Skip to main content

View Diary: Opening the Door (281 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Mostly because I am too young to know... (4.00)
    But what is stopping him from lying about these decisions and ect?

    "Hindsight maybe be 20/20, but foresight can be too, assuming your head isn't up you ass" -me

    by WHSwarrior87 on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 07:44:54 AM PDT

    •  Back in the old days, kid, there (4.00)
      used to be this thing called 'integrity.' Oh, I know you whippersnappers laugh at the idea nowadays, when you're not egging my house, what with the Bush administration's constant, blatant lying and spinning, and the media's fascination with 'Shape of the Earth: Views Differ' truth claims instead of truth. Really. Honest. Hey, stop laughing! And sit up straight, dammit.

      Let there be sharks - TracieLynn

      by GussieFN on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 07:50:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sadly, I must differ. (4.00)
        Back in the old days there was this thing called "pretending people had integrity." It was bad manners to call someone a liar.

        From what I know of history, there has always been blatant lying and spinning. The difference now is that we have the ability to record and replay history with audio and video, and to hold our elected leaders at least partly accountable to the facts.

        The neocons will not give us our country back. If we want it back, we'll have to take it.
        --Lila Garrett

        by peacemonger on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:54:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Perjury is a sacrament to these people (none)
      The only way to derail this will be with proof of unethical or illegal behavior, it's out there but it must be found quickly now.
    •  Also loss of respect and influence... (none)
      ...on the Court itself.

      Even if he were so lacking in integrity -- which I do not believe -- others (not all) on the Court would shun him after such a stunt. Close cases where a respected and influential Chief could sway the Court would not be swayed.

      I've got blisters on my fingers!

      by Elwood Dowd on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:06:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But still... (none)
        as we've seen, the need to portray themselves as one thing takes precedent over all else...I have no doubt that, like his boss ("I'm a uniter, not a divider"), he will show his true colors in no
        time flat.

        "Stop comparing Bush to Hitler. Hitler was a decorated war veteran who saw front line combat." - Bill Maher

        by Jank2112 on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:19:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Reversing Roe would kill the GOP (none)
      And they know it.  Bush will not give us a court that will kill the GOP golden goose.
      •  Nope (none) would just throw the issue to the states, and the Rethuglicans would exploit it at that level.  

        They'd get the best of both worlds:  appear to be rewarding their base, while allowing them to beg for donations to 50 separate fights.  It would be a windfall for the 'Thugs.

        Rubus Eradicandus Est.

        by Randomfactor on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:45:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Balkin's point (none)
        Professor Balkin has said as much, as well. (I'm too lazy to look up the link right now, but Balkinization should have some archives on this.)

        Reversing privacy protection would have devastating long-term effects for the GOP, as it would open the door to banning birth control, abortion, and the scant gay rights protections outlined in Lawrence and based on Griswold's precendent. That's tempting red meat for the social wingnut base, but it would be devastating to the GOP if lost the ability to stir up its crowd with inflamatory emotional language about dead babies and wanton sex fiends.

        No, Roe and privacy are fairly safe, in my opinion. The GOP likes to keep that carrot around to wave in front of its social base.

        I'm much more worried at this point on the ever-growing unchecked powers of the police granted through PATRIOT I/II and the too-corporate friendly decisions coming down from the court recently. On the social base, the one issue that remains a troubling question mark to me is affirmative action. I'll be the first to pop the champagne when we can do away with affirmative action laws because we've truly built a society where opportunity is not colorblind, but we sure ain't there yet.

    •  N-O-T-H-I-N-G! (none)
      The guy is not some moron. Does anyone think he's going to outBork Bork?

      Does anyone think he's going to say, I don't think there is a right to privacy?

      by nyceve on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:34:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He could have dodge... (none)
        He could have said something to the effect of:  "That matter deals directly and indirectly with cases currently pending or likely to arise in the future and therefore I am barred by the cannons of legal and judicial ethics from commenting on the matter.."
    •  Impeachment (none)
      Isn't there an impeachment process for Justices? I recall the "Impeach Earl Warren" posters of years ago.

      He's got 30, 40 years ahead of him and possibly more depending on medical advances. That's a very long exposure to a possible Democratic resurgence if he becomes widely agreed to have lied in these hearings, or grossly misbehaving in office going forward.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 09:04:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (144)
  • Community (70)
  • Baltimore (64)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Freddie Gray (38)
  • Civil Rights (37)
  • Elections (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (26)
  • Culture (24)
  • Racism (23)
  • Education (20)
  • Labor (20)
  • Media (19)
  • Law (19)
  • Economy (18)
  • Rescued (17)
  • Science (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Politics (15)
  • Environment (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site