MLK Weekend! Bush INSTALLS Racist Judge

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Yep, you guys are right, special status is wrong... Just like that special status that got Georgie boy into Yale... and Harvard... But until we stop basing school funding on property taxes (as it is in the vast majority of cases), alot of kids (mostly black) are getting a very raw deal. How would all you Pickering lovers feel about affirmative action based on socio-economic status?

Translation without the angry spin:

"Special status is wrong - in all situations."

kind of a nice thought without the jab -

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Oh, and comparing Al Gore to George. Wasn't Al the one with the lower test scores and the extremely powerful Senator Dad? At the time, G Bush Sen wasn't a real political powerhouse in comparison at all. It applies across the board.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Yep, you guys are right, special status is wrong... Just like that special status that got Georgie boy into Yale... and Harvard... But until we stop basing school funding on property taxes (as it is in the vast majority of cases), alot of kids (mostly black) are getting a very raw deal. How would all you Pickering lovers feel about affirmative action based on socio-economic status?

Not such a bad idea, is it? Constitutionally, it is also not a protected class. It also identifies the fact that there are millions of people of color (yes, even Asians) who are doing quite well. Rather than a blanket policy to help "all people of color" why not have a policy to help out "all who absolutely need it."

Most importantly is that it cannot harm others who do not need the help. It furthermore cannot inflate objective assessments. To do that would be wrong.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Rather than a blanket policy to help "all people of color" why not have a policy to help out "all who absolutely need it.".

Finally - judge people by their actions and situations, not by some arbitrary definition......

Why do athletes want to be role models for 'young minorities' or 'girls' or 'boys'? Instead why not be a role model for 'kids'?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Charles Pickering: Just the Facts

Throughout his career, Judge Charles Pickering has demonstrated a record of hostility to key principles that protect civil and constitutional rights. His nomination continues to draw opposition from his home state of Mississippi and organizations around the nation.

As a federal judge, Charles Pickering:

criticized the “one-person, one-vote” principle recognized by the Supreme Court.

suggested that large deviations from equality in drawing legislative district lines, which the Supreme Court has held presumptively unconstitutional, were “relatively minor” and “de minimis.”

criticized or sought to limit important remedies provided by the Voting Rights Act.

repeatedly inserted into his rulings, in cases involving claims of employment discrimination, severe criticisms of civil rights plaintiffs and the use of civil rights laws to address alleged discrimination.

demonstrated a propensity to make it harder for some people to obtain access to justice, especially less powerful litigants, such as people raising civil rights or liberties claims.

has been reversed 15 times by the 5th Circuit for ignoring or violating “well-settled principles of law” – 11 of those 15 in cases involving constitutional, civil rights, criminal procedure, or labor issues; in contrast, another Bush nominee who was confirmed to the 5th Circuit, Edith Brown Clement, was reversed only once during a slightly shorter tenure as a district court judge.

engaged in unethical conduct in an effort to reduce the sentence for a defendant convicted for burning a cross on the lawn of an interracial family and by soliciting letters of support for his confirmation from attorneys who practiced before him.

As a state senator, Charles Pickering:

co-sponsored a Mississippi Senate resolution calling on Congress to repeal Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (providing federal oversight over jurisdictions with a history of discrimination in voting) or to apply it to all states regardless of their discrimination history, widely seen as an effort to gut the Act.

supported “open primary” legislation that was blocked by the Justice Department over concerns about discrimination against black voters.

supported a resolution calling for a constitutional convention to propose an amendment to ban abortion.

Hundreds of organizations, individuals and elected officials have announced their opposition to Pickering’s nomination:

African-American organizations and leaders in Mississippi, including every local chapter and the state chapter of the NAACP, the Legislative Black Caucus, the Magnolia Bar Association, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and the Mississippi Worker’s Center for Human Rights, and more.

National legal and civil rights organizations, including the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Alliance for Justice, the Human Rights Campaign, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, the National Bar Association and more.

Local and national women’s rights groups, including the American Association of University Women, the National Women’s Law Center, the National Partnership for Women and Families, NARAL Pro-Choice America and the National Womens Political Caucus, and more.

Labor organizations, including the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of School Administrators, AFSME, UNITE!, the United Steelworkers of America, and more.

WOW!!!
That piece of "literature" has more spin on it than any line twist ever could.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[gary350 0]

>You should seek help to get your Bush-hatred under control.

Thanks for the kind suggestion. I prefer to channel my disgust with Bush and the Republican party and greedy, hateful, narrow thinking, mean-spirited, sanctimonious right-wingers into efforts to change things. You personally have inspired me to volunteer for voter registration and education drives. Thanks.

>INSTALL? Bill Lan Lee

Typical right wing tactic. Ignore the issue at hand and compare to some other wrong - real, perceived, manipulated, or just a lie - preferably involving Bill Clinton if at all possible.

And yet another tactic: compare apples and oranges - Lee was installed to an Assistant AG position, NOT a lifetime judicial appointment (not lifetime in Pickering's case - his ass is out of there in '05)

>With regards to Charles Pickering, you might want to get your 'facts' somewhere other than democraticunderground.com or People for the American Way or whatever source from which you obtained them. As presented, they're pretty pathetic.

I'll tell you what I think is pathetic - that statement. Another typical move - attack the person or the source, rather than the facts. Interesting that you don't spend your time introducing other versions of the "facts", or explain why they are not facts, or put your own spin on them. Just a blanket statement that they are pathetic!

And this from someone who appears to get HIS facts from Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc. Ha Ha.

>For example: 15 times out of HOW MANY? LMFAO. I remember this argument from a couple of years ago.

Gee, ya got me there - I don't know how many. But I did think the rest of the statement (if you read it) was telling: "in contrast, another Bush nominee who was confirmed to the 5th Circuit, Edith Brown Clement, was reversed only once during a slightly shorter tenure as a district court judge."

Yeah, they probably picked an example on the low end - OK, I want to know - what's the average?

>It was pretty stupid then - it still is.

Attack Attack Attack - Rush, Ann, and Bill would be very proud of you. Great role models all.

>The cross burning case. Man I LOVE it whan the Swan case is brought up by the lefties. Just love it.
You think this case proves he's a racist, eh? Well, I think that anyone who supports programs that judge people by their race for any reason is about 100000000000000000 times the racist Pickering is. Here's the link for all not acquainted with the case: http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0301/14/m01.html

Another assumption. I don't think it PROVES anything. I think it is another piece of evidence in a glaringly long list that seriously questions the man's commitment to racial equality and his fitness to serve.

And if you are referring to affirmative action, that is another subject entirely - why must you AGAIN bring up the childish tactic of "You're saying bad, bad things about my hero, but YOUR hero is worse - much , much worse!!!"? Can't you defend him by the facts? The right-wing sites have plenty of lists of how well qualified he "is" (what IS the definition of IS anyway? ).

Can't you defend him by presenting your own facts or by refuting the facts about him that have been stated, other than smearing the sources???

>Here's the link for all not acquainted with the case:

PLEASE people, follow the link for a good laugh! This is Vincent's choice for an in-depth examination of the case? And he ridicules PFAW! The article is from a Mississippi newpaper as told mostly from the poor ol' cross burner's point of view. LMAO! Read as Swan talks about how HE AND PICKERING ARE THE VICTIMS.

(I will give that as pathetic an attempt as it is, at least it is an attempt at making an argument instead of changing the subject or whining or name-calling.)

>I'm not going to waste my time refuting Gary's entire posting of vague accusations against Charles Pickering. Get a grip dude. Your Bush hatred is just out of control, your 'facts' vague, and your argument untenable.

Another nice tactic, to go with "change the subject" and "your guy is worse": Can't or won't come up with arguments or answers to presented "facts", so label them all vague and pathetic, label motives as "Bush hatred", and label all arguments as "untenable". And state that doing otherwise is a waste of time.

Yeah - don't waste your time, Vincent, or ours.

[gary350 0]

Quote

Quote

Bush INSTALLS...

There is nothing unusual about judicial recess appointments.

Quote:

"As a point of comparison, Jimmy Carter made sixty-nine recess appointments during his four years in office, Ronald Reagan made 238 during his eight years, George H.W. Bush made seventy-eight during his four years, and Clinton had made sixty-eight in his first seven years."

Article

Just in case anyone tries to cry that Bush is not being bipartisan...

CLASSIC!!! This post is a textbook example of manipulation or outright lying. Rush could NOT have done it better himself!!! (either that or your reading comprehension is not what it could be and/or you made an honest mistake. . . ) (or the same for me. . . )

So let me get this straight - you read:

"As a point of comparison, Jimmy Carter made sixty-nine recess appointments during his four years in office, Ronald Reagan made 238 during his eight years, George H.W. Bush made seventy-eight during his four years, and Clinton had made sixty-eight in his first seven years."

and your conclusion is that:

"There is nothing unusual about judicial recess appointments."

Clinton did NOT make sixty-eight judicial recess appointments, he made ONE - Roger Gregory, first black judge on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who was later renominated by George W. Bush and was confirmed on a 93-1 vote (guess who voted no? Trent Lott! Another racist hero of the Republican party).

Unlike Gregory, Pickering's ass will be out of there as soon as the recess appointment expires.

Judicial is the key word. There is a BIG difference in these two scenarios:

Clinton using a recess appointment to appoint, for example, an incredibly qualified (IMO) ambassador to Luxembourg because his nomination has been held up for NO OTHER REASON than he is gay (yet another proud Republican moment), or Clinton appointing a non-controversial, well qualified black man to a federal judgeship. . .

AND

Bush installing a guy like Pickering to a very important "lifetime" federal judgeship, when there are many serious questions about his record and fitness to serve (for reasons other than something like "he's a fag")

>Just in case anyone tries to cry that Bush is not being bipartisan...

What a joke - after "winning" election with less than 48% of the popular vote, combined with a (disgusting) turn-out of 50.7%, meaning less than 25% of registered voters voted for him(!) (I know - all meaningless - he IS the president, but my point is that it was hardly a mandate), and having LIED by running with phrases like "compassionate conservative" and "uniter, not divider", Bush's (Rove's, Cheney's. . . ) extreme right-wing agenda is anything but bipartisan.

"Darn! Those bad, bad Democrats are obstructing the swell nominees that we put up!"

As of November, the Senate had confirmed 168 Bush's nominees, as opposed to blocking only four nominees to federal appellate courts.

Let's compare that to: "During the 1990's, a Republican-controlled Senate rejected by vote or procedure 114 of President Bill Clinton's nominees to the bench." (NY Times)

[lawrocket 3]

Please inform me of the specific reasons why Pickering was reversed in those 15 cases.

Then we'll discuss those reversals, and see whether the review was "de novo" or on an "abuse of discretion" standard. Also, why don't we see whether the decision was "reversed" or "reversed and remanded?"

Big things in evaluating the efficacy of a judge. Please, tell us specifically his wrongdoing.

Here's a funny one to think about - If he is wrong so often and gets reversed a lot, then wouldn't that mean that he was RIGHT in the Swan decision? Let me know if the appeals court reversed Pickering on THAT one.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[meltdown 0]

"But until we stop basing school funding on property taxes (as it is in the vast majority of cases), alot of kids (mostly black) are getting a very raw deal."

That's why some of us favor vouchers - to get poor and minority kids OUT of the shitty schools. Oh wait, I forgot: education is not the paramount concern, it's not giving taxpayer money to anyone that claims to be religious, regardless of the task they have been contracted to perform.

[meltdown 0]

"Bush's (Rove's, Cheney's. . . ) extreme right-wing agenda is anything but bipartisan. "

That would include signing CFR, the extension of unemployment benefits, caving on vouchers, federalizing airport security, steel tariffs, the prescription drug debacle, talk of amnesty for illegals....yeah, that's pretty far right stuff.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Bush installing a guy like Pickering to a very important "lifetime" federal judgeship, when there are many serious questions about his record and fitness to serve (for reasons other than something like "he's a fag")

Um, I hate to break this to you, but he already HAS a very important "lifetime" federal judgeship. He was confirmed for this judgeship by a unanimous vote of the Senate. The Senate was not particularly bothered by it then, was it?

Note the lack of "spin." Them's just the facts.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,146]

Which particular statements are untrue. If they're true, then there's no spin, just facts.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[gary350 0]

Quote

Quote

Bush installing a guy like Pickering to a very important "lifetime" federal judgeship, when there are many serious questions about his record and fitness to serve (for reasons other than something like "he's a fag")

Um, I hate to break this to you, but he already HAS a very important "lifetime" federal judgeship. He was confirmed for this judgeship by a unanimous vote of the Senate. The Senate was not particularly bothered by it then, was it?

Note the lack of "spin." Them's just the facts.

Um, I hate to break this to you, but no shit, I already know - that's why I'm quoting his pathetic JUDICIAL RECORD. . .

OK, fine - you got me - I'll change the statement to ". . . a super- colossal, even MORE important federal judgeship than he already has. . . "

[lawrocket 3]

Have you stopped to think about this? They can't get rid of him, right? THerefore, why not appoint him to the appeals court, where he can be outvoted by other judges, and his impact lessened greatly?

Wouldn't you want "damage control" if the guy is so bad?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Jimbo 0]

Benny, the "special status" that got George into Yale wasn't in the form of government mandate. George got his special treatment in a private institution without government interference. Get it?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[gary350 0]

Quote

Please inform me of the specific reasons why Pickering was reversed in those 15 cases.

Then we'll discuss those reversals, and see whether the review was "de novo" or on an "abuse of discretion" standard. Also, why don't we see whether the decision was "reversed" or "reversed and remanded?"

Big things in evaluating the efficacy of a judge. Please, tell us specifically his wrongdoing.

Oy - you're the lawyer - I don't want to look it up. And to be frank, I don't care about the most detailed specifics of why Pickering had an inordinately large number of reversals (26), or why such a large number of them (15) were "unpublished". As you probably suspect, I don't even know what "de novo" means without looking it up. I do read that 11 of the 15 involved constitutional, civil rights, criminal procedure, or labor issues.

I don't feel the need to know the details - I trust the overwhelming evidence as presented by the 5th Circuit Court. It is their job to tell us if a judge is ignoring or violating "well-settled principles of law", not mine. And they have done that, 15 times. These are NOT reversals over a technical error of "goof" - these are reversals due to ignoring or violating "well-settled principles of law" (worth saying again).

Layperson opinion, but it also seems like judges are probably pretty hesitant to reverse other judges - that tells me that these were gross violations. That's as detailed as I need personally. Just a raving lefty bigot I guess.

Sure, maybe the 5th Circuit Court is stacked with lefty, liberal, pinkos who aren't giving the poor guy a fair shake (even though they seem to love CONSERVATIVE Edith Brown Clement, who was NEVER reversed in an unpublished opinion by the 5th Circuit) - I mean it's not like it's one of the more conservative courts in the nation, right? Oh wait! It is!

Sometimes we base our opinions on what others are saying, especially if those others are experts and/or are people we generally trust and respect. You got me again - I'll admit that without knowing the most specific details, I put some weight on the fact that the 5th Circuit Court has reversed a huge number of his cases compared to other conservative judges.

It definitely was one, JUST ONE consideration as I formed my opinion that he is unfit and a racist (or at minimum racially insensitive). I still think it is a good consideration and indication of what kind of person and judge he is.

Please read one of my main sources regarding his judicial record:

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1293

Reversal of Pickering's Decisions on Appeal

Judge Pickering has testified that he will adhere to judicial precedent, but PFAW's report on his record notes that in 15 of the 26 cases in which Pickering has been reversed by the 5th Circuit, it has been through unpublished decisions by the court of appeals. According to 5th Circuit rules, unpublished reversals are used to decide "particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law." Eleven of those 15 cases in which Pickering, according to the 5th Circuit, violated "well-settled principles of law," involved constitutional, civil rights, criminal procedure, or labor issues. It should be noted that Pickering is one of two district court judges within the 5th Circuit nominated by President Bush to that court of appeals. The other, conservative Edith Brown Clement, who was recently elevated to the 5th Circuit after serving as a district court judge for a slightly shorter period than Pickering, was never reversed in an unpublished opinion by the 5th Circuit, according to the information that she provided to the Senate. See PFAW Report at 12.

Judge Pickering pointed out that, as with most federal trial judges, only a small percentage of his decisions overall have been reversed, but did not explain his reversals for violating "well-settled principles of law." Senator Patrick Leahy questioned Pickering specifically about one of those reversals in Rayfield Johnson v. Forrest County Sheriff's Department. In that case, a prisoner made a First Amendment claim against a jail's blanket policy of denying access to magazines by mail. Pickering turned the case over to a magistrate for a recommendation, and the magistrate ignored or missed a 5th Circuit decision, Mann v. Smith, that was the controlling precedent striking down such policies as violating an inmate's First Amendment rights. Functioning much like an appellate judge, Pickering reviewed the magistrate's recommendation and approved it, but did not even consider the Mann case. In other words, the magistrate missed or ignored a controlling 5th Circuit precedent, one involving a First Amendment violation by the jail, and Pickering relied entirely on the magistrate, conducting no research of his own, and essentially rubber stamped what the magistrate had recommended. At the hearing, Pickering's response was that he and the magistrate "goofed" in this case. This was only one of a number of such "goofs" - failure to follow controlling law - as People For the American Way's report documents.

Indeed, even more troubling were Judge Pickering's responses to Senator Leahy's questions about another 5th Circuit reversal for failure to follow "well-settled principles of law" in Abram v. Reichold Chemicals. In that case, Judge Pickering threw out of court permanently the claims of eight "toxic tort" plaintiffs because they had not complied with a case management order. The decision was reversed because Judge Pickering had violated settled law that a trial judge must first try to use lesser sanctions before permanently throwing someone out of court. Senator Leahy was particularly concerned because the Fifth Circuit had reversed Pickering based on the same legal principle three years earlier, in another case in which Pickering had abused his discretion by permanently throwing out a case without trying other alternatives. Judge Pickering responded that he felt he had acted properly, although the Fifth Circuit clearly disagreed.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

or at minimum racially insensitive

And your post reads as though racially insensitive is a bad thing!

I'd prefer to have every judge, every congressman, every politician, and all of my neighbors be labeled as "racially insensitive". Every single one of them.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Which particular statements are untrue. If they're true, then there's no spin, just facts.

Most Democrats prefer a larger government.

Most Democrats are whacko leftists that want Government to control more.

Well, hmmmm Niether statement can be proved "untrue", but there is definately a spin on one of them.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[gary350 0]

Quote

Quote

Which particular statements are untrue. If they're true, then there's no spin, just facts.

Most Democrats prefer a larger government.

Most Democrats are whacko leftists that want Government to control more.

Well, hmmmm Niether statement can be proved "untrue", but there is definately a spin on one of them.

Great example!!! Tell me you meant to type in REPUBLICANS instead of DEMOCRATS!

That is fucking hilarious - the Republican Party is the party of small government and fiscal conservatism. Ah ha ha ha ha! Maybe a look at the numbers would help. Some charts, maybe. . .

I know - you were just making an example - I just was laughing so hard I couldn't help myself. Sorry.

[lawrocket 3]

Want a biased, btu not full of vitriole, opinion on this? let's look at Senator Leahy's site. http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200203/030702a.html

When I have the time, I will respond to these. Leahy's, though biased, is actually a bit more balanced.

Still, I'm going to say something here - much of this that is said about Judge Pickering - and the law in general - is like reading an article about a skydiving incident in a newspaper. "The parachute didn't open" does NOT tell the whole story. There's a lot that goes on inside, and most lawyers view these accusations as one of a thousand examples of where people, and judges, make mistakes.

Nto to excuse the mistakes. If he's reversed, then he's reversed. But Leahy's indicates that he's been reversed and remanded. In one case after reversal, he denied a petition for habeus corpus. After reversal and remand, he denied it again. Though I do not agree with his reasoning, it appears that the second denial was not reversed!

It'll take a whole lot of digging to find out what this guy is like. I wish I had the time for it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[gary350 0]

Quote

Want a biased, btu not full of vitriole, opinion on this? let's look at Senator Leahy's site. http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200203/030702a.html

When I have the time, I will respond to these. Leahy's, though biased, is actually a bit more balanced.

Thanks for this - lots of detail and direct quotes (as you wanted) along with what seem to be highly considered opinions, by a very qualified and informed source, without resorting to labeling like "racist".

Wish I were as disciplined, but I get too pissed off.

From Leahy's conclusion:

I think the nominee’s past views and actions during a difficult time in Mississippi’s history were not irrelevant, but I based my decision on his years on the bench and the record amassed at our hearings. This is a record that is replete with examples of bad judging, littered with cases that demonstrate a misunderstanding of the law in many crucial and sensitive areas, a record that shows a judge inserting his personal views into his judicial opinions, and putting his personal preferences above the law. Based on Judge Pickering’s record, I will vote against confirmation.

[TheAnvil 0]

Gee Gary. I thought your last post was hate filled and full of shyte. This really takes the case. I haven't seen one like this in a while.

Quote

Thanks for the kind suggestion.

All of my suggestions are kind.

Quote

I prefer to channel my disgust with Bush and the Republican party and greedy, hateful, narrow thinking, mean-spirited, sanctimonious right-wingers into efforts to change things.

Read the above then your own words 'attack attack attack' later and bask in your own hypocrisy. Nice of you to include the above in an attack post. Brilliant, in fact. My compliments and thanks.

Quote

You personally have inspired me to volunteer for voter registration and education drives. Thanks.

You're quite welcome. Always glad to help where needed - you obviously need a lot. Remember to wear your 'Thank you Anvil' T-shirt. And to educate yourself. Education is quite important.

Quote

>INSTALL? Bill Lan Lee

Typical right wing tactic. Ignore the issue at hand and compare to some other wrong - real, perceived, manipulated, or just a lie - preferably involving Bill Clinton if at all possible.

No, we conservative types really don't care if it involves Clinton. Just like we don't care what race anyone is - you should try it sometime, by the way. And it is YOU who ignore the fact at hand: both Lee and Pickering were recess appointments. Article 2, section two of that document called the Constitution - you might have heard of it - provides for it. If you have a problem with it, write your congressman. If you're really enterprising and interested, check out US. vs. Allocco or US vs Woodley for references - the latter from the 9th circuit itself, that bastion of liberal activism from the bench.(en banc, no less Lawrocket!)

Quote

And yet another tactic: compare apples and oranges - Lee was installed to an Assistant AG position, NOT a lifetime judicial appointment (not lifetime in Pickering's case - his ass is out of there in '05)

Lee was illegally kept there past the one year mark - and not challenged by the Republicans in congress, to their discredit. Pickering's appointment isn't lifetime, as you mentioned, so I'm having trouble discerning what point you're trying to make here. More than three hundred recess appointments have been made in our nation's history - starting with George Washington. One wonders at your sudden ire at the practice.

Quote

>With regards to Charles Pickering, you might want to get your 'facts' somewhere other than democraticunderground.com or People for the American Way or whatever source from which you obtained them. As presented, they're pretty pathetic.

I'll tell you what I think is pathetic - that statement. Another typical move - attack the person or the source, rather than the facts. Interesting that you don't spend your time introducing other versions of the "facts", or explain why they are not facts, or put your own spin on them. Just a blanket statement that they are pathetic!

And this from someone who appears to get HIS facts from Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc. Ha Ha.

LMFAO. Did I tweak your wittle nerves? Awwwww....and there you go attacking Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. I don't listen to Rush, though I do read his brother David's columns from time to time. I see you admitted previously now that PFAW was your source. As for your 'facts' from this hate-conservatives sight, they presented so vaguely that it's not even worthwhile to go through the morass.

Quote

>For example: 15 times out of HOW MANY? LMFAO. I remember this argument from a couple of years ago.

Gee, ya got me there - I don't know how many. But I did think the rest of the statement (if you read it) was telling: "in contrast, another Bush nominee who was confirmed to the 5th Circuit, Edith Brown Clement, was reversed only once during a slightly shorter tenure as a district court judge."

This after you use Apples and Oranges as your basis of logic? Are you shitting me? Please tell me you were drunk when you wrote this. Our education system cannot be this far degraded. In case it is....

Brown and Pickering have WHAT in common? Did they hear the same # of cases? Same type of cases? Did they sit together en banc somewhere? Go to law school together perhaps? What, exactly, makes your presented comparison statistically relevant? NOTHING. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Live with it. Apples and oranges would be extremely appropriate here.

Quote

Yeah, they probably picked an example on the low end - OK, I want to know - what's the average?

Do your own research, but if memory serves the # was somewhere around the 1% mark for Pickering being overturned. Oh, what a bad bad judge

Quote

>It was pretty stupid then - it still is.

Attack Attack Attack - Rush, Ann, and Bill would be very proud of you. Great role models all.

I stand by my statement - you give no evidence to refute it. For your attack portion of the above, bask in your own hypocrisy once again. Ann Coulter is a great role model, though a bit vitriolic in her prose. Odd you mention her derisively given the tenor of your posts is vitriolic as well. Bill Clinton - not a great role model in almost all respects, but a man who did do some good things once in a while.

Quote

>The cross burning case. Man I LOVE it whan the Swan case is brought up by the lefties. Just love it.
You think this case proves he's a racist, eh? Well, I think that anyone who supports programs that judge people by their race for any reason is about 100000000000000000 times the racist Pickering is. Here's the link for all not acquainted with the case: http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0301/14/m01.html

Another assumption. I don't think it PROVES anything. I think it is another piece of evidence in a glaringly long list that seriously questions the man's commitment to racial equality and his fitness to serve.

Glaringly long list of vague accusations from a conservative hate sight? And you WONDER why I question it? LMFAO. Try again dude.

Quote

And if you are referring to affirmative action, that is another subject entirely - why must you AGAIN bring up the childish tactic of "You're saying bad, bad things about my hero, but YOUR hero is worse - much , much worse!!!"? Can't you defend him by the facts? The right-wing sites have plenty of lists of how well qualified he "is" (what IS the definition of IS anyway? ).

Can't you defend him by presenting your own facts or by refuting the facts about him that have been stated, other than smearing the sources???

Smearing your sources? By calling them vague? By pointing out the irrelevance of the #15 as presented? Don't tell me you actually believe they found the 15 times he was overturned and don't also know the # of cases he reviewed - nobody is that naive. The # as presented is statistically irrelevant.

You refer to Pickering as a racist in your post, so my comparison to Lee using affirmative action is quite appropriate. If you're uncomfortable defending the left's support of racial discrimination, you're in good company with all of the other lefties with whom I've discussed the issue.

Quote

>Here's the link for all not acquainted with the case:

PLEASE people, follow the link for a good laugh! This is Vincent's choice for an in-depth examination of the case? And he ridicules PFAW! The article is from a Mississippi newpaper as told mostly from the poor ol' cross burner's point of view. LMAO! Read as Swan talks about how HE AND PICKERING ARE THE VICTIMS.

You left the link in the other part of the post. Now I know you were drunk. At least I hope so - my faith in the nation's education system isn't totally dead now.

That was one of many links available. Snag a copy of the court proceedings if you like - the facts will all be ther same. Read any you like, but I agree with Pickering's actions there. The sentence was absurd given the crime and the circumstances under which it was committed. Whose point of view it is told from is fairly non-sequitur - the facts are all there. Still love it when you bring the case up as 'evidence' of Pickering's suitability for office. As presented, the pfaw is using people's ignorance of the case and the avid hatred of the KKK's well-known racism to lead them into a conclusion of PFAW's own liking. How deceptive of them. You really WONDER why I call them a non-credible source?

Quote

(I will give that as pathetic an attempt as it is, at least it is an attempt at making an argument instead of changing the subject or whining or name-calling.)

I'll leave the name calling to you. See your first paragraph. Greedy, hate filled, narrow thinking, mean-spirited. Bask in your own hypocrisy once again.

Quote

>I'm not going to waste my time refuting Gary's entire posting of vague accusations against Charles Pickering. Get a grip dude. Your Bush hatred is just out of control, your 'facts' vague, and your argument untenable.

Another nice tactic, to go with "change the subject" and "your guy is worse": Can't or won't come up with arguments or answers to presented "facts", so label them all vague and pathetic, label motives as "Bush hatred", and label all arguments as "untenable". And state that doing otherwise is a waste of time.

I stand by my statement. Change the subject? Nope- the vagueness of many of your pfaw ravings is fairly obvious and one of the main reasons they aren't credible. Your use of the term 'install' given the long history of recess appointments also makes your rant unredible right from the start. If you choose to consider such garbage tenable, that's your prerogative.

Quote

Yeah - don't waste your time, Vincent, or ours

I'm sorry Gary. You've mistaken me for the sorry dumbass who actually respects your arrogance. How silly of you. For the record, I don't. Try again dude. A for effort, F for content. Don't give up hope. Given a few years of reading newspapers, magazines, learning basic statistics, and more than passive PFAW/NAACP/DNC involvement with the political process, one day you too might be able to have the honor of calling yourself a conservative.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

Didn't mean to ignore you Benny. Got distracted by Gary's latest anti-Anvil rant. Quite amusing.

I'd support non-race based affirmative action if it were based upon parents'/guardians' tax returns or something of the like AND merit were still the primary factor. I think most other conservatives would as well. Most liberals too. I think billvon and I might have discussed something of the sort a while back - I forget.

I've always considered legacy or bought admissions to universities non-sequitur to the race-based affirmative action discussion.

Beers and blues dude,

Vinny the Anvil

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Didn't mean to ignore you Benny. Got distracted by Gary's latest anti-Anvil rant. Quite amusing.

I'd support non-race based affirmative action if it were based upon parents'/guardians' tax returns or something of the like AND merit were still the primary factor. I think most other conservatives would as well. Most liberals too. I think billvon and I might have discussed something of the sort a while back - I forget.

Quote

How would you evaluate the relative merit of someone from a fancy private school who achieved a 1300 SAT score, with someone from an inner city ghetto school who received a 1250 SAT, if you were a college admission officer? As a professor, I know which one would be more likely to succeed in a college class.

I've always considered legacy or bought admissions to universities non-sequitur to the race-based affirmative action discussion.

Quote

That's not logical.

They are both "affirmative" action, just based on different criteria. One gives preference to someone on account of his or her parents' education or donations, and the other on account of his or her parents' race. In either case, someone gets preference based on who their parents are.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Didn't mean to ignore you Benny. Got distracted by Gary's latest anti-Anvil rant. Quite amusing.

I'd support non-race based affirmative action if it were based upon parents'/guardians' tax returns or something of the like AND merit were still the primary factor. I think most other conservatives would as well. Most liberals too. I think billvon and I might have discussed something of the sort a while back - I forget.

Quote

How would you evaluate the relative merit of someone from a fancy private school who achieved a 1300 SAT score, with someone from an inner city ghetto school who received a 1250 SAT, if you were a college admission officer?

Hmmm - no answer yet. Must have been a difficult question!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites