Clusterheadaches.com Message Board
        (http://www.clusterheadaches.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        New Message Board Archives >> 2006 General Board Posts >> Anyone watching the hearings?????
        
(Message started by: BarbaraD on Jan 12th, 2006, 1:38pm)
Title: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by BarbaraD on Jan 12th, 2006, 1:38pm
This is about the funniest thing on TV right now. I've been trying to work and listen half way to Judge A. answering these nosensical questions.

I mean WHO CARES what he thought in 78 and if he still thinks the same thing today? What he did in college means anything today? Roe v Wade isn't going to get turned over in these hearings so why does his opinion on it matter right now? Is he personally going to put prayer back in schools? I doubt it!

Three days of comedy!  Ya oughta tune in... He's holding his own better than I would. By now I think I would have told the whole Senate to take a flying leap.

Hugs BD
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by Charlie on Jan 13th, 2006, 12:02am
Not I. I see two minutes of it on the news.

He'll be confirmed. I'm not at all worried.

Charlie http://www.schildersmilies.de/schilder/conspy.gif
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by forgetfulnot on Jan 13th, 2006, 1:49am
Don't get idea that only democrats do this, the party that is out of power is the meanest bunch there is.


Lee
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by BobG on Jan 13th, 2006, 4:08am
It's all just fluff and eye wash. It's not about Judge A. It's about politicians getting their face on TV.


Quote:
Is he personally going to put prayer back in schools? I doubt it!  

I doubt it too. I'd like a law that says evolution must be taught in Sunday School.
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by chewy on Jan 13th, 2006, 8:02am
I'd like a law that makes evolution mandatory for the Senate.
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by Ghost on Jan 13th, 2006, 10:47am

on 01/13/06 at 08:02:52, chewy wrote:
I'd like a law that makes evolution mandatory for the Senate.

[smiley=spit.gif] [smiley=bow.gif] [smiley=bow.gif] [smiley=headbanger.gif] [smiley=headbanger.gif] [smiley=headbanger.gif] [smiley=crackup.gif] [smiley=crackup.gif] [smiley=crackup.gif] [smiley=crackup.gif]
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by sandie99 on Jan 13th, 2006, 11:29am
Too bad I can't see them back here. I bet I would watch if I could.

Sanna
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by floridian on Jan 13th, 2006, 11:35am

on 01/13/06 at 08:02:52, chewy wrote:
I'd like a law that makes evolution mandatory for the Senate.


Reminds me of something my grandmother said - don't try to teach a pig to sing. You'll waste your time, and make the pig angry.

DeLay thought the Columbine massacre was caused because the school taught that humans "evolutionized" from apes. No classroom lecture is going to help him. Maybe he'll have a satori moment in prison.
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by floridian on Jan 13th, 2006, 12:09pm

on 01/12/06 at 13:38:53, BarbaraD wrote:
This is about the funniest thing on TV right now. I've been trying to work and listen half way to Judge A. answering these nosensical questions.

I mean WHO CARES what he thought in 78 and if he still thinks the same thing today? What he did in college means anything today? Roe v Wade isn't going to get turned over in these hearings so why does his opinion on it matter right now? Is he personally going to put prayer back in schools? I doubt it!

Three days of comedy!  Ya oughta tune in... He's holding his own better than I would. By now I think I would have told the whole Senate to take a flying leap.

Hugs BD


But what about his ruling  that there is no problem when the government wants to strip search a 10 year old girl without a warrant - that was 2003.  You never know if some little girl is hiding WMD in her underwear - good thing the cops decided to look, and Judge Alito was there to back them up.

Or his ruling that a mentality retarded man was not harrassed at work by others who restrained the man when he was undressed, attempted to insert a broomstick in the mans anus, and on another occasion, rubbed his penis against the retarded man's behind.  According to Alito, this was not harrasment or assault, merely macho horseplay, nothing illegal that the government should be concerned with.  Macho horseplay, not perverted violence!! Shouldn't a man of "the highest judicial and ethical standards" be able to make a clear call on that one?

Alito has been consistently for the power of government and against the rights of the individual.
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by maffumatt on Jan 13th, 2006, 12:17pm
Thats the first place cops look when they raid a drug dealers home, one of the gaurds here was the Chief of police in a neighboring town and told me that Meth dealers always hide it on their kids, even babies and esp girls, because they don't think the police will look there. Whats worse, a woman cop looking checking the girl, or her growing up in a house dealing that crap in front of her?
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by Jimmy B. on Jan 13th, 2006, 12:37pm

on 01/12/06 at 13:38:53, BarbaraD wrote:
He's holding his own better than I would.

Hugs BD



He's a New Jersey, boy...he's heard a lot worse then these Senator's can dish out. ;)
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by floridian on Jan 13th, 2006, 12:38pm

on 01/13/06 at 12:17:30, maffumatt wrote:
Thats the first place cops look when they raid a drug dealers home, one of the gaurds here was the Chief of police in a neighboring town and told me that Meth dealers always hide it on their kids, even babies and esp girls, because they don't think the police will look there. Whats worse, a woman cop looking checking the girl, or her growing up in a house dealing that crap in front of her?


Your 'gaurd' must be a little sweeping in his generalization when he said that they Always hide the stuff in in kids - no drugs were found on the girl.  

The purpose of a warrant is to define and allow specific search activities - it is a basic principle of the US Constitution. If they had real evidence that drugs were likely to be in the girls panties, they could have asked for permission to search all minors present in the house.  

I have no problem with investigating and arresting law breakers, but shredding the Constitution to protect the people against drugs will only result in a shredded Constitution. Police power should be controlled as the drafter's of the Constitution intended.

How bout that macho horseplay with a broomstick, Maffumat?  You want that man leading your son's Boy Scout troop?
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by JJA on Jan 13th, 2006, 1:26pm

on 01/13/06 at 12:17:30, maffumatt wrote:
Thats [a childs privates] the first place cops look when they raid a drug dealers home


Oh man, we NEED drug law reform.


Jesse
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by burnt-toast on Jan 13th, 2006, 8:01pm
It's a great show, gives politicians opportunity to pound their chests and blow smoke from both sides of the selection process.  Unfortuantely these justices have become as political as the representatives conducting the hearings.    

Fact is the Supreme Court has consistently overstepped the boundries of their authority of late to satisfy political agendas.  Their role is to strictly interpret the law and ensure that the same standards and rule of law are applied consistently by lower courts.  

If these justices were truely doing their jobs and acting  appropriately, these hearings would be unnecessary.  

These justices wouldn't be Liberal, Conservative, pro-government control or anti-governemnt control, etc.  Each of them would only be interested in strictly enforcing the established rule of law.

Making law by selectively rewording/interpreting parts of the constitution or catering to a political agenda is not in the job description.

Tom  

 

 
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by Jonny on Jan 13th, 2006, 8:11pm

on 01/13/06 at 12:38:24, floridian wrote:
Your 'gaurd' must be a little sweeping in his generalization when he said that they Always hide the stuff in in kids - no drugs were found on the girl.  


Flo,

Are you so rich that you dont think theses fucks will hide their stash in a kids diaper if they they think it wont be searched?

They do it EVERY fucking day!

Get your head out of your ass and come down here where the shit is happening.......or, STFU!!
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by Charlie on Jan 13th, 2006, 8:52pm
It still turns my stomach strip seaching little girls or handcuffing them like in Florida, I believe some time ago. It isn't done.

Yup. Time to kill the DEA... Fat chance with all the moralists pretending that they can "do something" about drugs.

Charlie
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by floridian on Jan 13th, 2006, 9:26pm

on 01/13/06 at 20:11:09, Jonny wrote:
Flo,

Are you so rich that you dont think theses fucks will hide their stash in a kids diaper if they they think it wont be searched?

They do it EVERY fucking day!

Get your head out of your ass and come down here where the shit is happening.......or, STFU!!


Removing head .... watching hearings on TV. ... scanning the web ...  ok!

I have seen the future, and it is www.abortion-travel.com  And without constitutional protection against unwarranted search, women will soon have to pee on stick when leaving and re-entering the country.
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by Jonny on Jan 13th, 2006, 9:26pm

on 01/13/06 at 20:52:51, Charlie wrote:
It still turns my stomach strip seaching little girls or handcuffing them like in Florida, I believe some time ago.


So I guess hiding the drugs in a little girls diaper is cool with you, Charlie?

Is it also cool to hide drugs in a 10 year olds panties to avoid arrest?

Are these children living the the life that YOU think they should live?

Get a fucking clue, Man!!!
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by maffumatt on Jan 13th, 2006, 9:28pm
Schumer misrepresented Alito's dissent in the Groody case, claiming that Alito had written that "a 10-year old girl could be stripped searched even though the warrant did not call for her to be strip searched." But the issue in that case was whether the warrant authorized the search (specifically, whether the warrant incorporated the affidavit attached to it that had been submitted to the court). Alito thought that it did. He did not state that, if the search was not authorized by the warrant, it was still permissible. In any event, the issue in that case was whether police officers could be sued personally for the search. In that context, the question was not what the warrant actually authorized, but what the officer reasonably thought it authorized

If the cops came into my house and stripped search my daughter for no substantial reason, I would be the first to through a fit. If they came into my house and stripped search my daughter because I was selling meth out of my house infront of my kids, it would be all on me, I would be the person responsible for putting her in that position, not the cop doing my job. People that put theirselves and their kids into that position get no sypathy from me, the kids yes, the parents are endagering their kids. They have no morals.
I dont understand the comment about the broomstick and my boy, please elaborate on that a little.
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by floridian on Jan 13th, 2006, 9:39pm

on 01/13/06 at 21:28:50, maffumatt wrote:
I dont understand the comment about the broomstick and my boy, please elaborate on that a little.


Would you trust your kids or your Constitution to someone who thinks that restraining a mentally retarded person, trying to stick a wooden broom up their ass, and rubbing dick against them is merely 'macho horseplay' and not violent perversion??   Forced sex against a person with an IQ of 75 isn't play - its rape.  

(I am referring to the Pirolli case)
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by maffumatt on Jan 13th, 2006, 10:02pm
have no idea where that came from dude......sounds like something Ginsberge would rule for. If  that happened with my kid I would be arrested for murder.
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by floridian on Jan 13th, 2006, 10:24pm

on 01/13/06 at 22:02:54, maffumatt wrote:
have no idea where that came from dude......sounds like something Ginsberge would rule for. If  that happened with my kid I would be arrested for murder.


Nope - not Ginsberg. Alito. He has consistently ruled against people bringing suit for being harrased or discriminated against.
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by maffumatt on Jan 13th, 2006, 10:39pm
can you provide a reliable link? Thants not right, if he rules like that he doesn't need to be on the bench.
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by floridian on Jan 13th, 2006, 11:08pm
This was in the hearings:


Quote:
DURBIN: I’d like to say, Judge, in many of these tough questions, as I read through cases, you end up ruling in favor of established institutions and against individuals. Let me tell you another one: Pirolli v. World Flavors. Remember this case? A mentally retarded individual, Kenneth Pirolli, physically harassed at his workplace; subjected to a hostile, abusive work environment; sexually assaulted by his co-workers. And according to his deposition testimony, he said they attempted to rape him. I could read to you what’s in that record here, but it is so graphic and it tells in such detail the sexual assault that he was subjected to that I’m not going to read it into the record, but I bet you remember it. And when it came to this case as to whether or not he should have a trial, as to whether he was entitled to bring his case before a jury, you said no. Stand by the summary judgment. Don’t take this to a jury. You dissented from the majority position here. And the reason you dissented was, I think, significant.

DURBIN: It wasn’t about Kenneth Pirolli or the merits of his case; it was about the conduct and efforts of his lawyer. You noted the fact that his lawyer had not adequately provided citations in his brief to places in the record describing the harassment. So you held Kenneth Pirolli responsible for the fact that his lawyer didn’t do a good job and denied him -- at least in your view -- denied him his day in court. How do you explain that crushing hand of fate on this man who was a victim of sexual harassment?


Cops go beyond the letter of the law and what they were authorized to do - Alito want to cut them slack. An individual who was subjected to sexual assualt had a lawyer who didn't phrase things in exactly the way that Alito wanted, so he votes to throw the case out.  That pattern is repeated over and over in Alito's career.  

When a prosecutor repeatedly used preemptory challenges to get all white juries to judge blacks on murder cases, Alito said that's not discrimination under the law, just a statistic ...  a run of all white juries is no different than a run of left handed men getting elected president.  As if racism weren't a problem in this country...
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by burnt-toast on Jan 14th, 2006, 4:04am

Quote:
DURBIN: I’d like to say, Judge, in many of these tough questions, as I read through cases, you end up ruling in favor of established institutions and against individuals. Let me tell you another one: Pirolli v. World Flavors. Remember this case? A mentally retarded individual, Kenneth Pirolli, physically harassed at his workplace; subjected to a hostile, abusive work environment; sexually assaulted by his co-workers. And according to his deposition testimony, he said they attempted to rape him. I could read to you what’s in that record here, but it is so graphic and it tells in such detail the sexual assault that he was subjected to that I’m not going to read it into the record, but I bet you remember it. And when it came to this case as to whether or not he should have a trial, as to whether he was entitled to bring his case before a jury, you said no. Stand by the summary judgment. Don’t take this to a jury. You dissented from the majority position here. And the reason you dissented was, I think, significant.

DURBIN: It wasn’t about Kenneth Pirolli or the merits of his case; it was about the conduct and efforts of his lawyer. You noted the fact that his lawyer had not adequately provided citations in his brief to places in the record describing the harassment. So you held Kenneth Pirolli responsible for the fact that his lawyer didn’t do a good job and denied him -- at least in your view -- denied him his day in court. How do you explain that crushing hand of fate on this man who was a victim of sexual harassment?


This is what happens when judges view "legal procedure" as more important than facts and the truth.  It's not unusual.    

In Pennsylvania you can have your case dismissed because your brief/pleadings are not bound or typed in the specific method each level of the court system wants.  Facts and truth are meaningless because the document was't typed or bound the way we wanted it?  

Justice costs a lot of money - if you can afford to pay through the nose for attorneys you can seek justice.  If you can't, well that's your problem - case closed.  The average Joe doesn't have a chance in this system.  

Tom    
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by floridian on Jan 14th, 2006, 7:55am

on 01/14/06 at 04:04:45, burnt-toast wrote:
This is what happens when judges view "legal procedure" as more important than facts and the truth.  It's not unusual.    



Exactly, Tom!  Alito was also asked about the hypothetical situation of a man being wrongly accused and convicted murder.  The man exhausts all appeals and no procedural errors were found, so the verdict stands.. Then new evidence was discovered that conclusively proves the man innocent. Alito said the man should NOT get a new trial because the system did its work correctly!!   He's not the first judge more concerned with process than justice, but why do they keep promoting them??  
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by burnt-toast on Jan 14th, 2006, 11:59am

on 01/14/06 at 07:55:02, floridian wrote:
Exactly, Tom!  Alito was also asked about the hypothetical situation of a man being wrongly accused and convicted murder.  The man exhausts all appeals and no procedural errors were found, so the verdict stands.. Then new evidence was discovered that conclusively proves the man innocent. Alito said the man should NOT get a new trial because the system did its work correctly!!   He's not the first judge more concerned with process than justice, but why do they keep promoting them??  


The over emphasis on procedure and promotion of judges that lean towards procedure over truth and fact is a way make the process of justice so overly complicated that the average person can't persue justice.  

The ole' we're important because no one can do this except us mentality.  Combined with the fact that most political bodies want to make it impossible for average citizens to legally challenge their actions and/or decisions and you have your answer.

For civil actions against a municipality - say to challenge eminent domain

Remember you've done nothing wrong, a government agency wants your land and offers their version of "Just Compensation" - just $1, and unlike common criminals you are not entitled to any legal representation.

Good attorneys around here want a $3,000 to $5,000 retainer and $345 to $390 per hour.  For class actions these numbers are multiplied by the number of classes (participants) - even simple cases take years and cost tens of thousands to persue.  

How can the average person afford justice or even attempt to correct an injustice through this legal system?

Seems the legislative and judicial branches have merged.


Tom
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by Jonny on Jan 14th, 2006, 12:06pm

on 01/14/06 at 07:55:02, floridian wrote:
Then new evidence was discovered that conclusively proves the man innocent. Alito said the man should NOT get a new trial because the system did its work correctly!!    


Now that is way not cool, and I aint saying that because I could one day be that guy....Its just plain wrong on many levels!!

I agree with, Flo.....Man, I better check my meds....LOL ;;D
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by maffumatt on Jan 14th, 2006, 12:50pm
Can you provide the link to where you cut the quote from, you didn't post his Alito's reply.
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by maffumatt on Jan 14th, 2006, 1:31pm
DURBIN: I’d like to say, Judge, in many of these tough questions, as I read through cases, you end up ruling in favor of established institutions and against individuals. Let me tell you another one: Pirolli v. World Flavors. Remember this case? A mentally retarded individual, Kenneth Pirolli, physically harassed at his workplace; subjected to a hostile, abusive work environment; sexually assaulted by his co-workers. And according to his deposition testimony, he said they attempted to rape him. I could read to you what’s in that record here, but it is so graphic and it tells in such detail the sexual assault that he was subjected to that I’m not going to read it into the record, but I bet you remember it. And when it came to this case as to whether or not he should have a trial, as to whether he was entitled to bring his case before a jury, you said no. Stand by the summary judgment. Don’t take this to a jury. You dissented from the majority position here. And the reason you dissented was, I think, significant.

DURBIN: It wasn’t about Kenneth Pirolli or the merits of his case; it was about the conduct and efforts of his lawyer. You noted the fact that his lawyer had not adequately provided citations in his brief to places in the record describing the harassment. So you held Kenneth Pirolli responsible for the fact that his lawyer didn’t do a good job and denied him -- at least in your view -- denied him his day in court. How do you explain that crushing hand of fate on this man who was a victim of sexual harassment?



ALITO: Well, Senator, the district court thought that the defendant in that case was entitled to summary judgment. And so I think that says something about the facts of the case and whether it was a particularly strong case.

There's a very important principle involved in the appellate practice, and I think it goes with the idea of judicial self- restraint. It is that certain things are to be decided at certain levels in the court system.

And that requires that parties raise issues in the trial court. And that if they do not raise the issue in the trial court, then, absent some extraordinary circumstances, they shouldn't be able to raise the issue on appeal. And that was the principle there.

Now, this was not a criminal case. In a criminal case, there's a constitutional right to counsel and so a person can claim ineffective assistance of counsel. And we treat that issue differently in criminal cases than we do in civil cases.
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by JJA on Jan 16th, 2006, 10:07am

on 01/13/06 at 21:26:34, Jonny wrote:
So I guess hiding the drugs in a little girls diaper is cool with you, Charlie?

Is it also cool to hide drugs in a 10 year olds panties to avoid arrest?

Are these children living the the life that YOU think they should live?

I know this was intended for Charlie, but I’d like to respond to it.

I think we can all agree that no one should be hiding drugs on children. Unfortunately, our current drug laws encourage this behavior. The punishments are so severe for possessing some drugs that many are willing to go to any extreme to avoid being arrested and spending decades in prison. Furthermore, those same severe punishments cause drugs to be worth more than their weight in gold, ample reason for someone to take the risk for easy money. If the punishments for drug possession/sales were more reasonable there wouldn’t be the same problem. Few people would go to that extreme to avoid a fine or drug treatment. Not that this has much to do with Alito.

Jesse
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by floridian on Jan 16th, 2006, 10:35pm
Put a rapist or murderer in jail, and you make the streets safer. Put a drug dealer in jail, and you create a job opening.  

It has nothing to do with Alito - It's all Bush's fault ;)
Title: Re: Anyone watching the hearings?????
Post by maffumatt on Jan 16th, 2006, 10:37pm
OH good Lord Flo, you would blame bush if you pissed on your shoe.


Clusterheadaches.com Message Board » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1!
YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved.