First, he responded to my initial post without clicking the link. That's just willful ignorance. When I called it a 10% difference, which it is, he had a shit-fit.
10%? What are you saying? Three percent isn't much difference. You need to think this over carefully.
Where he got 8.92% I haven't the slightest idea. Must be that careful thinking he wants me to do.
Now let's look at what three percentage points means. At the 25-30% level, it's a ten percent difference; that's not a lot, but it's definitely significant. A difference of three percentage points from a 1% incidence to a 4% incidence is still a three percentage-point difference, but it's a fourfold increase; from 0.5% to 3.5% is a sevenfold increase. This isn't even math, this is arithmetic.
jethro was killed in a terrible auto accident. When he got to the pearly gates, St. Peter ushered him in, called attendants for him, yadda yadda yadda . . .
When asked why all the fuss, St. Peter said "We've been waiting for you so long, jethro!"
"So long? I had a good thirty or forty years ahead of me!"
This is partly a function of the unrepresentativeness of the court. Its members are drawn from a small segment of society -- elite lawyer -- and tend to crave the good opinion of editorial writers, law school professors and Georgetown hostesses -- all liberal constituencies.
 Each justice is provided with four 20-something law clerks who are recent graduates of elite law schools; the late Justice Harry Blackmun, as Linda Greenhouse's recent book shows, became something of a creature of his left-leaning clerks. It's no surprise that over the past half-century, lots of justices have moved left and few or none have moved right.
Edith Jones, a fifth circuit judge and possible Supreme Court choice, argues that the “reigning legal philosophy” is responsible for the bitter politics that surround judicial nominations. Jones charged that legal elites (“mandarins of the law”) have long since come to view the courts as agents of social change. Federal judges, and later state judges, caught on to this heightened view of their power. Then, as judge-made law invaded politically sensitive areas, it provoked a political reaction. Jones thinks it will take decades to repair the damage and return to assessing Supreme Court nominees according to their brains and fairness rather than their propensity (or lack of it) for advancing their politics on the bench. According to Jones, writing in the University of Richmond Law Review, “The restoration of more civil and objective selection processes will not occur until the reigning legal philosophy becomes less ambitious and overweening.” This will come about, Jones says, only “when the rule of law is again tethered to respect for the executive and legislative branches of government, to traditional legal craftsmanship, to continuity, to moral values, and to limited social aims.”
the unrepresentativeness of the court. Its members are drawn from a small segment of society -- elite lawyer -- and tend to crave the good opinion of editorial writers, law school professors and Georgetown hostesses -- all liberal constituencies.
1. So we should select justices of the Supreme Court based on how little they know of the law?
2. Supreme Gourt Justices serve for life; this was designed to isolate them from political influence. Most of the ones who have served during my lifetime have been fairly publicity-shy. The most public of the current Justices is Scalia, who doesn't seem to be going out of his way to court the liberal constituencies you mention.
3. You throw around the word "elite" like it was something bad. It means the best of a class, the choicest part, the best-skilled, best-trained or best-educated part of a society. I damned well want my leaders to be part of the elite. Like people familiar with arithmetic, at least.
when the rule of law is again tethered to respect for the executive and legislative branches of government
Clarence Thomas has voted to overturn acts of Congress two-thirds of the time he had the opportunity to do so.
1. So we should select justices of the Supreme Court based on how little they know of the law? Does it make any difference if you select judges that don't the law or ones that will ignore it? But you know that wasn't the point you dishonest little.....
2. Supreme Court Justices serve for life; this was designed to isolate them from political influence. Most of the ones who have served during my lifetime have been fairly publicity-shy. The most public of the current Justices is Scalia, who doesn't seem to be going out of his way to court the liberal constituencies you mention. It was assumed that justices would give the Constitution and the people that adopted it and approved it due consideration. That has long since been thrown out the window. But if you don't think some people can't have their head turned by flattery, you are a moron.
3. You throw around the word "elite" like it was something bad. It is it implies arrogance. That word applies to the likes of Stevens and Kennedy.  It means the best of a class, the choicest part, the best-skilled, best-trained or best-educated part of a society. It also means the politically well connected.I damned well want my leaders to be part of the elite. Like people familiar with arithmetic, at least. I am quite familiar with it. It is often used to mislead people.Â
when the rule of law is again tethered to respect for the executive and legislative branches of government
Clarence Thomas has voted to overturn acts of Congress two-thirds of the time he had the opportunity to do so. I don't know where you got your number but I am sure they are deliberately misleading as most of what you post is. You are dishonest. I expect it from your kind. There is a time to overturn those decisions when they are clearly outside what was intended by those that drafted the Constitution and those that ratified it. If the court does not attempt to dos so there is no longer democracy and our elections are worthless.
The surrender was jethro's meltdown. No debate, just namecalling and rote contradiction of what I had said. Silly little man still doesn't understand what a percentage difference is, even though it was explained to him again and again for the better part of a week.
The surrender was jethro's meltdown. There was no meltdown, other than your post telling me to fuck myself.  No debate, just namecalling and rote contradiction of what I had said. There was plenty of substance, lefty. And it is clear you can deal with it. Silly little man still doesn't understand what a percentage difference is, even though it was explained to him again and again for the better part of a week. Your "percentage difference" was irrelevant and did not accurately reflect the facts.Â
It's hard to take liberals seriously when they declare that President Bush's judicial nominees must be respecters of the Constitution and not conservative ideologues.
 How can liberal senators, such as Chuck Schumer, expect to pass the laugh test when decrying the intrusion of political ideology into judicial decisions as they openly defend such a practice when it emanates from their side?
 Democrats have long considered the judiciary the third policy-making branch to compensate for their consistent failure to control the other two branches. Only recently have they begun to urge that the president's judicial picks be those who will honor the Constitution. It's not just their insincerity that's offensive, but also their obvious belief that the public is clueless enough to fall for their deception.
A new Pew Research poll— taken after last week's terrorist attacks in London — shows that President Bush's job approval ratings have risen, from 42 percent last month to 47 percent now. Meanwhile, in a new Rasmussen Reports poll, 58 percent of likely voters say that if President Bush nominates a qualified conservative to the Supreme Court, Senate Democrats should vote to confirm the nominee.
This follows a recent Gallup poll, in which a similar 58 percent said it is "very likely" that Senate Democrats would try to block a Bush nominee for inappropriate political reasons. Another 28 percent said it is "somewhat likely."
When George Bush first ran for president, he said he would name "strict constructionists" to the Supreme Court, citing Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as models.
 Now, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is being mentioned for a vacancy. But is he like Scalia and Thomas?
What I meant, you stupid idiot, is that Jethro is not one of "Them", meaning the Elite Lawyers, and THAT is what makes him such a Putz. DIG IT...?
And I do not want to be one of the "elite" lawyers. I despise those fellows. They are full of themselves. In that regard they remind me of fold.Â
Speaking of stupid, Jethro... I am sure you posted those rediculously biased poll numbers because there were OTHER poll numbers put out by NBC/WallStreetJournal, which said nothing of the kind, and in fact their respondents said NO to the question of whether the SC should change Roe vs. Wade, and they did so by TWO to ONE...50% to 25%.
You'll believe any left wing propaganda. You believed the polls that said Kerry would beat Bush.
The truth is that any poll you don't like, is a poll that is false and misleading, usually run by the vast left wing conspiracy...
No I don't think much of polls. I only mention them because fools like you put so much stock in them. It is all you and your ilk have.
That son-bitch Rove is not only a liar who has been busy for days splitting hairs on the fact that he squealed like a pig to Robert Novak,
Did you see the NY Times story today? It says Novak told Rove about the CIA agent.
Because, if as Rove and his lawyer says it was NOT a crime, then what on Earth was the Department of Justice doing chasing those reporters, and jailing the one that DIDN'T report anything about the story Rove handed to Novak, into Jail for Contempt? Contempt of WHAT? And why has Rove (and the white-house-staff) been steadfastly shouting his innocence for the last couple years, when in fact HE is the one who DID give that unlawful and politically-motivated info, to Novak in the first place...? You have no clue. You have once again grasped at a moldy straw. There may well have been a crime committed and that is why there is an investigation. It just doesn't look like Rove did it.
Polls are worthless. Last election was a prime example. Polls showed that Kerry was to win by a good margin. I agree with Kitch, people who take polls have nothing better to do with their time and tend not to show up on election day. Besides, what is there to stop me from clicking 30 times on the outcome I want?
"Do you have any support, polling or otherwise, to back that up?"
According to the polls, democrats projected wins and gains in the last TWO elections. Last time I checked, Bush is the President and the GOP gained seats in congress.
I guess you don't have any support, so I'll give you my take.
Seemed to me, in 2004, Bush polled consistently ahead -- 3 points or so -- in the run up to the election. Turned out fairly accurate. I didn't want it that way, but it was pretty hard to deny, and I managed to do it quasi-publically.
The race was always in the battleground states.
Kerry could walk out with his head up high. He took a wartime president in a fairly decent economy right to Election Day.
According to the polls, democrats projected wins and gains in the last TWO elections. Last time I checked, Bush is the President and the GOP gained seats in congress.
now, add in the massive indications of voting fraud.
One of the questions in the aftermath of the 2004 General Election is:
Why didn't Bush carry 45 states? It shoulda been a rout! A wartime president and the election came down to a few hundred-thousand votes in Ohio. A better Democratic strategy and better organization in one state and Kerry would be president.
First, he responded to my initial post without clicking the link. That's just willful ignorance. When I called it a 10% difference, which it is, he had a shit-fit.
Where he got 8.92% I haven't the slightest idea. Must be that careful thinking he wants me to do.
Now let's look at what three percentage points means. At the 25-30% level, it's a ten percent difference; that's not a lot, but it's definitely significant. A difference of three percentage points from a 1% incidence to a 4% incidence is still a three percentage-point difference, but it's a fourfold increase; from 0.5% to 3.5% is a sevenfold increase. This isn't even math, this is arithmetic.
"Where he got 8.92% I haven't the slightest idea."
Dividing 25 into 28 is my guess. What shows up in decimal form is .892. But the percent would then be 10.08.
9K Joe.
0.12 - 0.107142857143 = .012857712857 Does this have any meaning? Come on pieter, you are making zero sense!
But the percent would then be 10.08.
and that number means something?
Means 10 percent or so.
wonders what Bodine bills for a percentage of an hour of his "lawyering"
There are lawyers who can bill up to 60 hours in on 24 hour day.
They're good at multi-tasking.
jethro was killed in a terrible auto accident. When he got to the pearly gates, St. Peter ushered him in, called attendants for him, yadda yadda yadda . . .
When asked why all the fuss, St. Peter said "We've been waiting for you so long, jethro!"
"So long? I had a good thirty or forty years ahead of me!"
"What? Based on your billed hours, you're 105!"
Means 10 percent or so.
. wrong thread...
This is partly a function of the unrepresentativeness of the court. Its members are drawn from a small segment of society -- elite lawyer -- and tend to crave the good opinion of editorial writers, law school professors and Georgetown hostesses -- all liberal constituencies.
 Each justice is provided with four 20-something law clerks who are recent graduates of elite law schools; the late Justice Harry Blackmun, as Linda Greenhouse's recent book shows, became something of a creature of his left-leaning clerks. It's no surprise that over the past half-century, lots of justices have moved left and few or none have moved right.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/mb20050711.shtml
Edith Jones, a fifth circuit judge and possible Supreme Court choice, argues that the “reigning legal philosophy” is responsible for the bitter politics that surround judicial nominations. Jones charged that legal elites (“mandarins of the law”) have long since come to view the courts as agents of social change. Federal judges, and later state judges, caught on to this heightened view of their power. Then, as judge-made law invaded politically sensitive areas, it provoked a political reaction. Jones thinks it will take decades to repair the damage and return to assessing Supreme Court nominees according to their brains and fairness rather than their propensity (or lack of it) for advancing their politics on the bench. According to Jones, writing in the University of Richmond Law Review, “The restoration of more civil and objective selection processes will not occur until the reigning legal philosophy becomes less ambitious and overweening.” This will come about, Jones says, only “when the rule of law is again tethered to respect for the executive and legislative branches of government, to traditional legal craftsmanship, to continuity, to moral values, and to limited social aims.”
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/jl20050711.shtml
1. So we should select justices of the Supreme Court based on how little they know of the law?
2. Supreme Gourt Justices serve for life; this was designed to isolate them from political influence. Most of the ones who have served during my lifetime have been fairly publicity-shy. The most public of the current Justices is Scalia, who doesn't seem to be going out of his way to court the liberal constituencies you mention.
3. You throw around the word "elite" like it was something bad. It means the best of a class, the choicest part, the best-skilled, best-trained or best-educated part of a society. I damned well want my leaders to be part of the elite. Like people familiar with arithmetic, at least.
Clarence Thomas has voted to overturn acts of Congress two-thirds of the time he had the opportunity to do so.
Elites are the ones who look down on the commoners with a stick up their ass.
1. So we should select justices of the Supreme Court based on how little they know of the law? Does it make any difference if you select judges that don't the law or ones that will ignore it? But you know that wasn't the point you dishonest little.....
2. Supreme Court Justices serve for life; this was designed to isolate them from political influence. Most of the ones who have served during my lifetime have been fairly publicity-shy. The most public of the current Justices is Scalia, who doesn't seem to be going out of his way to court the liberal constituencies you mention. It was assumed that justices would give the Constitution and the people that adopted it and approved it due consideration. That has long since been thrown out the window. But if you don't think some people can't have their head turned by flattery, you are a moron.
3. You throw around the word "elite" like it was something bad. It is it implies arrogance. That word applies to the likes of Stevens and Kennedy.  It means the best of a class, the choicest part, the best-skilled, best-trained or best-educated part of a society. It also means the politically well connected.I damned well want my leaders to be part of the elite. Like people familiar with arithmetic, at least. I am quite familiar with it. It is often used to mislead people.Â
Clarence Thomas has voted to overturn acts of Congress two-thirds of the time he had the opportunity to do so. I don't know where you got your number but I am sure they are deliberately misleading as most of what you post is. You are dishonest. I expect it from your kind. There is a time to overturn those decisions when they are clearly outside what was intended by those that drafted the Constitution and those that ratified it. If the court does not attempt to dos so there is no longer democracy and our elections are worthless.
To quote our esteemed vice-president, go fuck yourself.
Another surrender by peter.
The surrender was jethro's meltdown. No debate, just namecalling and rote contradiction of what I had said. Silly little man still doesn't understand what a percentage difference is, even though it was explained to him again and again for the better part of a week.
I haven't been following the conversation, but Pieter is not one to "surrender".
As much as it pains you, traveling RV man, Jethro is in fact an attorney.
As much as it pains you, traveling RV man, Jethro is in fact an attorney.
Â
Heck..I know a judge that is on the internet as much as me...(no not my father in law)...
he's a big time player of pimpwars.com
To quote our esteemed vice-president, go fuck yourself.
Typical of the left. They can't respond to the truth. So they curse you and stomp off.
The surrender was jethro's meltdown. There was no meltdown, other than your post telling me to fuck myself.  No debate, just namecalling and rote contradiction of what I had said. There was plenty of substance, lefty. And it is clear you can deal with it. Silly little man still doesn't understand what a percentage difference is, even though it was explained to him again and again for the better part of a week. Your "percentage difference" was irrelevant and did not accurately reflect the facts.Â
It's hard to take liberals seriously when they declare that President Bush's judicial nominees must be respecters of the Constitution and not conservative ideologues.
 How can liberal senators, such as Chuck Schumer, expect to pass the laugh test when decrying the intrusion of political ideology into judicial decisions as they openly defend such a practice when it emanates from their side?
 Democrats have long considered the judiciary the third policy-making branch to compensate for their consistent failure to control the other two branches. Only recently have they begun to urge that the president's judicial picks be those who will honor the Constitution. It's not just their insincerity that's offensive, but also their obvious belief that the public is clueless enough to fall for their deception.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20050712.shtml
A new Pew Research poll— taken after last week's terrorist attacks in London — shows that President Bush's job approval ratings have risen, from 42 percent last month to 47 percent now. Meanwhile, in a new Rasmussen Reports poll, 58 percent of likely voters say that if President Bush nominates a qualified conservative to the Supreme Court, Senate Democrats should vote to confirm the nominee.
This follows a recent Gallup poll, in which a similar 58 percent said it is "very likely" that Senate Democrats would try to block a Bush nominee for inappropriate political reasons. Another 28 percent said it is "somewhat likely."
I leave for a little while and look what happens to neighborhood...oh, that's right, it was like this when I left! I hope I didn't miss too much.
"Common Sense Conservative"- Aren't those words together redundant?
How you been?
Bookmark this link for the future:
This place will probably be shutting down soon.
When George Bush first ran for president, he said he would name "strict constructionists" to the Supreme Court, citing Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as models.
 Now, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is being mentioned for a vacancy. But is he like Scalia and Thomas?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/terencejeffrey/tj20050713.shtml
What I meant, you stupid idiot, is that Jethro is not one of "Them", meaning the
Elite Lawyers,
and THAT is what makes him such a
Putz.
DIG IT...?
And I do not want to be one of the "elite" lawyers. I despise those fellows. They are full of themselves. In that regard they remind me of fold.Â
Speaking of stupid, Jethro... I am sure you posted those rediculously biased poll numbers because there were OTHER poll numbers put out by NBC/WallStreetJournal,
which said nothing of the kind,
and in fact their respondents said
NO
to the question of whether the SC should change Roe vs. Wade, and they did so
by TWO to ONE...50% to 25%.
You'll believe any left wing propaganda. You believed the polls that said Kerry would beat Bush.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!! If there's anyone more full of both himeself and shit than jethro . . .
I love the way a poll commissioned partly by the Wall Street Journal becomes "left-wing propaganda" when the wingies don't like the numbers.
pieter b 7/14/05 2:31pm
If there's anyone more full of both himeself and shit than jethro . . .
Â
Ya, you.
Stalker. . . .
rubber/glue smack is so, like, fourth-grade. I like your high-school yearbook picture, though.
If there's anyone more full of both himeself and shit than jethro . . .
Johnson has it right. pieter is much more full of it. I think even more than fold is.
I love the way a poll commissioned partly by the Wall Street Journalbecomes "left-wing propaganda" when the wingies don't like the numbers.
The truth is that any poll you don't like, is a poll that is false and misleading, usually run by the
vast left wing conspiracy...
No I don't think much of polls. I only mention them because fools like you put so much stock in them. It is all you and your ilk have.
That son-bitch
Rove
is not only a liar who has been busy for days splitting hairs on the fact that he
squealed like a pig to Robert Novak,
Did you see the NY Times story today? It says Novak told Rove about the CIA agent.
Because, if as Rove and his lawyer says
it was NOT a crime,
then what on Earth was the Department of Justice doing chasing those reporters, and jailing the one that DIDN'T report anything about the story Rove handed to Novak, into Jail for Contempt?
Contempt of WHAT?
And why has Rove (and the white-house-staff) been steadfastly shouting his innocence for the last couple years, when in fact HE is the one who DID give that unlawful and
politically-motivated info,
to Novak in the first place...? You have no clue. You have once again grasped at a moldy straw. There may well have been a crime committed and that is why there is an investigation. It just doesn't look like Rove did it.
I have to agree....POLLS are BULLSHIT....Like I want the views of anybody who is willing to waste their time to take the poll...
Polls are worthless. Last election was a prime example. Polls showed that Kerry was to win by a good margin. I agree with Kitch, people who take polls have nothing better to do with their time and tend not to show up on election day. Besides, what is there to stop me from clicking 30 times on the outcome I want?
" people who take polls have nothing better to do with their time and tend not to show up on election day."
Do you have any support, polling or otherwise, to back that up?
"Besides, what is there to stop me from clicking 30 times on the outcome I want?"
I don't think anyone was talking about online polls.
"Do you have any support, polling or otherwise, to back that up?"
According to the polls, democrats projected wins and gains in the last TWO elections. Last time I checked, Bush is the President and the GOP gained seats in congress.
I guess you don't have any support, so I'll give you my take.
Seemed to me, in 2004, Bush polled consistently ahead -- 3 points or so -- in the run up to the election. Turned out fairly accurate. I didn't want it that way, but it was pretty hard to deny, and I managed to do it quasi-publically.
The race was always in the battleground states.
Kerry could walk out with his head up high. He took a wartime president in a fairly decent economy right to Election Day.
now, add in the massive indications of voting fraud.
Bigger than 2000, Crabs?
Too funny, Rick. You LWW's predicted the war would be Bush's undoing.
You LWW's predicted the "tanking" economy would be Bush's undoing. Those are the 2 areas Kerry beat to death while campaigning.
Now you turn it around and say the war and the economy were good for Bush and bad for Kerry?..SHEEEEEEEEESH!
Yes crabweed, the GOP gained despite massive indications of voting fraud by the Democrats.
So what's Bush running for that he has to worry about his approval numbers?
One of the questions in the aftermath of the 2004 General Election is:
Why didn't Bush carry 45 states? It shoulda been a rout! A wartime president and the election came down to a few hundred-thousand votes in Ohio. A better Democratic strategy and better organization in one state and Kerry would be president.
..."if the election were held today, Gdubbya would lose"......
if-if-if-if, Going out on a limb on that one, Foldy? LOL!..What a rube!
Â
"The war is his undoing"......... Hmmmmmm, i seem to recall that George Bush was re-elected during the war.
Got any more, Foldy?
According to the Democrats, GW was such a lousy President, Kerry should have carried 45 states.
I guess you're not going to answer.
But it's hard to get a straight answer from the conservatives around here. Not that I consider you a conservative, torpedo.