Senator Ted Kennedy

[scribblet]

Did anyone watch part of the hearing for SC nominee Alito? Only saw a bit of it, but Kennedy seems to have lost it. He demanded and got additional time because he was a 'senior Senator' but then, when someone commented on him getting more time he said: "Be Quiet over there you scurrilous dogs" Good grief, he's losing it.

[Shady]

I saw the best t-shirt today. It's called the Chappaquiddick Triathlon, drink, drive, swim. Here's a link,

T-Shirt

[scribblet]

Maybe somebody should ask Kennedy about his integrity when he goes at someone, during hearings.

[Black Dog]

Maybe somebody should ask Kennedy about his integrity when he goes at someone, during hearings.

Pfft. When it comes to integrity, the Republican mafia doesn't have a leg to stand on (coughAbramoffcough).

[Hicksey]

Ted Kennedy is even more of a joke than John Kerry.

It sure is funny to hear Illito making these libs look like arses.

Not one has hit a nerve.

A top ranking Dem has even been quoted as saying that Illito was remaining calm and reassured in an effort to try to get them off their game.

How low do you go before you can't go any lower as a party?

[America1]

Maybe somebody should ask Kennedy about his integrity when he goes at someone, during hearings.

Pfft. When it comes to integrity, the Republican mafia doesn't have a leg to stand on (coughAbramoffcough).

Yeah, you're right, Teddy (Chapaqitic) Kennedy is a saint. I mean aside from getting kicked out of Havard for cheating, he left his date to drown in a river (Chapaqitic) after his car went off the road b/c he was drinking and driving.

[Black Dog]

Ted Kennedy is even more of a joke than John Kerry.

It sure is funny to hear Illito making these libs look like arses.

Not one has hit a nerve.

A top ranking Dem has even been quoted as saying that Illito was remaining calm and reassured in an effort to try to get them off their game.

How low do you go before you can't go any lower as a party?

It's "Alito". And, as a party, you know you can't get any lower when you look down and see Republicans looking up.

Yeah, you're right, Teddy (Chapaqitic) Kennedy is a saint. I mean aside from getting kicked out of Havard for cheating, he left his date to drown in a river (Chapaqitic) after his car went off the road b/c he was drinking and driving.

It's "Chappaquiddick", and I never said Kenedy was a saint. But if the Republicans are going to contantly dredge up an incident from almost 40 years ago, it seems fair to be able to bring up past Republican misdeeds such as George W. Bush's own drinking and driving (Laura's too, for that matter) and draft dodging. Or Cheney's drunk driving and draft dodging. Or Alito's membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (they were "concerned" with women and blacks getting into the school) and draft dodging (anyone seeing a pattern?). But why bother dredging up old sins when there's Jack Abramoff, warrantless spying, legalized torture, the ongoing boondoggle that is Iraq and so many other fresh bones to knaw on.

[America1]

Ted Kennedy is even more of a joke than John Kerry.

It sure is funny to hear Illito making these libs look like arses.

Not one has hit a nerve.

A top ranking Dem has even been quoted as saying that Illito was remaining calm and reassured in an effort to try to get them off their game.

How low do you go before you can't go any lower as a party?

It's "Alito". And, as a party, you know you can't get any lower when you look down and see Republicans looking up.

Yeah, you're right, Teddy (Chapaqitic) Kennedy is a saint. I mean aside from getting kicked out of Havard for cheating, he left his date to drown in a river (Chapaqitic) after his car went off the road b/c he was drinking and driving.

It's "Chappaquiddick", and I never said Kenedy was a saint. But if the Republicans are going to contantly dredge up an incident from almost 40 years ago, it seems fair to be able to bring up past Republican misdeeds such as George W. Bush's own drinking and driving (Laura's too, for that matter) and draft dodging. Or Cheney's drunk driving and draft dodging. Or Alito's membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (they were "concerned" with women and blacks getting into the school) and draft dodging (anyone seeing a pattern?). But why bother dredging up old sins when there's Jack Abramoff, warrantless spying, legalized torture, the ongoing boondoggle that is Iraq and so many other fresh bones to knaw on.

When do repubs bring up 40 yrs ago? Kerry? he was the one who brought up his past. We just remembered it.

I guess you forgot to mention Dems are also on Abrmoff's pay list.BTW, you forgot to mention that Mrs. Clinton just was fined for not reporting $ money raised illegally.

GWB never draft dodged, he was in the National Guard. By no means is that draft dodging.

GWB, Laura or Cheney never killed a passenger. But I guess that's just a pesky little fact that you don't want to admit.

“warrantless spying"? Not exactly, it's not illegal or unjustified.

"Torture"? - Nah, more like humiliation but regardless, I think we should have just put a bullet in their heads on the battle field and forget about the trial.

[Black Dog]

When do repubs bring up 40 yrs ago? Kerry? he was the one who brought up his past. We just remembered it.

Uh. This thread started with a conservative bringing up Chappaquiddick. I haven't seen John Kerry post here.

guess you forgot to mention Dems are also on Abrmoff's pay list.BTW, you forgot to mention that Mrs. Clinton just was fined for not reporting $ money raised illegally.

Wrong. Both Democrats and Republicans receive money from Abramoff's clients, only Republicans received personal donations from Abramoff himself.

GWB never draft dodged, he was in the National Guard. By no means is that draft dodging.

He used his family's wealth and influence to join the ANG's "Champagne Unit" in order to avoid real service. It's not quite running to Canada, but it's still technicalaly draft dodging. And cowardly.

GWB, Laura or Cheney never killed a passenger. But I guess that's just a pesky little fact that you don't want to admit.

No, but Laura "accidentally" killed her ex-boyfriend. Oops.

“warrantless spying"? Not exactly, it's not illegal or unjustified.

Yup: both illegal and unjustified. Go to the thread on the subject.

Torture"? - Nah, more like humiliation but regardless, I think we should have just put a bullet in their heads on the battle field and forget about the trial.

This, I suppose, is what passes for "compassionate conservativism" these days. Thanks for proving my point about ethics.

[Shady]

the Republican mafia doesn't have a leg to stand on

Either does the Democratic mafia. See, we can all participate in this ridiculous type of language. Let's all follow Black Dog's lead.

Or Alito's membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (they were "concerned" with women and blacks getting into the school)

Hmm, that's interesting, why then did they have women and blacks as editors? Oh that's right, because you're a full of shit liar, silly me, I forgot.

Jack Abramoff, warrantless spying, legalized torture, the ongoing boondoggle that is Iraq and so many other fresh bones to knaw on

Wow, you mean there's a problem with lobbyists in Washington? Hmm, must be a new phenomenon. Let's see, warrantless spying under the law, legalized interrogation, and the ongoing battle for freedom in Iraq. I think I remember a topic in another thread of an Iraqi women who had a message for Black Dog and people of that ilk. Go to hell. If you enjoy people living under tyranny so much, move to Cuba.

He used his family's wealth and influence to join the ANG's "Champagne Unit" in order to avoid real service. It's not quite running to Canada, but it's still technicalaly draft dodging. And cowardly

There's nothing illegal about what President Bush did. And when you disparage him, you disparage everyone else who served in that unit during the Vietnam War. Apparently serving in the National Guard isn't "real service". Maybe you can explain that to all the former National Guardsmen. Chickenhawk. And no, it's not technically draft dodging.

No, but Laura "accidentally" killed her ex-boyfriend. Oops

She was 16, and there was no alcohol involved. Oops. Not a drunk adult male who waited 10 hours before telling anyone. But keep defending him, it's humorous, like it is when you people defend Castro, Chavez, and Hussein.

both illegal and unjustified

Opinion and projection, but not truth.

This, I suppose, is what passes for "compassionate conservativism" these days. Thanks for proving my point about ethics

After reading your litany of posts, you're the last person to be commenting on ethics. Why don't you find some other 16 year olds who've been in car accident's to use as political fodder. I'm sure there's a long list of them. It'll be fun for you. You can even make up that they were drinking. I'm sure that'll be fun for you too.

[Shady]

Hey everyone, I just found out that Ted Kennedy's dog is named Splash. I'm not joking. I repeat, I'm not joking. How freaking sick and twisted is that?

[newbie]

deleted, went off topic

[BHS]

Shady, most of your comments have been covered over and over again. But let me respond to the Alito remark. In his own words, Alito said he is "particularly proud of his work on cases arguing that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/...ews/13876.shtml. Those comments alone would make me very uneasy appointing this guy to the Supreme Court.

Are you saying you are for racial and ethnic quotas? Even to the point of forcing Universities to reject qualified black applicants because their quota has been over-reached?

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Constitution doesn't mention either abortion or the "right to privacy" from which Roe v Wade draws it's decision, the latter being a judicial creation of "emanations of penumbras" or whatever the hell Blackmun said in between chillum hits.

So, you're uneasy about the appointment of a judge who reads the Constitution accurately and doesn't want to treat minorities like statistical cattle. Says something about you, maybe.

[newbie]

Shady, most of your comments have been covered over and over again. But let me respond to the Alito remark. In his own words, Alito said he is "particularly proud of his work on cases arguing that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/...ews/13876.shtml. Those comments alone would make me very uneasy appointing this guy to the Supreme Court.

Are you saying you are for racial and ethnic quotas? Even to the point of forcing Universities to reject qualified black applicants because their quota has been over-reached?

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Constitution doesn't mention either abortion or the "right to privacy" from which Roe v Wade draws it's decision, the latter being a judicial creation of "emanations of penumbras" or whatever the hell Blackmun said in between chillum hits.

So, you're uneasy about the appointment of a judge who reads the Constitution accurately and doesn't want to treat minorities like statistical cattle. Says something about you, maybe.

Roe v. Wade was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that laws against abortion violate the constitutional right to privacy. The decision overturned all state laws that banned or restricted abortion. That should speak for itself. In regards to quotas, there was a reason for affirmative action and educational quotas that is too lengthy to get into here. But my main issue was/is how objective will Alito be in regards to abortion issues in the future, especially when it comes to overturning Roe v. Wade.

[newbie]

Says something about you, maybe.

Yeah, namely that I want to have minority rights protected. Of course the word "abortion" isn't in the constitution; neither are a lot of things. But the Supreme Court decided that a woman's right to an abortion falls within the right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Black Dog]

Hmm, that's interesting, why then did they have women and blacks as editors? Oh that's right, because you're a full of shit liar, silly me, I forgot

As editors of what? Try to back up your statements for once.

Wow, you mean there's a problem with lobbyists in Washington? Hmm, must be a new phenomenon. Let's see, warrantless spying under the law, legalized interrogation, and the ongoing battle for freedom in Iraq. I think I remember a topic in another thread of an Iraqi women who had a message for Black Dog and people of that ilk. Go to hell. If you enjoy people living under tyranny so much, move to Cuba.

Wow, more ad hominems. You're terrible, just terrible at this.

There's nothing illegal about what President Bush did. And when you disparage him, you disparage everyone else who served in that unit during the Vietnam War. Apparently serving in the National Guard isn't "real service". Maybe you can explain that to all the former National Guardsmen. Chickenhawk. And no, it's not technically draft dodging.

Well, as much as I hate to disparage the few, the proud and the incredibly wealthy who sat at home while other did the fighting, I'm just gonna go ahead and do it anyway. And yeah, if one uses is family influence to avoid combat service (as Bush did when he vaulted over 500 better qualified candidates) you're a draft dodger. I know how much it pains you to hear such things about your Dear Leader, but there it is.

She was 16, and there was no alcohol involved. Oops. Not a drunk adult male who waited 10 hours before telling anyone. But keep defending him, it's humorous, like it is when you people defend Castro, Chavez, and Hussein.

Oops my mistake. So she was in full possession of her faculties when she ran her ex-boyfriend down. My bad. As for the rest, I'm starting to believe you are illeterate, given I have not spoken in defense of Kennedy at all. Furthermore, I challenge to present a single example of me defending Castro or Hussein. In fact, I dare you.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Constitution doesn't mention either abortion or the "right to privacy" from which Roe v Wade draws it's decision, the latter being a judicial creation of "emanations of penumbras" or whatever the hell Blackmun said in between chillum hits.

The Constitution doesn't mention a lot of things (methinks abortion wasn't a common concern in 17-freaking-76). But then the Constitution was simply a list of what the federal government could and could not do. The right to privacy is considered a basic right, and as such is protected by virtue of the Ninth Amendment, which makes clear that the listing of individual rights is not intended to be comprehensive, and that "the people" have other rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

[America1]

Hmm, that's interesting, why then did they have women and blacks as editors? Oh that's right, because you're a full of shit liar, silly me, I forgot

As editors of what? Try to back up your statements for once.

Wow, you mean there's a problem with lobbyists in Washington? Hmm, must be a new phenomenon. Let's see, warrantless spying under the law, legalized interrogation, and the ongoing battle for freedom in Iraq. I think I remember a topic in another thread of an Iraqi women who had a message for Black Dog and people of that ilk. Go to hell. If you enjoy people living under tyranny so much, move to Cuba.

Wow, more ad hominems. You're terrible, just terrible at this.

There's nothing illegal about what President Bush did. And when you disparage him, you disparage everyone else who served in that unit during the Vietnam War. Apparently serving in the National Guard isn't "real service". Maybe you can explain that to all the former National Guardsmen. Chickenhawk. And no, it's not technically draft dodging.

Well, as much as I hate to disparage the few, the proud and the incredibly wealthy who sat at home while other did the fighting, I'm just gonna go ahead and do it anyway. And yeah, if one uses is family influence to avoid combat service (as Bush did when he vaulted over 500 better qualified candidates) you're a draft dodger. I know how much it pains you to hear such things about your Dear Leader, but there it is.

She was 16, and there was no alcohol involved. Oops. Not a drunk adult male who waited 10 hours before telling anyone. But keep defending him, it's humorous, like it is when you people defend Castro, Chavez, and Hussein.

Oops my mistake. So she was in full possession of her faculties when she ran her ex-boyfriend down. My bad. As for the rest, I'm starting to believe you are illeterate, given I have not spoken in defense of Kennedy at all. Furthermore, I challenge to present a single example of me defending Castro or Hussein. In fact, I dare you.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Constitution doesn't mention either abortion or the "right to privacy" from which Roe v Wade draws it's decision, the latter being a judicial creation of "emanations of penumbras" or whatever the hell Blackmun said in between chillum hits.

The Constitution doesn't mention a lot of things (methinks abortion wasn't a common concern in 17-freaking-76). But then the Constitution was simply a list of what the federal government could and could not do. The right to privacy is considered a basic right, and as such is protected by virtue of the Ninth Amendment, which makes clear that the listing of individual rights is not intended to be comprehensive, and that "the people" have other rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

Despite being a well known and controversial case, Roe v Wade is considered (by many liberals as well as conservative) as weak legal reasoning. I'm not talking about the issue but rather the legal president it came too. The right of abortion aside, Roe v wade isn't a "sound" legal decision.

[Shady]

As editors of what? Try to back up your statements for once

I could say the same of you. Try backing up your smear and character assassinations next time. Anyways, on to the good stuff. Let's see, Laura Ingraham and Dinesh D'Souza. A woman and a visible minority. Didn't you say that those were the same types of people CAP was fighting to keep out of the University? Yeah you did, and yeah, as usual, you're completely wrong. Oh well, maybe the next time you take a list of talking points from your socialist friends, you'll fact check them. Try doing that on a regular basis, it'll save you a whole lot of embarassment. However, I'm very impressed you were able to admit that you fabricated much of the Laura Bush accident. Hopefully that's the beginning of a new you. Maybe you could make it a belated New Year's resolution?

D'Souza (from India) worked for CAP from 1983 to 1985, editing CAP's controversial Prospect magazine. He said a number of the Democratic attacks on Samuel Alito were based on falsehoods.

First off, D'Souza (from India) says, one of the two stories from Prospect that Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-MA, read this week at the confirmation hearings was intended as a satire.

The 1983 essay "In Defense of Elitism" by Harry Crocker III included this line, read dramatically by Kennedy: "People nowadays just don't seem to know their place. Everywhere one turns blacks and hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and hispanic..."

The essay may not have been funny, D'Souza (from India) acknowledges, but Kennedy read from it as if it had been serious instead of an attempt at humor.

"I think left-wing groups have been feeding Senator Kennedy snippets and he has been mindlessly reciting them," D'Souza (from India) said. "It was a satire."

D'Souza (from India), who edited Prospect in 1985, the year Alito boasted of his membership in CAP in a job application when trying to join the Reagan Justice Department, says he can't remember ever having even heard Alito's name during that era.

Moreover, despite Alito's job application, D'Souza (from India) says there was no actual "membership" in CAP; there were financial supporters and people who subscribed to Prospect, but no official organization per se.

ABC News

[BHS]

Says something about you, maybe.

Yeah, namely that I want to have minority rights protected. Of course the word "abortion" isn't in the constitution; neither are a lot of things. But the Supreme Court decided that a woman's right to an abortion falls within the right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rights that only apply to a minority of the population aren't rights, they're privileges. Rights apply to everyone equally, ergo "minority rights" is an oxymoron.

You and BD should get your heads together vis-a-vis which Amendment is relevant in Roe (more on that in my next post). That being said, I don't believe the Equal Protection Clause has anything to say at all about personal privacy.

Section 1 deals with all laws applying to citizens equally (hence "equal protection");

Section 2 deals with apportionment of voting districts and voting rights (tellingly, this section specifies that

only men have voting rights);

Section 3 provides a remedy for removing elected officials who've acted treasonably;

Section 4 nullifies the US government's responsibility to cover debts incurred by those mounting rebellion

against the US government (duh);

and Section 5 gives Congress the authority to pass laws that are in line with the 14 Amendment.

[newbie]

Rights that only apply to a minority of the population aren't rights, they're privileges. Rights apply to everyone equally, ergo "minority rights" is an oxymoron.

Re minority rights, from the commissioner of human rights,

Special rights are not privileges but they are granted to make it possible for minorities to preserve their identity, characteristics and traditions.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs18.htm

Some other sites:

http://www.minorityrights.org/

http://dev.eurac.edu:8085/mugs2/index.jsp?TopBarItem=Home

[BHS]

Oops my mistake. So she was in full possession of her faculties when she ran her ex-boyfriend down. My bad. As for the rest, I'm starting to believe you are illeterate, given I have not spoken in defense of Kennedy at all. Furthermore, I challenge to present a single example of me defending Castro or Hussein. In fact, I dare you.

Reminding us all that the Chappaquiddik incident happened a whole 4 decades ago sounded a little defensive.

The Constitution doesn't mention a lot of things (methinks abortion wasn't a common concern in 17-freaking-76). But then the Constitution was simply a list of what the federal government could and could not do. The right to privacy is considered a basic right, and as such is protected by virtue of the Ninth Amendment, which makes clear that the listing of individual rights is not intended to be comprehensive, and that "the people" have other rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

As States reserve, in the Constitution, the right to make laws not prohibited by the Constitution, the Ninth Amendment reminds the three branches that the cititzenry enjoy all conceivable rights that do not conflict with duly passed laws. It's clear from the article you linked to that Madison intended the Ninth Amendment to be succor to Federalists worried that the Bill of Rights would, by defining certain rights of the citizenry, act to limit what rights the citizens enjoyed. Madison's intent, by adding the Night Amendment, was to assure the oppositionists that the Bill of Rights would not be viewed as the be-all and end-all definition of what rights US citizens enjoyed. In so doing, it works to give activist judges the loophole through with to read in rights at their own discretion.

The logic of Roe then becomes a slippery slope. If citizens enjoy a right to personal privacy, why not a right to guaranteed income? Why not a right to (fill in the blank)?

But I digress, in order to go slightly off topic: our own Supreme Court has taken a similar tact, and struck down all laws banning abortion in Canada. Presumably the reasoning is similar: that personal privacy is guaranteed by the Charter, and that abortion is merely a privacy issue and not a more serious crime of murder, as unborn children are not persons under the law and are therefore not protected by it.

My questions: when the Great and Good Liberals saw fit in 2004 to ban for-profit reproductive activity (selling sperm, eggs, and other activities), why was there not a hue and cry from the defenders of personal privacy to make a Supreme Court case out of it? Why is it that personal privacy is only an important issue when a woman wants to kill her offspring, but a shoulder-shrugger when infertile couples want a broader range of options?

[BHS]

Rights that only apply to a minority of the population aren't rights, they're privileges. Rights apply to everyone equally, ergo "minority rights" is an oxymoron.

Re minority rights, from the commissioner of human rights,

Special rights are not privileges but they are granted to make it possible for minorities to preserve their identity, characteristics and traditions.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs18.htm

Some other sites:

http://www.minorityrights.org/

http://dev.eurac.edu:8085/mugs2/index.jsp?TopBarItem=Home

What a bunch of crap. So "special rights" that only apply to some aren't really privileges, because in the post-modern world you get to choose your own definitions for what words mean, and use them to redefine concepts on an ad-hoc basis to suit whatever indefensible crap you happen to be defending.

By the way, you've still got a long way to go to explain how preserving the "identity, characteristics and traditions" of minorities means manditory university admissions quotas.

[newbie]

Are you saying you are for racial and ethnic quotas? Even to the point of forcing Universities to reject qualified black applicants because their quota has been over-reached?

This was your assertion. I am for the protection of minorities, and the quote I provided from Alito pertained to his bias, which I felt was discriminatory (plus other material from the link I provided). This goes far beyond what the constitution has to say. There will always be admission abnormalites with minorities. All I'm saying is that there has to be an equitable way to solve the problem. I agree; quotas and percentages aren't always the best way to go. But what is the alternative? Academic standing alone negates cultural differences (identity, characteristics and traditions). I didn't argue for the mandatory admission quotas by the way. That was your perception.

[Black Dog]

You and BD should get your heads together vis-a-vis which Amendment is relevant in Roe (more on that in my next post).

Too bad we're both right, given the Roe court's conclusion that the constitutional right of privacy is supported by the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Ninth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment. Whew.

Madison's intent, by adding the Night Amendment, was to assure the oppositionists that the Bill of Rights would not be viewed as the be-all and end-all definition of what rights US citizens enjoyed. In so doing, it works to give activist judges the loophole through with to read in rights at their own discretion.

The logic of Roe then becomes a slippery slope. If citizens enjoy a right to personal privacy, why not a right to guaranteed income? Why not a right to (fill in the blank)?

Indeed, why not? As I said, the Constitution is little more than an enumiration of the powers of the federal government. In other words, the government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution.

Not only does that mean the government has no right to invade individuals' privacy, it has no right to do anything not specifically authorized in the Constitution.

[YankAbroad]

You know, I'm a registered Libertarian, and I cannot help but laugh at the double standards that the two Old American Parties show.

The same knee-jerk conservative who invokes Chappaquiddick, for instance, when Kennedy goes to speak about any issue would be outraged if a liberal Democrat slammed Laura Bush for killing her ex-boyfriend with her car (as she did a few decades back).

As for Alito, my primary concern regarding his conduct is the fact that he has a history of making ethical breaches -- including reversing a commitment not to rule on Vanguard-related cases (when he owned hundreds of thousands of dollars of Vanguard funds). He strikes me as an ideologue and someone who isn't going to do the court proud (unlike the recently-appointed Chief Justice, who I supported).

As conservative Republicans were constantly reminding us during the Clinton administration, "character counts," and I believe Alito fails the character test. I'm sure I'll get all sorts of rationalizations now that the shoe's on the other foot -- but then again, Tweedledee always emulates Tweedledum.