The DNA of the Democratic Party

[Zealot]

An excellent article by David Brooks of the New York Times makes a profound statement about the two parties today. In 1932 the Democrats had working class DNA. Today, the Democrats have a different DNA, the DNA of a minority party.

The way they are conducting themselves at the Alito hearing is sickening.

The Democrats have amply shown why they remain the party of the gown, but not the town. In 1971, Fred Dutton wrote: 'The New Deal coalition, including Catholics, white ethnics, was dying, he argued, and should be replaced by a "loose peace coalition" of young people, educated suburbanites, feminists and blacks.

That plan was not stupid, but it did not work. The party has been on a downward spiral ever since. John Kerry lost the white working class by 23 percentage points. He lost his fellow Catholics.

After every defeat, Democrats vow to reconnect with the middle class whites. But if there is one lesson of the Alito hearings, it is that the Democratic party continues to repel those voters just as vigorously as ever.

Edited in part from the www.pressdemocrat.com 'How the Democratic Party lost Alitos'
Friday Jan. 13, 2006 by David Brooks reprinted from the New York Times.

[SteveA]

I've heard some different takes on this one. Though I don't know how sincere some of the Democratic questioning of Alito is, it seems they're at least largely asking the right questions.

I heard Michael Savage on the radio complaining about some of Kennedy's questioning about what the limits to executive powers are, but these seemed entirely appropriate and Alito should be expected to be able to freely voice his views without shame.

[Protostar]

Zealot, what the hell is the point of this thread?

[SteveA]

Quote by: Protostar Zealot, what the hell is the point of this thread?

Republicans are trying to intimidate people who believe potential Supreme Court justices should be throughly questioned publicly before being approved for office.

There's been a campaign to make it seem as though it's somehow unjust to expect a potential new judge being able to freely and summarily speak their mind on issues.

Some people believe this is a partisan issue but Republicans should be questioning him just as hard. Haven't Republicans been bitten before by bad justices? Yet they control Congress now and have plenty of opportunities to scrutinize a candidate yet discourage it now .... simply because Bush recommended the guy?

Anyway, that's the way I see it. It's hypocracy from Republicans.

Sure, the Democrats want to point out that he's not a socialist ... fine. Or that he doesn't support gun control laws, as is right, he's supposed to recognize things like the 2nd Amendment because that's his job. Or that he supports overturning Roe vs. Wade. They might try to paint a bad picture of him for those on the left, but who cares, these are constitutional issues and he's suppose to have stances on these. Alito should come out strong and say no he doesn't approve of government controlling the economy or regulating personal firearms etc.

On the other hand, there have been claims that Alito was part of those pushing for greater unrestrained executive power under Reagan and he's made comments that seem to leave this issue still questionably open. Now this could be a big black mark because he was selected by Bush, and if he supported even greater unrestrained executive powers that could mean a further withering of constitutionally limited government. And even those who might think Bush is the perfect president, consider that if there's a backlash from the left, those same powers will lead to even more problems in the future ... what goes around, comes around.

It seems like the questioning of judges should be a nonpartisan issue and that both political parties should encourage a thorough understanding of what a potential judge 'is all about' before approving him. Republicans have control of things anyway, so it would seem obviously in their interest to take advantage of this because Republicans are going to be the ones deciding whether or not he's appointed, yet we hear complaints about this instead (at least that seems to be the media portrayal of things ... who knows what biases or filters this information has gone through though). But this begs the question of whether or not there's something to hide. (I believe it's at least currently over whether or not Alito would support or oppose things like this NSA spying or legal provisions for torture by a president and the only news I've heard seems to imply he could likely support these). Either way, questioning about these things is entirely appropriate, as they will be the types of decisions he's expected to rule on for likely many decades.

[xyzer]

I disagree Steve

I've heard some different takes on this one. Though I don't know how sincere some of the Democratic questioning of Alito is, it seems they're at least largely asking the right questions.

Is it right to ask the judge how he would rule on something like executive power which may come up before the court? Is it right to belabor a recusal of a mutual fund case that was properly corrected after the judge realized he had made a mistake and remanded the case for review after recusing himself? I think not! Even after it was disclosed that Alito had never attended any CPA meetings he was accused by his inquisitors of having participated in a racist, organization.And it was suggested that he was a racist...a nasty charge of which he was not guilty! Not so!

It seems to me that this should not be a politicized process. Are we not trying to determine whether the candidate is knowledgeable, has been fair and is experienced? Why was there a battlefield of unfounded charges and insinuations which reversed our normal concept of innocent until proven guilty. The Democrat hatchet men/women were not satisfied with that they maintained he was guilty and had to explain his transgressions to prove his innocence. A travesty of a hearing by a bunch of political goons.

[SteveA]

Quote by: xyzer I disagree Steve Is it right to ask the judge how he would rule on something like executive power which may come up before the court?

Of course this is correct to ask.

Is it right to belabor a recusal of a mutual fund case that was properly corrected after the judge realized he had made a mistake and remanded the case for review after recusing himself? I think not!

No, I don't recommend belaboring anything but we already have ways of overriding a fillibuster, assuming that truly was the case, so if many people truly felt a point was simply being belabored, there's already a mechanism in place to avoid this.

Obviously Congress has other issues that need to be addressed as well, but they're free to vote on the guy anytime they want or not appoint him for now and move on to other things.

If some Congressional representatives are acting foolishly then they'll suffer in the realm of public support and so it would seem a partisan benefit to encourage this behavior to be seem publicly if it was truly limited to one side.

Even after it was disclosed that Alito had never attended any CPA meetings he was accused by his inquisitors of having participated in a racist, organization.And it was suggested that he was a racist...a nasty charge of which he was not guilty! Not so!

And I believe people can see through many of these claims. Alito and Republicans should have nothing to fear over having these issues brought up publicly.

It seems to me that this should not be a politicized process. Are we not trying to determine whether the candidate is knowledgeable, has been fair and is experienced?

I totally agree. Likely how he handles himself here is how he will handle himself as a judge.

Why was there a battlefield of unfounded charges and insinuations which reversed our normal concept of innocent until proven guilty.

He's not being charged of anything criminal. He's the potential recipient of a national position of high prestige. Let's start checking resumes and work ethics etc.

The Democrat hatchet men/women were not satisfied with that they maintained he was guilty and had to explain his transgressions to prove his innocence. A travesty of a hearing by a bunch of political goons.

Ok, fine. Republicans can point this out if it feels reassuring to know some Democrats are acting inappropriately but this still doesn't discount the need to pay attention to what makes Alito a qualified candidate.

All this energy spent on paying attention to the failings of some Democrats is mostly wasted in comparison to concentrating on the more crucial issue of where Alito stands on constitutional issues and his prior history.

If some of you guys believe Alito is a great candidate, why not emphasis why this is true as opposed to trying to degrade people who are willing to place some scrutiny and questioning on Alito? Shouldn't emphasis be easily placed upon the responses and actions from Alito? You'd think 3/4ths or more of the discussions surrounding Alito would be over his stances on constitutional issues and his prior history, not over Congressional comedies behind this.

Does someone feel it's not important to determine how well Alito would support a limited constitution government with checks and balances between all three branches? We're offering the guy a position of power for decades, it would be ridiculous to assume this should be something solely determined by presidential selection, or we'd end up having judges that all said the presidency can enforce laws that Congress never wrote and ignore court decisions.

[Zealot]

Quote by: Protostar Zealot, what the hell is the point of this thread?

The point of this thread:
A counter debate describing the Democratic Party's actions to match the attacks against the present Republican Administration seen commonly in this forum.

I said nothing about hell in my post so I would appreciate your not bringing in into this discussion, thank you.

[Osborn F Enready]

If anybody sincerely cares about what Alito is all about, you should have watched the questions on the 4th day of the hearing, where it wasn't political bi-partisan mouthpieces asking vague, unpointed questions. On the 4th day, the President of the BAR association, as well as several watchdog groups, civil rights organizations, constitutional scholars from Harvard, Yale etc, posing questions and statements on Alito.

These were the people who clearly made up my mind, as they didn't play politics, they stated the facts that Alito is a pro-government whore in his record as a judge, and he is exactly what I would expect the fascist Bush to promote to the bench.

Crying wife, republicant and democrank agendists aside, I would say that Alito if appointed, will rule out any justice being served in the highest court, as he will swing the other way in all of the critical historical precedents that his predecessor helped set.

Also, on this posts original topic, I find it useless to debate how two fully corrupted parties are better than the other. It is like comparing two spoiled, rotten, fermenting apples. They both stink and offer nothing but a trashy smell, infestation of maggots, and a promise to further spoiling of the entire lot of fruit.

[underbear1]

Zealot your Republican party has much more to lose after Roberts and Alito overturn Roe vs. Wade, the women of America will make sure Republicans are never a majority party again. Women will recognise their ONLY choice for reproductive control of their lives lay with Democrats, and they won't trust Republicans for at least another generation. Blue States will retain their abortion laws ( passed prior to Roe), and Red State women will resent their rights being stripped from them.btw. nice republican underage daughters and mistresses have the annoying habit of getting pregnant at most inoppurtune times, what ya gonna do?

[Osborn F Enready]

underbear said:
Women will recognise their ONLY choice for reproductive control of their lives lay with Democrats,

I say:
And Libertarians, as well as the libs recognize all other individual rights also.

[underbear1]

Women are not universally in favor of abortion or contraception, they are almost entirely unanimous when asked,"should the government or a woman and her doctor decide what's best for a woman's health and life?"........they go with the woman and her doctor.

The miniscule number of Republican gays/lesbians will FINALLY have to admit the Republicans are entirely indifferent to our civil liberties, and will strip us of the chance for equality for another 30 years.
Many other Americans will wake up to the fact they just gave Cheney/Bush an impeachment proof Supreme Court, think how happy the wire-tappers, torture freaks, and defense contractors will be, now their boys have the ABSOLUTE privlidge to do ANYTHING and still stay in power.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready If anybody sincerely cares about what Alito is all about, you should have watched the questions on the 4th day of the hearing, where it wasn't political bi-partisan mouthpieces asking vague, unpointed questions. On the 4th day, the President of the BAR association, as well as several watchdog groups, civil rights organizations, constitutional scholars from Harvard, Yale etc, posing questions and statements on Alito. These were the people who clearly made up my mind, as they didn't play politics, they stated the facts that Alito is a pro-government whore in his record as a judge, and he is exactly what I would expect the fascist Bush to promote to the bench. Crying wife, republicant and democrank agendists aside, I would say that Alito if appointed, will rule out any justice being served in the highest court, as he will swing the other way in all of the critical historical precedents that his predecessor helped set. Also, on this posts original topic, I find it useless to debate how two fully corrupted parties are better than the other. It is like comparing two spoiled, rotten, fermenting apples. They both stink and offer nothing but a trashy smell, infestation of maggots, and a promise to further spoiling of the entire lot of fruit.

You know, its funny how all the facts that we Liberatrians claim about the government, and get labeled a Conspiracy Theorists over, are coming out a record pace when the Democrats find themselves faced with accepting, or outing Alito, whom they do not like.


So many of the little factiods that point to conspiracy among the two parties are voiced in an effort to see where Alito's loyalties lie, I think they forget that we are watching sometimes.


I mean, who can deny that are ignorant of what we speak about when they are pulling the same arguemnts out of their Bag of Tricks to undermine Alito's credibility.


Ah, the hypocrisy. Makes me want to burn some of these bastards at the stake.

[Osborn F Enready]

Milton said:
So many of the little factiods that point to conspiracy among the two parties are voiced in an effort to see where Alito's loyalties lie, I think they forget that we are watching sometimes.

I say:
I am not sure, but I would bet you are talking about when Alito was questioned about Executive Branch abilities under the War Powers Act?

If so, I agree completely. I also love how both Democrips and Rebloodlicans take such joy in pointing out parts of our law creation history which they find constitutionally questionable, but this is the only place you hear it, is in a forum where they are DOING nothing about the issues at hand.

Both major parties are so corrupt, and the process of questioning the nominated justice so watered down and neutered, it is a sad joke to all who understand how the process is supposed to work. :rolleyes:

[Zealot]

Quote by: underbear1 Zealot your Republican party has much more to lose after Roberts and Alito overturn Roe vs. Wade, the women of America will make sure Republicans are never a majority party again. Women will recognise their ONLY choice for reproductive control of their lives lay with Democrats, and they won't trust Republicans for at least another generation. Blue States will retain their abortion laws ( passed prior to Roe), and Red State women will resent their rights being stripped from them.btw. nice republican underage daughters and mistresses have the annoying habit of getting pregnant at most inoppurtune times, what ya gonna do?

Maybe some responsibility is in order for the women who go to bed at inopportune times and some men who need to keep their zippers up or be prepared to pay their costs with money and testicles.
BTW, it is not my Republican party, I don't belong to it, don't support it. I support the third party when we can find some people with guts and fortitude!

[Zealot]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Milton said: So many of the little factiods that point to conspiracy among the two parties are voiced in an effort to see where Alito's loyalties lie, I think they forget that we are watching sometimes. I say: I am not sure, but I would bet you are talking about when Alito was questioned about Executive Branch abilities under the War Powers Act? If so, I agree completely. I also love how both Democrips and Rebloodlicans take such joy in pointing out parts of our law creation history which they find constitutionally questionable, but this is the only place you hear it, is in a forum where they are DOING nothing about the issues at hand. Both major parties are so corrupt, and the process of questioning the nominated justice so watered down and neutered, it is a sad joke to all who understand how the process is supposed to work. :rolleyes:

I can't agree with you more my friend!

[Zealot]

Quote by: underbear1 Women are not universally in favor of abortion or contraception, they are almost entirely unanimous when asked,"should the government or a woman and her doctor decide what's best for a woman's health and life?"........they go with the woman and her doctor. The miniscule number of Republican gays/lesbians will FINALLY have to admit the Republicans are entirely indifferent to our civil liberties, and will strip us of the chance for equality for another 30 years. Many other Americans will wake up to the fact they just gave Cheney/Bush an impeachment proof Supreme Court, think how happy the wire-tappers, torture freaks, and defense contractors will be, now their boys have the ABSOLUTE privlidge to do ANYTHING and still stay in power.

What I do not understand Ubear is, why are women so stupid and allow these flightly guys to impregnate them, then go on the table, risking their lives and bodies while the dude goes around calling hinself a stud laying some other chick.

I would like to see the New Roe and Wade say the guy now assumes new responsibility. For every abortion a male testicle of the impregnator will be neccessary. Let him lay on the table with her. When are you gals gonna wake up?

[underbear1]

Laying with some chick really isn't my scene .....anymore. So you are asking the wrong person.
Look back to pre- Roe and the number of teen and poor women being butchered in back alley "clinics." Human nature hasn't changed, Newt Gingrich left a terminal wife for a new mistress, Scarsborro's secretary was found dead in his office, Kennedy had Chapaquidic, naive women and school age girls aren't going to stop having sex with worthless men. Married men aren't going to stop lying and cheating......EVER!

[SteveA]

Quote by: underbear1 Zealot your Republican party has much more to lose after Roberts and Alito overturn Roe vs. Wade, the women of America will make sure Republicans are never a majority party again. Women will recognise their ONLY choice for reproductive control of their lives lay with Democrats, and they won't trust Republicans for at least another generation. Blue States will retain their abortion laws ( passed prior to Roe), and Red State women will resent their rights being stripped from them.btw. nice republican underage daughters and mistresses have the annoying habit of getting pregnant at most inoppurtune times, what ya gonna do?

Roe vs. Wade should be overturned because abortion shouldn't be a federal issue. As you said, some states will likely declare abortion illegal, but others wont. That's fine. I personally don't support anti-abortion laws, though I discourage abortion, but that seems to matter little because California likely wouldn't add an anti-abortion law and won't pass a laws saying individuals can't discourage others from having an abortion. So it's the best of all worlds ... no federal police will be involved in the issue, and no state police either (at least in California). Overturning Roe vs. Wade would simply allows areas that have greater opposition to abortion to deny it but wouldn't deny others from leaving that state for an abortion. This might even encourage conservatives to live in areas that share similar views and reduce conflicts there as well as decrease the level of conflict over abortion present in other states.

The question is more appropriately whether or not the federal government has a role to play on abortion and I don't see it. Overturning Roe vs. Wade simply returns it to being something states can address if it's seen as important enough, but probably more than half the states won't get involved and at least for those states, neither federal nor state police would be needed for any of this either pro or con.

[Zealot]

Quote by: underbear1 Laying with some chick really isn't my scene .....anymore. So you are asking the wrong person. Look back to pre- Roe and the number of teen and poor women being butchered in back alley "clinics." Human nature hasn't changed, Newt Gingrich left a terminal wife for a new mistress, Scarsborro's secretary was found dead in his office, Kennedy had Chapaquidic, naive women and school age girls aren't going to stop having sex with worthless men. Married men aren't going to stop lying and cheating......EVER!

Yep you are quite right, there will always some lying cheating chick to feed the ego of the lying cheating man. But the crazy scene is: the chick will risk her life and let the hybrid stud off scott free?????

[underbear1]

Quote by: SteveA Quote by: underbear1 Zealot your Republican party has much more to lose after Roberts and Alito overturn Roe vs. Wade, the women of America will make sure Republicans are never a majority party again. Women will recognise their ONLY choice for reproductive control of their lives lay with Democrats, and they won't trust Republicans for at least another generation. Blue States will retain their abortion laws ( passed prior to Roe), and Red State women will resent their rights being stripped from them.btw. nice republican underage daughters and mistresses have the annoying habit of getting pregnant at most inoppurtune times, what ya gonna do? Roe vs. Wade should be overturned because abortion shouldn't be a federal issue. As you said, some states will likely declare abortion illegal, but others wont. That's fine. I personally don't support anti-abortion laws, though I discourage abortion, but that seems to matter little because California likely wouldn't add an anti-abortion law and won't pass a laws saying individuals can't discourage others from having an abortion. So it's the best of all worlds ... no federal police will be involved in the issue, and no state police either (at least in California). Overturning Roe vs. Wade would simply allows areas that have greater opposition to abortion to deny it but wouldn't deny others from leaving that state for an abortion. This might even encourage conservatives to live in areas that share similar views and reduce conflicts there as well as decrease the level of conflict over abortion present in other states. The question is more appropriately whether or not the federal government has a role to play on abortion and I don't see it. Overturning Roe vs. Wade simply returns it to being something states can address if it's seen as important enough, but probably more than half the states won't get involved and at least for those states, neither federal nor state police would be needed for any of this either pro or con.

You have this backwards, some states had abortion rights prior to Roe, they will retain those laws, the other states abortions will automaticly become illegal again, when Roe gets overturned.