NEWS: Controversial Bush Judicial Appointee Approved

POLITICS: Controversial Bush Judicial Appointee Approved

Taking yet another step backward, President Bush has now had a judge appointed who has made astounding remarks on women and rape.

Doesn't sound like he's too forward thinking. Even a Texas Republican, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, voted against the appointment because "He doesn't have the fundamental commitment to the total equality of women in our society."

Let's just say he's not exactly what I would consider a good appointee.

for more fun from the senate website

the D senators that voted "yea":
Breaux (D-LA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)

the R senators that voted "nay":
Chafee (R-RI)
Collins (R-ME)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Snowe (R-ME)
Warner (R-VA)

and the senators that didn't vote:
Edwards (D-NC)
Kerry (D-MA)
Murkowski (R-AK)

Zell still a Democrat. That's a laugh.

You know, you have to hand it to these people. Just when you think this administration can't get any more fucked up than it is, we get this.

This is another example of the far-right's desire to take us back to the McKinley era, when women were properly subordinated, corporations functioned as an extra-constitutional government, and the 14th Amendment was only applied to the wealthy and business interests.

Grover Norquist and Karl Rove both use the McKinley era as their guide; Norquist refers to this as the period before the Socialists took over, if you can imagine. The simple existence of New Deal and Great Society programs violates their fundamental beliefs.

I don't know, should we do anything about this?

Besides vote? Weigh the jail time served versus the public good and decide for yourself.

Good to see Kerry and Edwards are uncompromisingly fighting the good fight.

what a jackass that guy is. he definitely needs to be making important decisions on civil rights.

I would imagine that Kerry and Edwards will elect not to vote on the vast majority of issues from present until election time, for fear that those votes may become ammunition to be used against them. Unless a vote is clearly supported by more than 75% of the population, refraining from voting is probably their best option in maintaining the illusion of supporting the public interest, as it would be for any candidate.

glad to see the the senators from my home state have some sense. senators snowe and collins have always, to me, shown great moral qualities.

That’s so awful!!

I never understood how a non-Christian could support far right wing candidates. How can you vote for someone who feels you deserve to spend an eternity of suffering in hell?

Yeah, it's not like they were in Pittsburgh or anything, announcing that Edwards had been added to the Democratic presidential ticket. It's because they didn't want to take a position on an issue, because, you know, no one is going to ask for their position on issues between now and November.

That's not how it works in the Senate when a senator is runnning for national office. They miss a lot of votes because of campaigning, but hell, the Hawaii and Alaska senators miss a ton of friday and monday votes, all the time, because of traveling. If they're going to be the deciding vote on something, they'll be there.

still can't believe this shit!

I'm running out of the strength to be outraged. There's just so much to be pissed off at this administration for. Must.... maintain..... outrage.... and anger..... getting ... weak.... tooo much cause for outrage.....

So? You'd probably get a similar reaction from a lot of Libertarians and Objectivists, wouldn't you?

EDIT: To clarify; my comment refers to opinions on the New Deal and the Great Society, not the issue of women being treated as property, which I'm against.

[Edited on Jul 11, 2004 by Pariset]

My point was a larger one, that in general, the radical right seeks not only to reverse our progress on human rights and women's rights, but also important social programs that are supported by much of the public.

By the way, there is no such thing as an Objectivist.

[Edited on Jul 13, 2004 5:55AM]

I prefer individual rights to human or civil rights, and most "important social programs" should be eliminated whether the public supports them or not. It's not my responsibility to pay for someone else's food, clothing, healthcare or education. If much of the public is really that fond of these "important social programs", their private donations will pick up the slack.

"If you don't like it, go to Russia"

- Homer J. Simpson

You are correct let the puny humans die!!

This is why I lean to the left, I have a heart. I'm not afriad to have compassion for my fellow human beings. That could very easily be me pushing the shopping cart full of bottles and cans down the street.

Seriously, if charity worked as the prime solution then we would not have the government programs. The programs exist because the need was not being met. People were starving and dieing and the gov't tried to do something about it. I think that is the right thing to do. Those people do not deserve to be discarded.

And yes we need even less funding for schools, that is really going to help make our country stronger and safer!

I'm all for a world without governments but we have to establish a common level of respect between each other before we can make it work. Until then I am all for the re-distribution of wealth down the pecking order.

i think you spelled your name wrong, shouldn't it be "parisite"?

How can a REAL christian vote for the far right? I'm not a christian or anything, but my entire family is into it, and I went to church the first 18 years of my life. I dont know everything about it, but I do know MOST of the people who hide behind "its the christian thing to do" dont know what the fuck they are talking about. "God Hates Fags!!!" Please. Anybody with a bible or who knows shit about it can clearly quote atleast 50 times that "God loves all his children equally." You can also quote that all people are to be created equal, as we are all equal in gods eyes and heart. That doesnt mean that you're better than women or blacks or jews or rape victims. Equal means equal, not equal when it suits you best. Shee-it. Buncha fucking idiots.

DUDE!!! TOTALLY!!! ALL THOSE LAZY PEOPLE SHOULD GET JOBS ANYWAY!!!! You are payed enough to have you're taxes taken out and still be able to get by. Or else all the goverment programs would be for everybody, and they arent. Especially the rich or well off. I thought that what was part of what made us so much better than every other country? We have enough that really and truly, nobody should be left behind if they dont want to be. As for the private donations, we all make them. Its called FICA. Deal with it.

Expressing outrage on an internet messgae board does jack shit to change things.
Make sure you're ready to vote your conscience.

Well, that would be a difference between us, then. You only care about whether or not you can get a decent education. I care about that for myself, but also that my kids, the kids down the street and the kids in the next state can get a decent education. I see the bigger picture. By your logic we should not fund police and fire service either, because it's not my problem if someone else's house burns down, so I don't want to pay to put it out.

Incidentally, do you understand the concept of human and civil rights, and what these mean for individual freedom?