Observations of the role of corporations in US society isn't a conspiracy theory.
Have you ever considered that many corporations may have diametrically oppose interests?
I have. Yet the balance of the interests of competing elites does nothing to guarantee the rights and interests of the people in general, as a representative system should. Are you saying that a system that undermines representative goverment is ok as long as one set of elites doesn't gain absolute power over other sets of elites?
Have you considered that many corporations are run by liberals?
Yes I have considered that. But lip service to the liberal tradition while practicing fascism is hypocrisy, no matter what the intentions. Many liberals do a lot to advance a progressive agenda, despite being part of a corporate elite. I'm certain that such people will be open minded to the kinds of changes I propose. In fact, they will probably be the ones who lead the competition.
What nonsense! You are arguing that avaricious hoarding needs to be encouraged or there won't be any incentive for anyone to be prosperous. Ridiculous!
It should be easy enough to subdue the few, if it comes to that. I have faith that the majority will defend the constitution and not fight for fascism.
Yet the balance of the interests of competing elites does nothing to guarantee the rights and interests of the people in general, as a representative system should. There is no requirement that corporatiosn gurantee the rights of anybody. That is not their purpose.
Are you saying that a system that undermines representative goverment is ok as long as one set of elites doesn't gain absolute power over other sets of elites?
I am saying that what you call the undermining of representative government is nothing of the kind.
I have faith that the majority will defend the constitution and not fight for fascism
They will fight for the constitution. Unfortunately for you you don't understand the constitution. Just because you label something fascist does not make it so.
so free thinking relates only to political ideas. hmmm.I suppose that it only relates to liberals too.
As for "one's political approach isn't decided by sexual preferences or deviances" you really should talk to the militant gays because that seems the only reason they are in politics at all.
As for "one's political approach isn't decided by sexual preferences or deviances" you really should talk to the militant gays because that seems the only reason they are in politics at all.
I don't know if you can call Log Cabin Republicans militant gays. However, I have always been suspicious that the Log Cabiners were not really Republicans but were actually an arm of the left.
not at all...I realize you can't get your mind around the idea of people thinking for themselves, but that's what free thinkers do. Some of them may even occasionally think like you, bodine.
YES. Precisely my point: Corporations are organized in the same manner as are fascist nation states: a totalitarian culture dominated by a hierachical power structure that has no real internal checks and balances on the power of the elite.
Because corporations are organized this way, the ideological influence colors and shapes the way corporations interact with other political actors in US society. And as corporations have surpassed state and local governments in legal, political, economic and social power, the fascist ideology that is part of their culture has been their guide in projecting their power and influence into society. We are very close to the day when this fascist ideology will overshadow liberal traditions, as fascists attempt to unravel progressive laws and traditions that check their power within society. Bush's presidency is spearheading that effort.
YES. Precisely my point: Corporations are organized in the same manner as are fascist nation states: a totalitarian culture dominated by a hierarchical power structure that has no real internal checks and balances on the power of the elite.
It is a private matter for the corporation, its stockholders and its employees. It is not the public's concern, not should it be yours. Unless of course you fit into one of the three categories above.
You are right. Simple name-calling isn't credible. That isn't what I'm doing. I'm giving a concrete argument that historical examples of social organization can define for us the structure that is used by corporations. I'm giving a concrete argument that corporations have played an active part in establishing fascist states, and that the aims of those corporate organizations were similar to the aims of corporations today. These arguments can be verified by examining the structure, ideology and policy aims of corporations, as well as by examination of the results of the application of power by corporations in law, business, politics and culture. I've established that corporations are political bodies, both as a matter of fact and from inference related to their interactions with society. The criteria for defining a political body demands that the political body must be internally organized. A political body must have a structure that governs its process of decision-making. Corporations DO HAVE an internal political strucure. There are a variety of structures that are used by humans to structure decision-making processes, and they have names. The names describing political structures aren't controversial. When you say a system is unitive and democratic, that model is easily identified with the parliamentarian model that characterizes the governing structure of many nation-states and other organizations. Likewise, a fascist structure is also easily identifiable in historical context according to its structure. If corporations have an internal structure, THEN WHAT internal structure is it? Answer: fascist. It's that simple. No name calling involved. It's just a simple fact that allowing unrestrained power by fascist organizations within a republican nation-state has historically led to the transformation of that republican nation-state into a fascist state.
Most corporate structures are just fine. They are designed to achieve a goal effectively and efficiently as possible. That is not true with democratic and representative government.
T.D. What if it were a huge privately held company instead of a corporation?
Don't people have a right to run their company the way they wish?
YES. I've said previously that corporations aren't "businesses." Corporations have far more legal and economic power than a capitalist business. The reason for this stems from the fact that corporations have powers and privilidges granted by the state that capitalist businesses don't have. So to answer your question: YES, if a capitalist business assumes all risk, raises capital on credit or bond issue alone, and has no stockholders, AND IS NOT A SHELL, THEN YES: they have a right to run the company the way they wish. Of course, they would still have to obey laws! That might be difficult, given that corporations use their power to slant the laws in favor of corporations, and to the disadvantage of capitalist businesses. Ask anyone who has been driven out of business by Wal-Mart.
Why should it be any different for corporations?
Because corporations have power granted to them by the state, yet they have become entities whose power overshadows the state. Thus the accountability to the people for the power granted has been lost. This is the root of the problem.
If you don't like corporations, don't work for them and don't buy their goods or services.
There, problem solved. If everyone thought the way you did, they'd go bankrupt in no time.
Do you honestly believe that will be an effective check on corporate power? How exactly, would that apply in the case of a company like GE or General Dynamics or Archer Daniels Midland?
First of all, the influence of a political organization upon society is very much a public concern, especially if the state is the grantor of that organization's charter, granting special powers and privilidges.
Second, if the corporation is lobbying legislators and administrators to shape laws and regulations, that is a public concern.
Third, If a corporation is using the power granted to it by the state to defy and undermine the laws when those laws favor the interests of the people over the interests of the corporation, then that is also a public concern.
I could go on! A corporation is not a "private" organization. It is a public organization, and it interacts in the public square and pursues its interests there. If those interests are guided and shaped according to a fascist ideology that is intrinsically hostile to representative government and to the rule of law, then that IS CERTAINLY a public concern.
No argument with that. What I have an argument with is the fact that this imperative to maximize efficiency has turned into an agenda to undermine representative government and the rule of law. Of course you can reach a state of maximum efficiency! Hitler and the Nazis proved that! No argument with that contention! The question is whether the drive for maximum efficiency is worth the price of freedom.
That is not true with democratic and representative government.
Democratic and representative systems have virtues that hierarchical systems do not: Checks and balances provide a deliberative decision making process that serves to vet ideas and plans. And of course, an open deliberative system has a wider pool of innovative input. Making decisions quickly may not be as important as making the right decision.
Here jethro seeks to make "perfection" the enemy of "the good."
He argues that if representative and democratic systems can't get it right every time, immediately, then they are too flawed to be used.
By this criteria, hierarchical system have an even worserecord, and often the collapse is catastrophic. Hierarchical systems often fall victim to blind deference to "visionary leaders" who turn out to be leading the organization over a cliff.
By contrast, representative systems have power divided by factions, within the organization, that compete with one another and point out the errors or faulty reasoning presented by the opposing factions. Through compromise a way is found that avoids disasterous schemes.
Observe that the champions of corporate fascism are today in control of the US, and they refuse any objection to their policies and scorn any need for compromise. As yet, they have reaped disaster after disaster...
There’s an easy solution to this standoff, of course. Give all the filibustered nominees a simple vote, yes or no. Put them on the bench, or allow them to go home. Then we’ll know who’s truly “out of the mainstream.”
Well then I guess we now all understand what position you defend, and what position I defend. You favor fascism, and I favor liberal democracy.
NOTHING is a guarantee of happy-time-all-the-time. Yet fascists will make a great hue and cry over the shortcomings of democracy even though the long term analysis favors liberal democracy over fascism EVERY TIME.
If the system of checks and balances allowed that a simple majority was sufficient to settle the issue of whether or not judicial appointees are suitable for service, then I expect the FOUR appointees being blocked by filibuster would join the ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY EIGHT that have been confirmed by the Senate.
Utilizing the filibuster is an acceptable use of the checks and balances by the minority to prevent the appointment to high courts of ideological extremists.
The checks and balances are mainstream. Radical interpretation of the law is not.
Utilizing the filibuster is an acceptable use of the checks and balances by the minority to prevent the appointment to high courts of ideological extremists.
No the fillibuster is not legitmate. It is the extremists that are preventing a vote on mainstream judges. Your point of view shows just how extreme you are.
Stellar credentials and a “well-qualified” rating from the American Bar Association, its highest, following her nomination to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals should have made the road to confirmation an easy one for Judge Carolyn Kuhl.
But the path since her nomination on June 22, 2001 — two years ago this Sunday — has been anything but easy. Indeed, for more than 21 months she was not even given the courtesy of a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and a month after she finally did receive a hearing on April 1, 2003, her nomination was “reported out” to the Senate floor on only the barest, 10-9 vote, with not a single Democrat siding with what Senator Leahy once called the “gold standard” of the ABA’s well-qualified rating.
With her extensive experience in federal and state government, in the Executive and Judicial Branches, in public service and private legal practice, Judge Kuhl has a superb legal background and the broad experience that makes her ideally suited to be a U.S. Circuit Judge.
Nearly 100 of her fellow Superior Court judges support her confirmation. So do the officers of the Litigation Section of the Los Angeles County Bar Association. So do more than a dozen Justices of the California Court of Appeal. So do many other attorneys -- Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal -- who know her and her reputation for integrity and fairness. Even California Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) admits that she has never received more letters from sitting judges in support of a judicial nominee.
Still, none of this has discouraged the Left from distorting Judge Kuhl's record and mischaracterizing her work at the Justice Department two decades ago.
Bob Jones has a right to be represented in Court just like any other organization.
but these are the facts.
Kuhl questioned whether the ruling followed the governing federal law and believed at the time that the agency was asserting it had the right to determine public policy and act on that determination without congressional direction.
Nevertheless, Kuhl changed her mind -- nearly twenty years ago. As she explained at her hearing, the Justice Department's job is to defend agency positions like this one, which can be supported by a reasonable argument. "I should have been defending the position of the IRS, and I was wrong because nondiscrimination should have been put first," she testified.
I know you don’t give much credence to facts, crabs, but most people do.
The Republicans' pointless pouting session may backfire when Americans learn the real facts. When Bill Clinton was president, the GOP didn't stop at holding up a measly four judicial nominees. They held up 60, refusing to allow committee votes on most of them. [Click here to find out more!]
Democrats should have voted to confirm Miguel Estrada, a worthy nominee. But Estrada grew tired of the process and withdrew his name from consideration.
But three other nominees blocked by the Democrats hold radical views that make them unfit for promotions to higher courts. Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, selected for the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (which hears cases out of Georgia) has opposed civil rights, women's rights and federal environmental protections; federal district Judge Charles Pickering, nominated for the 5th Circuit, mounted an unusual campaign to get a reduced sentence for one of the defendants in a cross-burning conviction -- and without notifying the lawyers on both sides; and Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, another 5th Circuit nominee, was criticized by her court colleagues for letting her personal anti-abortion views go beyond the letter of the law she was asked to construe.
The Democrats also rightly object to California Justice Carolyn Kuhl, nominated for the 9th Circuit, who supported tax-exempt status for Bob Jones University while it was still segregated; and California Justice Janice Rogers Brown, nominated for the influential D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, who has said she's not sure the Bill of Rights should ever have been applied to the states. (Republicans hypocritically call Democrats opposition to Brown, who is African-American, "racist." In fact, she's opposed by civil rights organizations across the country, including the NAACP.)
jethro bodine 11/12/03 8:23am
Now you're catching on....
sorry dude the checks and balances are not innate. In most of life there are no checks and balances. It is the law of the jungle.
jethro bodine 11/12/03 8:27am
Observations of the role of corporations in US society isn't a conspiracy theory.
I have. Yet the balance of the interests of competing elites does nothing to guarantee the rights and interests of the people in general, as a representative system should. Are you saying that a system that undermines representative goverment is ok as long as
one set of elites doesn't gain absolute power over other sets of elites?
Yes I have considered that. But lip service to the liberal tradition while practicing fascism is hypocrisy, no matter what the intentions. Many liberals do a lot to advance a progressive agenda, despite being part of a corporate elite. I'm certain that such people will be open minded to the kinds of changes I propose. In fact, they will probably be the ones who lead the competition.
jethro bodine 11/12/03 8:28am
Taraka wants representative government and rule of law.
There are quite a few people who agree with me, including the "people" referred to in the constitution.
jethro bodine 11/12/03 8:30am
What nonsense! You are arguing that avaricious hoarding needs to be encouraged or there won't be any incentive for anyone to be prosperous. Ridiculous!
jethro bodine 11/12/03 8:32am
It should be easy enough to subdue the few, if it comes to that. I have faith that the majority will defend the constitution and not fight for fascism.
jethro bodine 11/12/03 8:40am
So you don't support the rule of law?
Yet the balance of the interests of competing elites does nothing to guarantee the rights and interests of the people in general, as a representative system should. There is no requirement that corporatiosn gurantee the rights of anybody. That is not their purpose.
Are you saying that a system that undermines representative goverment is ok as long as
one set of elites doesn't gain absolute power over other sets of elites?
I am saying that what you call the undermining of representative government is nothing of the kind.
I have faith that the majority will defend the constitution and not fight for fascism
They will fight for the constitution. Unfortunately for you you don't understand the constitution. Just because you label something fascist does not make it so.
Much of the support for the French Enlightenment came from liberal free-thinking aristocrats.
That might be a fitting analogy to the motivations of Soros.
Interesting analogy.
Appears hypocritical to comments you've made in the past.
Seems to me you really are ok with the rich influencing politics, as long as it's in line with your political beliefes.
I beleive memebers of NAMBLA are free thinkers. Isn't that right, crabs?
no, that isn't right.
they are Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, liberals, Libertarians...etc...
one's political approach isn't decided by sexual preferences or deviances.
so free thinking relates only to political ideas. hmmm.I suppose that it only relates to liberals too.
As for "one's political approach isn't decided by sexual preferences or deviances" you really should talk to the militant gays because that seems the only reason they are in politics at all.
Log Cabin Republicans
I don't know if you can call Log Cabin Republicans militant gays. However, I have always been suspicious that the Log Cabiners were not really Republicans but were actually an arm of the left.
Wow -- this place has really taken off in the last few days.
one's political approach isn't decided by sexual preferences or deviances.
Are "Free Thinkers" decided by their political preference?
no...their political preferences are decided by their free thinking
no...their political preferences are decided by their free thinking
Just as I thought, a free thinker is someone that thinks like crabs. Everyone else is closed minded bigots or something like that.
not at all...I realize you can't get your mind around the idea of people thinking for themselves, but that's what free thinkers do. Some of them may even occasionally think like you, bodine.
Sorry, dude, but most free thinkers usually think like I do!
uh...most free thinkers don't think like any one anything.
uh...most free thinkers don't think like any one thing.
I suppose that may be true if many of them come to the wrong conclusions.
jethro bodine 11/12/03 9:33am
YES. Precisely my point: Corporations are organized in the same manner as are fascist nation states: a totalitarian culture dominated by a hierachical power structure that has no real internal checks and balances on the power of the elite.
Because corporations are organized this way, the ideological influence colors and shapes the way corporations interact with other political actors in US society. And as corporations have surpassed state and local governments in legal, political, economic and social power, the fascist ideology that is part of their culture has been their guide in projecting their power and influence into society. We are very close to the day when this fascist ideology will overshadow liberal traditions, as fascists attempt to unravel progressive laws and traditions that check their power within society. Bush's presidency is spearheading that effort.
T.D. What if it were a huge privately held company instead of a corporation?
Don't people have a right to run their company the way they wish?
No one tells you how to make your living, do they?
Why should it be any different for corporations?
If you don't like corporations, don't work for them and don't buy their goods or services.
There, problem solved. If everyone thought the way you did, they'd go bankrupt in no time.
YES. Precisely my point: Corporations are organized in the same manner as are fascist nation states: a totalitarian culture dominated by a hierarchical power structure that has no real internal checks and balances on the power of the elite.
It is a private matter for the corporation, its stockholders and its employees. It is not the public's concern, not should it be yours. Unless of course you fit into one of the three categories above.
jethro bodine 11/12/03 9:37am
You are right. Simple name-calling isn't credible. That isn't what I'm doing. I'm giving a concrete argument that historical examples of social organization can define for us the structure that is used by corporations. I'm giving a concrete argument that corporations have played an active part in establishing fascist states, and that the aims of those corporate organizations were similar to the aims of corporations today. These arguments can be verified by examining the structure, ideology and policy aims of corporations, as well as by examination of the results of the application of power by corporations in law, business, politics and culture.
I've established that corporations are political bodies, both as a matter of fact and from inference related to their interactions with society. The criteria for defining a political body demands that the political body must be internally organized. A political body must have a structure that governs its process of decision-making. Corporations DO HAVE an internal political strucure.
There are a variety of structures that are used by humans to structure decision-making processes, and they have names. The names describing political structures aren't controversial. When you say a system is unitive and democratic, that model is easily identified with the parliamentarian model that characterizes the governing structure of many nation-states and other organizations. Likewise, a fascist structure is also easily identifiable in historical context according to its structure.
If corporations have an internal structure, THEN WHAT internal structure is it? Answer: fascist. It's that simple.
No name calling involved. It's just a simple fact that allowing unrestrained power by fascist organizations within a republican nation-state has historically led to the transformation of that republican nation-state into a fascist state.
THX 1138 11/12/03 9:38am
I have a problem with wealthy, powerful people within a liberal society advocating an ideology (fascism) that is antithetical to liberal tradition.
Such people are arrogant ingrates, IMO.
Most corporate structures are just fine. They are designed to achieve a goal effectively and efficiently as possible. That is not true with democratic and representative government.
YES. I've said previously that corporations aren't "businesses." Corporations have far more legal and economic power than a capitalist business. The reason for this stems from the fact that corporations have powers and privilidges granted by the state that capitalist businesses don't have. So to answer your question: YES, if a capitalist business assumes all risk, raises capital on credit or bond issue alone, and has no stockholders, AND IS NOT A SHELL, THEN YES: they have a right to run the company the way they wish. Of course, they would still have to obey laws! That might be difficult, given that corporations use their power to slant the laws in favor of corporations, and to the disadvantage of capitalist businesses. Ask anyone who has been driven out of business by Wal-Mart.
Because corporations have power granted to them by the state, yet they have become entities whose power overshadows the state. Thus the accountability to the people for the power granted has been lost. This is the root of the problem.
Do you honestly believe that will be an effective check on corporate power? How exactly, would that apply in the case of a company like GE or General Dynamics or Archer Daniels Midland?
jethro bodine 11/13/03 7:51am
First of all, the influence of a political organization upon society is very much a public concern, especially if the state is the grantor of that organization's charter, granting special powers and privilidges.
Second, if the corporation is lobbying legislators and administrators to shape laws and regulations, that is a public concern.
Third, If a corporation is using the power granted to it by the state to defy and undermine the laws when those laws favor the interests of the people over the interests of the corporation, then that is also a public concern.
I could go on! A corporation is not a "private" organization. It is a public organization, and it interacts in the public square and pursues its interests there. If those interests are guided and shaped according to a fascist ideology that is intrinsically hostile to representative government and to the rule of law, then that IS CERTAINLY a public concern.
jethro bodine 11/13/03 8:19am
No argument with that. What I have an argument with is the fact that this imperative to maximize efficiency has turned into an agenda to undermine representative government and the rule of law. Of course you can reach a state of maximum efficiency! Hitler and the Nazis proved that! No argument with that contention! The question is whether the drive for maximum efficiency is worth the price of freedom.
Democratic and representative systems have virtues that hierarchical systems do not: Checks and balances provide a deliberative decision making process that serves to vet ideas and plans. And of course, an open deliberative system has a wider pool of innovative input.
Making decisions quickly may not be as important as making the right decision.
Making decisions quickly may not be as important as making the right decision.
Often democratic and representative governments do neither. And it isn't because of corporate control of the government.
jethro bodine 11/13/03 9:00am
Here jethro seeks to make "perfection" the enemy of "the good."
He argues that if representative and democratic systems can't get it right every time, immediately, then they are too flawed to be used.
By this criteria, hierarchical system have an even worserecord, and often the collapse is catastrophic. Hierarchical systems often fall victim to blind deference to "visionary leaders" who turn out to be leading the organization over a cliff.
By contrast, representative systems have power divided by factions, within the organization, that compete with one another and point out the errors or faulty reasoning presented by the opposing factions. Through compromise a way is found that avoids disasterous schemes.
Observe that the champions of corporate fascism are today in control of the US, and they refuse any objection to their policies and scorn any need for compromise. As yet, they have reaped disaster after disaster...
He argues that if representative and democratic systems can't get it right every time, immediately, then they are too flawed to be used.
They don't get it right most of the time, that's the real problem.
Through compromise a way is found that avoids disasterous schemes.
I think that isn't true. Compromise doesn't not gurantee disasterous schemes and may well prevent implementation of appropriate action.
There’s an easy solution to this standoff, of course. Give all the filibustered nominees a simple vote, yes or no. Put them on the bench, or allow them to go home. Then we’ll know who’s truly “out of the mainstream.”
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/edwinfeulner/ef20031112.shtml
jethro bodine 11/13/03 9:24am
Well then I guess we now all understand what position you defend, and what position I defend. You favor fascism, and I favor liberal democracy.
NOTHING is a guarantee of happy-time-all-the-time. Yet fascists will make a great hue and cry over the shortcomings of democracy even though the long term analysis favors liberal democracy over fascism EVERY TIME.
you favor nonsense, taraka.
jethro bodine 11/13/03 9:32am
If the system of checks and balances allowed that a simple majority was sufficient to settle the issue of whether or not judicial appointees are suitable for service, then I expect the FOUR appointees being blocked by filibuster would join the ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY EIGHT that have been confirmed by the Senate.
Utilizing the filibuster is an acceptable use of the checks and balances by the minority to prevent the appointment to high courts of ideological extremists.
The checks and balances are mainstream. Radical interpretation of the law is not.
Utilizing the filibuster is an acceptable use of the checks and balances by the minority to prevent the appointment to high courts of ideological extremists.
No the fillibuster is not legitmate. It is the extremists that are preventing a vote on mainstream judges. Your point of view shows just how extreme you are.
jethro bodine 11/13/03 10:02am
I listened to one of the hearings. Mainstream? ha!
Like I said you don't see them as mainstream because you are so extremely far to the left.
Stellar credentials and a “well-qualified” rating from the American Bar Association, its highest, following her nomination to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals should have made the road to confirmation an easy one for Judge Carolyn Kuhl.
But the path since her nomination on June 22, 2001 — two years ago this Sunday — has been anything but easy. Indeed, for more than 21 months she was not even given the courtesy of a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and a month after she finally did receive a hearing on April 1, 2003, her nomination was “reported out” to the Senate floor on only the barest, 10-9 vote, with not a single Democrat siding with what Senator Leahy once called the “gold standard” of the ABA’s well-qualified rating.
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/judge_carolyn_kuhl.htm
Carolyn B. Kuhl
Biography
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/kuhlbio.htm
recommendations for Judge Kuhl
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/kuhlsupport.htm
With her extensive experience in federal and state government, in the Executive and Judicial Branches, in public service and private legal practice, Judge Kuhl has a superb legal background and the broad experience that makes her ideally suited to be a U.S. Circuit Judge.
http://www.judicialselection.com/nominees/kuhl.htm
Nearly 100 of her fellow Superior Court judges support her confirmation. So do the officers of the Litigation Section of the Los Angeles County Bar Association. So do more than a dozen Justices of the California Court of Appeal. So do many other attorneys -- Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal -- who know her and her reputation for integrity and fairness. Even California Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) admits that she has never received more letters from sitting judges in support of a judicial nominee.
Still, none of this has discouraged the Left from distorting Judge Kuhl's record and mischaracterizing her work at the Justice Department two decades ago.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article2371.html
Yes she
must be out of the mainstream.
I wouldn't want anyone who supports Bob Jones University sitting in judgement of anything.
Bob Jones has a right to be represented in Court just like any other organization.
but these are the facts.
I know you don’t give much credence to facts, crabs, but most people do.
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1103/13judges.html
The Republicans' pointless pouting session may backfire when Americans learn the real facts. When Bill Clinton was president, the GOP didn't stop at holding up a measly four judicial nominees. They held up 60, refusing to allow committee votes on most of them.
[Click here to find out more!]
Democrats should have voted to confirm Miguel Estrada, a worthy nominee. But Estrada grew tired of the process and withdrew his name from consideration.
But three other nominees blocked by the Democrats hold radical views that make them unfit for promotions to higher courts. Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, selected for the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (which hears cases out of Georgia) has opposed civil rights, women's rights and federal environmental protections; federal district Judge Charles Pickering, nominated for the 5th Circuit, mounted an unusual campaign to get a reduced sentence for one of the defendants in a cross-burning conviction -- and without notifying the lawyers on both sides; and Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, another 5th Circuit nominee, was criticized by her court colleagues for letting her personal anti-abortion views go beyond the letter of the law she was asked to construe.
The Democrats also rightly object to California Justice Carolyn Kuhl, nominated for the 9th Circuit, who supported tax-exempt status for Bob Jones University while it was still segregated; and California Justice Janice Rogers Brown, nominated for the influential D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, who has said she's not sure the Bill of Rights should ever have been applied to the states. (Republicans hypocritically call Democrats opposition to Brown, who is African-American, "racist." In fact, she's opposed by civil rights organizations across the country, including the NAACP.)