Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: Boston Mass

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,313
    Post Thanks / Like
    Updated: 04:16 PM EST
    State Court Says Same-Sex Couples Entitled to Marry
    Massachusetts Lawmakers to Consider Changing Constitution to Ban Gay Marriages
    By JENNIFER PETER, AP

    BOSTON (Feb. 4) -- The Massachusetts high court ruled Wednesday that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples - rather than civil unions - are constitutional, clearing the way for the nation's first same-sex marriages in the state as early as May.


    ****You guys are happy people indeed.

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't really mind the outcome, but I hate it that the will of the people was subverted and that it was the courts, not the elected legislature, that made this come about.

    (Jet Set - spare me the lecture about how judicial activism is a mirage created by, what was it, "Christian fundementalist reactionaries who want to control America" or something?)

    I'm not thrilled about gay marriage, but I have to say that I do agree that is does come down to equal protection under the law. I would classify my "support" of it as tepid at best. I know I should support it to be logically consistent and fair, but my heart ain't in it.

    But I 100% would rather see it come about properly and not by judicial fiat.

    (Again, spare me lectures. If the Supreme Court were to one day over-turn Roe it would not be the same. Correcting judicial activism (which is what Roe was) is not nearly the same as creating it. You know it, I know it...there is no discussion to be had.)

    Liberals don't mind or acknowledge judicial activism because it's the only way their agenda is fostered since they can't win elections these days. It is why they try to block good men like Estrada and Pickering (ha ha, we got him in!) from becoming judges.

    The racism from liberals against conservative minorities is apalling. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE who does not think what the Dems did to Estrada is appalling and awful is simply not worthy of engaging in mature debate. Seriously. You all %^*#%-ing know it, too.

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,406
    Post Thanks / Like
    Did anyone watch Law and Order last night? Not sure if it was a re-run, but it was on the topic of gay-marriage. Basically, two lesbians adopt a little girl, but only one is the legal guardian. The girl associates both partners as her mother. The two women split up and since under the law one woman has no legal standing, since she is not the legal guardian, to even get visitation rights.

    I know a lot of you are proberly against gay people adopting kids, but the fact is they want the kids and lesbians especially have other means of getting children through artificial incemination, or by sleeping with a man for the purpose of having a child.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Feb 4 2004, 06:02 PM
    [b] The racism from liberals against conservative minorities is apalling. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE who does not think what the Dems did to Estrada is appalling and awful is simply not worthy of engaging in mature debate. Seriously. You all %^*#%-ing know it, too. [/b][/quote]
    5-ever...What exactly did the democrats do to Estrada?

    As far as I know all the democratic senators did was ask him questions and Mr. Estrada refused to answer. Try that on your next job interview 5-ever, and see how well that goes over for you.

    Bush has gotten over 95% of his judicial appointments through the confirmation process. What do you want 100%?

    You sound like a whiney little girl.

    Grow up!

  5. #5
    All League
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    4,255
    Post Thanks / Like
    The right really has NO room to whine about confirmation of judicial appointments. They held up many of Clinton's, leaving the court system way overburdened.

    I guess we're just supposed to forget about that.

    As for the Law & Order episode, I think the point was that it's not ok to kill people. I agree.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    5ever that dude estrada is a neo-con reactionary

    not even mainstream latino groups support him

    playing the race card is pretty low down, the guy is way out there and wouldn't even verbalize his views...

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Educate yourself, Toonces. You're precentage quotes are a red herring and have no bearing on Estrada whatsoever and you know it. It's funny - for a guy who pretends to be so enlightened, Ihave never heard you even ONCE criticize anything ANY Deomcrat has EVER done. Yet you call other people hacks. :

    February 24, 2003

    Dear Senator Schumer:

    Based on your public comments yesterday, I am concerned that you may have inaccurate and incomplete information about Miguel Estrada's qualifications and about the historical practice with respect to judicial confirmations. Therefore, I write to respectfully reiterate and explain our conclusion that you and certain other Senators are applying an unfair double standard — indeed, a series of unfair double standards — to Miguel Estrada.

    First, your request for confidential attorney-client memoranda Mr. Estrada wrote in the Office of Solicitor General seeks information that, based on our review, has not been demanded from past nominees to the federal courts of appeals. [b]We are informed that the Senate has not requested memoranda such as these for any of the 67 appeals court nominees since 1977 who had previously worked in the Justice Department — including the seven nominees who had previously worked in the Solicitor General's office.[/b] Nor have such memoranda been demanded from nominees in similar attorney-client situations: The Senate has not demanded confidential memoranda written by judicial nominees who had served as Senate lawyers, such as memoranda written by [b]Stephen Breyer as a Senate counsel before Justice Breyer was confirmed to the First Circuit in 1980[/b]. Nor has the Senate demanded confidential memoranda written by judicial nominees who had served as law clerks to Supreme Court Justices or other federal or state judges. Nor has the Senate demanded confidential memoranda written by judicial nominees who had worked for private clients.
    The very few isolated examples you have cited were not nominees for federal appeals courts. Moreover, those situations involved Executive Branch accommodations of targeted requests for particular documents about specific issues that were primarily related to allegations of malfeasance or misconduct in a federal office. We respectfully do not believe these examples support your request. Our conclusion about the general lack of support and precedent for your position is buttressed by the fact that every living former Solicitor General (four Democrats and three Republicans) has strongly opposed your request and stated that it would sacrifice and compromise the ability of the Justice Department to effectively represent the United States in court. In short, the traditional practice of the Senate and the Executive Branch with respect to federal appeals court nominations stands in contrast to your request here and supports our conclusion that an unfair double standard is being applied to Miguel Estrada. (Also, contrary to your suggestion yesterday, please note that no one in the Executive Branch has reviewed these memoranda since President Bush took office in January 2001.)

    Second, you suggested that "no judicial nominee that I'm aware of, for such a high court, has ever had so little of a record." I respectfully disagree. Miguel Estrada has been a very accomplished lawyer, trying cases before federal juries, briefing and arguing numerous appeals before federal and state appeals courts, and arguing 15 cases before the Supreme Court, among his other significant work. His record and breadth of experience exceeds that of many judicial nominees, which is no doubt why the American Bar Association — which you have labeled the "gold standard" — unanimously rated him "well-qualified." In noting yesterday that Mr. Estrada's career had been devoted to "arguing for a client," you appeared to imply that only those with prior judicial service (or perhaps "a lot of [law review] articles") may serve on the federal appeals courts. But five of the eight judges currently serving on the D.C. Circuit had no prior judicial service at the time of their appointments. Indeed, Supreme Court Justices Rehnquist, White, and Powell — to name three of the most recent — had not served as judges before being confirmed to the Supreme Court. And like Mr. Estrada, two appointees of President Clinton to the D.C. Circuit (Judge David Tatel and Judge Merrick Garland) had similarly spent their careers "arguing for a client," but were nonetheless confirmed.

    As the Chief Justice noted in his 2001 Year-End Report, moreover, "[t]he federal Judiciary has traditionally drawn from a wide diversity of professional backgrounds." The Chief Justice cited Justice Louis Brandeis, Justice John Harlan, Justice Byron White, Judge Thurgood Marshall (as nominee to the Second Circuit), Judge Learned Hand, and Judge John Minor Wisdom as just a few examples of great judges who had spent virtually their entire careers "arguing for a client" before becoming Supreme Court Justices or federal appeals court judges. As these examples show, had the "arguing for a client" standard been applied in the past, it would have deprived the American people of many of our most notable appellate judges. Based on our understanding, this standard has not been applied in the past. This further explains why we have concluded that an unfair double standard is being applied to Miguel Estrada.

    Third, you stated that "when you went to those hearings, Mr. Estrada answered no questions." The record demonstrates otherwise. Mr. Estrada answered more than 100 questions at his hearing (and another 25 in follow-up written answers). He explained in some detail his approach to judging on many issues, and did so appropriately without providing his personal views on specific legal or policy questions that could come before him — which is how previous judicial nominees of Presidents of both parties have appropriately answered questions. [b]Indeed, at his hearing, Mr. Estrada was asked and answered more questions, and did so more fully, than did President Clinton's appointees to this same court. Judge David Tatel was asked a total of three questions at his hearing. Judges Judith Rogers and Merrick Garland were each asked fewer than 20 questions. The three appointees of President Clinton — combined — thus answered fewer than half the number of questions at their hearings that Mr. Estrada answered at his hearing.[/b] What is more, like Mr. Estrada, both Judge Rogers and Judge Garland declined to give their personal views on disputed legal and policy questions at the hearing. Judge Rogers refused to give her views when asked about the notion of an evolving Constitution. And Mr. Garland did not answer questions about his personal views on the death penalty, stating that he would follow precedent. In short, we believe that your criticism of Mr. Estrada's answers at his hearing reveals that another unfair double standard is being applied to Mr. Estrada.

    Fourth, you stated that the Founding Fathers "came to the conclusion that the Senate ought to ask a whole lot of questions" of judicial nominees. We respect the Senate's constitutional role in the confirmation process, and we agree that the Senate should make an informed judgment consistent with its traditional role and practices. But your characterization of the Senate's role with respect to judicial nominations is not consistent with our reading of historical or traditional practice. Alexander Hamilton explained that the purpose of Senate confirmation is to prevent appointment of "unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity." The Federalist 76. The Framers anticipated that the Senate's approval would not often be refused unless there were "special and strong reasons for the refusal." Id. Moreover, the Senate did not hold hearings on judicial nominees for much of American history, and the hearings for lower-court nominees in modern times traditionally have not included the examination of personal views that you have advocated. (My letter of February 12, 2003, to Senators Daschle and Leahy contains more detail on this point.) Indeed, just a few years ago, Senator Biden made clear, consistent with the traditional practice, that he would vote to confirm an appeals court judge if he were convinced that the nominee would follow precedent and otherwise was of high ability and integrity.

    In short, it appears that you are seeking to change the Senate's traditional standard for assessing judicial nominees. We respect your right to advocate a change, but we do not believe that the standard you seek to apply is consistent with the Framers' vision, the traditional Senate practice, or the Senate's treatment of President Clinton's nominees. Rather, we believe a new standard is being devised and applied to Miguel Estrada.

    Fifth, you stated yesterday that a "filibuster" is not an appropriate term to describe what has been occurring in the Senate. We respectfully disagree. Democrat Senators have objected to unanimous consent motions to schedule a vote, and they have indicated that they will continue to do so. That tactic is historically and commonly known as a filibuster, and is a dramatic escalation of the tactics used to oppose judicial nominees. Indeed, in 1998, Senator Leahy stated: "I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would refuse to put an anonymous hold on any judge; that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty. If we don't like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her down. But don't hold them in this anonymous unconscionable limbo, because in doing that, the minority of Senators really shame all Senators." 144 Cong. Rec. S6522 (June 18, 1998). In our judgment, the tactics now being employed again show that Miguel Estrada is receiving differential treatment.

    * * *

    As I have said before, I appreciate and respect the Senate's constitutional role in the confirmation process. You have expressed concern that you do not know enough about Mr. Estrada's views, but you have not submitted any follow-up questions to him. We respectfully submit that the Senate has ample information and has had more than enough time to consider questions about the qualifications and suitability of a nominee submitted more than 21 months ago. Most important, we believe that a majority of Senators have now concluded that they possess sufficient information on Mr. Estrada and would vote to confirm him. We believe it is past time for the Senate to vote on this nominee, and we urge your support.


    Sincerely,
    /s/
    Alberto R. Gonzales
    Counsel to the President

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    5-ever...Do you want some cheese to go with that whine?

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Feb 5 2004, 10:20 AM
    [b] 5ever that dude estrada is a neo-con reactionary

    not even mainstream latino groups support him

    playing the race card is pretty low down, the guy is way out there and wouldn't even verbalize his views... [/b][/quote]
    You guys are INSANE!!!!!!

    Playing the race card!???

    You guys are absolutely blind to facts and anyone who supports affirmative action and quotas who accuses someone else of "playing the race card" is beyond moronic.

    How is Estrada "way out there?" The whole point that the Dems complained about was that they DIDN'T KNOW his views, not that he was conservative. Which is it?

    What is "way out there" about being pro-life or anti gay marriage? More people are pro-life and than pro-choice and more people are against gay marriage than for it.

    Bob - what the Dems did to Estrada was unpreceedented and far worse and you know it.
    Talking with you people has just become pointless. You don't discuss things or think critically for yourselves, you simply parrot things other people have told you.

    Bitonti - for a guy who prides himself on being independent and seeing things for what they really are you certainly seem to toe the Democratic party line on 100% of issues.

    Name one major issue where you disagree with the Democratic party platform? Can you?

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Feb 5 2004, 11:27 AM
    [b] Talking with you people has just become pointless. You don't discuss things or think critically for yourselves, you simply parrot things other people have told you.

    [/b][/quote]
    This coming from a guy who posts a letter from Alberto Gonzales as a way to explain how he felt about the Estrada nomination. <_<

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Tailgators -

    Lines about &#39;cheese with whine&#39; are great stuff. No wonder you got ditched....

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Feb 5 2004, 11:39 AM
    [b] Tailgators -

    Lines about &#39;cheese with whine&#39; are great stuff.* No wonder you got ditched.... [/b][/quote]
    5-ever-
    You&#39;re a pathetic whiney b&#33;tch of a fraud.

    Yeah, so I got divorced 3 years ago, what of it?

    50% of all marriages end that way. The chances are good that you&#39;ll be divorced someday too. Especially if your wife wants to be a mother since you can&#39;t seem to produce.

    Perhaps that&#39;s why gmogmo keeps you around. Are you his personal spunk dumpster?

    FYI...I&#39;ve been dating a lovely lady for about 4 months now and I&#39;m very happy. Thanks for your concern.

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Bob the Jets Fan™[/i]@Feb 5 2004, 11:15 AM
    [b] The right really has NO room to whine about confirmation of judicial appointments. They held up many of Clinton&#39;s, leaving the court system way overburdened.

    I guess we&#39;re just supposed to forget about that.

    As for the Law & Order episode, I think the point was that it&#39;s not ok to kill people. I agree. [/b][/quote]
    Right...following the fiasco of replacing a judge on the Supreme Court and the way they put the first President Bush through the ringer...

    The left wants to cry the impeachment of of Clinton was a joke yet they forget the spectacle that they made Clarence Thomas go through...another case of democrate lying about wanting real equality in this nation and just saying minorities don&#39;t get a fair shake rather then acting and trying to do something about it.

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,406
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]The left wants to cry the impeachment of of Clinton was a joke yet they forget the spectacle that they made Clarence Thomas go through...another case of democrate lying about wanting real equality in this nation and just saying minorities don&#39;t get a fair shake rather then acting and trying to do something about it.
    [/b][/quote]

    There is a difference between a minority and a right-wing minority. There is no way in hell that Condolisa Rice represents the majority of black people in the U.S. Colin Powell is OK, he grew up in Harlem (if I remember correctly) and worked his way up through the military. I remember him getting booed at a Republican Presidential Convention for supporting affirmative action.

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Feb 5 2004, 11:07 AM
    [b] [quote][b]The left wants to cry the impeachment of of Clinton was a joke yet they forget the spectacle that they made Clarence Thomas go through...another case of democrate lying about wanting real equality in this nation and just saying minorities don&#39;t get a fair shake rather then acting and trying to do something about it.
    [/b][/quote]

    There is a difference between a minority and a right-wing minority. There is no way in hell that Condolisa Rice represents the majority of black people in the U.S. Colin Powell is OK, he grew up in Harlem (if I remember correctly) and worked his way up through the military. I remember him getting booed at a Republican Presidential Convention for supporting affirmative action. [/b][/quote]
    Who says every person has to represent the majority of whatever race they are from??

    Your posts essentially supports my contention that liberals are racist against conservative minorities. You are unwittingly admitting that Clarence Thomas was treated differently by the Dems because of his skin color. Don&#39;t you even recognize that?

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Feb 5 2004, 12:07 PM
    [b] I remember him getting booed at a Republican Presidential Convention for supporting affirmative action. [/b][/quote]
    With that in mind, do you think any democrat who felt abortion was murder would have the balls to get up at the DNC convention and say, "we should rethink our position on abortions as it kills innocent children?"...right...

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,406
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]Your posts essentially supports my contention that liberals are racist against conservative minorities. You are unwittingly admitting that Clarence Thomas was treated differently by the Dems because of his skin color. Don&#39;t you even recognize that?
    [/b][/quote]

    What I am saying is that race doesn&#39;t become an issue when a person’s politics are in direct opposition to the majority of his race. In those instances race becomes irrelevant. The whole purpose of having minorities and women in positions of power is to allow them to represent their constituencies. If they are not representing their people then why does race matter?

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Feb 5 2004, 12:41 PM
    [b]What I am saying is that race doesn&#39;t become an issue when a person’s politics are in direct opposition to the majority of his race. In those instances race becomes irrelevant. [/b][/quote]
    Rare instances? Every/any black/minority that proudly admits they are conservative/Republican is treated as though they have leporsy....I&#39;ve talked to several from Harlem.

    Rare instances? Funny how after Estrada they are now attacking the President&#39;s next judicial nomination, a black-women...wake up man&#33;

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Feb 5 2004, 11:41 AM
    [b] [quote][b]Your posts essentially supports my contention that liberals are racist against conservative minorities. You are unwittingly admitting that Clarence Thomas was treated differently by the Dems because of his skin color. Don&#39;t you even recognize that?
    [/b][/quote]

    What I am saying is that race doesn&#39;t become an issue when a person’s politics are in direct opposition to the majority of his race. In those instances race becomes irrelevant. The whole purpose of having minorities and women in positions of power is to allow them to represent their constituencies. If they are not representing their people then why does race matter? [/b][/quote]
    Section -

    Race SHOULDN&#39;T matter, but it DOES to Democrats with how they regard conservative minorities.

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever+Feb 5 2004, 12:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (jets5ever @ Feb 5 2004, 12:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Section109Row15[/i]@Feb 5 2004, 11:41 AM
    [b] [quote][b]Your posts essentially supports my contention that liberals are racist against conservative minorities. You are unwittingly admitting that Clarence Thomas was treated differently by the Dems because of his skin color. Don&#39;t you even recognize that?
    [/b][/quote]

    What I am saying is that race doesn&#39;t become an issue when a person’s politics are in direct opposition to the majority of his race. In those instances race becomes irrelevant. The whole purpose of having minorities and women in positions of power is to allow them to represent their constituencies. If they are not representing their people then why does race matter? [/b][/quote]
    Section -

    Race SHOULDN&#39;T matter, but it DOES to Democrats with how they regard conservative minorities. [/b][/quote]
    But the fact is 5ever once minorities get in positions of real power in this country the democrats are finished as they (the minorities in real power) will help expose the fraud the DNC is in regards to helping minorities improve their lot in life....their entitlment programs have actually kept them in a quagmire of welfare/social assistance.

    Also, the question begs to be asked- if race matters when it comes to political ideology why have the democrats not helped foster the development of minorities in their party to take over positions of prominence in the judicial system or a Presidential adminstration?????? Why is it up to a President the DNC wants to depict as hateful and only interested in helping the rich????

    The answer is simple[SIZE=3]......[b]HYPOCRISY&#33;[/b][/SIZE]

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us