Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (367375)	3/6/2003 4:23:36 PM
From: CYBERKEN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

You are obviously as out-of-hand racist as the anti-American left. Why don't you stop with the groupings and generalities. THAT'S how the Democrats rope the illiterate low-income blacks in to fabricating so many votes for people like Al Gore and Marie Landreiu who couldn't care less about them. Your stubborn ignorance, caused by watching and believing the left wing mainstream media, has caused you to take for granted the racism that the left lives by-and thus become part of it. Despite what your friends say, that makes you an IDIOT. There's no other way to describe it. It also guarantees that you will always be UNRELIABLE in this war of the American left against America, which means you can never be trusted by real Americans, whether you call yourself "neo-conservative" or not. So go back to the Democratic party. That's your natural home...

To: Neocon who wrote (367375)	3/6/2003 4:27:16 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Well having lots of contact with constituencies of the Democratic Party, only means you are exposed to spinned minds of mr. bill. What is the current leadership of the dem party and do any of those you know reject anything said by that leadership. The Miguel Estrada filibuster is another example of character assassination. The other night on hardline, I call it limp line. Mathew's asked Schumer. What is Estrada poisition on Roe vs Wade. Schumer answered. I don't know as Estrada did not answer any questions. No follow up from Mathews. duhhhhh... This a few days ago is repeating the dems lies. This is the transcript of other dems attempting to spin lies acute.ath.cx dem liar senator Durban. Or durban is just a stupid idiot. Are all the dems idiots or liars. Are all your dem friends dupes, or idiots or part of the lies. All we are asking of Miguel Estrada is the basics: What is your position on basic constitutional issues? When it comes to Supreme Court decisions, discuss one of them you might have disagreed with in the last 40 years, or in the history of the Supreme Court. Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. DURBIN. In one moment. Asking him: Give us the name of one Supreme Court Justice, living or dead, whom you would emulate as a member of the bar or as a member of the bench. He refuses to answer any of those questions. I will yield to the Senator from Utah. Mr. HATCH. Does the Senator remember--you may or may not have been there at the time--he was asked about Roe v. Wade, and he said it was settled law and that he would apply it? Does the Senator remember that? Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to read exactly what he said when I asked the question because I sent it to him in the written questions that came. Mr. HATCH. That is what it said in the transcript. Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will bear with me. Mr. HATCH. It is on page 128 of the transcript. Specifically asked, he said it is settled law and he would apply it. I do not know what more he could say. Mr. DURBIN. I am looking for it. Mr. HATCH. I certainly do not know what more he should have said. If you go to page 128---- Mr. DURBIN. This isn't what I am referring to. These are written questions which were sent to him. I just read his answer. It was curious to me, I say to the Senator from Utah, when he was given an opportunity to say just that, he did not. He did not. Mr. HATCH. Well, he did. In his oral questions he was asked about Roe v. Wade, and he said it was settled law, he would apply it. Maybe he did not say exactly what you wanted him to at the time, but that is what he did say. Mr. DURBIN. Let me read my question: You and I met privately before your hearing-- I addressed this to Miguel Estrada-- and I asked you for your views on Roe v. Wade. You indicated you considered the answer to that question to be a private matter, but your answer suggested you do have an opinion. Do you have an opinion on the merits of Roe v. Wade? If so, have you read the briefs and transcripts of the oral argument? This is Miguel Estrada's response: I stated during our meeting, like many Americans, I have personal views on the subject of abortion, which views I consider a private matter that I was unprepared to share or discuss with you. I also stated I do not harbor any personal views of any kind that if I were a judge would preclude me from applying controlling Supreme Court law in the area of abortion. I did not state that I have private views on whether Roe v. Wade was correctly decided. As I stated during my hearing, it would not be appropriate for me to express such a view without doing the intensive work that a judge hearing that case would have to undertake, not only reading briefs and hearing the arguments of counsel but also independently investigating the relevant constitutional text, case law, and history. Had he answered exactly as the Senator from Utah had said--it is controlling law, and that is what I will apply, or this is my view on the general issue of privacy--I think it would have opened our eyes to an insight into what he was thinking. But again, he was careful to avoid---- Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield again? Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield. Mr. HATCH. Senator Feinstein asked him about Roe v. Wade. He basically said that he should not discuss his views on it, but he said, on page 128: I have had no particular reason to go back and look at whether it was right or wrong as a matter of law as I would if I were a judge that was hearing the case for the first time. It is there. It is the law as it is subsequently refined by the Casey case. And I will follow it. And Senator Feinstein said: So you believe it is settled law? Mr. Estrada said: I believe so. So maybe he did not answer exactly the way you wanted him to in the written questions, but in the oral testimony he made it very clear that he would follow the law and that he believes it is settled law. I do not know what more he should have said.