretty damned funny.

Pope Secola was the one who said that there needed to be a vote to
undo a recess appointment.


No, he did *not* write that, you slob.

(Slob? LOL!)

Here's what you clipped, because you've finally learned to clip out the
stuff you're lying about. Here's exactly what Pope said:

"But the constitution does give the president the ability to appoint a
judge or diplomat if the Senate is in recess and the person holds the
office until voted on by the next congress. (Thats two years folks) The
vote to remove a recess appointed judge or diplomat is a simple up or
down vote. If there is no vote the person holds office until there is a
vote. "

Do you see where he said "... The vote to remove..."

Let me know when you want to come clean and admit you're wrong.

While you're at it, you can also admit that you were wrong about:
1) The constitution saying it is the supreme law of the land.
2) The constitution is a contract between the people and the government,
as evidenced by the preamble.

I'm not going to hold my breath. I believe you are too stupid to admit
you made any error. Your tiny ego couldn't stand it.

He wrote, "...and the person
holds the office until voted on by the next congress. (Thats two years
folks)." That's not quite right, but it is NOT saying that a vote is
taken to "undo" the appointment. You simply cannot read well.

Learn to read the whole thing.

BTW, I did some research on this. In a way, Pope S is right. The way the
game has been played is that the recess apointee holds office until he
is either voted down, or the next session of congress ENDS. I know the
constitution says "... the Executive thereof may make temporary
Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then
fill such Vacancies". OF course, if they don't fill the vacancy, the
president can just appoint someone again, even if it is the same guy as
before. In that way, Pope S is right.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
Stuart Grey wrote:

Dan wrote:

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
.net...

Stuart Grey wrote:




The Constitution clearly says it is the highest law in the land.



I don't think the Constitution says that of itself, but
no matter; it is held to be.




FYI:

Article VI, paragraph 2 states this clearly. The phrase also applies to
treaties and laws made by Congress (if they are Constitutional).

Specifically as a reference to superseding State law.

Dan



The constitution comes first; it is not co-equal with treaties and laws.
They way it is worded is obvious to an honest observer, but a lying
commie would try to pervert it otherwise.

It is funny that even you have to point out that Rudy is ignorant
about the constitution.


He has pointed out no such thing.

Why do you keep denying things? You're obviously lying about it.

Your buddy Dan, who doesn't like me at all, pointed out to you where the
constitution says it is supreme. He gave you chaper and verse. Here is
the text from the constitution:

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which
shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound
thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
Contrary notwithstanding.

See where it says "supreme law of the land"?

YOU, however, consistently parade
your ignorance around in claiming there is some "perversion" of it by
the Senate following its rules in determining HOW a confirmation vote is
to be held.

I said it was a perversion because when execptions to majority rule are
intended, the constitution spells them out. A logical interpretation of
the powers of the VP, to cast tie breaking votes forces a rational
person to conclude that fifty-fifty splits gave his one vote the
deciding vote. (Article I Section 3, clause 4)

Ergo, 50% + 1 is intended by the constitution.

Not being a rational person, you don't get it.

You must be getting tired of being proven wrong so many times.

You know, if it wasn't for the fact that proving you wrong is like
shooting ducks in a barrell, I'd not bother with you. You're not very
well acquainted on the subjects you post on.

There is no perversion. The Senate controls the procedure
by which a judicial appointment is voted on. The Senate debates, and
Senate rules currently allow for filibusters, on any matter before the
Senate.

The point being that the constitution does not allow the Senate to hold
up the vote. The constitution is above Senate rules. If the president
appoints, they MUST vote.

If the filibuster prevents a vote from being held, that is in
NO WAY in "conflict" with the Constitution. You simply are wrong to
assert there is one, and your error is based on your appalling ignorance
of the Constitution.

How many times have you been proven wrong now? Four?

NOTE: I found a small error in a previous reply I made to this post.
Unfortunatly, I canceled it but lost the text, so it's not a simple
edit. This post is a re-write.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
Stuart Grey wrote:

Rudy,

I don't know what the hell you're gibbering about this time.


You give yourself away with lowbrow words like "gibbering". I'm sure
any moment now, you'll be writing "drivel", "ilk" and "sniveling".

Big snip, huh? You're learning to clip out the parts that prove you're
in total denial. It shows you can learn! Several of your other posts you
ranted and didn't clip out the parts that proved you were wrong! Now
you've learned to do a little work to go and prove you're wrong.

I said I don't know what you're gibbering about because insisting you're
right when you're so obviously wrong is irrational.

Pope Secola was the one who said that there needed to be a vote to
undo a recess appointment.


No, he did *not* write that, you slob. He wrote, "...and the person
holds the office until voted on by the next congress. (Thats two years
folks)." That's not quite right, but it is NOT saying that a vote is
taken to "undo" the appointment. You simply cannot read well.

Selective quotations! Boy, you must KNOW you're lying. One sentance more
and you would have admitted your error.

Here's the whole thing Pope S wrote:
"But the constitution does give the president the ability to appoint a
judge or diplomat if the Senate is in recess and the person holds the
office until voted on by the next congress. (Thats two years folks) The
vote to remove a recess appointed judge or diplomat is a simple up or
down vote. If there is no vote the person holds office until there is a
vote.

"So as long as Republicans can hold the white house and majority of one
in the senate the president can appoint any one he pleases to any office
he pleases. "

End Quote. Do you see in the first paragraph where he said "The vote to
remove a recess appointed judge or diplimat..."

Why do you lie so damn boldly, Rudy? Do you REALLY think you're fooling
anyone but yourself? Are you so stupid as to think that this doesn't
make you look REALLY BAD?!

And it turns out, Pope S is right! Recess appointments end at the END of
the next session, not at the begining like I thought. So, you and I were
both wrong.

You noticed, I think, that I asked Pope S for a citation. All he needed
to do is point to Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 and indicate his
logic. He is exactly right.

You, however, a full of **** and lie a great deal.

Stuart Grey wrote:

Rudy Canoza wrote:

Stuart Grey wrote:

Rudy,

I don't know what the hell you're gibbering about this time.



You give yourself away with lowbrow words like "gibbering". I'm sure
any moment now, you'll be writing "drivel", "ilk" and "sniveling".


You're gibbering.

You're using typically lowbrow, semi-educated
right-wing crank speak: "gibbering", "drivel", "ilk",
"sniveling", and probably any day now
"maggot-infested". It's really hard to believe people
use such trite, hackneyed speech, but here you are!




Pope Secola was the one who said that there needed to be a vote to
undo a recess appointment.



No, he did *not* write that, you slob.


(Slob? LOL!)

Yes. You are a slob.



While you're at it, you can also admit that you were wrong about:
1) The constitution saying it is the supreme law of the land.

It doesn't say it. You are wrong.


2) The constitution is a contract between the people and the government,
as evidenced by the preamble.

It isn't. There is no mention of a contract, nor is
there *any* mention of a government. There is nothing
that mentions the *relationship* between the people and
the government. No contract. You are wrong, again.

You are so ****ing ignorant, it's amazing you're
permitted to have a computer.


I'm not going to hold my breath

Good. You'd die. I wasn't wrong. You are wrong.



BTW, I did some research on this. In a way, Pope S is right. The way the
game has been played is that the recess apointee holds office until he
is either voted down,

Just voted on. The next session of the Senate would
have the *same* members as the session that just ended.


or the next session of congress ENDS.

Almost right, dummy. The next session of the Senate,
*not* of Congress. Only the Senate votes on
appointments. Sessions of the Senate and of the House
do not necessarily have to coincide to the day.

The next *session* is not the next *Senate*. The next
*session* is when the Senate comes back after their recess.

Stuart Grey wrote:

Rudy Canoza wrote:

YOU, however, consistently parade your ignorance around in claiming
there is some "perversion" of it by the Senate following its rules in
determining HOW a confirmation vote is to be held.


I said it was a perversion because

Because you're stupid.


when execptions to majority rule are
intended, the constitution spells them out.

The Senate DOES hold a 50% + 1 vote on the
confirmation. But there is nothing in the Constitution
that says the Senate MAY NOT set a higher threshold.


A logical interpretation of
the powers of the VP, to cast tie breaking votes

Yes...when there are ties.


forces a rational
person to conclude that fifty-fifty splits gave his one vote the
deciding vote. (Article I Section 3, clause 4)

Right...WHEN there is an equal split (not necessarily
fifty-fifty). But the Constitution *nowhere* says that
the Senate MAY NOT set a different threshold for votes
whose threshold is not specified in the Constitution.

The Constitution MAY NOT set a threshold different than
2/3 for treaties; that threshold is explicitly stated
in the Constitution. The Senate also MAY NOT set a
threshold different from 2/3 for an amendment to the
Constitution. *Absent* any specification of what the
threshold shall be, the rational person would infer
that votes would be based on simple majority...UNLESS
the Senate adopted different rules, which the
Constitution does NOT forbid it to do.



Ergo, 50% + 1 is intended by the constitution.

No. That is a wild and fanciful leap. ALL that is
intended is that IF there is a tie in the Senate, then
the VP gets to break the tie. That's all it says.



Not being a rational person, you don't get it.

I do get it. Being a stupid person, you don't get it.



The point being that the constitution does not allow the Senate to hold
up the vote.

It most certainly DOES allow it, because it doesn't
forbid it.


The constitution is above Senate rules. If the president
appoints, they MUST vote.

No. You simply are wrong. There is nothing in the
Constitution that says *anything* about how and when
the Senate must hold a vote. You are wrong.


If the filibuster prevents a vote from being held, that is in NO WAY
in "conflict" with the Constitution. You simply are wrong to assert
there is one, and your error is based on your appalling ignorance of
the Constitution.

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 21:37:44 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:


Are you admitting you think Thomas is the token house ******?

Gunner


You can call him anything you want but it is blatently obvious that he's the
least competent member of the court. He only got the appointment because of
his race and his far right wing philosophy. He never got the job on account
of merit, it was purely political. What you want to call him is up to you
but it wouldn't be inappropriate to use your term though.

Hawke


Your bigoted, biased race hating opinion is noted. Another Leftwing
racist heard from...way to go to exposing yourself, Parakeet.

Gunner

On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 11:46:53 -0700, "Dan" wrote:


"Hawke" wrote in message
...

Are you admitting you think Thomas is the token house ******?

Gunner


You can call him anything you want but it is blatently obvious that he's
the
least competent member of the court. He only got the appointment because
of
his race and his far right wing philosophy. He never got the job on
account
of merit, it was purely political. What you want to call him is up to you
but it wouldn't be inappropriate to use your term though.

The key is that the other Justices have him type up the opinions for their
side.
A glorified secretary...

Dan

And yet another Liberal Racist heard from

Gunner

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:12:40 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 05:55:05 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:


Not I. I don't think any of the conservative justices
are facists or Nazis. I do think Thomas is just a dumb
lackey for Scalia, but then Scalia is without question
the brightest justice on the court, so Thomas could
have picked worse.


Are you admitting you think Thomas is the token house ******?

I think Thomas is very unimpressive as a justice, and
probably was never qualified to be one.

And yet a third Liberal Racist pops his pointed head out of the
woodwork.

boy howdy...you Klanners are on a roll now.

Gunner

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 05:56:29 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:


You're using typically lowbrow, semi-educated
right-wing crank speak: "gibbering", "drivel", "ilk",
"sniveling", and probably any day now
"maggot-infested". It's really hard to believe people
use such trite, hackneyed speech, but here you are!

see the spew coming from the confirmed racist bigot.

Rudys on a roll....


Gunner

Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 21:37:44 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:


Are you admitting you think Thomas is the token house ******?

Gunner


You can call him anything you want but it is blatently obvious that he's the
least competent member of the court. He only got the appointment because of
his race and his far right wing philosophy. He never got the job on account
of merit, it was purely political. What you want to call him is up to you
but it wouldn't be inappropriate to use your term though.

Hawke



Your bigoted, biased race hating opinion is noted. Another Leftwing
racist heard from...way to go to exposing yourself, Parakeet.

Nice try, Gummer. This guy "Hawke" is *trying* hard to
be a right-winger. His sentiment about Thomas getting
his appointment in large part because of his race is
shared across the political spectrum, obviously for
different reasons.

The fact is, Thomas is a very bad justice.

Gunner wrote:

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:12:40 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:


Gunner Asch wrote:


On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 05:55:05 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:



Not I. I don't think any of the conservative justices
are facists or Nazis. I do think Thomas is just a dumb
lackey for Scalia, but then Scalia is without question
the brightest justice on the court, so Thomas could
have picked worse.


Are you admitting you think Thomas is the token house ******?

I think Thomas is very unimpressive as a justice, and
probably was never qualified to be one.


And yet a third Liberal Racist

Nope. I don't think there have even been two so far,
Gummer, but *definitely* no third. I am not a liberal,
and I'm not a racist.

But Thomas *is* exceptionally weak. He's Warren Burger
weak.

Gummer wrote:

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 05:56:29 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:


You're using typically lowbrow, semi-educated
right-wing crank speak: "gibbering", "drivel", "ilk",
"sniveling", and probably any day now
"maggot-infested". It's really hard to believe people
use such trite, hackneyed speech, but here you are!


see the spew coming from the confirmed racist bigot.

Calling Clarence Thomas a weak justice does not make
one a bigot, Gummer. Thomas *is* an exceptionally weak
justice; just not intellectually or legally impressive
at all.

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 06:45:54 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 21:37:44 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:


Are you admitting you think Thomas is the token house ******?

Gunner


You can call him anything you want but it is blatently obvious that he's the
least competent member of the court. He only got the appointment because of
his race and his far right wing philosophy. He never got the job on account
of merit, it was purely political. What you want to call him is up to you
but it wouldn't be inappropriate to use your term though.

Hawke



Your bigoted, biased race hating opinion is noted. Another Leftwing
racist heard from...way to go to exposing yourself, Parakeet.

Nice try, Gummer. This guy "Hawke" is *trying* hard to
be a right-winger. His sentiment about Thomas getting
his appointment in large part because of his race is
shared across the political spectrum, obviously for
different reasons.

The fact is, Thomas is a very bad justice.

The opinion of a confirmed racist such as yourself, is noted and held
in contempt.

Gunner

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 06:47:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:12:40 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:


Gunner Asch wrote:


On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 05:55:05 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:



Not I. I don't think any of the conservative justices
are facists or Nazis. I do think Thomas is just a dumb
lackey for Scalia, but then Scalia is without question
the brightest justice on the court, so Thomas could
have picked worse.


Are you admitting you think Thomas is the token house ******?

I think Thomas is very unimpressive as a justice, and
probably was never qualified to be one.


And yet a third Liberal Racist

Nope. I don't think there have even been two so far,
Gummer, but *definitely* no third. I am not a liberal,
and I'm not a racist.

But Thomas *is* exceptionally weak. He's Warren Burger
weak.

If this is the Rudy who supports Aztlan and the Brown Beanies.you are
doublely damned as a racist.

Gunner

Gummer wrote:

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 06:45:54 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:


Gunner wrote:

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 21:37:44 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:



Are you admitting you think Thomas is the token house ******?

Gunner


You can call him anything you want but it is blatently obvious that he's the
least competent member of the court. He only got the appointment because of
his race and his far right wing philosophy. He never got the job on account
of merit, it was purely political. What you want to call him is up to you
but it wouldn't be inappropriate to use your term though.

Hawke



Your bigoted, biased race hating opinion is noted. Another Leftwing
racist heard from...way to go to exposing yourself, Parakeet.

Nice try, Gummer. This guy "Hawke" is *trying* hard to
be a right-winger. His sentiment about Thomas getting
his appointment in large part because of his race is
shared across the political spectrum, obviously for
different reasons.

The fact is, Thomas is a very bad justice.


The opinion of a confirmed racist such as yourself,

No. No confirmation, Gummer. It's obvious what you're
attempting to do, and it won't work. Calling Clarence
Thomas a weak justice is not racist. He *is* a weak
justice.

Sorry, Gummer. That's just how it is.

Gummer wrote:

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 06:47:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:


Gunner wrote:


On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:12:40 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:



Gunner Asch wrote:



On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 05:55:05 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:




Not I. I don't think any of the conservative justices
are facists or Nazis. I do think Thomas is just a dumb
lackey for Scalia, but then Scalia is without question
the brightest justice on the court, so Thomas could
have picked worse.


Are you admitting you think Thomas is the token house ******?

I think Thomas is very unimpressive as a justice, and
probably was never qualified to be one.


And yet a third Liberal Racist

Nope. I don't think there have even been two so far,
Gummer, but *definitely* no third. I am not a liberal,
and I'm not a racist.

But Thomas *is* exceptionally weak. He's Warren Burger
weak.


If this is the Rudy who supports Aztlan and the Brown Beanies.

Not I.


you are doublely damned as a racist.

Not on any level, Gummer.

Your risible attempt at redirecting an accusation that
fits *you* toward others will not work.

Gunner wrote:
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 05:56:29 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:


You're using typically lowbrow, semi-educated
right-wing crank speak: "gibbering", "drivel", "ilk",
"sniveling", and probably any day now
"maggot-infested". It's really hard to believe people
use such trite, hackneyed speech, but here you are!


see the spew coming from the confirmed racist bigot.

Rudys on a roll....

What I thought was amusing was his attempt to attribute all those other
words to me.

It was also amusing that he was gibbering.

But, I've grown weary of morons like Rudy who clip out the stuff that
proves them wrong, and then answers phrases out of context. I've made
the effort, and he's decended to the inane, childish level of Cliff.

It's pretty funny, really. I know he's gotten the point because he's
reduced to childish pranks.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:13:43 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

Roberts appears to me to
be well qualified to sit on the court

Well, he does seem opposed to the rights of people,
women, for bible teaching in schools, for slavery ....?

[
As a partisan lawyer for the Bush Sr. and Reagan administrations,
Roberts threatened:

Civil rights by asking the Supreme Court to severely limit the
ability of district courts to desegregate public schools 1, and
working to ensure the Voting Rights Act could not be used to remedy
many cases of actual discrimination against minority votes. 2

Women's rights by fighting for a law barring doctors from even
discussing reproductive options in many cases, 3 and arguing that Roe.
vs. Wade should be "overruled." 4

Free speech by arguing to the Supreme Court that political speech that
some considered offensive did not deserve First Amendment protections.
The Court rejected his claim. 5

Religious liberty by arguing to the Supreme Court that public schools
could force religious speech on students. Again, the Court rejected
the argument. 6

As a corporate lawyer, Roberts threatened:

Community and environmental rights by working to strike down new
clean-air rules and filing a brief for the National Mining
Association, arguing that federal courts could not stop
mountaintop-removal mining in West Virginia, even as it devastated
local communities. 7

Workers' rights by helping Toyota to successfully evade the Americans
with Disabilities Act and fire workers for disabilities they suffered
over time because of the requirements of their jobs. 8

Public interest regulations by helping Fox News challenge FCC rules
that prevented the creation of news media monopolies. 9

In his short two years as a judge, Roberts has threatened:

Individual rights by rejecting the civil rights claims brought on
behalf of a 12-year-old girl who had been handcuffed, arrested and
taken away by the police for eating a single french fry in the D.C.
Metro. 10

Environmental protections when the dissent he wrote on an Endangered
Species Act case, had it been in the majority, would have struck the
Act down as unconstitutional in many cases, and would have threatened
a wide swath of workplace, public safety and civil rights protections.
11

Human Rights by voting to strike down the Geneva Conventions as
applied to prisoners that the Bush administration chose to exempt from
international law. 12
]
http://political.moveon.org/roberts/info.html
--
Cliff

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 19:25:47 -0700, Stuart Grey
wrote:

While you're at it, you can also admit that you were wrong about:
1) The constitution saying it is the supreme law of the land.

That would be a bit circular.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 19:50:50 -0700, Stuart Grey
wrote:

I found a small error in a previous reply I made

"Small"?

LOL ....
--
Cliff

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 19:50:50 -0700, Stuart Grey
wrote:

Recess appointments end at the END of
the next session, not at the begining like I thought.

Gee .... not til the next Congress?
A session is not a new Congress.
--
Cliff