If nothing else the lying right is consistent. They are not interested in doing anything for our President, period. They probably would deny him a tissue if he had a cold. As far as I am concerned it just keeps on proving how repugnant the New GOP/TP has become. Shameless impotent little babies all of them.

Can you say RECESS APPOINTMENT? Aren't these putzes going home over Memorial Day?

That's how I would handle this 'brand' of bs. moving on.

Yes I agree....President Obama should make as many recess appointments that he can. That should stick in the Republicans craw.

Alito and Roberts are not 'activist'? Will someone explain this to me, in plain, simple language. Caveat- it has to make sense.

Thank you.

Remember back when Bush was president and the republicans were insisting that Bush's nominees MUST be given up or down votes? Isn't it funny how they no longer think that when a democrat is president?

This is going to shock most of you, and I realize that this is going to be hard to believe but Fox News' Bill O'Reilly edited a video of Liu speaking to make it look like Liu believes in reparations.

Now, we all know that everyone makes mistakes when "editing" so lets give Bill the benefit of the doubt because after all, O'Reilly did go after John Stewart for doing the same on the Daily Show. I guess Bill is finally admiting that his show is in the same category....comedy...or tragedy, I'm not sure which one.

We all know the real reason for this is that it will create JOBS. That is all the republicans care about is JOBS. Obviously you do not see the connection. Everything they have done everyday since their mandate last November has been to increase JOBS. Unemployment probably dropped a full percentage point today alone thanks to this action.

Isn't it funny how they no longer think that when a democrat is president?

You mean lke this MG?

Just six short years ago, Republicans sang a very different tune when it came to judicial filibusters. Senate Republicans almost unanimously declared filibusters of judicial nominees to be a horrific betrayal of their constitutional role. Many Republicans outright declared judicial filibusters to be unconstitutional. Here is a representative sample of how current GOP senators felt about such filibusters when a Republican was in the White House:

• Lamar Alexander (R-TN): “I would never filibuster any President’s judicial nominee, period. I might vote against them, but I will always see they came to a vote.”

• Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA): “Every judge nominated by this president or any president deserves an up-or-down vote. It’s the responsibility of the Senate. The Constitution requires it.”

• Tom Coburn (R-OK): “If you look at the Constitution, it says the president is to nominate these people, and the Senate is to advise and consent. That means you got to have a vote if they come out of committee. And that happened for 200 years.”

• John Cornyn (R-TX): “We have a Democratic leader defeated, in part, as I said, because I believe he was identified with this obstructionist practice, this unconstitutional use of the filibuster to deny the president his judicial nominations.

• Mike Crapo (R-ID): “Until this Congress, not one of the President’s nominees has been successfully filibustered in the Senate of the United States because of the understanding of the fact that the Constitution gives the President the right to a vote.”

• Chuck Grassley (R-IA): “It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60, and that’s essentially what we’d be doing if the Democrats were going to filibuster.”

• Mitch McConnell (R-KY): “The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation.”
• http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/19/liu-filibuser/

Are these quotes from Jan/2001 to Jan/2009?

While I'm happy to see this lefty liberal sent beck to Berkeley, I have to say he would have fit right in with this court. It is referred to as the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals and has the distinct privilege and high honor of having the worst record of all the circuit courts in terms of having its decisions overturned by the SC. The Ninth Circus is a joke.

they voted, he did not make it, next.

Obama just alienated the Jewish vote don't you think?

They're from 2005 bayllie...

Listen - the bottom line is the 9th circuit is a mess. In fact it is a laughingstock. Most successful challenges of any circuit - in fact all other circuits combined, is this one.

And this particular candidate is just bad.

Like you all always say - unless you are in the 9th circuit, it really is not your concern.

I am, I practice in it and have to deal with this court's rulings. This is not just about politics. This court is just messed up.

Potent quotables, Feisty.

Lack of consistency is the root of the problem.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

They're from 2005 bayllie...

I figured...the wind was blowing in a different direction back then.

True American-2366567

REPOST COURTESY OF THE COLLAPSE COWARDS!

I guess you disagree with the democratic voting. Apparently most don't like what you have to say.

First he says this:

" that liberals "have the opportunity to actually get our ideas and the progressive vision of the Constitution and of law and policy into practice."

How can he then sit there with a straight face and say this ??:

" that "whatever I may have written in the books and the articles would have no bearing on my action as a judge."

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2011/05/18/6670436-obama-court-pick-may-be-headed-for-senate-defeat

Those 2 statements completely contradict each other...What a freakin' liar !!!

He's never even served 1 day as Judge....How about some experience as a judge in traffic court, divorce court, criminal court before being put on the bench at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ??

Obama wants to get as many of these liberal law professors onto the courts as he possibly can.

" This is a new judgeship seat created by the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007; which became effective on January 21, 2009."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwin_Liu

Obama stacking the courts....They don't get any further left than Goodwin Liu

Mike in Delray: Be that as it may (and I am raising an eyebrow at Liu's track record), the Senate should still have gotten to a cloture vote. It's only fair.

True American (now with numbers!): "REPOST COURTESY OF THE COLLAPSE COWARDS"

I thought that was you again - weren't you already banned from this board at least three times under three different names? Are you going for the record or something?

Are you going for the record or something?

Yup! That's them!

It's only a matter of time before they go berserk again and get bounced!

Now that was some funny sh!t! LMAO

While we're on the subject of imposters, err.. I mean posters, I see where Exodite Dragon was also banned and has risen again as: ed(numbers)! lol

If nothing else, this issue serves to point out that:

Conservatives don't like any activist... unless it is their own activist. Especially on any Federal Court (Roberts, Alito, Thomas)

Conservatives aren't interested in balance or fairness or equal representation.

Conservatives are more than willing, and able, to flip flop on any statements they may have made, including those statements about not filibustering judicial nominations.

Despite protests that the Democrats hold, held or will hold a super majority in either house of congress, any action can be derailed at will by a handful of legislators in opposition.

Conservatives are true to their word in that their chief objective is to see Obama fail. Even at the cost of their own failure. And the nation's failure.

There appears to be an innate mistrust of anything in this country that represents intellect and knowledge.

So sad. We are squandering our possibilities due to extremism.

The Rethugs have stated over and over, they want to make Pres. Obama a one term president. They have fought him tooth and nail on every single issue, even ones they previously supported. They said they would do it, and they are. Where's the anger from the public? They make me sick! Nothing ever gets done, and where in the hell are the JOBS? Lie, lie, lie.

So it was you! I was just guessing - seems like once upon a time there was someone going by "True American" who got to the point where he/she could only froth at the mouth about "Cowardly Libs!!!!!" all day. Then after having a number of posts shown here as being not just collapsed, but deleted by the monitors, a few days later someone with the exact same style of writing shows up under the name "Cowardly Libs" (hey, not too obvious or anything!) A few days later that person suddenly disappears and next thing you know there's someone named "True Disabled FR User" or something even MORE obvious. I mean, come on - my 9-year-old nephew could've figured that one out!

Well, in any case, welcome back. Maybe next time you should try using "I Heart Obama" - I promise, no one will ever catch on!

All this talk of getting banned.

I miss Eric for Salinas. A brilliant mind, that one.

It seems Bev. is working on getting banned today. I sure hope not. :(

Watch out, Feisty! Apparently I'm a domestic terrorist for having a sense of humor. :p

This group of filthy politicians cares nothing for America - just their own rich friends. I hope in 2012 people see the GOP for what it is - dishonest and disgusting. Anything to block President Obama - nothing to help the country - like where are the jobs they campaigned on.

Is this not the crack-pot who suggested that government (U.S. Taxpayers) pay repparations to the decendants of former slaves? Damn right derail his appointment. A Republican president freed them and then they got their "40 acres and a mule". Wether or not they built on that is individual responcibility. Nothing more is owed.

Blocked. Excellent.

Are you kidding? This guy is one of the most qualified people on earth for the position.

MGinRochester

Remember back when Bush was president and the republicans were insisting that Bush's nominees MUST be given up or down votes? Isn't it funny how they no longer think that when a democrat is president?

_______________________

Funny? Not really. Both Graham and McCain were the rethugli-con point men in getting a comprimise so bushie would get his appointees through the Senate. Unfortunately neither has the honor to live up to their side of the bargain when the President is of a different party. At one time I had much respect for both men for their military service, esp. McCain for what he endured. As military men, esp as officers, I would expect both to have honor. Obviously I was wrong. It seems both are nothing more than partisan hacks.

bayllie

True American-2366567

REPOST COURTESY OF THE COLLAPSE COWARDS!

I guess you disagree with the democratic voting. Apparently most don't like what you have to say.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

bayllie,

You are wrong. This post, along with many others on here, should never have been collapsed. He/she isn't using profanity, calling anyone names, or attacking anyone. The individual is expressing a view, be it popular or not. Collapsing a post just because one doesn't agree with it's content is wrong and is in direct contradiction of the values I believe in.

zath

Anyone from that liberal cesspool Berkeley should automatically be disallowed. Maybe if Obama didn't submit nominees so far out of the American mainstream they might actually get approved.

=======================

zath,

I feel the exact same way about Mr(s), Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alioto. The most unqualified bunch of trash to ever sit on the SC. Another reason why no intelliogent, rational American should EVER vote for a rethugli-cant Presidential candidate.

Could it be YOU who is so far outside the American mainstream, eh?

I see the liberal name calling hasn't been given a vacation day. Honestly rethugli-con? You liberals are funny! Sad little clowns.

What the liberals can't understand but yet they have a deep seated fear of is how the pendulum is swinging back to the right. For 2 years they enjoyed total control of a liberal based government. What they failed to see is that while those 2 years were going on, conservatives were working to stop the onslaught of liberalism in this country. In 2010 liberals were kicked out of the House of Representatives. There weren't enough liberals to kick out of the Senate so they retained majority by one vote. Kind of hard to kick out a liberal senator in a totally liberal district.

Facing the 2012 elections, the liberals are growing more and more nasty. The spin about republicans is getting faster and less accurate. It's turning into outright lies and misconceptions. Unfortunately liberals are so blinded by their fear and hatred they will continue to their own demise. They hear one talking point and they use it over and over again... always looking backwards and trying to make comparisons with and thinking they can use it against the republicans.

An up or down vote... did the democrats honor that during the Bush administration? I think not. Now the liberals are demanding that the Republicans live by a request that the Democrats didn't honor. My, how noble of the democrats. All this criticism of the republicans because they found a lot of flaws with Liu.

What is it about liberals? They want, want and want more but never deliver themselves. Holding republicans to blame for things they, themselves wouldn't do. There's a word for that.... but no matter how many times it's said, it falls on greedy, selfserving ears.

The GOP is a joke!

First they destroy the country through their malfeasance of the 8 years of the Bush Administration debacle the worst president in history now they want the country to fail thinking that will get them back into power, so they can rule over a pile of rubble.

The GOP is a perfect example of what is wrong with politics today and now the obstructionist party of NO is at it again. All the Conservatives want to do is destroy the middle class with their destruction of Medicare and their destruction of Social security.

[quote]

fielden

If nothing else, this issue serves to point out that:

Conservatives don't like any activist... unless it is their own activist. Especially on any Federal Court (Roberts, Alito, Thomas)

Conservatives aren't interested in balance or fairness or equal representation.

Conservatives are more than willing, and able, to flip flop on any statements they may have made, including those statements about not filibustering judicial nominations.[/quote]

Democrats do the same exact thing.

I read somewhere that the ABA said Liu was not qualified for this position at this time. If that's true, why was he nominated?

Witchking is a perfect example of what was written in post 1.40

Bill, he was nominated because he's a liberal activist professor. Obama wants these types of judges in order to change the social structure of the country. Liu never served as a judge before. Professors and judges are two totally different job descriptions.

Fiesty,

All you are doing for me today is pointing out the hypocritical angles between the Dems and Reps. When will somebody finally step up and finally start to lead this country? Sorry for the late response, just got home.

And I'm with Brian B. Get the professors out of the court systems, and the same goes for business people.

Brianb-999431

I see the liberal name calling hasn't been given a vacation day. Honestly rethugli-con? You liberals are funny! Sad little clowns.

What the liberals can't understand but yet they have a deep seated fear of is how the pendulum is swinging back to the right. For 2 years they enjoyed total control of a liberal based government.

======================

Poor brianb.

Why is it you constantly post inaccurate/misleading information? Do you have an inkling of how our government works or are you just a paid troll for the rethugli-cants (and no it's not name calling)? Only in your delusional little world did the Dems have "total control" of the government. Yes, that occured for a very short time, then rethugli-cants in the Senate became the party of "no". No to everything.

Even though I've explained it to you several times already, seems like facts just don't get through to you, I'll explain it again. Listen closely. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to bring debate on a bill to a close and a vote. Since the Dems, for most of the two years you're bellyaching about, had 59 votes they needed a rethug to vote to close. Most of the time they couldn't get one. I know this is hard on you but the rethugli-cants became the obstructionist party. What is sooooooo ironic about the rethugs actions for the last two years is their hypocracy: in 2005 they wanted to do away with the filibuster so jr's appointees could get a "straight up or down vote". Remember? Some how too many of you right wing extremests seem to have forgotten that. I guess it's different when YOUR party is in power and it's being done to you, right?

BTW brian----there's one clown down. The Donald. Newt is next. I doubt Sarah or Michelle will end up running. Who ya got? Mitt? You cons already hate him. I think the word funny describes the GOP.

imwhitewolf - I love a good challenge. Unfortunately, you aren't one of them. First of all, you don't know me from Adam. You do not know my political affiliation but you make silly assumptions. That only serves to make you look like a fool when you use your attack dog tactics. How liberal of you to make that attempt.

The party of no voted no because they were vying to stop the forward march of liberal legislation. Too bad for your group, I guess. You and the liberals didn't get all that you wanted, to transform this country into your socialist mecca. Bully for the republicans that said no. I heard all the whining and crying when they were doing it. Made me proud. At least they were using rules that were set up by some pretty wise men to allow for checks and balances.

Now the shoe is on the other foot... the democrats wouldn't give Bush an up or down vote at the request of the republicans. They didn't do it and now the hypocritical democrats/liberals think they can throw it in the faces of those that are simply returning the favor. Won't work hombre. You can't blame the republicans for following the democrat example... your whining and crying and stomping your feet won't change it. Your name calling and acting like a child won't change it either. It's politics.. get used to it.

For all your posturing, and arrogance, you liberals still look and act like children.

Imwhitewolf.

Waste of time. For starters, the reps have never had 60 votes, yet government happened. In fact, they controlled the house and senate less than 20% of the last 50 years. Yet government happened. I will assume that you don't need 60+ votes in the Dem party to make government happen.

2nd. Palenty will jump out. A Rep. governor, that had a 75% dem senate, and 70% dem house that still showed leadership, in a liberal state.

Kind of our of nowhere, kind of like Obama.

laurie-480643

Yes I agree....President Obama should make as many recess appointments that he can. That should stick in the Republicans craw.

Kudos and spoken like a true American

If all the republicans can do is stranglehold our country under the facade of being better leadership, then the president should play all the dirty pool tricks he has to pass whatever needs to be passed while they are big headed enough to think they can stall our country while going home for a break without succeeding in the least at what they were elected to do.

Thank you to everybody sticking to the old " If they can do it, and did do it, then it is our turn to screw them back"

A lot of help that brings to the country.

Look at those Feisty Republicans, acting just like Democrats. Like you really think this was going to go any other way. Pluuueeese - these two clown-like parties will not change. Obama never passes up a chance to ridicule the right, makes a buffoon of himself at the border with his beyond-idiotic rants regarding his mythical security success, and now you guys want "fair"?

ah hahahahahahahaha!

Just reading the board I see all the lefties are whining and using childish terms like rethuglicans. That really helps to support your point when it turns to 5th grade name calling. But I guess they forget when Bush wanted to reform the economy and the Dems blocked it all as the party of no. It's nice to have those short memories.

And he wants reperations. Wasn't the Republican party formed to fight the Dems because they did not want to abolish slavery.

This arguing will go back and forth depending on who has the control of the Houses. Bottom line is Dem or GOP we get screwed when one party has total control of Washington. Look at history when the Houses are divided the middle class always does the best.

There's no such thing as a poor politician!

Obama's pick so far haven't been of much help. They have largely gone along with conservatives justices attacks on our basic civil liberties.

Read below for more on this:

US Supreme Court gives green light to warrant-less searches of homes

By Tom Carter
19 May 2011

A decision Monday by the US Supreme Court represents a further major step in abolishing the basic civil liberties protections in the Bill of Rights and enhancing the arbitrary powers of the police. The decision permits police to conduct searches of private homes without a warrant under a mundane pretext.

The issue in the case, Kentucky v. King, decided 8-1, was whether the police should have obtained a search warrant before they kicked in the door of Hollis Deshaun King’s apartment, conducted a search, and found marijuana. King was sentenced to 11 years in prison.

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, enacted in 1791 in the aftermath of the American Revolution, guarantees to the people “[t]he right … to be secure in their houses… against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Fourth Amendment also requires that police seek the authorization of a neutral judge, in the form of a warrant, before undertaking a search or seizure. To obtain the warrant, the police are required to demonstrate “probable cause.”

The Fourth Amendment, together with the Third Amendment, which prohibits the government from quartering soldiers in private homes, arose out of a profound hatred and resentment towards arbitrary government intrusions into the home, as well as an understanding that protection of the privacy of the home is necessary to political freedom.

The US Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote in 1948 that the Fourth Amendment requirement that the government obtain a warrant to conduct a search is among the “fundamental distinctions between our form of government, where officers are under the law, and the police-state where they are the law.”

In King’s case, no warrant was ever issued. The police, including an undercover officer, followed a person they believed was carrying drugs to King’s apartment complex, where one officer said he “smelled marijuana” outside King’s home. The officers, who had no warrant to search King’s apartment, decided not to seek a warrant and instead pounded loudly on the door, shouting “This is the police! Police! Police! Police!”

After not receiving an answer and hearing vaguely described “noises” coming from inside, the officers broke the door down, searched the apartment, and arrested King, his girlfriend, and a guest. As it turned out, the person the police had been following never entered King’s home.

Over the past several decades, the US Supreme Court has made Swiss cheese out of the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, inventing myriad exceptions that together nearly swallow the rule. These exceptions cover a wide range of scenarios. Warrant-less searches of automobiles and warrant-less “frisks” of suspects, for example, have been tolerated for decades....

....All but one justice on the US Supreme Court, including the erstwhile “liberal” Obama appointees Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, joined in the decision to eviscerate the “police-created exigency” doctrine....

...Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her brief dissent, makes clear that this decision will have devastating immediate consequences. “The Court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases,” she wrote.”In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.”

In other words, for all practical purposes, all a police officer has to do in order to search a person’s house without a warrant is approach the front door, knock, listen, and then announce, “I think evidence is being destroyed!” Then the police may break down the door and search the house...

....In a host of recent decisions, all of which in one way or another purport to show “deference” to the executive, whether for reasons of “national security,” “state secrets,” or the “exigencies” of police work, the Supreme Court is abandoning any effort to restrain the exercise of executive power. These decisions, taken together, effectively relegate a US judge to the same role as a judge in a police state, who functions merely as an after-the-fact rubber stamp for executive decisions....

.

...In her dissent, Ginsburg quoted at some length a warning by Justice Jackson in 1948: “The right of officers to thrust themselves into a home is … a grave concern, not only to the individual but to a society which chooses to dwell in reasonable security and freedom from surveillance. When the right of privacy must reasonably yield to the right of search is, as a rule, to be decided by a judicial officer, not a policeman …”

The disappearance of this sentiment from the pages of majority opinions of the US Supreme Court should be taken as a warning of things to come.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/may2011/spct-m19.shtml

I don't really give a hoot who or what WAS at fault for where we are ( there are fingers to be pointed in a lot of directions) The fact IS it IS the responsibility NOW and for the foreseeable future for the current government to put the people of this country in the best place to move ahead. This is the point of government in my mind, not to dodge bullet or deflect issues

Blog all you want just do it on your own time, the rest of the working world is on the clock. The country is different now, the world is different, change is a constant, keep up or get out of the way - Tdahl (cdahl's other half)

cdahl,

You should care,...because continuing the path that got us here isn't going to reverse the situation.

What is the saying,...when you find yourself in a hole STOP digging? Well, unless the intent is to bury the evidence? Then dig away. However, when you see a Republican in a hole with a shovel,...go ahead and take the shovel away,...they don't even realize they're subterranean.

It is beyond naive to imply that one brand is the same as the other. Or that the motives of one brand are the same as the other. It is patently obvious to those who think, reason and READ that Democrats are the party of the PEOPLE and Republicans are the party of the CORPORATIONS. I suggest people vote accordingly.

Hi Arch,

I'm not sure the point of the article unless it's to demonstrate why Ginsburg herself should not be on the court. The argument isn't that cops can knock, listen, and then kick in the door to any home they approach. In this case, King's apartment had marijuana smells emanating from it, and while I disagree that marijuana should be illegal it was and is in this jurisdiction.

So the cops "smell" a crime in progress and act. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me given it was a crime. What other senses should cops not be able to act on as well? They "hear" what appears to be gunfire and then a scream of pain. And the answer? Let's wait until we can get a warrant? Or they "see" a man in his own home exposing himself to the neighbor kids. The judge ought to be in soon, so let's wait?

Had the cops smelled nothing, and so had no reason to knock, then the search should be ruled illegal, but this wasn't the case. There is no evisceration of the 4th Amendment here, just another case solidifying the concept that has always been the case in the USA: If you are in the act of committing a crime, or will be before a judge can issue a warrant, then that exigency allows for immediate police action. Even in your own home.

King's misfortune in this case didn't arise out of the police kicking in his door after it was not opened, it arose when someone the cops were following, suspected of having drugs on them, went too near to King's door, so near that the cops could smell the drugs being used inside. The fact that King had bad luck while committing a crime doesn't change the fact that King WAS committing a crime.

The only thing Ginsburg gets right that is repeated in the article is that we run the risk that cops will be more inclined to say they heard, or smelled, or felt something amiss in order to justify a warrant-less search. But this has always been the case, and always will be.

Rich-281385

Hi Arch,

I'm not sure the point of the article unless it's to demonstrate why Ginsburg herself should not be on the court. The argument isn't that cops can knock, listen, and then kick in the door to any home they approach. In this case, King's apartment had marijuana smells emanating from it, and while I disagree that marijuana should be illegal it was and is in this jurisdiction.

Rich: You're taking the cops word for what they "smelled"? Can I sell you some mortgage backed securities, too?

They could claim they smelled marijuana emanating from anybodies house (even yours and since you are for legalization maybe they would even have cause to) is it OK for them to break down your door then and search your house and maybe tazer or shoot someone who it looked like "had a gun"?

Also these kinds of goon squad tactics are never done in the rich or upper middle class neighborhoods. They never "smell" marijuana emanating from a posh house in the Hamptons, etc. even though the rich and their children do plenty of drugs.

It's always in the poor or lower middle class part of town the cops noses are so delicately attuned to criminal activity being committed therein.

Does that give you any reason to be skeptical?

A lot has changed since last November. The Republicans have revealed themselves as the corporate hacks that they truly are. Their desires to steal from Grannies and children to pay for corporate tax cuts in a budget that fails to reduce the deficit... yeah, a lot has changed since last November. People won't be staying home this time.

Amy, some people like living in the past and are easily deceived. Most Americans have come to see the deception in the last election and have come realize that the Party of No! is based on lies and deception. For those that have been fooled, they will have their revenge in 2012. The Party of No! is slowly imploding.

Your prediction may well come true, the odds are in your favor.

This may have sounded funny back in November since I too wanted the Republicans who were elected to work with the Dems and the president and get to the country's business. Since they have over-played their hand over and over again, I am afraid I could not vote for ANY Republican candidate that has been hijacked by the Tea Party. That being said, a lot of Americans are feeling that in order for ANYTHING to get done (jobs bills for example), those standing in the way (meaning republicans) will be swept aside. We will once again end up with the government we deserve.

True American-2366567

cavorting with Soros more likely ...and nobody except socialists like that......small victory in the fight to stop the spread of big government and progressivism!!!

You mean like the socialist Koch brother who re-distribute the wealth to promulgate their greed for more money?

Koch Brother Buys Professors At Florida University to Spread Free Market Propaganda --

http://www.alternet.org/story/150892/koch_brother_buys_professors_at_public_university_to_spread_free_market_propaganda_--_is_public_education_the_kochs'_next_front

Possible Liu Cloture Vote Is a Truth-Telling Contest For Conservative
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2011/05/17/liu-truth-telling/

Richard Painter, a former lawyer in the Bush White House, argues that the GOP should give Obama judicial nominee Goodwin Liu an up-or-down vote. “He’s an excellent choice, and should be confirmed,” Painter said of Liu. “Most important, the seat should not remain vacant because the Senate refuses to fulfill its constitutional mandate and vote on this.http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55248.html?wpisrc=nl_wonk

Sessions: Goodwin Liu Should Not Be Confirmed Because He Agrees With Scalia On Welfare
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/tag/goodwin-liu/

FYI: Liu does believe that the Constitution provides certain protections that ensure fair and equal access to welfare — but so does conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia, who, like Liu, spent most of his career in the legal academy and government service before becoming a judge, joined the Supreme Court’s decision in Saenz v. Roe. Saenz struck down a California law on constitutional grounds because it denied some California residents a portion of their welfare benefits. So if Liu’s stance on constitutional welfare disqualifies him from the federal bench, it also disqualifies Scalia.

This is hardly the first time that Sessions and his fellow conservatives held one of Obama’s judicial nominees to a standard that Scalia himself would fail.

Bev...I think maybe you should check the other thread you just left before you go spouting off with more of your thinkprogress propaganda......LOL!.....sheep

True American,

you must have been out of the country last November

you apparently don't follow the voting pattern of the American voter. Look at the past Congress makeup and you will see that the voter does not like when one party has majority in all three areas: president, House and Senate.

True American - I wouldn't laugh so hard if I were you. Things can turn on a dime and from what I see...they're turning 360 degrees! Oh my!

laurie.....I think you need to see your eye doctor

amy, you must have been hugging a tree the last couple of years, ain't going to happen. Gorham mill just bought in NH, better go hug some more trees

true american.......i understand how you don't want to see the house flip and the senate stay dem because of your ideology but if you open those little pin holes you call eyes you will see the electorat has once again changed. do you really think the average american, the TRUE AMERICAN likes getting screwed. well they don't so guess what .......there is another wave coming and the GOP is getting swept out to sea. and you can partially thank the tea party and GROVER NORQUIST. see ya in november 2012.

Laurie, Agree since turning 360 brings you back the where you already were. Now turn 180 and try again.

conservitive republicans are now called RINO. reagan would be a RINO. there is no gop its now the TP. i voted for reagan, i won't be voteing for republicans anymore. the tea party is so far right, they call us longstanding republicans, socialists, marxist and unamerican under the guise of "patriotism", sorry i for one know i'm a patriot, but i don't have to scream it.

2nd Term? Thanks! I needed a good laugh today.

And reminds them of Citizens United....that allowed corporations to donate unspecified or unlimited amount of money to any candidates without disclosure.

dji,

You are correct... the average american has seen the change - and we don't like it when our elected officials have to take a vote and instead run away and hide like a bunch of crybabies.

Bev:

Nice post. The shameless little right wing weasels see the handwriting on the wall. They are loosing the public trust period. People are not going to support a party that

1. Wants to repeal Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security

2. Wants to control Women's Reproductive Rights in violation of our constitution

3. Wants to disenfranchise millions and millions of voters based on a lie by the right

4. Wants to make education available only the the rich and the hell with everybody else

5. Wants to deny Gay rights

6. Wants religious intolerance back

7. Wants to let Wall Street go unregulated so they can finish off the job they started

8. Wants to redistribute more wealth and power to the 2% and make the middle class pay for it in Spending Cuts to over 50 Social Programs

This is only a partial list, but people are still out at rallies, the politicians are getting hammered at their own town meetings, the Tea Party is in control of the GOP now, 6 Republican State Senators are facing recall in WI come July, and the list goes on as well.

This is the problem you have to deal with one one party has no new ideas, they break promises to the American people in a heart beat, where are the JOBS, Economic Stimulus etc. They promise to behave on the Judicial Appointments and do just the opposite.

All the New GOP/TP stands for now is that they are the party of liars, retreads and frauds. They are shameless in their actions and blame everybody else for the problems that they have created. The sad part is that a % believe their crap because they have long ago stopped using their brains and let the GOP lead them around like little puppies. And then the same people who let the GOP lead them around the block, complain.

They can try and spin all they want, all the American people have to do is look at the legislation they have passed and are trying to pass. Look at the over 400 Bills they either blocked, filibustered or oppossed.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

Bev:

Nice post. The shameless little right wing weasels see the handwriting on the wall. They are loosing the public trust period. People are not going to support a party that

Thank you

Yes, I do blame the right for their lack of sensitivity and morals in America including the Governator.

Paul Ryan Wants to throw Grandma and Grandpa under the bus

A 41-year-old naked white man who was caught on tape yelling the N-word and attacking black passengers in a NYC subway had to undergo psychological evaluations.

He even told a police officer “Shoot me N-word!”

http://newsone.com/nation/newsonestaff4/naked-man-subway-6-train-racist-n-word/

To me the most shameless remark came from Newt Gingrich In Georgia when he said the 2012 Presidential Election Is the Most Important Since 1860.

Really now, before the Civil War? Newt's poisonous remarks brings out the crazies like the guy in NY. Does Newt want another civil war or a New Jim Crow? Dunno

Well put, Beverly, USNDVR. It's nice to see someone out there countering all the ridiculous things the teabaggers spout every day. It seems they keep getting free passes on their BS.

And might I add, USNDVR, since I haven't done so in all the months I've seen you on the Vine, thank you for your prior service. The military we have today is build upon the hard work and dedicated service of those who came before us. It's people like you that make me proud to be an American, and inspire my actions every day.

Toasty McGrath

Well put, Beverly, USNDVR

Thank you Toasty

I try

Toasty M:

Thank you for those very kind words. You just made this old sailors day. Thank you again. Have a great evening.

[quote]

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

Bev:

Nice post. The shameless little right wing weasels see the handwriting on the wall. They are loosing the public trust period. People are not going to support a party that

1. Wants to repeal Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security

2. Wants to control Women's Reproductive Rights in violation of our constitution

3. Wants to disenfranchise millions and millions of voters based on a lie by the right

4. Wants to make education available only the the rich and the hell with everybody else

5. Wants to deny Gay rights

6. Wants religious intolerance back

7. Wants to let Wall Street go unregulated so they can finish off the job they started

8. Wants to redistribute more wealth and power to the 2% and make the middle class pay for it in Spending Cuts to over 50 Social Programs[/quote]

Complete lies.

[quote]Beverly in Chicago

Yes, I do blame the right for their lack of sensitivity and morals in America including the Governator.[/quote]

Who was voted in by democrats. California got what they deserved, they voted in a person because he was an actor, nothing more. He had no experience in government.

He won't be back!

Why then, have i been able to predict their votes with 100 percent accuracy in the big political cases they have decided since President Obama was elected?

_________________________________________________________

Probably the same reason I have been able to predict Ginsberg's, Breyer's Sotomayor's and Kagan's votes with 100% accuracy in those cases.

A sitting president should either be able to appoint judicial nominees without all this litmus testing by the other side, or the process for appointing federal judges should be changed.

_________________________________________

Did you feel the same way when it was the Dem's blocking GWB's nominees??

Yes, actually, I do -- or at least I think I did in those cases -- even though Roberts and Alito scare the ... bejeebers ... out of me. Elections have consequences, and this is one of them. I do have a problem with them showing up at political events and secret meetings of Koch brothers' organizations, and acting like babies at State of the Union speeches, but if they are "qualified," then the President has the right to appoint them.

As long as judges can get away with not being impartial, we will have this problem. But at the District Court level, at least it is just one judge out of many, and two layers of review above.

It is ironic that you call the Republicans idealogues when 100% of the democrats vote for the nomination. Seriously, NOBODY is against the nomination on the left? Talk about partisianship.

Also ironic that you don't mention that you predicted the other judges votes on the same issues. Too many presidents are not appointing free thinkers instead of party line activists, on both sides.

People, the left is EQUALLY as partisian as the right. Stop drinking your party's kool aid and vote for anybody that doesn't vote the party line.

Did you bother to read my posts? Beyond the first paragraph, I mean? Sheesh.

You even presume that I think one way when I've just told you the opposite.

Now THAT'S an ideologue.

Time to apologize and begone.

AM - as you can appreciate from the quality of the crap coming out of the 9th - we need middle of the road judges, not extremists on either side.

There is a reason - no many, many reasons why it is the most overturned circuit by far.

We don't need "middle-of-the-road" judges. You can't control that. But we do need honest, thoughtful judges who apply the law and don't torture it to death to fit their personal ideology, as was done in the Bush v. Gore case and the Citizens United case. More like the unanimous Court in Brown v. Board.

I don't know why you're picking on the Ninth Circuit, just because that's where this guy would be working. There are a lot of articles that dissect and debunk the myth that the NInth is somehow defective. Prior to 2003, for example, the Ninth was overturned just about as often as any other court.

http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v37-issue1/documents/chemerinsky.pdf

Reading this article might be illuminating. One could certainly make an argument that the frequent overturning of Ninth Circuit decisions since 2003 results from the obvious shift toward radical conservative ideology on the Supreme Court, rather than from any inherent defect in the Ninth, which has its share of conservative judges.

And ultimately, I think you'll find that the vast majority of the Ninth's decisions, just like those of other Circuits, stand without any action by the Court whatsoever, either because they're never appealed, or because the Court denies certiorari.

Dude - I live and work in the 9th. You do not.

Seemed like you liked to remind me and others of location during the Prosser/Walker topics. Or do you find yourself citing to the 9th a lot? Didn't think so. And for that you are lucky.

The 9th is the worst, most overturned circuit. It's a sad joke within the community.

Then you should know its history better than you seem to do. I notice you haven't denied my premise.

Because you can't.

Most overturned doesn't mean "worst." You should know better than that.

The Supreme Court isn't final because it's right. It's right only because it's final.

This is why the reps don't want him, Recognized for his writing on CONSTIUTIONAL LAW, EDUCATION POLICIES, CIVIL RIGHT and the SUPREME COURT, now do you job , get him voted in and get on the JOBS YOU PROMISED< GOP(SOB"S)

Goodwin Hon Liu (Chinese: ) (born October 1970) is a American lawyer and educator. He is Associate Dean and Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall).^[1] He has been recognized for his writing on constitutional law, education policy, civil rights, and the Supreme Court.^[1] On February 24, 2010, President Barack Obama nominated Liu to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.^[2] This is a new judgeship seat created by the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007; which became effective on January 21, 2009. His nomination has been filibustered by Republicans in the Senate and expired with the sine die adjournment of the 111th Congress.^[3] He was renominated to the same position on the first full day of the 112th Congress.^[4] On April 7, 2011 the Senate Judiciary Committee reported his nomination to the floor of the Senate by a vote of 10 ayes to 8 nays.^[5] On May 17, 2011, Senator Harry Reid filed a cloture motion on his nomination.^[6] On May 19, 2011, the Senate rejected cloture by a vote of 52 ayes to 43 nays, effectively defeating his nomination.^[7]

Hi Anna,

I would focus less on honest and application of the law when it comes to determining who should be a judge, and instead look more to fidelity to the constitution. It encompasses both of your qualities, but in a much more expansive way. A judge could honestly apply the law, but if the law itself is unconstitutional, then we continue to have the very problem you describe as political.

We can use politics to change the constitution, but we shouldn't use them to interpret it differently. I didn't like Bush v Gore, but not because it was tortured (it was), and I didn't like it because it arrived at the right outcome (it did). I didn't like it because it perfectly demonstrated the political bent of individual justices--the torturing came from the "left" on the court as the "right" tried to find a way to arrive at the right outcome.

I think we'd have been better off letting the constitutional crisis develop and then deal with that fall-out. It was clearly easy to see that votes were being counted differently in one jurisdiction compared to another, and this was blatantly unconstitutional, but the "right" justices weren't able to craft any language those on the left could accept that went directly at the problem. So they had to torture it to get 7 to vote yes.

As far as Citizens United there is no torturing there I can see, no personal ideology getting in the way. Some justices see more political speech coming from sources the government doesn't agree with as a danger, and a majority disagreed with the government. I wouldn't say those who wanted to clamp down on political speech were ideological--maybe they just saw the fulcrum at a different location than the majority did?

But I would say that your views, or mine, or anyone else's who cares about these things, when overlaid on the constitution or decisions about it, is likely to be politically motivated more than what any justice in any case has done. and I hope will do.

The real issue is that he is an Asian anti-colonist - says Newt

Too funny. If you put it that way, I see their point. Lordy knows, Ira, we wouldn't want to have a Constitutional scholar as a Supreme Court justice.

Otherwise, Michele Bachmann would be eligible. ;-)

See over and over and over, any obstruction the GOP can do against Obama, this is disgusting and absolutely uncalled for.

GOP you will be OUT 2012

I recall reading a couple of tweets that my friend Howard received on his Android phone, he received it from an Ohioan Tea Partier he was acquainted with, in his last job. (Howard is a progressive, and he's always arguing with this Tea Partier). This right-wing tweeter posted and sent to Howard, "Liu is Chinese, what can you expect of a family ancestry that comes from communist China planing to invade our country." In the tweet that followed, it said, "The GOP is wise to block people like Liu's nomination now and for ever for the asians smuggle in hidden dirty nukes."

Howard told me that's how racist and conspiracy-nut-paranoid that some of these right-wingers can be, and he said, "I keep this guy on my twitter list just to show people what they post up and share with everyone. Wacko racist morons on the right can be so funny sometimes in the outrageous, xenophobic conclusions they come to."

no to socialised health care , No to reckless government spending, No to gutting the military, No to amnesty. No to cap and tax. etc, etc, etc GO REPUBLICANS!!!!

LOL! And (evidently) "NO" higher education....

Reagan granted amnesty to 3,000,000 illegal immigrants in 1986....

You forgot No to a bankrupt America. Of course you ignore tax increases for EVERYBODY. No, we can't treat everybody in America equally......

"Reckless spending." I think, if anything, the last ten years have demonstrated quite clearly that Democrats and Republicans alike are willing to break the bank for every need, large and small.

Was the marked increase in the national debt under Bush a parlor trick? Were the mortgage and banking bailouts and HCR not more of the same?

Modern Republicans have zero interest in controlling government spending. Modern Democrats do NO better. There isn't a major party in this country that'll give more than lip service to the crisis at hand.

WOW - No higher education!!! That was really REALLY CLEVER chuckler - did you come up with that all by yourself? Scathing!! Im running off yelping like a scalded dog

"On the last day of the 106th Congress, December 15, 2000, with the Senate judiciary.”

about to adjourn sine die, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott voiced concern about

the President’s use of recess appointments, “especially appointments to the Federal Judiciary

Senator Byrd cautioned that the Recess Clause “is not put in there to

enable any President, Republican or Democrat, to play games with the Senate, or to

attempt to do a one-upmanship simply because the Senate is out of session.” He said

he “especially hope[d]” that the Administration would not attempt “to fill a Federal

judgeship during the recess of the Senate,” and that he would not support “any

administration, Democratic or Republican, that attempts to fill Federal judgeships

while the Senate is in recess.” Lott added that he had not been notified of any recess

appointments “or any Federal judicial appointment during this recess period.” He

agreed with Byrd that “any appointment of a Federal judge during a recess should be

opposed.” In recalling the Eisenhower recess appointments to the federal courts, Lott

said that “was a mistake then, and it would be one now.”

"Despite ligitation in

Allocco and Woodley, the President’s use of recess

appointments for federal judges remains an unsettled constitutional issue. The

President’s appointment powers under Article II are in tension with the Senate’s

confirmation role and with the constitutional guarantees to federal judges under

Article III. The issues identified by Senator Hart in his 1960 resolution are still with

us. Individuals placed on Article III courts for an interim period lack the

independence of judges who are given life tenure and are protected against diminution

of salary. Recess appointees weaken the advice and consent role of the Senate and,

some believe, diminish the constitutional protections accorded to litigants.

As a result of the controversy over the Eisenhower recess appointments of

Warren, Brennan, and Stewart, there appears to be a political agreement that the

President should not use recess appointment powers for Justices of the Supreme

Court. After President Carter’s appointment of Judge Heen, there seemed to be a

similar agreement for lower court judges. Because of President Clinton’s

appointment of Judge Gregory, the dispute over recess appointments for district

courts and the federal circuits has been rekindled.

The Senate can issue sense-of-the-Senate resolutions and other non-binding

statements, but it cannot prevent the President from invoking the recess appointment

power to appoint federal judges. However, the issue is as much subject to political

checks and understandings as it is to judicial rulings. The Senate always has the option

of making it clear that such interim appointments would be defeated overwhelmingly

when the individual is nominated for a lifetime appointment. Should it do so, it would

give notice that such appointees could expect limited tenure. Presidents would then

decide whether it is worth the laborious process of completing background checks on

nominees and interviewing them, merely to put judges on the court for brief periods."

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL31112.pdf

Source for #8.6......the rest is a good read for those so inclined.....

I meant this for post #7 reply....Oooops

No "two-state solution" is possible without East Jerusalem as part of the deal.

Yellowdog - I think this was deliberate by the President.

I think that this was done to get the Israelis - specifically Bibi Netanyahu - out of neutral and back into the negotiations, which have stalled. Our envoy, Bob Mitchell, has thrown up his hands and walked away.

This is a bold move by the President because now this puts the Israelis on the defensive, and that will motivate them to do SOMETHING.

That is my opinion. I also noticed that there is a 'cool' relationship between the Israeli Prime Minister and President Obama - almost to the point of dislike. this move will DEFINITELY get the people who oppose Prime Minister Netanyahu to ratched up the pressure on him to stop stalling and start negotiating.

Pietro - I don't know your background, but I can truthfully say that I will NEVER be able to comprehend the importance that East Jerusalem has to members of both sides.

_____________

Per the Guardian 1/23/11

Israel spurned Palestinian offer of biggest Yerushalayin in history

Leaked papers reveal negotiators proposed concessions on East Jerusalem settlements, Sheikh Jarrah and Old City holy sites

For many Palestinians it is anathema to agree to give up or even swap prime parts of the city they hope to make their capital. The settlements are regarded as illegal in international law and Israel's 1967 annexation of East Jerusalem has never been recognised internationally, though it is supported by a large majority of Israeli Jews – including many who back a West Bank withdrawal.

But the Israeli negotiator Tzipi Livni is recorded as dismissing the offer out of hand because the Palestinians had refused to concede Har Homa, as well as the settlements at Ma'ale Adumim, near Jerusalem, and Ariel, deeper in the West Bank. Israel's position was fully supported by the Bush administration.

_______

These leaked papers dealing with the negotiations held years ago would have ceded rights to the Israelis to the holy sites and portions of East Jerusalem in return for concessions for the 1967 areas and withdrawing from settlements. Obivously negotiations failed.

This area is a cluster and Obama would do well to walk back those comments that jeopardize the national integrity of our ally.

To negotiate there has to be areas that both sides can reasonably agree to. Even those progressive Israelis that support withdrawing from the West Bank do not agree with giving back East Jerusalem. I don't think, in my lifetime at least, that either side will yield peacefully. That is not to say that we should stop trying to negotiate but we have to be an honest broker.

Can we a foreign power expect Israel to give up access to their holy sites in addition to withdrawing and in some cases having to focibly remove thousands of its own people from West Bank settlements. Believe me I watched Israel soldiers pulling out Jewish settlers from their Gaza homes on TV it was not a peaceful moment. Israel thought that thinking by leaving Gaza the rocket attacks and or terrorism would stop.

They did not.

As far as I understand it, YD, there are religious convictions held by the leaders of each side towards having either partial or complete control of Jerusalem. It is less about the politics, it seems, then it is about who's the more faithful and superior servant of the Almighty.

I will NEVER be able to comprehend the importance that East Jerusalem has to members of both sides.

Jerusalem is a holy city to Muslims as well as Jews and Christians. Do Palestinians get to claim a part of the city as their own land or does Israel claim the whole city?

Yellowdog - I see that the President's gambit has worked on you.

That is the point.

The President knows that the Israelis will never give up East Jerusalem. But like any good salesman, if you want to make the sale, you have to move the customer out of neutral (when the customer says things like 'oh, I dunno' or ' I have to think about it'). To get the customer out of neutral, you either make them mad and they leave, or you make them happy and they sign the contract.

In any respect, you have some movement in your negotiations, and that is what this is all about.

If the President makes the Israelis mad, then they will counter. If the President makes the Palestinans mad, then they will counter. This is all a way to get the peace talks started again. He can then walk that back and take a differing position in the process.

If nothing else, this President is NOT stupid. Everything he does is deliberate, and there is a political calculation attached to every action. Why do you think the President has offered $2 BILLION to Egypt? What is the end game there?

Egypt and Israel have a peace deal that would be jeopardized if the wrong sort gets into power in Egypt. In return for that money - and the guarantees that go with it - the President is asking Israel to start talking. They are refusing to (you can credit Bibi Netanyahu for that) and this is a means to get some pressure under Prime Minister Netanyahu from HIS opposition to start talking.

There is a greater play going on here, Yellowdog. Take a step back and watch what is happening.

So...what would be the problem with setting up Jerusalem as an independent state (like the Vatican) equally ruled by representatives of all three religions?

Shockedanddisgusted - there is NOTHING wrong with what you have posted. However, there has not been a consensus - or even a consideration - to do what you have proposed. I guess it comes down to who will be 'in charge' of that 'independent' state.

Can you imagine the fight that will bring?

Exactly.

I am a registered DEM and that is not going to happen, sorry.

How about voting for the person instead of the party? Just in case you folks can't see both parties got us into this mess and we need common sense people to get us out of it.

Exactly. That's why I'm voting democratic. So far I hear NO common sense coming from the right.

Anna Moly,

No common sense coming from the right?

Nothing is coming from the right except , no's and fear.

Those who can't spell "Berkeley" shouldn't accuse Constitutional scholars of being clowns.

Or is that what the Koch brothers tell you to do?

anna why are you so afraid of the Kochs??

have you noticed - when liberals dont really have a point - they correct your speallig

they correct your speallig

LMFAO!

NO!

We correct your spelling in an attempt to keep you from looking like a dumbass!

i laugh at goofy lib losers. did i spell goofy correctly??

you debating me is enough to prevent me from looking like a "dumbass" fiesty - it does however make me feel like a bully slapping you liberals around. By the way - spealing was a joke

Come on AM - the Kochs are yesterday's bogeymen. Today it's Big Oil.

Looks like tomorrow its going to be those damned Israelis and there damned borders.

So that's why Feisty rocks all the text speak - no issue with spelling. I'd do it, but text speak escapes me. But then again so does English. :)

I guess if I gave a rat's ass about Berkely, I would have spelled it "Berkeley".

Spanky-

Come on AM - the Kochs are yesterday's bogeymen. Today it's Big Oil.

Looks like tomorrow its going to be those damned Israelis and there damned borders.

So that's why Feisty rocks all the text speak - no issue with spelling. I'd do it, but text speak escapes me. But then again so does English. :)

Oh Spanky- you are so far behind time. The fifthly Koch brothers are the Big Oil Barons.

It's not a dirty little secret anymore about their chemical love affair.

The Koch brothers, leaders of a vast family oil-and-gas conglomerate, use this political network to pursue their right-wing agenda at nearly every level of government. Whether they are contributing millions in campaign contributions, spending millions on lobbying, or investing millions in right-wing think tank and advocacy groups, the Koch brothers’ influence is pervasive.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2011/04/koch_brothers.html

Pollution and resource fines

In March 1999, Koch Petroleum Group, a Koch Industries subsidiary, pled guilty to charges that it had negligently dumped hundreds of thousands of gallons of aviation fuel into wetlands near the Mississippi River from its refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota, and that it had also illegally dumped a million gallons of high-ammonia wastewater onto the ground and into the Mississippi River. Koch Petroleum paid the Dakota County Park System a $6 million fine and $2 million in remediation costs, and was ordered to serve three years of probation.^[31]

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=t7McAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PH4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6644,3759242&dq=the+pipeline+safety+trust&hl=en

KOCH PETROLEUM GROUP SENTENCED FOR MINNESOTA POLLUTION

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/eae2020401d0bf098525689d00713ea5!OpenDocument

Exactly, Bev. Exactly.

By the way, does anyone know that David Koch, a former libertarian candidate for vice president, supports gay marriage?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Koch

How do all you DOMA fans, like Spanky, feel about that?

And further did you know that the Koch brothers have actually admitted that their agenda is pulling the strings of political puppets?

... according to a book by Brian Doherty, an editor of Reason magazine, David and his brother Charles viewed politicians as "actors playing out a script" and they wanted to "supply the themes and words for the scripts" by influencing "the areas where policy ideas percolate from: academia and think tanks".

And that's exactly what they're doing, as our illustrious puppet Governor Walker so clearly demonstrated. So, tell me again, Spanky, how they're yesterday's news. That's just what you puppets want people to think.

If I were you, I'd be pretty embarrassed to be used this way. But then again, I'm not you.

PC/NOT

have you noticed - when liberals dont really have a point - they correct your speallig

And I suppose you think that calling a noted Constitutional scholar a "clown" was a "point."

Just goes to show. Clown.

Ah AM - I was telling that same thing to Bev several weeks ago. The Koch are libertarians. They support a Host of democratic causes.

And sorry to burst your bubble but I loves the gays. Fact is I have several gay friends, including my secretary, who much to her dismay loves me. P.s. she's also, gasp, black! Can you just imagine!

I love the Koch - they pull whatever strings to get what they want. It's just the American Way Anna.

But having said that - they will fade away as Big Oil and now Israel become the topic of the day. Don't take my word for it ask Bev. and whatever she dredges up from ThinkProgress and Move On.

What me embarrassed? Nope - remember I love Big Oil and Big Business. Of course I'm on their side, remember? Obama says I'm "rich" and should pay my "fair share."

I know you already pay your fair share AM.

I have had repubs, attack me on these blog, so spelling corrections is nothing, compare to what I have been called.

Repubs/TP'er get really nasty sometimes.

Spanky-

Don't be a sucker for the Koch!

Where do all you ignorant, spelling-challenged, conservative goons come from anyway? And what makes you think you are qualified to call us liberals "stupid" or "BOOBS" when you can't even use the right form of "you're" and apparently don't know what capitalization or an apostrophe is for?

Stupidity is as stupidity does.

we come from America; where do you self-hating liberal lemmings come from?

truth; pay no attention to the smug leftnut whiners

anna are you an expert on stupidity? you seem to excel in it.

your right molly - stupid and boobs is presumtuous (spelling) More acturate would be elitist, arrogant bigots

A post filed with childish name calling is suppose to be taken seriously?

Didn't bush stack the benches with his appointments? Or does that matter based off your obvious party affiliation? As long as your party of choice calls all the shots, it's all well and good, correct?

Name me one political party that cared about all Americans.

The same place. Wonderful family life we all have together, isn't it?

we're all armchair quaterbacks mike - I post on these threads because fencing is fun

Good Golley Anna Molly - they come from your fantastic public teachers.

Silly question. See, if the teachers could just get a little bigger pension they could teach us all good-er English.

You know like Bev. talks. She's got a pretty mouth.

That's okay. Anna can be the spelling Czar. These are really her only meaningful posts.

Spanky

Good Golley Anna Molly - they come from your fantastic public teachers.

Objection, Mr. Litigator. Assumes facts not in evidence. But if so, then they're obviously the ones that never paid attention because they think they know it all.

A little bit like you, Spanky. Or maybe a lot.

Obama Lies:

Anna can be the spelling Czar. These are really her only meaningful posts.

I can live with that because it would mean I would never lack for work.

But what are YOUR meaningful posts? I'd appreciate it if you could point to one that wasn't just namecalling and stereotyping.

Your objection is noted but over-ruled. It's the truth, the teachers, bless their hearts are failing. Badly. Hurts, don't it?

And I do know it all. Really. But I got very good grades, so there is that.

Anna, name calling and stereotyping is all they have left. They offer no defense to the Bush appointees or to the fact that many of their representatives have publicly stated that filibustering a court appointee in unconstitutional - and then they turn around and do it because they know for a fact that their blind followers can not remember what happened last week, let alone what happened in the last administration.

Be amused by them - as we would be amused by any spoiled 5 year old. I mean, come on. The "idiot gem" of the day was that the "Koch bros. are the old villains...Big Oil is the bad guy now".

Pretend that they are all in a 50 meter race....Five hours later the ribbon goes to the one, out of sheer luck, that is able to find the finish line. If they could find just one candidate for president that is qualified to bag groceries, I may cut them some slack. Instead they have to tear down whoever FOX tells them to destroy in the hope that it will make their band of fools look a little bit better.

Actually it is "No Child Left Behind" that is failing badly. All that did was make education more expensive, all that testing isn't done for free.

I see the GOP/TP hiding and doing nothing.

You would see me laughing, this just makes a slow night a work a little more interesting.

If President Obama is a failure what do you call a President that nearly drives a whole country into Bankruptcy? President Obama has already created more jobs than Bush etc, etc, etc.

I think you got your failures mixed up and who brought Bin Laden to justice?? Not Bush.

is Lui a representative of his district? what does that have to do with anything/ did you poll everybody in his district to find out if he is well-respected?

Rob -

Professor Liu is one of our own. Have you read his book, "Keeping Faith with the Constitution"? Have you read any of his articles published in national law reviews? I think if you spent a little time becoming familiar with his professional work, you would change your opinion.

Personally, I want someone on the court that reflects my values, not the values of folks anywhere else in the United States. I would think you would want the same.

please; who do people waste their time with long idiotic posts? i couldn't read past the first line where you accused only Republicans of stacking the bench. with such idiotic blind one-sided arguments how can you be taken seriously?

Pot calling the kettle black, eh, Rob? In the interest of keeping you somewhat relevant (ha-ha), can you explain to me why, under Bush, it was considered unconstitutional to not bring judicial appointees to a vote and now the same exact people are doing it under Obama?

you were able to read the first line tho.

keep practicing, and sooner or later, you'll be able to read the whole thing.

My man.

But truth be told I think what Bev. is displaying is less racism and more just pure ignorance. As you can see, the offensive post was almost entirely cuts and pastes. Not her words, but rather words she adopted through ignorance.

Problem is that kind of ignorance is just as bad, if not worse than racism. There are a lot of subtle hatred of all things Israel and Jew around here. But like Bev. I think it tends to stem from the liberal sites - more Helen Thomas, more "poor, oppressed Palistinians..." Our friends here don't have any actual idea, but as members of their herd, they parrot the sentiment of those sites.

Now Bev. be a big girl and apologize. Not just to Ira and other jews, but everyone. The mind is a terrible thing to waste Bev. I know you are better than this. Please prove me right.

WHAT anti-Semitic rant? Where? o_o

Spanky-

Racism is the worst kind of ignorance. Copying and pasting from articles published by hate groups, she must have read them and AGREED with them before she posted it. That's inexcusable under any circumstances. I, for one, will not make excuses for her nor will I associate her with any other poster on FR who many others around here have called racists. No generalizations, evaluate it on a case by case basis. She's a hateful bigot, and an embarassment to this community.

Spanky..

My friend..

Racism isn't a liberal or conservative thing and we need to confront it every time we see or hear it.

Racism isn't a liberal or conservative thing and we need to confront it every time we see or hear it.

Then I have to ask, where was you POUTRAGE this morning, when under First Thoughts, posters were calling OUR President a n****r & demanding lynchings?

I've known Bev for many, many years on this board & the LAST thing than can be said about her is she's a racist or anti-semantic!

When you're having a 'bad' day, it's usually best to stay away from a political board or at least grow some thicker skin!

While you're at it, it would probably be a good time to put me on IGNORE!

Right-ON, Ira!!!

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL..

I've known Bev for many, many years on this board & the LAST thing than can be said about her is she's a racist or anti-semantic! While you're at it, it would probably be a good time to put me on IGNORE!

..............................................................

Before you start posting crap like this you should read the post I was referring to. It's a cut and paste from anti-Semitic hate group sites. It reeks of bigotry and hatred and the many comments following it were exactly to that point. Not a bad day, a vile post. Don't even try to defend it cause it or her cause it would make you seem like you agreed with it.

BTW..it Semitic and not semantic. It's her samntics you're trying to justify.

You not only made it to my IGNORE list but a couple others as well.

You not only made it to my IGNORE list but a couple others as well.

WHOO HOOO!

Promise?

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL..

Well...nice of you to actually show us all just what you are all about.

Ira Lapin

Beverly in Chicago..

I really don't care if this post gets collapsed by the community.

Another poster pointed me to your anti-Semitic rant and I simply could not believe it was allowed on FR.

I could answer your post with historical fact and not the bull@!$%# you posted. I won't dignify it or you except to say that you are an anti- Semitic son a bitch who dares to post copied text from the American Nazi playbook. Sieg Heil!

You sicken me and I hope most of the posters here.

Sure you can. Like those have no real DNA to the real Jews in Jerusalem .

European Jews Are Really Gentiles Whose Ancestors Converted To Judaism
http://omasiali.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/european-jews-are-really-gentiles-whose-ancestors-converted-to-judaism-3/

Israel Pursues Germany's Eastern European Jews

By Guido Kleinhubbert and Christoph Schult

Many Eastern European Jews who emigrated to Germany have been rejected by local Jewish communities. Now Israel is sending envoys to Germany to try to encourage them to emigrate to Israel to boost the flagging population.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,509066,00.html

I feel like this , if the European Jew is indigenous to the region; which they are not; why not become a citizen of Palestine?

Israel is playin US.

I really don't care if this post gets collapsed by the community.

BTW: you can kiss everything you think I have, if I let you, and I still wouldn't care Hater.

Everything about you is nauseous on a daily basis with you anti- Obama diatribes; but I do know how to be tolerant unlike you T-bagger.

You not only made it to my IGNORE list but a couple others as well.

And here I thought I had made your IGNORE list?

Must of had your fingers crossed... huh?

Seriously, Ira: what article did she make the post on?

So very sad.

Oh well, you tried Ira, but now you know. Well, I suspect you already knew about Bev. and Feisty, but now having been confronted with it there is no escape. It's ignorance that has risen to a malovent level.

I will say that I am astounded by Bev.'s last comment about you Ira - everything you say is anti-obama...

She actually called you a "t-bagger." I bet you are as dumbfounded as me - or anyone else who has ever read even one of your posts.

On the plus side this certainly will highlight the pure and stunning ignorance of not just Bev. but also Feisty. Oh my god did they just show their true colors. No hiding for them anymore. Best part is they still have no idea just what they have done.

I'm just sorry it had to be over something as important as this.

Wow!

Bev, I defended you to Ira on the other thread.

Ira, I'm sorry. I honestly did not believe she knew what she was posting. Looks like Bev is just naive enough that HER anti-Semitism is NOT thinly veiled- it is right out there for the world to see.

Obviously, Ira, you are right- she DID know what she was cutting and pasting- she was not taken in simply because it seemed to prop Obama's statements today.

Now I'm sorry I voted to collapse it for her own sake. I hope it stays up there for the whole world to see- Bev reveals the left wing for the anti-Semites they are- and I am certain that they will be comingmto her defense- and, that on their little "secret clubhouse" site, they will chastise her for her honesty.

Naughty, naughty, Bev. You should never reveal to the world what you REALLY think.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL..

...and her last post says it all about her and you.

ed3891

Seriously, Ira: what article did she make the post on?

..................................

Read her last post here...this is mild compared to the other.

Ira:

Answer the question, what post are you idiots all up in arms about? I know Bev and she is not a racist by a long shot. Judging by the way you all are spitting bile I think you protest to much and saw something that is reflective of your behavior.

I could answer your post with historical fact and not the bull@!$%# you posted. I won't dignify it or you except to say that you are an anti- Semitic son a bitch who dares to post copied text from the American Nazi playbook. Sieg Heil!

What post are you all talking about??????

OK, Ira, I am lost - what post did Bev make that has you all upset?

I'm still trying to figure out why he's in such a snit over Bev, yet remains silent on the blatent racsim over on First Thoughts?

It's not called POUTRAGE for nothing...

I just read the original post. Beverly you are absolutely a terrible human being. Words cannot describe how shameful your comments are, and particularly the articles your posted.

Ira - I have been a fan of yours for some time. It is obvious that you take time and provide a lot of thought in your posts. The fact that Beverly called you a "Tea-Bagger" is simply absurd. It appears to me that you are firmly in the liberal camp, and that she is reacting out of ignorance. It would be impossible to be that stupid.

As unfortunate as Beverly's comments are, it is worse, but not surprising that others, like Feisty and US Navy are coming to her defense.

I agree with the comments above. Ignorance is one thing. This is something altogether different.

Please keep posting Ira.

Beverly I hope you are ashamed. Too bad I suspect you do not understand how terrible you will forever now come across. Something like this never goes away.

Go look it up, Mavy. You know how.

Now, tonight, you all just scold her for revealing the truth about the far left. Tell her to apologize, and to be more careful in the future.

It won't matter- the truth is there, for all to see.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL and US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

Read her post above..nuff said.

If you don't get it...you have a real problem

Hey, Bev from Chicago,

I am related to the Holy Romen Empire

muffintop1

In defense of myself I really don't read read much of ahem *cough, cough* Ira. The few lines I have have read, to me have never been right leaning.

If this Ira dude/ broad/ whatever thinks I'm that horrible then the person is negating facts; especially in regards to DNA.

However, in the future I 'll have my laser beam on in search of left or moderate leanings.

Yes, the names this Ira dude/ broad/ whatever called me were despicable and deserved a T-bagger flogging.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL and US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired..

Read the above..any questions.

Thought not.

Beverly in Chicago

Your comments on DNA are spurious and the URL posting you gave is pure racist horse manure!

SCIENTIFIC FACT: The DNA of european jews, both maternal and paternal, traces STRAIGHT BACK to The Holy Land; regardless of interbreeding with gentiles.

it's comical for a left-wing loser to try to lecture about who is an adult and who isnt. Dems under Pelosi never even bothered to write the budget as REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION

good point grimey - good simpsons refrence

More main stream?? Like the five ACTIVIST SUPREME COURT JUDGES who give your causes unliminted money and forced a lying idiot on us who could hardly speak three sentences without a 'duh' or 'uh?

The GOP is afraid a judge may side with a women to have an abortion.

They want Roe VS Wade reversed,

Fine, then let them raise all the baby born from here on out.

The GOP can "adopt a baby" and send money to momma. They will have to, they want to kill Medicare.

The only thing I got out of this post is that you're a gibbering idiot.

Eat a lot of paint chips as a kid, or what?

Bitter much? Geez.

All that rant and the only thing meaningful you have to say is that you think Barbara Bush is a MILF?

Rangewolf-you say WHAT?

Funny, rangey. We watched Bush and Co. fumble around for 7 years and come up with nothing. A REAL man comes into office and kills bin Laden in 2.

Immasculation makes you very cranky, rangey. Perhaps you should find a corner and lick your wounds.

Mangywolf

Practially ALL of your Newsvine comments are vile racial slurs against Our President!

PLEASE reform yourself! Gentle language is preferred...

REMEMBER, "When you say something bad about someone, you're only talking about yourself!"

And your point is? Why don't you consider writing about the subject? That said, I will. This (the subject of the article) is just another example of the fact that Repubs don't have any love for America, only hate for the President. Now it's time to say, Repubs, grow up. There are real problems to solve.

I think it's a little extreme to say the Republicans did this for hatred of the President and country. I find it tactless that they couldn't get enough consensus to bring the matter to an actual vote on confirmation, but looking at Liu's record I don't think he's a good choice for a position that demands impartial objectivity.

Warren

Like all of your ilk you are confused. We love America, we just hate Obama's socialistic policies. I will give you credit as being confused by Obama's lies and not as a blatant idiot for believing in the socialist Muslim we have occupying our White House. Wake up soon or I may have to reverse my opinion of you.

Rangewolf

If you were looking to make the top of the idiot list, you have made it.

Rangewolf-- Whoever called you Mangey sure must know you. Who is the Muslim occupying our White House? I don't know of one. And what do you lablel King George-- pardon me, I mean George W. Bush. Boy that was one big mess there. The guy who got a DUI and his parents paid to get that cleared-- fine guy and fine parents.