# Arlen Specter



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

What's the general consensus on the news of Arlen Specter switching parties? I'd be more surprised if it wasn't for the fact this thing seems mostly about political expedience than anything else. Like most Americans, Senator Specter just wants to keep his job!:icon_smile_big: 
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/us/politics/29specter.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> What's the general consensus on the news of Arlen Specter switching parties? I'd be more surprised if it wasn't for the fact this thing seems mostly about political expedience than anything else. Like most Americans, Senator Specter just wants to keep his job!:icon_smile_big:
> https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/us/politics/29specter.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig


Politician's #1 job: get (re)elected


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

He's been #60 from the beginning. It changes nothing, except maybe to deprive the Democrats of an excuse for the Obama debacle.

'Course they'll blame it on Bush anyway so it doesn't matter.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

It's about time someone finally made an honest woman out of him. I guess he can't exactly wear white; can he? :devil:

I loved the spin about how he has been a loyal Republican since 1966. I'm sure that went whizzing by most people before it turned around and re-entered. :icon_smile_wink:

Of course, he was still registered as a Democrat when he ran in 1965 for DA after the Warren Commission. An original "neocon." Of course, he is the neocon haters favorite neocon and in their misuse of the word they pretend he is disliked by the non neocons they call neocons in the same way they call them nazis. Strange since a lot of those that use the word neocon are actually anti-semitic. So, what's that tell you about him?

IMHO he sold his soul to the Devil in 1964 and has been buying it back a nickel at a time ever since.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I never had much use for Specter, particularly after he participated in the Republicans' vile hatchet job on Anita Hill and helped Clarence Thomas get confirmed.

People on my side consider it a somewhat mixed bag. It may give us sixty votes, once Franken is seated, and assuming Lieberman sticks with the party he pretends to belong to. It also helps to demonstrate that the Republican Party really has come to represent nothing but a sliver of the extreme right.

On the other hand, giving Specter a pass in the 2010 primary, and helping him win the general, means that we miss out on the chance to elect a real Democrat after Specter loses the Republican primary.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

"Vile hatchet job on Anita Hill"--boy, I tell ya, Jack, I don't laugh aloud at things I read online much, but that sure did it for me.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I never had much use for Specter, particularly after he participated in the Republicans' vile hatchet job on Anita Hill and helped Clarence Thomas get confirmed.
> 
> People on my side consider it a somewhat mixed bag. It may give us sixty votes, once Franken is seated, and assuming Lieberman sticks with the party he pretends to belong to. It also helps to demonstrate that the Republican Party really has come to represent nothing but a sliver of the extreme right.
> 
> On the other hand, giving Specter a pass in the 2010 primary, and helping him win the general, means that we miss out on the chance to elect a real Democrat after Specter loses the Republican primary.


And Anita Hill, of course, was not doing a vile hatchet job on *JUSTICE* Clarence Thomas.

How does it help to demonstrate that??? It demonstrates that a lifelong opportunist is taking advantage of his opportunity to maintain power. In the past some of both have done it when the power changed hands.

IF it did demonstrate anything else; what then does Lieberman demonstrate about the Dem party?


----------



## bigchris1313 (Apr 16, 2009)

How about this one: Arlen Specter switching parties will decrease--by an infinitesimal sum--the total amount of pork needed to pass contentious bills (requiring cloture) because the Dems will no longer need to bribe him as heavily as was required to get him to break from his party.

So the theory should go anyway. (See: Stimulus Vote)

Furthermore, having to run in a 2010 Dem primary should force him into more cloture votes anyway in order to appeal to liberal Democratic primary voters he's never had to appeal to before in PA, further dampening his ability to cash on his much-needed cloture vote.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

He's gone from being a virtual democrat to a real one.


----------



## hcivic91 (Aug 29, 2006)

Coleman was a flip-flop and I didn't like him for it, now I feel the same about Specter. I don't have a horse in this race as I consider myself a-political. Having said that, I'm not a fan of new legislation so anything that creates gridlock is a good thing. This does the opposite so I'm not thrilled.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

He seems like the typical politician to me! It has nothing to do with serving his constituency but, has everything to do with his getting reelected. The cure for this ill is term limits!


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Jack does touch on a good point...

In the spirit of the recent NFL draft, maybe the Dems could trade Lieberman for Specter. It's only fair...and judging by the sentiments of many on this thread...logical.:icon_smile_big:

I just made a "beer bet" with a Liberal Dem friend of mine that Specter will end his career as a Republican.


----------



## JohnRov (Sep 3, 2008)

He was a self-serving Republican and now he's a self-serving Democrat.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

*Thanks, Turkey*

Every so often I'll look at a post from someone I have on Ignore, just to see if there's any reason to change that.

Thanks for confirming it, Turkey. You still have nothing to say.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

JohnRov said:


> He was a self-serving Republican and now he's a self-serving Democrat.


They're ALL self-serving, aren't they? The massive ego and unbridled sense of self-importance one must have to run for Congress, Senate or POTUS never ceases to astound me.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

I agree with those who've said he is just trying to stay elected. 

Of course, I believe that all of them lie, cheat, steal, and sell their children on street corners to stay in office.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> People on my side consider it a somewhat mixed bag. It may give us sixty votes, once Franken is seated, and assuming Lieberman sticks with the party he pretends to belong to. It also helps to demonstrate that the Republican Party really has come to represent nothing but a sliver of the extreme right.


Yeah, with only 40% of the senate they must all be extremists.

The real problem with the Republican politicians is that they aren't really any different than the Democrats. It was just more obvious with Specter.

Of course, you could say that the Democrat politicians aren't really any different than the Republicans too. It's just that their voters don't seem to notice.


----------



## RobertAllen (Nov 11, 2008)

I don't mind a politician changing parties. At the state and local level, it happens more often and not always for political expediency but for because of a legitimate change in philosophy.
However, Specter's switch is pure political expediency. There is no doubt he was going to lose the Republican primary to Toomey. Since apparently PA does not have the same election rules as CONN., Specter could not pull a Lieberman and run as an Independent in the general after the primary loss. 
I wonder about other Democrats who intended to run in 2010? Apparently the deal was that Rendell and Obama promised Specter clear sailing through the Democrat primary. I guess all other Dems will have to wait until 2016 unless Specter dies in office (assuming he beats Toomey in the general?)
One irony I always found interesting about PA politics was that the Democratic Senator opposes abortion rights (Casey) while the Republican senator supported them (Specter). 
In 2010 the economy will still be in the ditch and the Iraq War will have wound down (the only 2 reasons for the Dems success in 2006 and 2008), that should make for an interesting political climate in 2010 both in PA and elsewhere.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Do you really think that McCain would be having the "torture" inquisition and the socialized health care??

Whatever


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I also wonder what those conservatives who are so proud that they sabotaged McCain think now.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Do you really think that McCain would be having the "torture" inquisition and the socialized health care??
> 
> Whatever


There will always be some differences in what individual politicians back, but what I find amazing is how closely Obama's policies are following Bush's. The main differences seem to be that Obama looks even more inept. And, I wouldn't be surprised if McCain had backed socialized health care, after all Bush was responsible for expanding the medicare drug benefit. And McCain was on record as being against the use of "enhanced" interrogation methods, much more consistently than Pelosi for instance.

Politicians from both parties are for big government and their stand on social issues just seems to reflect what they think will get them elected. How does Obama's stand on gay marrage differ from Bush's?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I also wonder what those conservatives who are so proud that they sabotaged McCain think now.


I don't think there are such people, but perhaps if there were you could ask them instead of wondering?

IMHO McCain sabotaged himself by claiming to be something the Democrats could easily demonstrate he clearly wasn't. Some of us tried to tell the rest of you in the primary, but you wouldn't listen. And now you still can't grasp that *Obama beat him*.

McCain was always a whiner's choice; meaning he offers criticisms about symptoms, not solutions to root cause. His few proposed solutions have not and will not change the core problems; for example, his Campaign Finance Reform legislation. McCain is probably the only candidate Obama could have beat on substance; and he did. If anyone offered the same old rhetoric and tired solutions; it was McCain. Obama v. McCain basically boiled down to Something v. Nothing. Sadly, in a Something v. Nothing contest few people will contemplate that the consequences of Something might be worse than Nothing.

And I'm sorry to have to say it, but you are proving the point by continuing to whine about "sabotage"; and in a thread about Senator Specter no less.

I still believe an actual Conservative would have simply destroyed Obama in debates on substance; instead McCain was beaten soundly again and again. Why? McCain isn't an idealogue, he isn't a Conservative, he doesn't understand Capitalism on a fundamental level beyond rhetoric. Simply put, he shouldn't have claimed to be one and made an obvious liar and incompetent fool out of himself. Take his "the fundamentals are good" line. The "best" (honest) answer he could have possibly given was "I really don't know what the economic fundamentals are and in what condition they will be going forward." How would that have helped him against a candidate like Obama?


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

The only honorable way for a politician to change parties mid-term is to resign and stand for re-election (Phil Graham provides a good example).


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I'm not whining. Because conservatives did not get their way, they abetted something far more destructive.

Remember, Conservatives propped up Bush and made Republican a bad brand name in the first place. You can hair split about who is a conservative and who isn't, but Bush's incompetence and unpopularity led us to this.

You can hide behind accusations of whining, but are conservatives and is America better off with Obama and Democrats completely controlling the white house and having nothing in the Senate to stop them from doing whatever left wing fantasy they want. Even if they are curbed in two years, they can do a lot of irresponsible damage to our economy and intelligence services in that time.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Its quite simple - Specter saw internal polling thati ndicated that he would get mauled in the GOP primary. He is pragmatic. I don't expect a politician to resign if he switches parties however given the fact that Specter will have served 30 years in the Senate and will be 80 (and is a cancer survivor) when this term is up, a more honorable thing would have been to declare himself an independent and announce that he would not stand for reelection in 2010.

I would say this gives Pat Toomey a great shot however the Club For Growth has been a bit of a disaster as far as getting people elected.

I don't like that he is pro-choice but Tom Ridge is the GOP's best shot at recapturing this seat in 2010. But the GOP is heading towards irrelevancy as it becomes less welcoming to its moderate and liberal wings. Others may disagree but they would be wrong.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I'm not whining. Because conservatives did not get their way, they abetted something far more destructive.
> 
> Remember, Conservatives propped up Bush and made Republican a bad brand name in the first place. You can hair split about who is a conservative and who isn't, but Bush's incompetence and unpopularity led us to this.
> 
> You can hide behind accusations of whining, but are conservatives and is America better off with Obama and Democrats completely controlling the white house and having nothing in the Senate to stop them from doing whatever left wing fantasy they want. Even if they are curbed in two years, they can do a lot of irresponsible damage to our economy and intelligence services in that time.


You are whining.

I'm hiding behind accusations? You are the one continuing to hide behind the accusation Conservatives sabotaged McCain.

Then you contradictorarily claim it was Bush. You can't even be consistent in your blame. How about blaming McCain for McCain losing? Or giving credit to Obama for beating him?

Every Conservative I know voted for McCain in the general election. Who didn't vote for him? Independents. Yes; the sacred ones McCain was supposed to appeal to so strongly. Obama beat the pants of him. If anyone "sabotaged" McCain other than himself; it was Independents (and the media) that sabotaged McCain by saying they would vote for him and then switching to Obama.

Just be honest about it with yourself and you'll feel better (or worse realizing just how many people fell for the left wing policies you are so upset about.) :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

You are probably right. It's just irritating when I have to listen to Ann Coulter and some of her type gloating and actually enjoying the fact that these destructive policies are happening because the Republicans refused to listen to them. They at least appear that way to me.

At a minimum, the Conservatives have "packaging and marketing" and "communication" issues. Also, there is some question as to whether economic conservatives (who I support) or religious conservatives (who I do not necessarily totally oppose, but don't support fully either.) really run things.

For example, on the abortion issue, I find it abominable, but Conservatives need to fully win the "hearts and minds" war rather than to say, okay, we won barely enough seats and we will impose our will on you despicable unbelievers. (Liberals probably should do the same before they use their possibly temporary full power to do destructive things to our economy and defense systems.)


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

If you are honest then you will admit that McCain was the only Republican who could have won in 2008. The fact that he didn't win leads to inevitable conclusion that no Republican could have won in 2008, the headwinds were too strong.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> You are probably right. It's just irritating when I have to listen to Ann Coulter and some of her type gloating and actually enjoying the fact that these destructive policies are happening because the Republicans refused to listen to them. They at least appear that way to me.
> 
> At a minimum, the Conservatives have "packaging and marketing" and "communication" issues. Also, there is some question as to whether economic conservatives (who I support) or religious conservatives (who I do not necessarily totally oppose, but don't support fully either.) really run things.
> 
> For example, on the abortion issue, I find it abominable, but Conservatives need to fully win the "hearts and minds" war rather than to say, okay, we won barely enough seats and we will impose our will on you despicable unbelievers. (Liberals probably should do the same before they use their possibly temporary full power to do destructive things to our economy and defense systems.)


Yes; Ann Coulter is irritating. I don't consider her representative of "A Conservative", but YMMV. The fact remains she did not sabotage McCain. She tried; and failed. He won the nomination. And I think even she voted for him. Maybe not.

I can't solve the abortion issue, but I don't have a problem with all Pro-Choice candidates myself even though I a Pro-Life. For me it is more a matter of how they govern; i.e. impose their will.

Yes; the Liberal and/or Democat policies are going to hurt the economy even more than it already is. I agree there.

I think the packaging problem is in the coalition leadership. In the Democratic party the idealogues lead, in the Republican party we have let the moderates lead which exposes them as nothing but the Party hacks they are. Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, Reid ... these are not moderates or even center-left. It's the same old "like me, like me" trick McCain fell for with the media. No matter how moderate you are; at election time you will be called a right-wing nutjob. Better to be used to it and know how to handle it IMHO. It never seemed to impede Reagan, for example. And he was able to bind together a coalition.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> Its quite simple - Specter saw internal polling thati ndicated that he would get mauled in the GOP primary. He is pragmatic. I don't expect a politician to resign if he switches parties however given the fact that Specter will have served 30 years in the Senate and will be 80 (and is a cancer survivor) when this term is up, a more honorable thing would have been to declare himself an independent and announce that he would not stand for reelection in 2010.
> 
> ...





Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> *If you are honest then you will admit that McCain was the only Republican who could have won in 2008.* The fact that he didn't win leads to inevitable conclusion that no Republican could have won in 2008, the headwinds were too strong.
> 
> Karl


I think a bigger issue for Republicans is that people that identify with the GOP keep feeding the perception that anyone that disagrees with the Party is either wrong or not being honest.

Somehow you've managed both to disagree with the Party and to impune others that disagree with the Party, but for different reasons.

It's this sort of lack of intellectual integrity in positions that bothers Conservatives; such as myself. I would call it rationalization over reason; loyalty over faithfulness. Give me a reasonable and faithful person any day over a loyal person that will rationalize any behavior of an ally.

Consistency is an attractive electoral quality too. Most Americans will respect someone they disagree with as long as that person is consistent.

I do agree that a Republican (meaning a person who most identifies with the Party) could not have beaten Obama and that McCain probably did as well as could be done.

That does not mean a Conservative could not have beaten him; nor that Conservatives sabotaged him. All it means is that Something beat Nothing. And as long as Republicans offer Nothing; they will keep getting beat by Something. This is the inevitable conclusion IMHO.

McCain lost because Obama beat him. Rinse and Repeat. I think one of the really scary realities is Republicans who think 2010 or 2012 is going to be a cakewalk because Obama will fall on his face or the economy will still be in shambles or whatever theory they have cooked up. All that may be true, but you still have to go out and beat Obama; and that is going to be harder to do as he fixes his few remaining flaws as Candidate Obama inherently by being President Obama (lacks substance on some issues and executive experience.) The only opening to attack is Principles and Policies. It takes an idealogue to expose Obama because he is one too; and a crafty campaigner. McCain wasn't and couldn't; as proven in the debates. I think Romney might have won if he could expose Obama in the debates, but he won't in 2012. Obama will no longer present the same openings for attack. I fear we have eight years of Obama on our hands now. Republicans will probably "fight the last war."


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

One thing that Reagan and Obama both had going for them is that the party in power had grown so arrogant and used to the idea that they would be in power no matter what, that they stopped listening to the people. I suppose that the Democrats having held all power except four terms of the presidency from 1932 to 1979 could have understandably done that.

Why the Republicans gave it all up after just a few years of Bush is beyond me. I suppose you could say that they had power from 1980 to 2009 with just Clinton's years off, but they only controlled congress for 14 to 16 years.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> One thing that Reagan and Obama both had going for them is that the party in power had grown so arrogant and used to the idea that they would be in power no matter what, that they stopped listening to the people. I suppose that the Democrats having held all power except four terms of the presidency from 1932 to 1979 could have understandably done that.
> 
> Why the Republicans gave it all up after just a few years of Bush is beyond me. I suppose you could say that they had power from 1980 to 2009 with just Clinton's years off, but they only controlled congress for 14 to 16 years.


Do you think the failure to follow-through completely and renew/reinvigorate the _Contract With America_ is related to that? My own Congressman was a "term-limit traitor" and it was one of the reasons he lost.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I think that the economy and how it seemed to favor those on the top (especially in large corporations, where it appears that internal corporate politics gave those at the top an apparent right to loot corporations while cutting jobs and cutting how well the remaining jobs paid) caused a lot of anger.

Obama also used the internet well; a lot of younger people might have been put off by some of the self-righteous doctrinaire behavior of many on the religious right, too.

There were a lot of things. I suppose that if I had not lived through the 70s with all the economic uncertainity then, I might have been swayed, but I have seen and lived through the worst of liberal economic policy. No matter how cool it sounds, in the end, you can't guarantee everything to everybody.


----------



## Helvetia (Apr 8, 2008)

Of course Senator Specter is changing parties...his own party keeps running candidates against him and has alienated the moderate GOPers in his state. He's following his base to get reelected.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I think that the economy and how it seemed to favor those on the top (especially in large corporations, where it appears that internal corporate politics gave those at the top an apparent right to loot corporations while cutting jobs and cutting how well the remaining jobs paid) caused a lot of anger.


I think all economic systems favor those at the top and empower looting. 
It's only how you get to the top that differentiates them; No? :devil:

Can you give a timeframe where that anger became evident/actionable; would you say 2002, 2004, 2006, or just 2008?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I'm really not a studen of politics; I would not be able to give a reason for anything I might answer.

I do agree with you about the argument RE how do people get to top. I'm not much of a supporter of big government and liberal economics for that reason.

I don't study it like some who post here do, I suppose.


----------



## Xhine23 (Jan 17, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> He seems like the typical politician to me! It has nothing to do with serving his constituency but, has everything to do with his getting reelected. *The cure for this ill is term limits!*


Why there isn't a term limit for Senators and House representatives?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

To my knowledge, the constitution does not permit term limits for federal offices.


----------



## bigchris1313 (Apr 16, 2009)

Xhine23 said:


> Why there isn't a term limit for Senators and House representatives?


The Constitution does not appear to allow for them. Also recall that the Federal government did not become the hegemonic governing force in the US that it is today--crazy as it sounds--until 1865, or perhaps even 1932. Term limits didn't seem necessary for our weak federal government that couldn't levy an income tax until the early 20th century. Simultaneously, three arguments worked against term limits (all of which have viable counterarguments):

1. The people should be able to choose whomever they want to represent them, as many times as they like.

2. Multiple terms keep legislators in Washington honest because the people judge them every election.

3. Longer terms in office mean more institutional knowledge, which makes legislators more adept at passing law.

Part of the 1994 Republican Revolution included a lot of rhetoric about establishing term limits, which of course never happened. Simultaneously, caught up in the glorious domestic political fervor of the 1990s, several states tried to put term limits in place via popular initiatives on the ballot during the same 1994 election and all of its populist rancor. While some passed, SCOTUS ruled those unconstitutional a year later. And here we are.

Don't even get me started on the 17th Amendment. The direct election of senators has been nothing but trouble since "the people" decided it was a good idea...


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

One other thing. With this move Specter probably isn't the most conservative D in the Senate. At a minimum, Evan Bayh, Lieberman, and the two Nelsons give him a run for his money.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

While we're at it, maybe Olympia Snowe should become a democrat too.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Snowe and Collins are definitely on the list of possibles, but Maine has more of a tradition of people being independents, so there's probably less pressure from the Maine Republican Party to take them out.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> ...and the two Nelsons give him a run for his money.


Funny. I lived in Nebraska several years ago when Ben Nelson was governor. On more than one occasion, I asked friends or co-workers if Ben was sure he was a Dem.


----------



## RobertAllen (Nov 11, 2008)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> I don't like that he is pro-choice but Tom Ridge is the GOP's best shot at recapturing this seat in 2010. But the GOP is heading towards irrelevancy as it becomes less welcoming to its moderate and liberal wings. Others may disagree but they would be wrong.
> 
> Karl


Karl, I agree with you the GOP has problems, but the fact is that the Republicans had a majority and the White House for almost a decade until 2006, and the reason they lost it was not because of some groundswell of support for abortion rights in the last couple of years. In fact, polls have shown even when the gop was at its apex that the majority of Americans supported abortion rights. 
No, the reason the gop lost in 2006 and 2008 are three-fold, first and foremost the "Bush economy" and secondly the unpopularity of the Iraq War. the third and last factor was the rapid registering of minorities, particularly Hispanics, who were told that "comprehensive immigration reform" would mean being granted amnesty in an Obama administration.
Do you really believe that if the economy was humming along nicely in 2006 and 2008 and if Bush/Cheney had not got the country tied up in the Iraq quagmire that the Dems would have won on the basis of social issues? If so, why didn't they win on that issue from 2000-2006? The absolute worst thing the GOP could do is openly and loudly switch their position on homosexual marriage. If anything the GOP's opposition to such in every part of the country is the ONLY thing that kept them moderately competitive (see California prop. 9 vote). A Republican party that supports homosexual marriage, supports the neo-con foreign policy and the Bush economic policies could fit their 2010 Senate class in a phone booth.


----------



## gman-17 (Jan 29, 2009)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> If you are honest then you will admit that McCain was the only Republican who could have won in 2008. The fact that he didn't win leads to inevitable conclusion that no Republican could have won in 2008, the headwinds were too strong.
> 
> Karl


I don't agree with you. In the end, I think Romney would have had a better chance. The economy was McCains weakness, but I am not sure Romney could have won. He would have run a better campaign--but then so would everyone here. I am not a fan of Romney's BTW. I once was a fan of McCain's.--he didn't lose me in this election though. McCain's biggest mistake was in running away from Bush. If he had defened him once, just once, I might have gotten excited about him.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> One other thing. With this move Specter probably isn't the most conservative D in the Senate. At a minimum, Evan Bayh, Lieberman, and the two Nelsons give him a run for his money.


Senator Bill Nelson of Florida (D) is my favorite Senator. I disagree with him frequently, but he is a fine man and always a gentleman.

I'd take a whole senate full of Bill Nelsons gladly. I like Senator Evan Bayh just fine too. :icon_smile:

IMHO they are miles apart from a scoundrel like Senator Spect*RE :devil:*


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

gman-17 said:


> I don't agree with you. In the end, I think Romney would have had a better chance. The economy was McCains weakness, but I am not sure Romney could have won. He would have run a better campaign--but then so would everyone here. I am not a fan of Romney's BTW. I once was a fan of McCain's.--he didn't lose me in this election though. McCain's biggest mistake was in running away from Bush. If he had defened him once, just once, I might have gotten excited about him.


Thanks for your honesty! :icon_smile_big:

Interesting. That is how my Wife thinks too. She loves W and everytime McCain ran away from him or criticized him she got madder at McCain. Even when I criticize W's policies she says "I don't care; I like him."

Of course, while she wouldn't even consider voting McCain in the Primary, he didn't really have to compete for her vote in the General Election. She also liked Huckabee which drove me absolutely nuts, of course.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,



ksinc said:


> Thanks for your honesty! :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Interesting. That is how my Wife thinks too. She loves W and everytime McCain ran away from him or criticized him she got madder at McCain. Even when I criticize W's policies she says "I don't care; I like him."
> 
> Of course, while she wouldn't even consider voting McCain in the Primary, he didn't really have to compete for her vote in the General Election. She also liked Huckabee which drove me absolutely nuts, of course.


It seems your wife is in the distinct minority in this country. And if you wish to delude yourself that Romney or someone even more conservative was or is the answer then enjoy the spiral into irrelavancy.

Karl


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> And Anita Hill, of course, was not doing a vile hatchet job on *JUSTICE* Clarence Thomas.....





ksinc said:


> ...a scoundrel like Senator Spect*RE :devil:*


So in the same thread you demand in boldface the proper title for Justice Thomas but think it fine to boldly disfigure the last name of a Senator? Perhaps you believe the smilie-devil excuses it?

By gosh and botheration, one might think you respected the Justice more than the Senator.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> If you are honest then you will admit that McCain was the only Republican who could have won in 2008. The fact that he didn't win leads to inevitable conclusion that no Republican could have won in 2008, the headwinds were too strong.
> 
> Karl


Ultimately, McCain had only McCain to blame for his loss. It was a poorly run campaign rife with poor choices (e.g. Palin) from the start. GWB's lack of public support by then made him irrelevant, so it's giving the former POTUS too much credit for somehow sinking McCain. In the end, even conservatives begrudingly lined up behind the senator from Arizona.

A McCain presidency was probably not to be anyway. As Karl noted, the headwinds were too strong. My guess is the ever-fickle voting public will grow tired and impatient with Obama in two years and there will be some type of "revolution"...resulting in the GOP gaining a few more seats. For me, the question is: What will the GOP look like two or four years from now? If it puts on a more moderate face, then Senators like Specter and Snowe will become rock stars.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> So in the same thread you demand in boldface the proper title for Justice Thomas but think it fine to boldly disfigure the last name of a Senator? Perhaps you believe the smilie-devil excuses it?
> 
> By gosh and botheration, one might think you respected the Justice more than the Senator.


I didn't demand anything; I was just rubbing it in. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> I didn't demand anything; I was just rubbing it in. :icon_smile_big:


Won't work in the long term, I'm afraid, unless you're getting ready to rub yourself in disbelief over the next four years when President Obama appoints at least two new justices. Perhaps more, as the white hairs of the justices grow, their health gets precarious and they shuffle most reluctantly but inevitably toward the door marked "exit." :icon_smile:

But won't it be fun to have Senator Specter (D, Penn.) preside over judiciary hearings again?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> *It seems your wife is in the distinct minority in this country.* And if you wish to delude yourself that Romney or someone even more conservative was or is the answer then enjoy the spiral into irrelavancy.
> 
> Karl


I know she is. And I'm the envy of every guy I know for many, many reasons. 
Eat your heart out! ic12337:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> Won't work in the long term, I'm afraid, unless you're getting ready to rub yourself in disbelief over the next four years when President Obama appoints at least two new justices. Perhaps more, as the white hairs of the justices grow, their health gets precarious and they shuffle most reluctantly but inevitably toward the door marked "exit." :icon_smile:
> 
> But won't it be fun to have Senator Specter (D, Penn.) preside over judiciary hearings again?


I'm not in it for the long term. :icon_smile_wink:

The more divided they can keep SCOTUS the better IMHO. I don't really want RvW reversed unless it is on legal basis grounds. I have stated my belief many times before.

If one is to replace *JUSTICE* Ginsburg I probably won't mind. Actually, he will probably pick a better one IMHO. He probably has a good legal mind, but I'm not able to judge him in that regard. I like a lot of things about President Obama. His IQ is supposed to be in the 140s. I like just about anyone like that. I think there's a chance he will end up being a better President than McCain would have been. Both would have had to learn how to lead on the job. And Obama seems a little less sensitive already.

I'd have to look at the other Justice being replaced. Who do you think they will be?


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> ...I'd have to look at the other Justice being replaced. Who do you think they will be?


If Justice Ginsburg's health becomes precarious, she may decide to step down. Justice Stevens might do so for similar reasons, although neither is a sure thing, most especially with the recent example of the late Chief Justice Rehnquist's "dying with your robes on."

For my court-watching acquaintances who know the talk of the Washington cocktail circuit, the most interesting rumor is that Justice Thomas may retire if he can get the new President to appoint a replacement to his liking. They hear he's become increasingly disenchanted with aspects of the court along with Washington life and would like to do something else.

And then there is always Fate. :icon_smile: Who knows who won't wake up some morning or be hit by a beer truck?

In any event it will be rather interesting to see the newest Democratic Senator involved in the process.


----------



## gman-17 (Jan 29, 2009)

ksinc said:


> Thanks for your honesty! :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Interesting. That is how my Wife thinks too. She loves W and everytime McCain ran away from him or criticized him she got madder at McCain. Even when I criticize W's policies she says "I don't care; I like him."
> 
> Of course, while she wouldn't even consider voting McCain in the Primary, he didn't really have to compete for her vote in the General Election. She also liked Huckabee which drove me absolutely nuts, of course.


There is a great line in the movie "Clear and Present Danger" when Jack Ryan, Harrison Ford, tells the POTUS, that running away from his friend is the worst strategy. He says to him (paraphrase) tell them, "he is not just my friend, he is my good friend." McCain should have watched the movie. You do your enemies a favor by running from your friends.


----------



## gman-17 (Jan 29, 2009)

Quay said:


> Won't work in the long term, I'm afraid, unless you're getting ready to rub yourself in disbelief over the next four years when President Obama appoints at least two new justices. Perhaps more, as the white hairs of the justices grow, their health gets precarious and they shuffle most reluctantly but inevitably toward the door marked "exit." :icon_smile:
> 
> But won't it be fun to have Senator Specter (D, Penn.) preside over judiciary hearings again?


I am willing to be Specter loses. He doesn't excite anyone right now. I share your concerns over judicial appoinments.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

gman-17 said:


> There is a great line in the movie "Clear and Present Danger" when Jack Ryan, Harrison Ford, tells the POTUS, that running away from his friend is the worst strategy. He says to him (paraphrase) tell them, "he is not just my friend, he is my good friend." McCain should have watched the movie. You do your enemies a favor by running from your friends.


Yes; agreed.

I also like the line, "they want what every first term President wants; a second term."


----------



## bigchris1313 (Apr 16, 2009)

ksinc said:


> Senator Bill Nelson of Florida (D) is my favorite Senator. I disagree with him frequently, but he is a fine man and always a gentleman.


Disagree with Ben Nelson? _Frequently?_ He's not extreme enough on any one issue for you then?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

bigchris1313 said:


> Disagree with Ben Nelson? _Frequently?_ He's not extreme enough on any one issue for you then?


_Bill Nelson_ of Florida.

He's not extreme at all; which is what I like. He's reasonable.


----------



## bigchris1313 (Apr 16, 2009)

ksinc said:


> _Bill Nelson_ of Florida.
> 
> He's not extreme at all; which is what I like. He's reasonable.


Good God. How did I blow that one so badly?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

BC,



bigchris1313 said:


> Good God. How did I blow that one so badly?


Why are you quoting page 35 from the Starr Report?

Karl


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

And an official drummer's rim shot to Karl!!! Good one!!!!!


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> And an official drummer's rim shot to Karl!!! Good one!!!!!


Karl, ladies and germs. He'll be here all week. Tip your waitress and drive safely. Good night!


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> He's been #60 from the beginning. It changes nothing, except maybe to deprive the Democrats of an excuse for the Obama debacle.
> 
> 'Course they'll blame it on Bush anyway so it doesn't matter.


Well said.
I agree completely.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> If Justice Ginsburg's health becomes precarious, she may decide to step down. Justice Stevens might do so for similar reasons, although neither is a sure thing, most especially with the recent example of the late Chief Justice Rehnquist's "dying with your robes on."
> 
> For my court-watching acquaintances who know the talk of the Washington cocktail circuit, the most interesting rumor is that Justice Thomas may retire if he can get the new President to appoint a replacement to his liking. They hear he's become increasingly disenchanted with aspects of the court along with Washington life and would like to do something else.
> 
> ...


I gonna guess that JUSTICE Souter could be the first replaced.


----------



## chava (Mar 17, 2009)

*interesting*



jackmccullough said:


> I never had much use for Specter, particularly after he participated in the Republicans' vile hatchet job on Anita Hill and helped Clarence Thomas get confirmed.
> 
> People on my side consider it a somewhat mixed bag. It may give us sixty votes, once Franken is seated, and assuming Lieberman sticks with the party he pretends to belong to. It also helps to demonstrate that the Republican Party really has come to represent nothing but a sliver of the extreme right.
> 
> On the other hand, giving Specter a pass in the 2010 primary, and helping him win the general, means that we miss out on the chance to elect a real Democrat after Specter loses the Republican primary.


Very interesting comments. I completely forgot about the Anita Hill episode, but you are so very right. Clarence Thomas is a joke. Does he ever ask a question during oral argument?

And your points about the Republican Party are also insightful. May just be a conveniently shrewd move by the Democrats.


----------



## chava (Mar 17, 2009)

*no term limits*



eagle2250 said:


> He seems like the typical politician to me! It has nothing to do with serving his constituency but, has everything to do with his getting reelected. The cure for this ill is term limits!


Don't we already the ability to exercise term limits at each election? Isn't that better than a law arbitrarily mandating a particular outcome? There are some legislators the voters want to maintain in office. Shouldn't they have the right to vote them in?


----------



## chava (Mar 17, 2009)

*Clarence Thomas*



ksinc said:


> I gonna guess that JUSTICE Souter could be the first replaced.


Is it credible to believe that someone who routinely does not ask questions during oral argument, would actually consider giving up a lifetime appointment to go do "something else?" If he doesn't do much already, what else would he want to do?


----------



## chava (Mar 17, 2009)

*what?*



Preu Pummel said:


> Well said.
> I agree completely.


What debacle?


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Quay said:


> ...And then there is always Fate. :icon_smile: Who knows who won't wake up some morning or be hit by a beer truck?....


Fate it is: Justice Souter is retiring:

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/04/30/us/AP-US-Scotus-Souter-Retiring.html


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

chava said:


> Is it credible to believe that someone who routinely does not ask questions during oral argument, would actually consider giving up a lifetime appointment to go do "something else?" If he doesn't do much already, what else would he want to do?


Apparently confiscating personal property gets old once you've done it at the highest levels. "The thrill is gone, baby!"


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

chava said:


> Don't we already the ability to exercise term limits at each election? Isn't that better than a law arbitrarily mandating a particular outcome? There are some legislators the voters want to maintain in office. Shouldn't they have the right to vote them in?


1. It is too late for that. We have already bred the brains out of the American electorate!

2. No. Refer back to answer #1!

3. Absolutely not...what do you think we have here...a democracy(!)?


----------



## bigchris1313 (Apr 16, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> 3. Absolutely not...what do you think we have here...a democracy(!)?


Heaven forefend. You can see what its logical conclusion has gotten us here in California.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

chava said:


> Very interesting comments. I completely forgot about the Anita Hill episode, but you are so very right. Clarence Thomas is a joke. Does he ever ask a question during oral argument?
> 
> And your points about the Republican Party are also insightful. May just be a conveniently shrewd move by the Democrats.


They do say Clarence Thomas never says anything but just listens. I think he is looking for more hairs on coke cans.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist).


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

bigchris1313 said:


> Heaven forefend. You can see what its logical conclusion has gotten us here in California.


You mean the Governator? You can't blame Arnold for all that. It's his wife and all that Democratic party pillow talk. Having taken all those steroids in the early years, the only part of the Governator that still work well are his ears! Hence we have a Republican that acts like a Democrat.


----------



## chava (Mar 17, 2009)

*listens*



MichaelS said:


> They do say Clarence Thomas never says anything but just listens. I think he is looking for more hairs on coke cans.
> 
> (Sorry, I couldn't resist).


And how does anyone know he actually "listens?" Might that not presume too much?


----------



## chava (Mar 17, 2009)

*questions*



MichaelS said:


> They do say Clarence Thomas never says anything but just listens. I think he is looking for more hairs on coke cans.
> 
> (Sorry, I couldn't resist).


Isn't it hard to ask questions, if you don't know what to ask? Poor guy. It reminds me of something I once heard: "Sometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and leave no doubt."


----------



## RobertAllen (Nov 11, 2008)

chava said:


> Isn't it hard to ask questions, if you don't know what to ask? Poor guy. It reminds me of something I once heard: "Sometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and leave no doubt."


Supreme (or any appellate) Court questions asked by the judge are SOLELY for the purpose of a) trying to covince a fellow judge and b) for the enjoyment of "commentators". Of course (a) never works because like the political system it has become a part of, judges minds are made up at the appellate and Supreme Court level before any oral argument. Does anyone think that a judge's mind has been changed because of a question asked by another judge and the ensuing answer? If you do, let me assure you that you are naive'.

Specific to the SCOTUS, judges are asking questions for the off-chance benefit of convincing Justice Kennedy. It is a guarantee that Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer and Souter (and his replacement) are going to vote for the liberal position; Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Roberts are going to vote for the moderate/conservative position. No one can ask/answer a question or the Q/A can go on for a month and the outcome will be the same (depends on what Kennedy decides).


----------



## chava (Mar 17, 2009)

*knowledge base*



RobertAllen said:


> Supreme (or any appellate) Court questions asked by the judge are SOLELY for the purpose of a) trying to covince a fellow judge and b) for the enjoyment of "commentators". Of course (a) never works because like the political system it has become a part of, judges minds are made up at the appellate and Supreme Court level before any oral argument. Does anyone think that a judge's mind has been changed because of a question asked by another judge and the ensuing answer? If you do, let me assure you that you are naive'.
> 
> Specific to the SCOTUS, judges are asking questions for the off-chance benefit of convincing Justice Kennedy. It is a guarantee that Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer and Souter (and his replacement) are going to vote for the liberal position; Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Roberts are going to vote for the moderate/conservative position. No one can ask/answer a question or the Q/A can go on for a month and the outcome will be the same (depends on what Kennedy decides).


You must personally know each of the Justices quite well... is that true?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

chava said:


> Isn't it hard to ask questions, if you don't know what to ask? Poor guy. It reminds me of something I once heard: "Sometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and leave no doubt."


You must personally know Justice Thomas quite well ... is that true?


----------



## chava (Mar 17, 2009)

*Me First*



Mike Petrik said:


> You must personally know Justice Thomas quite well ... is that true?


Whoa, I didn't know the person to whom I directed the question needed a big brother. One question at a time.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

chava said:


> Whoa, I didn't know the person to whom I directed the question needed a big brother. One question at a time.


You have only been directed one question. Is it too much for you to handle?


----------



## bigchris1313 (Apr 16, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> You mean the Governator? You can't blame Arnold for all that.


You misread me, sir. I would never blame my beloved Governator for our present fiscal situation. In my social circle, his magnum opus, _Pumping Iron_, is equivalent to holy writ.

It is direct democracy--all these God-forsaken initiatives that 50%+1 of the voters can pass--that has delivered us unto this fiscal nightmare. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: the people rule themselves unwisely.


----------



## chava (Mar 17, 2009)

*funny*



Mike Petrik said:


> You have only been directed one question. Is it too much for you to handle?


My question first.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

chava said:


> My question first.


Lame, but par.


----------



## bigchris1313 (Apr 16, 2009)

He can't be pleased with that. I figured we'd see some sort of compromise, but if all he's getting is the Special Committee on Aging, he's very much been smacked. Hard.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

bigchris1313 said:


> He can't be pleased with that. I figured we'd see some sort of compromise, but if all he's getting is the Special Committee on Aging, he's very much been smacked. Hard.


Yep! The Drudge headline was


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I think this is probably a smart move. This gets him through 2010. If he wants to improve his position he needs to demonstrate enough party loyalty to win the primary and to merit a higher seniority slot than senators who have been working to support the Democratic agenda while he's been an R.

It's also pretty much what they did to Lautenberg when he returned to the Senate, even though he was never on the other side and could be said to be doing the party a favor to step in when they had a vacancy.

I still have trouble understanding why they rolled over for Holy Joe.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I think this is probably a smart move. This gets him through 2010. If he wants to improve his position he needs to demonstrate enough party loyalty to win the primary and to merit a higher seniority slot than senators who have been working to support the Democratic agenda while he's been an R.
> 
> It's also pretty much what they did to Lautenberg when he returned to the Senate, even though he was never on the other side and could be said to be doing the party a favor to step in when they had a vacancy.
> 
> I still have trouble understanding why they rolled over for Holy Joe.


Except that Senator Reid promised that he would keep his seniority. Obviously, I don't care. I just think it is a bit funny to watch them (Obama, Biden, & Reid) all say they respect his independence then strip him of his seniority because he said Senator Coleman should win. I mean ha-ha funny; like watching someone _rationalize_ their _resistance_ of tolerance.


----------



## chava (Mar 17, 2009)

*Hello Clarence*



Mike Petrik said:


> Lame, but par.


Sorry Clarence, but you've gotta face the music some time.


----------



## bigchris1313 (Apr 16, 2009)

Unfortunately for Specter, the Dems are now holding all the cards. Reid played this one well. Specter is now beholden to the Dem primary voters in PA, so he's going to have to tack more to the left. Unless a well-known PA center-right Republican appears out of nowhere, the increasingly conservative PA GOP appears very likely to elect a nigh-unelectable hardliner in the primary for the 2010 midterms. Unless the Dems have destroyed the world by then, the hardline GOP candidate will be crushed in the general. 

Thus, the PA 2010 Senatorial race becomes frightfully reminiscent of elections in the pre-Civil Rights South, as the Democratic Primary essentially elects the next Senator. The Dems then have two options: keep Specter's opposition weak in the primary and let him serve his last likely term (the guy will be 80 when he's running for re-election next year); or, if Specter doesn't play ball, pit a younger candidate against him who will appeal to PA's centrist political bent. The Dems won't be getting very much out of Specter; he simply doesn't have much time left. Sure, he has incumbency advantage, but for one more term? I'd rather stick in a younger guy and get him wedged into the seat while the GOP wastes its time with unelectable candidates.

Now the Dems are in a position where they can't lose. Specter has to play ball with the Dems just to be in a position where he won't face strong opposition in a Dem primary. On top of that, he has to play ball with Reid and the leadership just to have a prayer at regaining seniority on some of his committees. So even if he manages reelection, he's still beholden to Reid.

What's even scarier is that the Dems have good reason to let a younger, electable Dem run against him in the primary. Given the economic outlook, it looks like the mid-terms will be moderately favorable for the Dems--though this far out, I admit it's a bit of a crapshoot--so I'd want to get my new guy in there for the next six years, ready to gear up for the 2016 reelection. Once you pass your freshman reelection, you're more or less golden in the Senate.

Specter's just too old to have much potential. The Dems can use him now, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they leave him for dead in 2010. They won't throw him to the wolves, but they're not going to stop the pack from feasting on the octogenarian for their own benefit.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^At once, an accurate and disturbingly graphic assessment of the of the 'real-life' political process. It seems we have come a long way in the evolutionary process...NOT!


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

chava said:


> Sorry Clarence, but you've gotta face the music some time.


Au contraire, my real name is quite obvious to the literate.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

He was an unreliable Republican. So now he is an unreliable Democrat. No real change here.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

chava said:


> Isn't it hard to ask questions, if you don't know what to ask? Poor guy. It reminds me of something I once heard: "Sometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and leave no doubt."


The Democrats have a way of picking people who leave no doubt.


----------



## RobertAllen (Nov 11, 2008)

chava said:


> You must personally know each of the Justices quite well... is that true?


Sorry I missed your question, the answer is no I do not personally know the justices. However, I have worked on a Supreme Court brief and am familiar with the justices, not to the extent (obviously) of you who have studied them all in posts on the Huffington Post and Daily Kos, no doubt.

But, really, who should be criticized, a justice who doesn't ask questions and votes the way "he always does" or a justice who asks questions but still votes the way "he/she always does"?

Are you really naive enough to believe that whether it be Justice Scalia (right) or Justice Ginsburg (left) that they are asking a question because they are really torn as to how they will decide the case? I would suggest that anyone with any reasonable knowledge of the Court, be they personal acquaintances of the justices or not, would recognize and in fact ackowledge the question is for the benefit of either Justice Kenedy (the proverbail fifth vote) or to encourage/help the party arguing their "side" of the issue.


----------



## chava (Mar 17, 2009)

*whoa*



RobertAllen said:


> Sorry I missed your question, the answer is no I do not personally know the justices. However, I have worked on a Supreme Court brief and am familiar with the justices, not to the extent (obviously) of you who have studied them all in posts on the Huffington Post and Daily Kos, no doubt.
> 
> But, really, who should be criticized, a justice who doesn't ask questions and votes the way "he always does" or a justice who asks questions but still votes the way "he/she always does"?
> 
> Are you really naive enough to believe that whether it be Justice Scalia (right) or Justice Ginsburg (left) that they are asking a question because they are really torn as to how they will decide the case? I would suggest that anyone with any reasonable knowledge of the Court, be they personal acquaintances of the justices or not, would recognize and in fact ackowledge the question is for the benefit of either Justice Kenedy (the proverbail fifth vote) or to encourage/help the party arguing their "side" of the issue.


Wow...! You actually worked on a brief? A Supreme Court brief? Wow, I'm impressed. You must know alot of stuff and be really, really, really smart too. Gosh... I wish I'd a known that before I let my naive nonsensical fingers run loose on the keyboard. You and Petrik should get together, seeing as how you both are so shmaaat! Indubitably. You see... I can use big wurds.... I'm shmaaat too! Just not as shmaaat as you! Hmmm... may be a song in them wurds.


----------

