Senator Ted Kennedy

[America1]

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.

Please explain how Alito fails the "Character test".

[YankAbroad]

Please explain how Alito fails the "Character test".

He pledged in his prior career not to rule on cases involving Vanguard (since he owned a significant share of their mutual funds). He then violated this sworn commitment later, and made rulings which had potentially direct impact on his own personal wealth.

That's a failed character test, sorry.

[BHS]

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).

Except, of course, that Kennedy has been sitting in the Senate for forty years, and Laura Bush is a librarian. I'm sure plenty of conservative folk have accidently killed loved ones in car wrecks, but they aren't drunk politicians trying to hide their affairs by running away from car accidents either. And Democrats slam Laura for this all the time, like they slammed Alito's wife for crying. Because they would never cry when their loved ones are being publicly raked over the coals on the nakedly partisan assumption they espouse opinions they don't espouse.

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).

Or like the woman he's replacing. Because that's the real issue driving the thug tactics.

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.

If you hold Alito in lower regard than the people questioning him, I have serious doubts about you're ability to judge character.

[BHS]

Please explain how Alito fails the "Character test".

He pledged in his prior career not to rule on cases involving Vanguard (since he owned a significant share of their mutual funds). He then violated this sworn commitment later, and made rulings which had potentially direct impact on his own personal wealth.

That's a failed character test, sorry.

Readers who want to know more about this issue can read this Guardian article, which is hardly biased in Alito's favour. Please note that Alito's "sworn committment" was made on a Senate questionaire and not as a part of his judicial oath. Please also note that Alito's financial holdings were not directly affected by this ruling, and that Alito ruled correctly in the case. His ruling was vacated and a new panel hearing the case arrived at the same conclusion.

[BHS]

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.

I went back and reread my first post, which contains the Alito quote you've since deleted. Alito said he was proud of his work against racial quotas, and you said

Those comments alone would make me very uneasy appointing this guy to the Supreme Court.

I asked if you were for racial quotas, and then extrapolated the concept to show what racial quotas might come to, and if you would be for them under those circumstances. I didn't assert anything. You are the one making assertions:

1) that Alito's stance against racial quotas is driven by racial discrimination

2) that minorities will never achieve parity with the majority, and will therefore always have to be treated differently (Happy Martin Luther King Jr. Day!!)

3) That Alito's stance against racial quotas is somehow against what's in the Constitution (despite your apparent familiarity with the text of the 14th Amendment)

[YankAbroad]

Except, of course, that Kennedy has been sitting in the Senate for forty years, and Laura Bush is a librarian.

Except that, if you accept that Chappaquiddick automatically disqualifies Ted Kennedy from public life or a political opinion ever again, you must also accept the same for Laura Bush. Something tells me, however, that you don't.

[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.

I went back and reread my first post, which contains the Alito quote you've since deleted. Alito said he was proud of his work against racial quotas, and you said

Those comments alone would make me very uneasy appointing this guy to the Supreme Court.

I asked if you were for racial quotas, and then extrapolated the concept to show what racial quotas might come to, and if you would be for them under those circumstances. I didn't assert anything. You are the one making assertions:

1) that Alito's stance against racial quotas is driven by racial discrimination

2) that minorities will never achieve parity with the majority, and will therefore always have to be treated differently (Happy Martin Luther King Jr. Day!!)

3) That Alito's stance against racial quotas is somehow against what's in the Constitution (despite your apparent familiarity with the text of the 14th Amendment)

The fact that Alito was an active conservative member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, and that that organization supported the limited the number of minorities and women to the campus is reason enough for my beliefs of Alito's discrimination. Enough said.

[BHS]

Except, of course, that Kennedy has been sitting in the Senate for forty years, and Laura Bush is a librarian.

Except that, if you accept that Chappaquiddick automatically disqualifies Ted Kennedy from public life or a political opinion ever again, you must also accept the same for Laura Bush. Something tells me, however, that you don't.

Hows that? Causing an accident is accidental (obviously). Leaving the scene of a fatal accident is a criminal act, one that would have sunk the political career of anyone not named Kennedy in Massachusetts.

Besides which, Laura Bush isn't a public figure any more than is Vicki Kennedy. When Laura runs for office we'll talk. Until then, the comparison is ridiculous.

[BHS]

The fact that Alito was an active conservative member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, and that that organization supported the limited the number of minorities and women to the campus is reason enough for my beliefs of Alito's discrimination. Enough said.

Whatever. He was the member of a conservative group, some of who's members espoused opinions that he didn't share. If you can find evidence that he shared these opinions, please feel free to link to it. Until then, your logic holds that every member of the DNC is a complete racist, because Robert Byrd was once a Grand Wizard of the KKK.

[America1]

Please explain how Alito fails the "Character test".

He pledged in his prior career not to rule on cases involving Vanguard (since he owned a significant share of their mutual funds). He then violated this sworn commitment later, and made rulings which had potentially direct impact on his own personal wealth.

That's a failed character test, sorry.

Readers who want to know more about this issue can read this Guardian article, which is hardly biased in Alito's favour. Please note that Alito's "sworn committment" was made on a Senate questionaire and not as a part of his judicial oath. Please also note that Alito's financial holdings were not directly affected by this ruling, and that Alito ruled correctly in the case. His ruling was vacated and a new panel hearing the case arrived at the same conclusion.

In adition to all this, he asked the court to retry the case.

[America1]

Except, of course, that Kennedy has been sitting in the Senate for forty years, and Laura Bush is a librarian.

Except that, if you accept that Chappaquiddick automatically disqualifies Ted Kennedy from public life or a political opinion ever again, you must also accept the same for Laura Bush. Something tells me, however, that you don't.

except Laura Bush never ran or won a political office.

[YankAbroad]

Mrs. Bush undoubtedly sits in a political office, and often represents the USA abroad and at home.

It's a different sort of office, to be certain, but one nonetheless.

It's time to drop the hypocrisy on these issues and focus on the debate. Kennedy (and Mrs. Bush) are not up for a SCOTUS nomination -- Alito is.

[Shady]

Anyways, now that I'm done kicking in Black Dog's teeth with facts regarding CAP, we can all move on to what this thread's topic is suppose to be. Ted Kennedy, and all the drunken hypocrisy that encapsultes him.

Kennedy belongs to exclusive club

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy belongs to a social club for Harvard students and alumni that was evicted from campus nearly 20 years ago after refusing to allow female members.

According to the online membership directory of the Owl Club, the Massachusetts Democrat updated his personal information -- including the address of his home, which is in his wife's name -- on Sept. 7.

The club has long been reviled on campus as "sexist" and "elitist" and, in 1984, was booted from the university for violating federal anti-discrimination laws, authored by Mr. Kennedy.

WT

I wish I was taking a page out of the Black Dog playbook and making this up, but sadly and unbelievably, it's all true.

[Black Dog]

Anyways, now that I'm done kicking in Black Dog's teeth with facts regarding CAP, we can all move on to what this thread's topic is suppose to be. Ted Kennedy, and all the drunken hypocrisy that encapsultes him.

Kennedy belongs to exclusive club

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy belongs to a social club for Harvard students and alumni that was evicted from campus nearly 20 years ago after refusing to allow female members.

According to the online membership directory of the Owl Club, the Massachusetts Democrat updated his personal information -- including the address of his home, which is in his wife's name -- on Sept. 7.

The club has long been reviled on campus as "sexist" and "elitist" and, in 1984, was booted from the university for violating federal anti-discrimination laws, authored by Mr. Kennedy.

WT

I wish I was taking a page out of the Black Dog playbook and making this up, but sadly and unbelievably, it's all true.

Isn't that cute. I'll let you have this one, little guy, because you've been wrong so many times before on pretty much every subject you've posted on (at least every post that wasn't just fawning praise of whatever witticism copied from LGF that Monty Burns trotted out). I'm still curious, though, what I made up. Barring the error over Laura's state when she wiped out her high school sweetie, everything else was true.

As far as CAP goes, one has to wonder why Alito was proud enough of his membership to put it on his resume in '85, yet 20 years later can't even remember joining, only to later go on to say that, even though he can't remember joining, he had a good reason for it.

[YankAbroad]

It's interesting how the right wing's reaction to criticism of their candidate hasn't been to substantively respond to the criticism, but rather attack Ted Kennedy.

When did Kennedy get appointed to a Supreme Court slot?

[Shady]

It's interesting how the right wing's reaction to criticism of their candidate hasn't been to substantively respond to the criticism, but rather attack Ted Kennedy

That's incorrect. Any substantive criticism has been responded to with logic and reason. However, mudslinging from degenerates such as Ted Kennedy deserves no real response, other then to point out his boorish behavior and his drunken hypocrisy. What he tried to do to Samuel Alito was tantamount to McCarthyism. Shame.

[Black Dog]

What he tried to do to Samuel Alito was tantamount to McCarthyism. Shame.

I thought McCarthyism was no longer a perjorative term for the U.S. right? Plus: I suppose you would rather have the process be a simple rubber stamp (given your apparent belief in the doctrine of Presidential Infallibility), but the fact is, these confirmation hearings have always been contensious: they're suppossed to be.

[YankAbroad]

"Logic and reason" isn't saying "Kennedy did bad stuff too."

I wouldn't support Kennedy for the court vacancy any more than I support Alito.

The focus is on Alito -- the efforts to get people to defend Kennedy's actions, for which he was legally exonerated forty years ago, is just infantile.

It's a bit like going after Bush's alcoholism when he begins to criticize drug policy. It's a cheap shot designed to undermine discussion of the real issue in favor of scoring cheap points and suggesting that those who bring up valid concerns "have no right" to do so.

[BHS]

What he tried to do to Samuel Alito was tantamount to McCarthyism. Shame.

I thought McCarthyism was no longer a perjorative term for the U.S. right? Plus: I suppose you would rather have the process be a simple rubber stamp (given your apparent belief in the doctrine of Presidential Infallibility), but the fact is, these confirmation hearings have always been contensious: they're suppossed to be.

Aren't you the guy who always complains about people putting words into your mouth? I don't recall Shady subscribing to any doctrine of Presidential infallibility. I think you're just making things up. Besides, the Dems only have one real issue when selecting SCOTUS justices: abortion. If they can't make a case against a Republican nomination on that issue, they flounder around looking for any sort of salacious accusation they can muster, no matter how weak and pathetic it is. Being contenscious for good reasons is fine; being contenscious because you hate the President personally and want thwart his every move is petty and ridiculous and does the Dems no good.

[tml12]

Anyways, now that I'm done kicking in Black Dog's teeth with facts regarding CAP, we can all move on to what this thread's topic is suppose to be. Ted Kennedy, and all the drunken hypocrisy that encapsultes him.

Kennedy belongs to exclusive club

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy belongs to a social club for Harvard students and alumni that was evicted from campus nearly 20 years ago after refusing to allow female members.

According to the online membership directory of the Owl Club, the Massachusetts Democrat updated his personal information -- including the address of his home, which is in his wife's name -- on Sept. 7.

The club has long been reviled on campus as "sexist" and "elitist" and, in 1984, was booted from the university for violating federal anti-discrimination laws, authored by Mr. Kennedy.

WT

I wish I was taking a page out of the Black Dog playbook and making this up, but sadly and unbelievably, it's all true.

And Nancy Pelosi is anti-union. WHAT HAS THIS WORLD COME TO???

[YankAbroad]

mudslinging from degenerates such as Ted Kennedy deserves no real response

Except that Ted Kennedy is an elected Senator who has a constitutional responsibility to provide or withhold consent based on his best judgment. Not only does he "deserve" a response, but he is entitled to one and damn-sight sure better get one from the nominee.

You're not doing any favors to anybody by muddying the waters with boring (not to mention hypocritical) rants about how "degenerate" Kennedy is. He's not in the chair seeking a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the USA and you'll have plenty of opportunities to take your grievances to voters in the next MA Senate election -- something that none of us will have after Alito is confirmed and turns out to be a dreadful and unethical jurist (as seems virtually certain).

You also are setting precedent for later on, when a Senate Majority leader Ted Kennedy can set ground rules to ensure that President Hillary Clinton's nomination of Janet Reno to Chief Justice can be rushed through with similar rhetoric against Republican Senators who express concerns as part of THEIR job in the Senate.

[BHS]

mudslinging from degenerates such as Ted Kennedy deserves no real response

Except that Ted Kennedy is an elected Senator who has a constitutional responsibility to provide or withhold consent based on his best judgment. Not only does he "deserve" a response, but he is entitled to one and damn-sight sure better get one from the nominee.

You're not doing any favors to anybody by muddying the waters with boring (not to mention hypocritical) rants about how "degenerate" Kennedy is. He's not in the chair seeking a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the USA and you'll have plenty of opportunities to take your grievances to voters in the next MA Senate election -- something that none of us will have after Alito is confirmed and turns out to be a dreadful and unethical jurist (as seems virtually certain).

You also are setting precedent for later on, when a Senate Majority leader Ted Kennedy can set ground rules to ensure that President Hillary Clinton's nomination of Janet Reno to Chief Justice can be rushed through with similar rhetoric against Republican Senators who express concerns as part of THEIR job in the Senate.

I was going to post something snarky about your clairvoyant abilities with regards to Justice Alito's future decisions, but when I got to the part about "Senate Majority leader Ted Kennedy" I figured I probably couldn't say anything worse about your ESP than you'd already written yourself. Does your vision of the future include Karl Rove being made into some sort of furniture? Or perhaps giant alien squirrels enslaving mankind? (I, for one, welcome our new rodent overlords.)

[YankAbroad]

I'm sure you were going to say something snarky about what I said because you couldn't attack the underlying principles of the constitution which underpin them. Too dangerous for you. Hence, attempting to tie my view to extremism is your only "weapon."

Would you support a similar attack by a Senate Majority Leader Ted Kennedy on Republican efforts to block the appointment of Sheila Jackson-Lee to the Supreme Court? Of course you wouldn't, because suddenly such logic would turn against you since Jackson-Lee isn't your man (in any sense of the word).

Would you support the same unconstitutional powers which are being handed to George W. Bush to have been handed to President Bill Clinton or a President Hillary Clinton? Of course you wouldn't, since the Clintons aren't "your man."

The problem with such short-sighted partisan retardation as that which you represent is two-fold:

1) You always believe your guy will stay in power forever -- but he doesn't;

2) You undermine your own case for your liberties when you're in the minority by undermining others' liberties when you're in the majority. When the penduluum swings the other way -- as it always does -- you'll find your own arguments for your own rights being dismissed by the very arguments you mouthed on this forum in 2006.

Unlike you and your opponents alike, I believe that the civil rights of Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, independents, and the apolitical alike should all be protected from the predations of both the Tweedledum party in power now and the Tweedledee party in opposition.

That's why I oppose your efforts to emasculate Senator Kennedy's Senate duty to question and beat up on the president's nominee just as much as I'll oppose efforts to emasculate Senator Hatch's duty to question and beat up on a future Democratic president's nominee.