STORM2K

jason0509 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/03/scotus.preview/index.html

All I ask is why?

wxcrazytwo wrote:

jason0509 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/03/scotus.preview/index.html

All I ask is why?

Let's not make it political. It was a news article being posted, not a reason to debate.

GalvestonDuck wrote:

wxcrazytwo wrote:

jason0509 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/03/scotus.preview/index.html

All I ask is why?

Let's not make it political. It was a news article being posted, not a reason to debate.

Hey Duckie, nothing political at all. I would have probably picked Alberto Gonzalez.

Someone replacing Sandra Day O'Connor, How could that NOT be political, since O'Connor was usually the 5th vote in 5-4 decisions? Time to watch Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Terrell wrote:Someone replacing Sandra Day O'Connor, How could that NOT be political, since O'Connor was usually the 5th vote in 5-4 decisions? Time to watch Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.

your missing the point.

Just IMO right now, she's a great choice. I am very pleased with her selection. Won't say why though in deference to board rules.

wxcrazytwo wrote:

Terrell wrote:Someone replacing Sandra Day O'Connor, How could that NOT be political, since O'Connor was usually the 5th vote in 5-4 decisions? Time to watch Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.

your missing the point.

Given the US Supreme Court makes decisions that affect all of our rights and freedoms, any nominee to the high court has an element of politics involved. So if I'm missing the point, spell it out for me.

Terrell wrote:

wxcrazytwo wrote:

Terrell wrote:Someone replacing Sandra Day O'Connor, How could that NOT be political, since O'Connor was usually the 5th vote in 5-4 decisions? Time to watch Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.

your missing the point.

Given the US Supreme Court makes decisions that affect all of our rights and freedoms, any nominee to the high court has an element of politics involved. So if I'm missing the point, spell it out for me.

Nope. I am going to abide by rules that govern this board, and I will respect the rules accordingly.

I'm just asking if one doesn't want political threads on these forums, why start a thread on a Supreme Court nominee? Any thread on the courts is bound to get political, perhaps the mods should lock this one.

Terrell wrote:I'm just asking if one doesn't want political threads on these forums, why start a thread on a Supreme Court nominee? Any thread on the courts is bound to get political, perhaps the mods should lock this one.

It was started as a news topic and I offered a heads up to anyone wanting to reply to wxcrazy's question -- just don't make it political.

Then there's really no point in this discussion.

Terrell wrote:Then there's really no point in this discussion.

There is a clear difference between debating and discussing.

How can you ever talk meaningful about anything without offering counterpoints?

GalvestonDuck wrote:

Terrell wrote:Then there's really no point in this discussion.

There is a clear difference between debating and discussing.

Yes there is, but a Supreme Court nomination is the type of thing where discussions can and usually will get very heated. It falls within the realm of politics by definition. Like religion, political discussions get very heated very fast. This is especially true when those who choose to engage in the discussion have different points of view that are deeply held.

Terrell wrote:

GalvestonDuck wrote:

Terrell wrote:Then there's really no point in this discussion.

There is a clear difference between debating and discussing.

Yes there is, but a Supreme Court nomination is the type of thing where discussions can and usually will get very heated. It falls within the realm of politics by definition. Like religion, political discussions get very heated very fast. This is especially true when those who choose to engage in the discussion have different points of view that are deeply held.

So, why is there a question? I already warned everyone not to make it a political discussion. Are you questioning our moderating?

GalvestonDuck wrote:

Terrell wrote:

GalvestonDuck wrote:

Terrell wrote:Then there's really no point in this discussion.

There is a clear difference between debating and discussing.

Yes there is, but a Supreme Court nomination is the type of thing where discussions can and usually will get very heated. It falls within the realm of politics by definition. Like religion, political discussions get very heated very fast. This is especially true when those who choose to engage in the discussion have different points of view that are deeply held.

So, why is there a question? I already warned everyone not to make it a political discussion. Are you questioning our moderating?

Questioning, as to the point of having this discussion, if one isn't allowed to truly express their views. Especially differing viewpoints.

Edited for spelling

Terrell wrote:

GalvestonDuck wrote:

Terrell wrote:

GalvestonDuck wrote:

Terrell wrote:Then there's really no point in this discussion.

There is a clear difference between debating and discussing.

Yes there is, but a Supreme Court nomination is the type of thing where discussions can and usually will get very heated. It falls within the realm of politics by definition. Like religion, political discussions get very heated very fast. This is especially true when those who choose to engage in the discussion have different points of view that are deeply held.

So, why is there a question? I already warned everyone not to make it a political discussion. Are you questioning our moderating?

Questioning, as to the point of having this discussion, if one isn't allowed to truly express their views. Especially differing viewpoints.

Edited for spelling

Like I said, it was posted as news. Wxcrazy then tossed out a question and I offered a friendly reminder to everyone not to make it political. You've taken it away from any discussion about Miers and turned it into a debate about how S2K is moderated.

No I'd characterize it as a discussion about how Storm2k is moderated.

But really, do whatever you want. I just think its inane to not be able to debate topics, especially news topics. These are important questions, certainly more stimulating than whats your favorite color or other things that show up here.

GalvestonDuck wrote:

Terrell wrote:

GalvestonDuck wrote:

Terrell wrote:

GalvestonDuck wrote:

Terrell wrote:Then there's really no point in this discussion.

There is a clear difference between debating and discussing.

Yes there is, but a Supreme Court nomination is the type of thing where discussions can and usually will get very heated. It falls within the realm of politics by definition. Like religion, political discussions get very heated very fast. This is especially true when those who choose to engage in the discussion have different points of view that are deeply held.

So, why is there a question? I already warned everyone not to make it a political discussion. Are you questioning our moderating?

Questioning, as to the point of having this discussion, if one isn't allowed to truly express their views. Especially differing viewpoints.

Edited for spelling

Like I said, it was posted as news. Wxcrazy then tossed out a question and I offered a friendly reminder to everyone not to make it political. You've taken it away from any discussion about Miers and turned it into a debate about how S2K is moderated.

Okay, for one I am not going to get dragged under this bus because I asked a simple question. We can have a discussion regarding her qualifications versus others without getting political about it. The moderating should not be questioned at all because they are doing their job.