here's a followup question: if the president nominated johnny cochoran for the post and liberal democrats didnt vote to approve, would you still play the race card?

Yep, it would follow their racist pattern.  What is wrong with Cochran?  He seems to be a damn fine attorney, and unlike Sharpton and Jackson, is out for the best of his client, not for his subjugation to the white liberal masters.

We want to make our laws, not activist judges. Guess that is why you love activist judges so much, cause you cannot get your own pathetic agenda passed.

you realize youre referring to law 'we' already made by virtue of its enactment in congress?  what's truly pathetic is the ignorance manifested in your activist judge jingoism.

you realize youre referring to law 'we' already made by virtue of its enactment in congress? what's truly pathetic is the ignorance manifested in your activist judge jingoism.

Your ignorance is in not knowing the difference.  What law pray tell did you pass in congress?  Answer? None.  Judges making law is bypassing congress by definition.  Seems your trolley just jumped the track.

What law pray tell did you pass in congress? Answer? None

War Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. $2441 (Supp. 111 1997)

Your ignorance is in not knowing the difference

my foolishness is realizing this late in the discussion you're totally clueless about the wca--which explains your irrelevant comments about judges as well as your inability to appreciate the gravity of gonzales' malfeasance.  if we're gonna have a slimeball lawyer as attorney general, id much prefer a smart slimeball with proven skills who doesnt pretend to be something he's not..bruce cutler, for instance.  

Seems your trolley just jumped the track

you must be spending way too much time watchin dr phil.

my foolishness is realizing this late in the discussion you're totally clueless about the wca--which explains your irrelevant comments about judges as well as your inability to appreciate the gravity of gonzales' malfeasance. if we're gonna have a slimeball lawyer as attorney general, id much prefer a smart slimeball with proven skills who doesnt pretend to be something he's not..bruce cutler, for instance.

And how is that relevant to the bigotry of the left?  You just pulling stuff out of your ass?  Apparently, because I dont recall saying that the WCA was illegal or wrong, or even anyone discussing it.  Berhaps your trolley has jumped the track, or at least the blog. Try rereading the blog and then pull your stupid, irrelevant comments to the correct blog.  This aint it.

Apparently, because I dont recall saying that the WCA was illegal or wrong, or even anyone discussing it

nice try.  go back and reread this thread paying close attention to replies#s 1, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15, the gist of which was there is a very good reason to vote against gonzales or any other lawyer of any race or ethnicity who spent the past two years conjuring up ways to undermine part of the us federal code  the attorney general is sworn to enforce. (gonzales himself claimed his work "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act"; lawyers who knowing abet clients while they're actively engaging in criminal activity--note that gonzales isnt disputing criminal culpability-- have crossed the line and, rather than being nominated to be the nation's top law enforcers, are generally considered to be co-conspirators.)

And how is that relevant to the bigotry of the left?

i agree it's much more relevant to demonstrating what a buncha crap youre trying to pass off as fact.  not that you require any more effort on my part.  anyone with a halfway open mind,  the reading skills of a 10th grader and a high tolerance for your childish admonitions is gonna easily see whatta admirable job you yourself have done in that regard. 

nice try. go back and reread this thread paying close attention to replies#s 1, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15, the gist of which was there is a very good reason to vote against gonzales or any other lawyer of any race or ethnicity who spent the past two years conjuring up ways to undermine part of the us federal code the attorney general is sworn to enforce. (gonzales himself claimed his work "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act"; lawyers who knowing abet clients while they're actively engaging in criminal activity--note that gonzales isnt disputing criminal culpability-- have crossed the line and, rather than being nominated to be the nation's top law enforcers, are generally considered to be co-conspirators.)

Trolling again?  The FACTS are he was asked for a judicial opinion.  He gave them.  The Democrats did not like what he said, but then he was just interpreting the law, not circumventing it or breaking it.  So you last post has nothing to do with the thread, and this one has totally missed the point and in the process tried, ala the democrat leadership, to slander a good person.

My Statement stands.  You dont like a law?  change it, dont break it or get a judge to rewrite it.  That is why Gonzalez is overly qualified for the AG, and the Democrats are a bunch of incompetant boobs.  Dont throw yourself into their pyre.  Read the law, then read his letters. Dont rely on a drunk, war criminal, embezzler and Plagarist to do your thinking for you.

Reply #22 By: kingbee - 2/7/2005 1:31:41 PM Apparently, because I dont recall saying that the WCA was illegal or wrong, or even anyone discussing it nice try. go back and reread this thread paying close attention to replies#s 1, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15, the gist of which was there is a very good reason to vote against gonzales or any other lawyer of any race or ethnicity who spent the past two years conjuring up ways to undermine part of the us federal code the attorney general is sworn to enforce. (gonzales himself claimed his work "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act"; lawyers who knowing abet clients while they're actively engaging in criminal activity--note that gonzales isnt disputing criminal culpability-- have crossed the line and, rather than being nominated to be the nation's top law enforcers, are generally considered to be co-conspirators.)

The main problem here is that reply #1 is incorrect. Gonzales has *never* advocated torture. So the entire pretense for this arguement is messed up to start with.