Your input is requested...

[MediaSlayer]

without knowing the exact circumstances, and without the means to be on the internet for hours trying to find a cogent answer, i would say the included it in order to paint the nominee as being unmerciful or something similar in order to discredit the nominee.

To what other possible end a not-so-subtle (and incredibly inappropriate) "reminder" of expected judicial behavior?

i don't think they are terribly concerned about the behaviour of the bush appointees, but that's just a guess. i would guess it's the position(chief justice) and the tenure that is more frightening. too much change in too little time, that type of thing. i do not think it is fitting judicial behavior tho' to come up with new rights(no pun intended) or rule that way. what is in the constitution is fine, but what we have done as a nation is change it to read whatever we want it to read, to fit the circumstance and be able to say "hey look, i have a right to do this, it says so right here" even when the meaning that our forefathers meant is clear.

[j2k4]

Uh-huh.

[MediaSlayer]

wipe that smile off yer face

[MediaSlayer]

whoa the quick respond button is QUICK now

[j2k4]

whoa the quick respond button is QUICK now

Uh-huh.

[clocker]

In our recent and current Supreme Court appointment processes, I have observed and heard on several occasions the idea expressed (by minority and women's rights advocates), that rights ought to be continually expanded (unendingly, I guess) as an ongoing imperative of the Court.

The idea is only expressed in the most generic terms, and only by these groups.

I have been baffled as to what is meant by these groups...

Of course you are.
Being part of a group, namely white, Protestant males, whose rights have always been preeminent, how could you understand the desire of a minority to use the court system to level the playing field?

And why shouldn't they seek confirmation (not "expansion") in black text law of the very same rights that you have always assumed (correctly) applied to you?

[j2k4]

Of course you are.
Being part of a group, namely white, Protestant males, whose rights have always been preeminent, how could you understand the desire of a minority to use the court system to level the playing field?

And why shouldn't they seek confirmation (not "expansion") in black text law of the very same rights that you have always assumed (correctly) applied to you?

I would assume an impetus to "level the playing field", and would also assume the Court's answering imperative to be (correctly) negative.

Leaving aside the topic of gay marriage (a state's rights issue), confirmation already exists, and, as I've said, human hearts change in the course of time, not as the result of a court's decision; after all, are we not still hashing over abortion?

I would also assume these groups can be held to their rhetoric; if they say expansion, I'll assert my right to forego your interpretation of the word.

If confirmation is what they mean, let them say that, instead.

[clocker]

I would assume an impetus to "level the playing field", and would also assume the Court's answering imperative to be (correctly) negative.
And why is the Court "correct" in maintaining inequity?

Leaving aside the topic of gay marriage (a state's rights issue), confirmation already exists, and, as I've said, human hearts change in the course of time, not as the result of a court's decision; after all, are we not still hashing over abortion?
Why are gay marriage and abortion not considered human rights issues, which would elevate them them to Federal purview instead of the capricious whim of individual states? What differentiates say, slavery from gay marriage?

On a side note...
I read this week of a delegation of Iraqi officials who were brought to the US to observe our hallowed democracy in action.
They left, appalled, several days early.
The gap between the democracy we preach (and are trying to cram down their throats) and the democracy we practice was too jarring.

As brilliant and far-seeing as the founding fathers may have been, expecting their vision to guide us through a world they would not even recognize has lead to some of the most convoluted and twisted logic imaginable.

Maybe it's time to download and install Constitution v.2.0.

[j2k4]

On a side note...
I read this week of a delegation of Iraqi officials who were brought to the US to observe our hallowed democracy in action.
They left, appalled, several days early.
The gap between the democracy we preach (and are trying to cram down their throats) and the democracy we practice was too jarring.

As brilliant and far-seeing as the founding fathers may have been, expecting their vision to guide us through a world they would not even recognize has lead to some of the most convoluted and twisted logic imaginable.

Maybe it's time to download and install Constitution v.2.0.

I imagine they were, and that they were as appalled as we are disgusted.

It would be well for us to acknowledge that the "issues", as it were, are merely a murky play being acted-out on a rickety and largely corrupt political structure which is rootless due to it's distance from it's own origins.

If you actually advocate a Constitutional Convention, I'm game.

As to "maintaining inequity", that is largely in the eye of the beholder.

I believe they ask for compensatory rights/treatment, which has no place in the Constitution (I'd be glad to hear your case, though); however, if you dig reverse discrimination, I guess that's for you.

In any case, the making of law is the province of the legislature.

If you can't get your representatives to grant these rights you deem so essential, the proper place to address this concern is the voting booth.

The urge to speed the process by accessing the courts is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, so I suggest you get the Con-con idea rolling, huh?

Don't be lazy, now...

[clocker]

I imagine they were, and that they were as appalled as we are disgusted.

It would be well for us to acknowledge that the "issues", as it were, are merely a murky play being acted-out on a rickety and largely corrupt political structure which is rootless due to it's distance from it's own origins.
Oh, oh...we agree.

Scary, that.

If you actually advocate a Constitutional Convention, I'm game.

As to "maintaining inequity", that is largely in the eye of the beholder.

I believe they ask for compensatory rights/treatment, which has no place in the Constitution (I'd be glad to hear your case, though); however, if you dig reverse discrimination, I guess that's for you.
I would consider some pro-active "reverse discrimination" to be a fair response to the institutionalized discrimination that's been in place for the last few centuries..so OK, thanks.

In any case, the making of law is the province of the legislature.

If you can't get your representatives to grant these rights you deem so essential, the proper place to address this concern is the voting booth.
Ah yes, our representatives.
You mean the same group of folks who have rushed Bush's agenda into law despite overwhelming public opposition?
Case in point...new legislation shielding gun manufacturers/sellers from any sort of legal liability for the product they purvey.
Bush can't wait to sign this and satisfy his obligation to perhaps the most powerful special interest group in existence ( the NRA), but how is this in any way to be construed as beneficial to "we the people"?
Our "representatives " are forced from day one of their tenure to cater to moneyed special interests simply so they can begin their campaign for reelection. Any thought of looking out for our best interests is quickly subsumed by the scrabble to get and maintain tenure.
Right.
The system really works, doesn't it?

The urge to speed the process by accessing the courts is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, so I suggest you get the Con-con idea rolling, huh?

Don't be lazy, now...

I am constitutionally lazy ( in all senses of the phrase), so don't hold your breath.