Bush violates Civil Rights Act

[SpidermanTuba]

He's perfectly allowed to stand up and say I nominated her because she is a good Christian. Just as he can pardon convicted family members

What part of no religious test for any public office do you people not get?

 

[theHawk]

Doesnt matter, you completely didnt address his Executive Powers.

Executive Powers superceeds all. Unless the law explicitly states otherwise, which in the case of the Civil Rights Act, does not.

I will agree with you that it is in violation of the spirit of the Civil Rights Act, my point is he is not legally, because of Constitutionally given Executive powers.

What part of that do you not understand?
We can go back and forth like this forever. Like we been saying, if your so correct then take him to court.

 

[pegwinn]

Been painfully checking out this for about three pages now. Really hate coming in to the thread late.

Anyway SMT said : What part of no religious test for any public office do you people not get?

OK dude. Her religious faith was the clincher not the test. He selected her because he believes that she will be an originalist on the constitution. He selected her because etc etc etc. Read the papers.

Another quote is appropriate We hold these truths to be self evident

I will return to ensure that learning has occured.

 

[OCA]

In using Miers' religion as part of the basis for her selection, Bush is in violation of the Civil Rights Act.




"PRESIDENT BUSH: People ask me why I picked Harriet Miers. They want to know Harriet Miers' background; they want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion. Part of it has to do with the fact that she was a pioneer woman and a trailblazer in the law in Texas. I remind people that Harriet Miers is one of the--has been rated consistently one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States. She's eminently qualified for the job. And she has got a judicial philosophy that I appreciate; otherwise I wouldn't have named her to the bench, which is--or nominated her to the bench--which is that she will not legislate from the bench, but strictly interpret the Constitution."

LMFAO! Spidey are you back for another asskicking? What a fucking masochist!

Anyway no civil rights violation, the pres can pick whoever he wants for whatever fucking reason he wants, you guys lost, you have no say in who gets selected.

 

[OCA]

Regarding the Miers selection I believe it was a stupid and gutless pick on the pres's part. Face it, he doesn't have the balls to fight the Demos, he's gutless. He could've picked any number of candidates with proven conservative credentials yet he picked someone solely to placate Demos. Excuse me? When is the last time Demos do anything to placate Repubs? Did Tip O'Neill and George mitchell make concessions with Repubs back in the day? HELL NO! They told them to fuck off and steamrolled em. Repubs own all branches of government now and yet we still cower in the corner like whipped dogs.

But I guess when there are no conservatives left in power only weakkneed moderates what else do you expect?

Repubs have been running on conservative values to get elected and then when in office governing from the middle for too long now, when will we wake up and quit supporting them?

 

[Abbey Normal]

Presdient Bush ran on his record of being a bipartisan Governor, so we should not be surprised to see him trying to placate the Dems. As for me, it was clear that our President was not very Conservative when he refused to enforce our borders.

Despite a few weird lapses, however, I still see our President as more on the side of social conservativism, so if Ms. Meirs is actually confirmed, my gut tells me that she will surprise many by being more of a strict constructionist than people expect.

 

[OCA]

Presdient Bush ran on his record of being a bipartisan Governor, so we should not be surprised to see him trying to placate the Dems. As for me, it was clear that our President was not very Conservative when he refused to enforce our borders.

Despite a few weird lapses, however, I still see our President as more on the side of social conservativism, so if Ms. Meirs is actually confirmed, my gut tells me that she will surprise many by being more of a strict constructionist than people expect.

She's hardly qualified for the position, I mean common sense tells you that one probably should have some judicial experience before one assumes the highest judicial position in the land, and no, litigating cases is not a qualification.

When will we realize that in order to enforce the borders we must first deal with the illegals in country already and no it is not possible to round them up and deport them. Grant an amnesty to all who have no criminal record. deport the criminals then shut the border down miitarily....its the only way.

Social conservatism? Where is my constitutional ban on gay marriage?

 

[pegwinn]

I've heard that there are many who've served on the USSC with no judicial experience. Any truth to that? I'm too lazy to google it today. Point is, you don't need to be a judge to make judgements. Hell a non lawyer with the right attitude and staff could do it. I would personally rather see a judge. My beef with her is her age and closeness personally to W.

You ain't getting a constitutional ban. Don't hold your breath.

 

[OCA]

I've heard that there are many who've served on the USSC with no judicial experience. Any truth to that? I'm too lazy to google it today. Point is, you don't need to be a judge to make judgements. Hell a non lawyer with the right attitude and staff could do it. I would personally rather see a judge. My beef with her is her age and closeness personally to W.

You ain't getting a constitutional ban. Don't hold your breath.

My point is peg is that Repubs have the system by the balls right now, why the need for a non-controversial nominee? Steamroll these bastards with someone from the far right!

 

[manu1959]

No - the nexus of my argument has been that he nominated her because she is religious. Try going back and reading the past few pages. You'll see its abundantly clear thats what my argument is. He's not allowed to base his decision on how religious - or how unreligious - a person is.

It doesn't say that he nominated her because she's a born again Christian - you're right. I never even claimed it said that. So I fail to see your point. You're just making stuff up now, kind of silly.

so you disagree with yourself?.......dude you are kicking your own ass

 

[pegwinn]

My point is peg is that Repubs have the system by the balls right now, why the need for a non-controversial nominee? Steamroll these bastards with someone from the far right!

I personally concur. Hell it would be great entertainment to either watch them enforce the old school filibuster or just change the rules and nuke em. But it won't happen. GW miscalculated. He nominated someone palatable to the dems and whom he thought the R's would look thru with party loyalty. He was wrong.

 

[manu1959]

I personally concur. Hell it would be great entertainment to either watch them enforce the old school filibuster or just change the rules and nuke em. But it won't happen. GW miscalculated. He nominated someone palatable to the dems and whom he thought the R's would look thru with party loyalty. He was wrong.

do you belive that W's nomination has brought the GOP together enough that if he pulls her and puts up the "true conservative" you all want....the GOP will go to "war" to get them approved...?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Executive Powers superceeds all. Unless the law explicitly states otherwise, which in the case of the Civil Rights Act, does not.

We don't live in a dictatorship.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpidermanTuba
No - the nexus of my argument has been that he nominated her because she is religious. Try going back and reading the past few pages. You'll see its abundantly clear thats what my argument is. He's not allowed to base his decision on how religious - or how unreligious - a person is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SpidermanTuba
It doesn't say that he nominated her because she's a born again Christian - you're right. I never even claimed it said that. So I fail to see your point. You're just making stuff up now, kind of silly.


so you disagree with yourself?.......dude you are kicking your own ass

Do you understand the concept that "religious" is a more general term than "born again Christian", dude?

 

[theHawk]

We don't live in a dictatorship.

Well I wouldn't call it a dictatorship either. Especially since the congress must approve the nominee. Checks and balances anyone?

 

[pegwinn]

I personally concur. Hell it would be great entertainment to either watch them enforce the old school filibuster or just change the rules and nuke em. But it won't happen. GW miscalculated. He nominated someone palatable to the dems and whom he thought the R's would look thru with party loyalty. He was wrong.

do you belive that W's nomination has brought the GOP together enough that if he pulls her and puts up the "true conservative" you all want....the GOP will go to "war" to get them approved...?

I think that some in the GOP are salivating, believing that any day now the nomination will fail and Roy Moore or Janice Rodgers Brown will get the nod. W acts stupid. Not to say he is stupid. I don't know.

 

[Annie]

I think that some in the GOP are salivating, believing that any day now the nomination will fail and Roy Moore or Janice Rodgers Brown will get the nod. W acts stupid. Not to say he is stupid. I don't know.

I agree, many want the nomination pulled, by GW or her doing so herself. Not so sure either is going to happen.

 

[no1tovote4]

Dude, you have got serious mental problems if you think this House would impeach the President for a misdemeanor violation.

Regardless of that I expect a President to actually respect State's Rights. However I do believe that a President that is currently as unpopular as Bush breaking the Posse Comitatus act and sending in the US military to take control of a State without the proper permissions would be in serious danger of impeachment regardless of who held the Congress.

How convenient that only those things listed which would be illegal reasons for qualification are the ones that aren't qualifications.

At least you admit that when speaking of a person's personal life you are not speaking of their qualifications. Of course you will attempt to respin even after making such an admission.

"And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion. Part of it has to do with the fact that she was a pioneer woman and a trailblazer in the law in Texas. "

Once again, speaking of multiple ideas on the same subject. Remember that language is complex and able to do that, however you are clearly unable to comprehend many complex ideas at the same time. This is a lack of yours either based in wishful thinking and ideology with deliberate stupidity mixed in in order to make it favor that ideology or it is accidental stupidity identifiying intellectual shortfalls that are becoming more readily apparent each time you attempt to bend over backwards to support something you want so badly to be true that is so clearly unsupportable by evidence.

So the word "part" in the first sentence above and the word "part" in the second sentence above refer to two completely different things? You've got to be kidding me.

One of them was speaking of her life the other of jobs she held, one is personal the other lists qualifications. The word "part" was not the word that differentiated, that is simply being deliberately obtuse. Misidentifying words that differentiate meaning shows miscomprehension on your part. You can say that of "of" as well but heck at least you tried to find a word that might make sense, it doesn't make sense, but it could if you were basing such things on ideological deafness.

 

[no1tovote4]

B) I have no standing to sue. I'm not sure that anyone does. But I suppose then when I asked you if it was your position that its OK to violate the law as long as you can get away with it - your answer is a resounding "yes"

This was your position in another thread. You expected the President to violate Posse Comitatus simply because nobody had been prosecuted and there was no legal controlling authority. What hypocrisy!

You have shown how a statement could be misconstrued when looking through an ideological glass, but I have shown how it can be correctly interpreted by actually reading the words. You insisted the President should break the law in regard to the Posse Comitatus act, then expect him to follow this law. I have shown how he followed it, you have tried by implication and innuendo to show your side of the argument.

Reasonable people can disagree on almost any subject, but there is only one person that has specifically stated that the President should have or could break laws simply because nobody would prosecute and it wasn't anybody explaining English Comprehension to you in this thread, in fact it was somebody with an eerily similar nickname and avatar to you.

You sir, are a hypocrite. A 100% unabashed hypocrite that expects a President to break a law when it would benefit you, then expects him to follow another law so strictly that even when speaking of someone's life he must never mention religion because he has nominated her for a position, when that too benefits your position. What an ideological sheep bent on nothing other than devisiveness you have shown yourself to be! You seem intelligent enough to understand complex ideas until they come from somebody other than your ideological bent, then you make a deliberate decision not to comprehend.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

One of them was speaking of her life the other of jobs she held, one is personal the other lists qualifications. The word "part" was not the word that differentiated, that is simply being deliberately obtuse. Misidentifying words that differentiate meaning shows miscomprehension on your part. You can say that of "of" as well but heck at least you tried to find a word that might make sense, it doesn't make sense, but it could if you were basing such things on ideological deafness.

"PRESIDENT BUSH: People ask me why I picked Harriet Miers. They want to know Harriet Miers' background; they want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion. Part of it has to do with the fact that she was a pioneer woman and a trailblazer in the law in Texas. ...."


Alright grammer expert, perhaps you can tell us what word differentiates the last sentence as being a qualification from the second to last sentence as being a non-qaulification about her life? How do we know it isn't the other way around? How do we know they aren't both just about her life and not listed as qualifications? Tell me, English teacher, we all want to know. Perhaps the President completely forgot that he even said "People ask me why I picked Harriet Miers" and instead went on to tell us about her life instead? I might believe that - he is pretty scatter brained. But I would like to know what differentiates one from being a qualification and one from being simply about her life - especially considering they are both "part" of something, according to you, two different things.