This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ibisgolfer
« on: September 08, 2005, 12:55:14 AM »
should have gone to the best man. scalia was clearly the best candidate that fit within Bush's phil. outlook. If I were Scalia i would resign. I mean seriously, he has carved out the niche as the most identifiable justice on the court through his acerbic opinions, what does he have left to do. He isn't going to usher in a Scalia era like a Warren or Burger. I would leave. A smart guy like him, must be thinking what is he doing in a place like that. Nothing against Roberts, but Scalia was a better COJ pick. he passed the senate 99-0. What are they going to do, admit they were all wrong. seriously. the blog how appealing has a link about how scalia is said to be arrogant and bored with his work on the court. could we have a resignation brewing? my blog has covered this also.
« on: August 02, 2005, 08:25:13 PM »
I got an email today from american that stated the following:
The Committee on Admissions of American University, Washington College of Law is currently reviewing a group of applicants from our wait list for a few seats in the full-time program. Your file has been selected for consideration. Prior to bringing the file to the full committee, I need to determine your level of interest in the full-time program. Please let me know in the next 24 hours if you are interested in being considered by the committee. Please reply to email@example.com
Andrew F. Popper
Professor of Law
Chair, Committee on Admissions
American University, Washington College of Law
I don't know what to do. I've already moved to Knoxville, TN to go to UT Law with the intent of kicking ass and transferring to UVA/Vandy my undergrad institution. I've paid for a condo, and half the semester's tuition not to mention spent 1 large on movers getting my *&^% out here. Any chance American would offer me money given that it would essentially be going from the 52nd ranked school to the 47th ranked school and taking it up the ass on losing money from them telling me at this late date. Should i even reply? advice appreciated.
« on: July 19, 2005, 08:12:05 PM »
John Roberts,50, Visiting G-Town Professor of Law, Argued some 30 plus cases before High Court, Harvard Undergrad and Harvard Law. Former Clerk to CJ of the Supreme Court. Let the discussion begin. . .
« on: July 19, 2005, 05:26:26 PM »
im rooting for alito aka scalito, but luttig would be fine for me. despite what the pundits and inside bloggers are saying, no one really knows who it will be but POTUS. Bush has consistently had a knack for being inconsistent and pulling a surprise out of the hat at the last minute- remember the Cheney pick. Cheney got the nod while serving inside the process as the chief search committeman. Maybe Bush does that again and goes with Cornyn. Exciting to see.
« on: July 02, 2005, 08:40:36 PM »
Look for Republicans to point to the confirmations of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer as models of the process that should be employed in the effort to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Both Ginsburg and Breyer were nominated and confirmed at a time (1993-1994) in which the president's party -- Democrats -- also controlled the Senate. And both were given relatively easy passage through the Senate because the minority party -- Republicans -- cooperated with Democrats to ensure a quick confirmation. Ginsburg was nominated on June 14, 1993 and confirmed by the Senate on August 3, 1993. Breyer was nominated on May 13, 1994 and confirmed on July 29, 1994.
They moved with such speed because Republicans, in particular Sen. Orrin Hatch, the ranking GOP member on the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time, declined to challenge their records. Ginsburg, in particular, received something of a bye from Republicans despite her former position as general counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union; had they chosen to, Republicans could have hung every extreme ACLU position around Ginsburg's neck. Instead, "Sen. Hatch put an orderly and fair process above scoring political points," says one high-ranking staffer involved at the time. "It ensured that the Senate's conduct of the hearings was constructive rather than divisive."
Republicans also chose not to oppose Ginsburg even though she refused to answer dozens of questions during her confirmation hearings. Among others, she declined to give her views on Roe v. Wade, on the Second Amendment, on the death penalty, on the Voting Rights Act, on race-based congressional redistricting, and on adoption rights for gay couples, among many other issues. At one point in her hearings, Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond told her, "In preparing these questions or any others I may propound during the hearings, if you feel they are inappropriate to answer, will you speak out and say so." On another occasion, Thurmond said, "I will not press you to answer any that you feel are inappropriate."
Not surprisingly, Democrats wholeheartedly agreed. Then-chairman Sen. Joseph Biden told Ginsburg, "You not only have a right to choose what you will answer and not answer, but in my view you should not answer a question of what your view will be on an issue that clearly is going to come before the court in 50 forms probably, over your tenure on the court."
Of course, Republicans today realize that Democrats, now the minority party, will never extend to a Bush nominee the sort of treatment the GOP gave Ginsburg in 1993. Nevertheless, they will tell the story over and over, in hopes that someone will listen.
Also, this whole NONSENSe about needing to replace a moderate with a moderate never troubled the Democrats in putting Ginsberg on the court to replace a conservative Justice White. Short memory by the DEMS now calling for maintaining the so-called balance.
« on: July 01, 2005, 04:26:16 AM »
The purpose of the advantage given to URMs is to attempt to repair the social injustices a person/applicant has encountered due to his or her skin color.
The purpose has nothing to do with social injustices!!! It only has to do with diversity. Grutter v. Bollinger, Grutter v. Bollinger, How many times do I have to scream this on a board full of kids who want to go to LAW SCHOOL. How about actually reading the law. Schools have given URM's a bump and the Supreme Court has signed off onto the practice making it the law of the land PURELY for the purpose of the compelling educational benefits that come from diversity (supposedly). Anyway, the point is many URMs never face injustice but schools would still want to extend advantages to them in the same way that a school extends advantages to an applicant from Montana who has 22 brothers and sisters was raised on a farm and has no legs DIVERSITY. Cubans, and many Latino's from more affluent nation's of origin have not had social injustices and neither have international applicants who have emigrated to the US recently and therefore are URM. It's all about diversity.
« on: June 30, 2005, 10:48:52 PM »
perversely, maybe we in fact agree, you mention wanting a public school education to offer more of what a private school education does. i take it you would support vouchers then. great, i do. you know funding really isnt an issue. catholic schools in NYC spend 1/3 of what the average public school does and get 30000 times the testing results. and these arent lily white catholic schools they are some of the most heavily minority populated schools in NY.
no, no freakin' vouchers! fix the freakin problem! don't put a bandaide on it and say, "hey, we tried"!!!! because you know what's going to happen? not everyone will take advantage of it. not everyone will know how. not everyone will be able to entirely.
yeah, i'm a communist. my name is mrs. castro.
call me anything, just don't call me a republican!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
no, seriously, i think the 'no child left behind' law or laws that have been brewing because of this initiative have been wonderful...however, if a law says it's going to do something, it should do it.
to imply 'no child left behind'...i would think they mean ALL CHILDREN will have a chance.
currently, ALL CHILDREN don't have a chance.
we're just looking at another form of what's going on in asia and in europe. do we want or need a classist society that begs to treat people differently, depending on the side of the tracks where a person has been raised. aren't we better than that?
i would hope so. with the needless war, our fleeting manufacturing base, and a number of countless issues this country faces today, do you really think we can afford to be this selective.
let's face it: rich people aren't having the babies in this country.
okay, i've given you like 20 minutes...i'm signing off. you haven't convinced me that bush really cares about PEOPLE other than his cronies.
you haven't convinced me that bush shouldn't send his daughters to iraq....let's not forget the topic here.
wow can you say bait and switch. non-sequitur. "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the facts and the law are against you, yell like hell and attack the prosecutor." That's what you just pulled. I never jumped into this thread to discuss war, but saw some guy making an ass out of himself talking like he knew *&^% about NCLB. I smelled some pooh and kept digging only to find a pile of *&^% for knowledge on NCLB. So what do you do when I throw your arguments about NCLB back at you, you decide to turn the argument around to me so that I have to CONVINCE you that Bush cares about people. You and Ms. Pelosi and Dr. Dean please keep this sophisticated level of discourse up and I'll keep getting hard as I watch the GOP steamroll over the left in election after election.
as to your point, bush should not have to send his daughter to Iraq anymore than Clinton should have sent his to Bosnia, or Somalia. The commander and chief so long as he commands an army that is not forced by law to sign up (draft) is free to send them where he thinks is best.
« on: June 30, 2005, 10:43:44 PM »
Thats just rhetoric. Bush is radical blah blah blah. The original point was credible. The military voted for Bush and they are the main consituency taking the fallout from this war and bearing its burden. If it passes their muster, then who are you to say that Bush's war is radical and Bush is radical. Apparently a larger percentage of the American people found Monseniur Kerry to be the more radical candidate because a few million more voters said no to his agenda.
The military and others voted for Bush because they figured that voting for someone else wouold make it look like the terrorists won. It had little to do with their actually believing in his policies.
BTW, Bush was SUNK until 911 happened! Giulani was an embarrasment as well until 911.
now that theory of yours is hegelian indeed. give me a break, voting for W because they didnt want to make it seem like the terrorists won. that's about as bad as Dr. I Had A Scream Dean and his accepting the theory that W Knew about 9-11 beforehand. Wow some LSDrs are really drinking the moveon.org koolaid tonight.