Political Hay
Pat Leahy’s Fish Story
Bush judicial nominee excoriated for all-male fishing club ex-membership: Senator silent on Sotomayor’s all-female power club.
In 2002 Vermont Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy, then as now the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was a vocal opponent of Bush Third Circuit Court nominee D. Brooks Smith because of Smith’s former membership in an all-male fishing club in Pennsylvania.
Today, Leahy is silent on the membership of Obama Supreme Court nominee and sitting Second Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor in the Belizean Grove, an elite, all-female club. In a recent story, Politico.com described the Belizean Grove “as the female answer to the Bohemian Grove — a secretive all-male club whose members have included former U.S. presidents and top business leaders — the Belizean Grove has about 125 members, including Army generals, Wall Street executives and former ambassadors.”
Which is another way of saying, no men allowed. The Belizean Grove quite deliberately and unashamedly discriminates on the basis of gender.
And the response from the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee?
Silence.
Yet in 2002 he couldn’t stop talking about his thought that Smith’s one-time fishing club membership was sufficient grounds to deny Smith a seat on the Third Circuit. Nor has there been a word of concern from other Smith critics of the day, including New York’s Senator Charles Schumer. Schumer demanded information from Smith about his ex-membership in the club in his written questions to the judge — just at the time the National Organization for Women went public with an attack portraying Smith as a judge whose one time membership in the fishing club showed conclusively that he was biased towards women.
As it happens, I would know something about this subject, writing a 2005 book on the Smith episode (alas, now out of print) called The Borking Rebellion. Smith, a college classmate and friend of mine, had served for fourteen, unblemished years as a Reagan-appointee to the Western District of Pennsylvania. By 2001, the year of his nomination by George W. Bush for a seat on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Smith was the Chief Judge of the Western District. With the highest ratings from the American Bar Association, well regarded as a fair and impartial jurist by his Western Pennsylvania community (the Court was headquartered in Pittsburgh), and with the support of both Pennsylvania’s Senators of the time, conservative Rick Santorum and liberal Arlen Specter, Smith’s nomination had not an iota of controversy about it.
Until, that is, his nomination arrived in the highly charged partisan precincts of the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired then as now by Leahy. Smith’s fight was won — narrowly — and he sits on the Third Circuit today. But the fight to confirm him for the job was fierce. Two other nominations at the same period did not survive — the D.C. Appeals Court nominee, Miguel Estrada (denied confirmation, according to leaked Senate Democratic documents, because he was a “Latino” and “therefore “dangerous), and Fifth Circuit nominee Judge Charles Pickering.
Here are the facts.
In 1988, a Reagan nominee for the Western District, already a sitting Pennsylvania state judge, Smith belonged to his grandfather’s all-male fishing club, the Spruce Creek Rod and Gun Club. A large, ramshackle facility sitting among the rolling hills of rural Hungtingdon County, Spruce Creek was a social club, specifically designated as such by the U.S. government in its National Register of Historic Places. It had no bar — members had to bring their own alcohol if they wished a drink — and its bedrooms were filled, camp-style, with old bunk beds. The dining room resembled a kids camp with large wooden tables and benches. The paint peeled. There was nothing fancy here, large as an old barnlike structure it may be.
As I well knew, both as Judge Smith’s friend and from visiting the place, the Judge was not a frequent visitor. Unlike his grandfather, the Judge was something of a workaholic. He could fish — but wasn’t one to frequent Spruce Creek and stand around mid-stream rod in hand. His membership was sentimental. Asked at his 1988 confirmation hearing if he would work to end the all-male gender membership barrier, Smith promised he would do so. He did just that, trying and failing several times to get the club to admit women as members (they were already allowed as wives or guests.) In 1999, between his infrequent visits with his wife and consistent rebuffs from the club leaders about allowing women in as members, Smith finally quit.
By 2002, as Leahy, Schumer, and others were busy colluding behind the scenes with left-wing special interest groups to savage Bush judicial nominees, Smith’s now ex-membership became a target. Submitting his written questions to Smith, Schumer’s 6th question concerned Spruce Creek. It had no sooner arrived on Smith’s desk than, mysteriously, a corresponding attack from the National Organization for Women appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. While it never mentioned Schumer’s question to Smith, the attack tracked with the points raised in Schumer’s question. When this was noted by a Smith supporter in a response, NOW denied any collusion, then proceeded to comment on the substance of Schumer’s question — which it had previously claimed not to have seen and which was still sitting atop the “privacy” of Smith’s desk.
The attack was beaten back to considerable degree because of an interesting fact neither Leahy nor Schumer knew. On the wall of the club was a photograph of Marine One landing at Spruce Creek. That would be the official helicopter of the President of the United States. The president in question was a Spruce Creek devotee — Jimmy Carter. Not only was the Democratic president responsible for appointing every federal judge in the country between 1977 and January of 1981 a frequent visitor to what Leahy and Schumer were painting as a sewer of gender discrimination, he was still coming there long after his White House days were over.
But this was not enough for Leahy. On July 30, 2002, in the Senate floor debate over Smith’s nomination, an angry Leahy said this:
If men want to go off and go fly fishing themselves, that is fine. If women want to go off and go fly fishing, that is fine. But when they have facilities to conduct business and when businesspeople go there to conduct business and that is how you may be able to get ahead in the business world if you exclude women from it, if you say, women, if you want to be in business, you are not going to be able to join the moguls of the business or legal community here, then it is exclusionary…. Spruce Creek invidiously discriminates against women.
About the Author
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (91) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Jeffrey Lord
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/16/pat-leahys-fish-story
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Quin| 6.16.09 @ 7:28AM
Jeff is absolutely right. The hypocrisy of Leahy, Schumer and Company knows no bounds. It takes twisted, bitter little minds and hearts to self-justify such outrageous double standards.
As for me, I say this is no reason for non-lefties to oppose Sotomayor. A social club is a social club. Sometimes men like to associate with men, and sometimes women like to associate with women. There are plenty of other, BETTER reasons to oppose Sotomayor's nomination. But this reason alone, this membership in the Belizean Grove, should be absolutely reason enough for Leahy, Schumer and Kennedy to oppose her nomination. By their own standards, she has disqualified herself. Bravo to Jeff for his excellent column!
drudge ette obama| 6.16.09 @ 7:47AM
As a nonLatin, female attorney, I shun memberships in all-women legal associations and never took a women's studies class in college or feminist law class in law school because there is nothing less appealing than sitting with a bunch of liberal women complaining about their bad luck in being born female in a white man's world. These groups do not tolerate a conservative outlook, so my brief and occasional visits to all-women's groups have been unpleasant and annoying. Reading feminist literature is education enough.
That said, there is some sexual discrimination in the workplace. My goal is to do a good job and, if it persists unfairly, to find a better place.
Sotomayer's membership in this all-women's group is wrong but it is permissible for the same reasons that all-black student groups, gay groups and other such single-classification groups are allowed to exist under government subsidies. The guilt-ridden white liberals feel that it is overdue to make-up for the inequities, so these groups are allowed to exist in public facilities and are often subsidized by the taxpayer.
Sotomayer must live a colorblind life, including getting the heck out of the all-ladies Belizian Grove, if she is to be taken as the true professional that she may or may not be.
drudge ette obama| 6.16.09 @ 7:50AM
One more point: these single-issue groups are wrong if they don't allow anyone to join. If that threshold is met, then my opposition to someone's membership is not necessarily a deal-breaker, unless it is the KKK or perhaps La Raza.
Galen| 6.16.09 @ 7:52AM
As usual Marx was righ; Don"t join any club that would accept you as a member.
Austin Scott| 6.16.09 @ 8:15AM
Pantywaists. About time for a full-fledged defense of single-sex clubs, schools, and organizations of all kinds. They have always been a feature of civilization and the bizarre campaign against them by the left has impoverished and coarsened our society.
David Gonzalez| 6.16.09 @ 8:25AM
"If that threshold is met, then my opposition to someone's membership is not necessarily a deal-breaker, unless it is the KKK or perhaps La Raza. "
According to the ABA, Sotomayor IS a member of La Raza!
moranec| 6.16.09 @ 8:42AM
Outstanding reporting. Yes, we see in Quinn's words an ample example of "twisted, bitter little minds and hearts to self-justify such outrageous double standards" fully at work here doing a fine job of coordinating through special interest groups. Conservatives who think such gender-distinct clubs are no big deal despite the overarchingly negative spin the liberal press puts on such forms of "discrimination" miss the point as to how to slander and slam to great effect. To take the high ground here means we also stay silent like Senator Leahy but for different reasons. I'm appreciative of Mr. Lord's pointing out the hypocrisy of Judge Smith's rude and crude treatment.
ncatty| 6.16.09 @ 9:25AM
The American Spectator at its best. Bravo!
Anthony| 6.16.09 @ 9:50AM
It's the same old story with these sclerotic leftists. You'd think by now our weak kneed, appeasement orientated leaders, such as McCain and Powell, as well as the rest of the Washington Republican establishment, would finally realize that Leftist reprobates like Leahy, Schumer, Durbin, et al, play politics for keeps.
These men have no scruples, no morals, and no conscience. The ends justify the means, and these snakes, along with their leftist allies, will leave no stone unturned for the cause. So when can we expect Colin Powell and Tom Ridge, the new leaders of the R party to speak up? Yeah, right.
BD57| 6.16.09 @ 10:09AM
Jeff:
I understand the point of the article - "If they meant what they said, then Sotomayor's membership should be an issue for Leahy, et al."
But, seriously - you don't really believe they meant a word of it where Smith was concerned, do you?
The club was nothing more than a flag of convenience for Leahy, et al ... they didn't want Smith as an appellate judge & the club was the excuse they hid behind.
Sotomayor's membership won't be a problem because, you know, she's a good liberal who could NEVER be corrupted by such a thing ...
Oh, and when the oppressed get together - there's nothing corrupt in that ...
Siegfried X| 6.16.09 @ 10:20AM
"You'd think by now our weak kneed, appeasement orientated leaders, such as McCain and Powell"
Those RINOs WANT the Democrat's justices to be approved. That's why McCain doesn't talk about the double standard.
Dan D| 6.16.09 @ 10:56AM
Logic and fairness have nothing to do with it. Leahy and Durbin and Cantwell really did not care about Spruce Creek Rod & Gun Club's policy for any substantive reason. The only value it has was as a club to use against a political opponent by hyping the appearance of a possible impropriety, by tying its harmless practices to other, uglier discriminators such as some country clubs and elite gathering places.
From their perspective, Sotomayor's membership in a restricted group was not equivalent because that group is assumed by its nature to be plucky women banding together to overcome past discriminations.
It's an ugly political tactic, but tough to counteract.
Bob| 6.16.09 @ 10:57AM
Hypocrisy? You mean a politician can act differently now that they acted in the past? Oh, pshaw.... BOTH Democrats and Republicans are hypocritical in equal measures. We can go through multiple examples including the much bigger Republican spending debacle, but there is really no need.
I am not defending Leahy by any stretch of the imagination. He's a politician and he's hypocritical. I find no problems with same sex clubs, but I do find a problem with clubs that discriminate on the basis of race.
Lord, this "outrage" based on hypocrisy is laughable. Romney is one of the most hypocritical politicians around and I happen to believe he's make a good President.
By the way, Lord, your biased phrase about Smith being supported by a "liberal" senator rather than saying he was supported by two Republican senators, didn't pass my notice. You know as well as anyone that support is based more on party than orientation. But that would require objectivity....
In summary, it is hypocritical to talk about one politician being more hypocritical than another one. How many Republicans said that it was wrong to deny a judge confirmation based on ideology? How many Republicans said that Supreme Court nominations shouldn't be filibustered and you should just have and up or down vote?
Again, this is not a knock on Republicans -- it is a knock on all politicians. It would be nice if you put forth an article on hypocrisy in general with positions based on values rather than politics. But you won't....
Jeffrey Lord| 6.16.09 @ 11:14AM
Bob..
" It would be nice if you put forth an article on hypocrisy in general with positions based on values rather than politics. But you won't.... "
Excellent idea, Bob! I'll add it to the list!
Bob| 6.16.09 @ 11:35AM
Jeffrey -- what are you trying to do? Give me a heart attack? Seriously, as you know my biggest gripe with all politicians is their lack of fiscal responsibility. As to Supreme Court nominees, I believe the way to get your ideology into the ether is to win the Presidency. Then, if they are HIGHLY qualified, they should be confirmed, notwithstanding their personal views on abortion, etc.
My other pet peeve is that politicians use rhetoric rather than objective analysis. But then again, I do not expect objective analysis either at TAS or Huffington.
Nick| 6.16.09 @ 11:58AM
Mr. Lord,
Excellent article. Unfortunately, it is a day late and a dollar short.
It would have been nice to get Leaky-Leahy, Turban-Durbin, Cantwell, et al, on the record back in 2002 specifically rebuking liberal clubs like Belizean Grove. Republicans could be throwing it back in their faces right now.
But this would require a little forethought and some actual work on the part of the GOP. I think this was the worst part of the "Bush" years, laziness. They were in power and they thought they could just coast.
And they don't want to fight like the democrats. The GOP constantly brings knives to gun fights.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.16.09 @ 1:02PM
Of course, the Democrats fought a Bush nomination to the Federal bench. They knew unlike Reagan or his father W's nominees were conservatives. In fact, one of the enduring legacies of President Bush's administration (aside from actually fighting Islamic terrorism and with the Republican Congress promoting real economic growth) is that he appointed highly qualified conservatives to the bench. Something that stands in sharp contrast to all post WW II Republican Presidents.
That Democrats are giving a bigoted Democrat a free ride is not shocking since Democrats are the party of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation and reverse discrimination. Bigotry and Democrats go hand and in hand like Muslim terrorists and murder.
Missy| 6.16.09 @ 1:43PM
Hypocrisy on the Left? Couldn't be--they're the party of 'tolerance', right?
What a joke.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.16.09 @ 2:25PM
As for Republican hypocrisy on judges I would point out that unlike Democrats Republicans have been remarkably restrained in their remarks about Sotomayor (despite her record of bigotry and failure on the bench) precisely, because of their previous positions. That is why so many conservatives are upset with Republicans – they’re not crawling in the gutter with Democrats, but staying true to their principles and deciding on the facts. Of course, if Republicans choose to oppose this nomination based on the precedents set by Democrats it would not only be fair, but just.
Personally, I think they should use the standard pioneered by an insignificant Illinois Democrat when he voted against Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito despite stating that they were imminently qualified – he believed it was the senator's right to oppose high court nominees because of their philosophical and political views. To quote the Senator, “In those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart."
Since we know narrow-minded bigotry is a major component of Sotomayor’s “heart” it is the right, nay duty, of every Republican Senator to vote against her based on the standard pioneered by Barack Obama. Using the Obama standard how could anyone vote for a woman who defends the entrenched power of racist and unqualified minorities against the triumphant handicapped? How could anyone think this Latina is any less “dangerous” than Bush’s Latino especially when the Latina’s record of bigotry and hate is so public? Since Obama wants a judge who can empathize it would be responsible to vote against Sotomayor, because she cannot empathize with the handicapped, victims of reverse discrimination, Christians, traditional married couples, heterosexuals, Anglos and non-union workers.
Voting NO on this nominee would be what the old Barack Obama would do and how could that be wrong?
Robert Rosencrans| 6.16.09 @ 2:29PM
You can't operate a political mafia without mafioso standards. Collectivists ideals can only operate on a thematic stage of hypocrisy. Corruption in government is permanized by the lack of ethics and professional standards. These are the standards that lead to the crushing of your freedoms and individualism. These are the standards that made Hitler a success. Dictatorship rides to success on the back of lies.
Marc Jeric| 6.16.09 @ 2:45PM
Leahy, Schumer, Dobbs, Kennedy, Frank , Pelosi- they are like 3-day malaria attacks, or allergies; a real gallery of rogues. Every time I see them on TV or read about them in the paper, I get an attack of revulsion. Liars, killers, prevaricators, thieves - they should be sentenced to 20 years of hard labor in the soviet-type gulag - so they can feel themselves what they are fighting for to obtain for us. When any one of them opens his mouth I know with the 100% certainty what lie will come out. You see, before I escaped from a communist counrty I was bludgeoned with 8 long years of the marxist-leninist indoctrination.
Pingback| 6.16.09 @ 4:25PM
J’s Cafe Nette » Tuesday Tid-Bits links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jeffrey Lord| 6.16.09 @ 5:01PM
Bob...
"As to Supreme Court nominees, I believe the way to get your ideology into the ether is to win the Presidency. Then, if they are HIGHLY qualified, they should be confirmed, notwithstanding their personal views on abortion, etc."
First..I will try and be more disagreeable for the sake of your health. I have enough to do without thinking my agreement has sent a reader to the Great Magazine In the Sky.
Second..as to your point above. I used to be there with you, Bob. Alas, I was involved in the Bork episode and our friends on the left changed the rules. Robert Bork was the most supremely qualified nominee to date. Indeed, former Chief Justice Warren Burger was so stunned at Bork's treatment he blurted out that if Bork wasn't confirmable he, Burger, should never have been confirmed.
For this sea-change we have Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy, among others, to thank. Alas, the GOP was slow on the uptake. Adapting a pre-Bork attitude they gave a pass to both Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, refusing to play the Biden game. But alas, our friends on the other side just would not relent. George W won the 2004 election, nominated both Roberst and Alito - and still it was a no-go with these people, a no vote coming from both Obama and Biden as senators.
So...I have yielded. Supreme Court nominees no longer get a pass from me, regardless of the fact their side won the election. All bets are off.This is no longer about superb qualifications - this is about judicial ideology. Judge Sotomayor is, no surprise, way wide of my mark.
There. Feeling better already, aren't you? Who needs ObamaCare when you have me?
Bob| 6.16.09 @ 5:34PM
Thanks, Jeffrey for being disagreeable. It makes a body feel good....
You've heard the sayings that two wrongs do not make a right and do unto other, etc. What about it's what people do, not what they say? I have a consistent philosophy that bright, principled individuals will generally make bright, principled decisions. Furthermore, I believe that the Democrats were wrong in their behavior and should be chided for it. Therefore, I had no problems with Bork, Scalia, Alito or Roberts even though I'm a social libertarian and would probably disagree with them on the issue of choice and gay marriage. I didn't see Thomas as having that level of intelligence, however.
From a political perspective, if you oppose on the basis of ideology, you will excite the base and turn off independents and Dems. That is a formula for losing a general election and going against demographic trends. For that reason, your objection on the basis of ideology will have virtually no effect on the final decision as politicians always want to be reelected. That's why even politically, I would take the high road and not get into the mud with Dems. If you want people to believe the Republicans are principled -- whether it is with the budget/stimulus or Supreme Court nominations -- then you must act in a principled manner. I believe that principle is the way back to party health. Again, you and I may agree on fiscal conservatism, but we will disagree on social issues. Sotomayor, given her history, has been conservative on business decisions and moderate on social issues. In fact, on issues regarding discrimination, she decided against the side claiming discrimination 80% of the time. I happen to like the vast majority of decisions she has made. The Ricci case has two sides -- if she, indeed, followed precedent, then her decision is fine with me. I've read the case, and you could argue she did. However, the precedent can be read as muddled. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the details. If she didn't follow precedent, I have a real problem with her decision, however.
Old Texican| 6.16.09 @ 6:34PM
Robert...right on again...except "permanized" ?
...Damm good word that doesn't exist, but what the hey?
(I am smiling. I thought I was the only person that makes up words here.)
OK!
Let's "Bork" Sotomeyor...just for justice' sake.
She is a nice, (predudiced), Hispanic lady that simplydoes not have the horsepower to be a Supreme.
A Supreme's job from my civics classes is to interpret the "Constitution" and force legislative people (Congress Critters), to pass laws only under the Constitution. Did I miss something in classes?
This poor lady does not have a clue.
"...Thank you for your application, judge, but we gotta' do better."
Siegfried X| 6.16.09 @ 7:45PM
From a political perspective, if you oppose on the basis of ideology, you will excite the base and turn off independents and Dems. That is a formula for losing a general election
It worked for the Democrats. They "Bork" nominees and are liberals morning, noon, and night. Also Ronald Reagan won in a landslide by being a real conservative.
On the other hand liberal Republican McCain lost.
So I don't see any evidence that ignoring our principles and standing for nothing is a winner. Right now polls show over 1/3 of Republican Party voters are unhappy, yet we are in exactly that situation, a party which stands for nothing.
I think the real motive is that liberals, both Democratic liberals and Republican liberals, try to talk conservatives into giving everything away, and getting nothing.
Pingback| 6.16.09 @ 7:56PM
Belizean Grove links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Nick| 6.16.09 @ 8:50PM
Bob,
Messrs. Bork and Scalia have both said Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton were bad law and that the states should decide for themselves. You disagree with this?
"If she didn't follow precedent, I have a real problem with her decision, however."
What about FOLLOWING THE LAW, Bob? Where does following the law as written fit into Bob's concept of a federal judge?
LarryG| 6.17.09 @ 11:07AM
So what sort of experiences has this female had that have imbued her with such wisdom as to qualify her for the highest court in the land. I have infinitly more on the ground experience than she but it doe not qualify me as possessing wisdom - just experiences from which wisdom may accrue. This club arrangement is, to me, a symptom of her unspoken agenda.
Jason Schuler| 6.17.09 @ 11:37AM
I'm all for same sex clubs as well as any other way that people want to identify themselves. There is the black caucus, let there be a white caucus, Hispanic caucus, gay caucus, straight caucus etc. People's concerns are given a greater voice when they come together. Let there be men's clubs, women's clubs etc. Freedom is freedom. As long as any group of people do not advocate aggression towards others, I'm all for it.
John Navratil| 6.17.09 @ 11:37AM
The original complaint against all male clubs was that the "Old Boys" would get together for 18 holes and discuss business deals. Sounds baaaaad!
That any competitive business would seek to deal without all players is as smart as any society which won't educate its women. But it sounds baaaad.
That everyone should be present every time business is discussed might be ideal, but it surely isn't practical or necessary and it's time for people to realize that clubs and associations exist for like-minded people to get together for reasons which are rarely nefarious and when they are for nefarious reasons there are other means of redress.
I'm waiting for a judicial nominee to be pilloried for being a Boy Scout.
Bob| 6.17.09 @ 3:23PM
Nick,
I work on principle, not on outcomes. Even though I am pro-choice, I do not find a privacy right in the Constitution (Palin found one, however) and thus I think Roe v. Wade should be a matter for the states. However, we do have the principle of stare decisis so overturning settled law is a higher bar to jump over.
Regarding the Ricci case, as I said, I am not a lawyer. Arguments have been made that precedent had been set in the case and that settling in favor of Ricci would be overturning precedent. That would mean settling in favor of Ricci would be judicial activism. That is a case where most of you guys wouldn't mind judicial activism, would you?
Nick| 6.17.09 @ 3:51PM
Bob,
Then why did you write you would disagree with Bork and Scalia on "choice"? You should write more clearly.
Following the constitution and the law trumps a bad decision by a bunch of judges. Or should Dread Scott and Plessey still be the law of the land?
Bob| 6.17.09 @ 4:08PM
Nick, I would disagree with Bork and Scalia because I believe they would rule on the basis of ideology and then find a reason to support it. They did that in the recent D.C. gun law case in completely disregarding the phrase regarding "malitias" as "not relevant". That was a case of judicial activism on their part.
As I've said many times, both sides use judicial activism based upon their ideologies. There are always several ways to justify a case based upon which specific laws, precedent, or history upon which to place more or less emphasis. If I were to make a decision on Roe basis my ideology, I would support it. However, I don't believe that's should be the function of the judicial branch.
Overturning settled law must be done with care or we would have no stability in our court system. It is relatively rare for the Supremes to overturn prior cases. In these cases, intervening laws that are passed by the legislature often are the reason for overturning the case. In the case of Roe, there has been no intervening laws.
The reason you and others want Roe overturned is because you are anti-abortion -- not because of the rationale for the decision. If you were pro-choice, I'm sure I wouldn't hear you talking about overturning Roe.
Nick| 6.17.09 @ 4:26PM
Bob,
I forgot, in another thread, you claimed the original U.S. Constitution had a "provision that gives blacks only 3/5ths of a vote."
Later, YOU admonished Gov. Palin to LEARN about the constitution, ouch!
So why am I asking you anything regarding the constitution?
Bob| 6.17.09 @ 4:38PM
Nick,
Nice diversion, but you took me out of context as usual. I went on further to talk about slaves being COUNTED as 3/5th. But then again, since you didn't know enough to respond to my post, I do understand the diversion.
You obviously have some things to learn about the Supreme Court. When you've gained that knowledge, let me know so we can have an intelligent discussion.
Nick| 6.17.09 @ 6:56PM
Bob,
You couldn't have an intellegent discussion if your life depended on it.
Here, I'll quote you at length from this thread:
"Bob| 6.13.09 @ 11:30AM
Baker, you are right. The nature of human behavior hasn't changed. Let's bring back slavery and take the vote away from women. After all, women should be barefoot and pregnant, right? These things are, indeed, self-evident. I especially want to bring back the provision that gives blacks only 3/5ths of a vote. That will reduce the impact of minorities on Republican success."
Mr. Baker responded to your stupidity:
"Richard Baker| 6.13.09 @ 5:25PM
Bob:
If you don't know why 3/5 is in the Constitution. please don't embarrass yourself."
You countered with more ignorance and inanity, Bob:
"Bob| 6.13.09 @ 6:20PM
Richard -- so you think it was right to count slaves as 3/5th even if it was for apportionment purposes? How can you justify that under ANY circumstances? Do you have any morality?"
Like the proverbial cornered mouse you attack with blindingly stupid assaults. It is obvious you are ignorant of the actual words of the U.S. Constitution and the concepts that formed it.
Talk about diverting, you never answered my question, should Dread Scott still be the law of land?
Nick| 6.17.09 @ 6:58PM
That should be,
Here, I'll quote you at length from this thread:
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/12/its-time-to-get-serious
Bob| 6.18.09 @ 8:31AM
So Nick, still in diversion mode since you know nothing about the Supreme Court? You are like the rest of the social conservatives here that just ignore the truth when it doesn't conform to your views. Clearly, you are one of the three monkeys.
alleyboy| 6.18.09 @ 9:15AM
"Yet in 2002 he couldn't stop talking about his thought that Smith's one-time fishing club membership was sufficient grounds to deny Smith a seat on the Third Circuit."
OK, then where's the video?
Nick| 6.18.09 @ 2:10PM
Bob,
It sucks having your words quoted back to you, huh? Especially when they show your constitutional illiteracy.
You didn't even know that my Dread Scott query was a trick question. Dread Scott was voided by the 13th and 14th Articles of amendment, Webster.
Now, according to you, it was acceptable for 60 years to pass before Plessey v. Ferguson was overturned. Because "[o]verturning settled law must be done with care or we would have no stability in our court system."
Since I'm sure you don't have a clue, Plessey was the case that cemented "seperate but equal" into the law until Brown v. Board of Education reversed it.
"In the case of Roe, there has been no intervening laws." (sic)
Have you ever heard of Planned Parenthood v. Casey?
Richard Baker| 6.18.09 @ 11:35PM
Senator Leahy was removed years ago from the Senate Intelligence Committee because he was extremely careless with classified documents and his Democratic colleagues agreed. Take anything he says with a HUGE grain of salt.
Pingback| 6.20.09 @ 11:27AM
All Republicans should oppose the Sotomayor Supreme Court Nomination « Smash Mouth Po links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
مركز تحميل | 6.27.09 @ 3:19AM
مركز تحميل
iwc watches | 8.19.09 @ 4:25AM
I have introduced a lot of friends look at this article, the content of the articles there will be a lot of attractive people to appreciate, I have to thank you such an article.
breitling watches | 8.19.09 @ 4:26AM
I have to thank you such an article.
poptropica | 4.9.10 @ 9:33PM
I’ll have a Poptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You Poptropica
Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. Zeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale poptropica
You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out. poptropica
When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. poptropica
I’ll have a full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!poptropica
دردشة | 6.10.11 @ 2:47AM
Goood!
شات سعودي | 6.12.11 @ 2:29AM
vere nicee
بنت مصر | 6.13.11 @ 4:55AM
vere nice
شات بنت لسعوديه | 6.18.11 @ 6:10AM
gooood 38357
بنت السعوديه | 6.19.11 @ 5:48AM
vere goood