Just a sample of the Echomail archive
Cooperative anarchy at its finest, still active today. Darkrealms is the Zone 1 Hub.
|    ALL-POLITICS    |    Politics Unlimited    |    26,388 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 24,219 of 26,388    |
|    Alan Ianson to Aaron Thomas    |
|    Re: Hearings?    |
|    14 Oct 20 17:51:40    |
      MSGID: 1:153/757.2 6fbd8d3c       REPLY: 1:229/426 9B25F765       TZUTC: -0700       CHARSET: LATIN-1       >> The're not looking for justification, they already have that.              > They're fine in asking some questions but it's unfair for them to ask her       > about her policy views; she's obviously a Republican, so hypothetically, the       > answers to their hypothetical questions should be inferred.              This is the same process as always, there is nothing different about it.              When the senate installs a justice to decide issues of law they want to know       how that person interprets the laws they write.              The senate will not (I hope) install a justice that decides cases of law in a       way that will be outside of what the senates laws set out to do in the first       place.              > If they had any reason not to confirm her, it would be out in the open. The       > whole senate, on both sides, has turned it into a cultural phenomenon. Their       > role in the USSC is to either vote & confirm, or play around and waste time.       > Must be a fun job! It would be rare for a SC nominee to be rejected.              There is a mountain of reason not to confirm Barrett. We don't even need to       question her, we can see it in her writings/doings.              > A Democratic senate vetoed one of GHW Bush's nominees because the guy was       > heterosexual and drank alcohol. Back then these Senate dems were anti-lots of       > stuff, but now that they defend criminals, they are ganging up on an       > adorable lady and intuition tells us that this little blondie is pro-life and       > if you ask her expecting a different answer, you're playing the senate       > confirmation game well.              Her pro-lifeness is OK, her being a tool to do gods work is another.              We do not want or need the state deciding for us what faith or morals we       should live by. Women don't want or need the state to decide for them if they       should have an abortion.              People should be free to live their lives as they choose.       --- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-4        * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757.2)       SEEN-BY: 1/123 14/0 80/1 88/0 90/1 103/705 105/81 120/340 123/131       SEEN-BY: 153/0 105 135 757 802 6809 154/10 203/0 218/700 221/0 1 6       SEEN-BY: 221/360 226/30 227/114 229/101 424 426 700 1016 1017 240/1120       SEEN-BY: 240/5832 249/206 317 261/38 280/464 5003 282/464 1038 288/100       SEEN-BY: 292/854 8125 301/1 113 310/31 317/3 322/757 335/364 342/17       SEEN-BY: 342/200 396/45 423/81 120 712/848 770/1 801/188 197 202 900/100       SEEN-BY: 900/106 108 902/6 7 25 26 27 920/1 2452/250 3634/12 4500/1       SEEN-BY: 5058/104       PATH: 153/757 221/6 1 280/464 292/854 301/1 80/1 902/27 90/1 229/426           |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca