Keeping D&D Civil? What a hypocrite you are. 1. You jump to a ridiculous conclusion based on hearsay from RMTex -- a well documented provocateur. 2. You show your ignorance of the Alito hearings by claiming that Alito's wife can't behave in public. She has sat through several days of irresponsible and malicious slander from the liberals directed towards her husband. She has every right to be emotional. To her credit, she has sat gracefully through the mudslinging over the course of the hearings. Even when driven to tears by the liberals' slander, she had the decency to leave the room. Keeping D&D civil? You are a joke.
Condorkador, if you can find me a website that posts a transcript of the hearing as it happens, I'll be more than happy to provide you a link. Otherwise, you're on your own....except for your twin persona/comrade in schizophrenia, Mr. sexxxytexxxy.
Let the facts speak for themselves. You were being a hypocrite and you were rightly called out for it.
So, texxx, are you "an army of one?" And I agreed with you in a thread just a few minutes ago. Such is life. You are a different poster, correct? Sometimes, I think you and Trader_J are joined at the hip. Unlike you two, and frequently basso, I often disagree with my liberal friends here. It's OK... have your fun! I'm laughing. Keep D&D Civil.
Speaking of hypocrites, here is your link, Condorkadorlittlesexxytexxy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/12/AR2006011201031.html Read it and weep....about a third of the way down. Senator Leahy is the questioner. Alito states that a condemned man whose conviction was overturned would have to file a petition with the trial court in order to avoid execution. Therefore, he obviously believes that a condemned man whose conviction is overturned does not have a constitutional right to not be executed. Alito clearly states that it is the condemned man who bears the burden of filing a petition with the trial court to avoid his own execution. Any questions, or can you still not comprehend simple English? Here's a word for you..... OWNED
Hmmm. I just watched it on CNN.com. On the front page they have a link "Alito on Executions." Maybe, I misunderstood, but it seemed like he said that ideally the Constitution should prevent an innocent man from ever being convicted. But in the case where that did happen, he described the steps that could be taken when new evidence is introduced. Maybe I missed something. Hmm...just read your post. It sounded like Alito was just describing the normal process, and the questioner didn't seem to have any problems with his answer. It even sounded like the same stance that Roberts had.
Essentially Alito describes the procedures involved in staying an execution in lieu of new evidence. He also says the Constitution is designed to prevent the execution of an innocent person. I don't see anywhere in the transcript where Alito says or infers that "a condemned man whose conviction is overturned does not have the constitutional right to not be executed". If I am missing it, please show me the quote that I am missing.
Biggest case of self-ownership ever? Having to file a petition does not equal a constitutional right to be executed. Nice try. Actually, no it wasn't. I can't believe that you attempted to pass that garbage here in this forum. Your chances of NOT being OWNED were slim to none. OWNED
LOL big whiff! Maybe a little wishful thinking on RocketLib Tex's part. Alito should be confirmed pretty easily. I'm looking forward to another Clarence Thomas/Antonin Scalia figure on the court for the next 30 years!
i loved it when tuesday cornyn himself called him scalito and yesterday he apologized. cornyn what a tool.
It's becoming quite clear to me that Senate confirmation hearings for USSC justice nominees is a complete joke ever since Bork. Say what you want about him but at least this was a man who was completely forthcoming and honest about his POV and gave very substantive answers on questions asked of him. But now all of a sudden we have hearings where nominees suddenly act like politicians and say as little as possible and try to appear to be all things to all persons without actually really saying anything at all. It now appears that the skill most important to being a USSC justice is not one's skills of jurisprudence but rather one's skill in mouthing platitudes and trivially obvious statements without really saying anything substantive or distinguishing. The Roberts and Alito hearings are a complete joke and waste of time.
Actually that's not just Alito's opinion. I don't remember the specific case but I recall there being a USSC court where the opinion stated that innoncence isn't necessarily a mitigating factor as long as due process was observed.
Reid On BorkAlito Hearings Thu Jan 12, 2006 at 02:04:22 PM PDT Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid on the hearings:
It looks as if he is headed for confirmation. Hopefully this thread will come in handy in an assignment given to me in my Business Law class. We have to write a three page paper on Alito's nomination and the questioning he has been receiving and why they have been questioning him on these subjects. [*Yawn*]
While I disagree with Alito's positions on some things, he does seem to have a legal reasoning behind it. The only thing that worries me about him, is that he has been dishonest over and over. He broke his pledge about Vanguard(I don't care that he sat on the Vanguard case. That wasn't a conflict.) He promised something and then did something different. Then when questioned about it, he tried to weasel his way out of it, by saying his promise only applied to the very beginning of the job. How ridiculous, and dishonest. Then there is the whole CAP thing which is rife with dishonesty. If he really doesn't have an agenda then great. It is just hard to trust him.
Make sure you include the fact that is one of the RW judges that likes to nullifying jury verdicts at the Appeals level when he is supposed to be deciding issues of LAW. Issues of LAW are for JUDGES. Issues of FACT are for JURIES.
