Tell Senator Cornyn: Wiretap Hearings Before Alito

I have no clue, how would you react if a Republican won in 2140?

Opps, dont know how I missed this gem.

Probably rationally, at least more so than certain others if the Republicans didn't win.

*slips mind reading googles off*

...
Others suggest Alito will defer to the president even more than O'Connor, granting the executive branch broad power to respond unilaterally to what it views as national emergencies. Some analysts see this as a warning flag, given recent controversies over Mr. Bush's authorization of warrantless surveillance within the US, the establishment of military tribunals, and harsh treatment of terror suspects.

"I think the most dangerous aspect of Sam Alito is his deference to the government," says Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University School of Law. "When it comes to government abuse and assertions of government power, Sam Alito is an empty robe."
...

This is why the two issues are intermingled...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0106/p01s04-usju.html

I am suggesting that a potentially lame duck president who has committed allegedly illegal acts should not be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court justice -- especially one poised to enable that president's bad behavior -- without intense scrutiny.

I am suggesting that a potentially lame duck president who has committed allegedly illegal acts should not be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court justice -- especially one poised to enable that president's bad behavior -- without intense scrutiny.

Yea, just like you wouldn't have wanted Clinton to be allowed to nominate anyone after he was impeached, right?

...

Yea, just like you wouldn't have wanted Clinton to be allowed to nominate anyone after he was impeached, right?

...

Red herring.

Yea, please tell me more about the rules of argument. You seem to understand them so well.

Because I have a morbid fascination with train wrecks, I will respond. That you bring Clinton into a discussion about the current administration, you show everyone that you are grasping for straws in your arguments.

No no, I was just pointing out the hypocrisy. There's the proper usage for that word.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAA

"You keep using that word, I do not think that word means what you think it means"
- Inigo Montoya

hy·poc·ri·sy (hĭ-pŏk'rĭ-sē) pronunciation
n., pl. -sies.

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.

You are a joke.

You really don't see how that applies to your Clinton comment?

It's hypocrisy for me to point out the hypocrisy of someone's view? Hahaha, ok.

Exactly, you brought up the red herring... der

Dude, you really need to move out of your parent's basement, that is if you aren't a dreaded teen. I'm really not inclined to believe that. You use baseless arguments, when you are called on them, you then get defensive and try your hardest to twist it around to your advantage. Let me give you some advice: Don't quit school yet, you really aren't as smart as you think. I think even Sean Hannity would offer better rebuttal. He'd sure be more entertaining.

Yea, you sure did call me on my baseless arguments.

Yes, you brought Bill Clinton into a discussion about a current administration and things that are happening with the current administration. BASELESS ARGUMENT. At least for people who do not live on Bizzaro World. DER.

I was pointing out that the person that made the post wouldn't have said the same thing about Clinton as he is about Bush. That is very much relevant to the conversation, especially when it comes to politics. You're just upset that it was such a good point, so now you're whining.

I was pointing out that the person that made the post wouldn't have said the same thing about Clinton as he is about Bush. That is very much relevant to the conversation, especially when it comes to politics. You're just upset that it was such a good point, so now you're whining.