Gonzales debate thread day ...3? CSpan2

[CWebster]

Hello

[sabra]

1. Thanks, wanna rename to the official debate thread thingy?

[sabra]

2. Here we go again! The Gonzo Life story redux!

[SaveAmerica]

7. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT!!! His parents were migrant workers!!???!!

Sorry, just so tired of hearing the story. It's pretty sad that they can't come up with anything else as a positive for his nomination.

[gottaB]

3. "a man or woman can climb to any height...."

On the backs of naked detainees?

[sabra]

4. Nice! :-)

[Inland]

10. The man's accomplisment is being a Bush sycophant.

A man or woman can climb to any height as long as he is a Bush appointee, which requires the following qualifications: asskissing and covering up for the Boss.

How proud Alberto's family must be.

[CWebster]

5. Slow moving dinosaur with pea brain at the podium

The usual heroic bio recitation.

[sabra]

8. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz

[sabra]

6. I can't wait for the made for tv movie!

or even the mini-series...

[SaveAmerica]

9. George Lopez as Gonzales, just to make it funny (he probably

wouldn't want it though)

[sabra]

11. McConnell: We should apologize to Gonzo for rem-racking him...

[Roland99]

20. Guess he either ignored or didn't get my letter

What a worthless piece of shit he is.

[sabra]

12. Oh shit! The worse of the worse is on...

[CWebster]

13. santorum.

frigging weirdo creep. Betcha he is a perve.

[sabra]

15. Santorum speaking of Gonzo: He some time tells me things that I don't even

want to know... Hmm...

[gottaB]

14. NY Times Endorses Gonzales: The Wrong Attorney General

"Alberto Gonzales's nomination as attorney general goes before the Senate at a time when the Republican majority is eager to provide newly elected President Bush with the cabinet of his choice, and the Democrats are leery of exposing their weakened status by taking fruitless stands against the inevitable. None of that is an excuse for giving Mr. Gonzales a pass. The attorney general does not merely head up the Justice Department. He is responsible for ensuring that America is a nation in which justice prevails. Mr. Gonzales's record makes him unqualified to take on this role or to represent the American justice system to the rest of the world. The Senate should reject his nomination."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012705Y.shtml

[CWebster]

16. Germany must be secretly rejoicing

that their hour as the target of international scorn has come to an end - with our administration of criminals.

[gottaB]

22. or weeping

It's the Austrians who are laughing. And why not? The world still gives them credit for Beethoven.

[sunnystarr]

38. Just curious ... why did you say NYT Endorses Gonzales in

your header when they didn't endorse him at all?? Do you know what endorse means? Or did you just make a mistake?

[gottaB]

44. guess you had to be there--

It was suggested by a certain Senator that the New York Times was not critical of Alberto Gonzales.

My post was sarcastic.

I have a wicked sarcastic streak, but I can turn it off and on. Right now it's off.

[sunnystarr]

62. lol please let me in on it next time ... i do so love sarcasm :)

Unfortunately the one dimensional type doesn't always allow for nuances in speech without a little help.

[sabra]

17. Santorum: Can't you guys just leave him alone. You guys are mean.

[gottaB]

18. Don't you think we can take just a little time to treat people decently

Chutzpah

[sabra]

21. Chutzpah indeed. He is no mentch.

[kentuck]

19. Still trying to get the 60 votes or have all the Democrats agreed...

to stop talking? Because if one Senator wants to continue debate and they do not get 60 votes to shut it down, they cannot have a vote. This is a good fight for the Democrats - if nothing but symbolic. It shows the Repubs there are limits to what they can do in the US Senate.

[sabra]

23. Dodd speaking...

[CWebster]

24. Dodd, dismissing the Hispanic angle

and opposes!

[sabra]

25. Dodd is a No! - but with deep regret...

[sabra]

26. Dodd: If this nomination was on resume, then he would have no doubt

that he would be selected, but that's not the only deciding factor...

[CWebster]

27. Dodd sounds strong. nt

[realFedUp]

66. wonder how many real estate lawyers become US Attorney Generals?

nt

[selmo7]

28. Obama now

[selmo7]

33. Obama cannot approach this the same as Rice

wanted to give the benefit of the doubt

NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT CONFIRMATION!

Had hoped Gonzales would ease concerns, distance from role as President's lawyer to perform NEW role as PEOPLE's lawyer.

But didn't hear repudiation of 2 and half years of official policy - that stated torture definition as organ failure, etc...

Obama to OBJECT -

[Just Me]

29. What happened to our value of the "rule of law" rather than the,...

,..."rule of thugs"?

[Just Me]

32. Thing is, it's OBVIOUS Gonzales is loyal to the pResident not the law.

His history is replete with evidence that Gonzales' blind loyalty to Bush makes him basically an enemy to the "rule of law".

Without the capacity to be an independent advocate of existing law, Gonzales is merely an arm of a tyrant who holds himself above morals, ethics and laws.

[ralps]

30. Obama's on now. He will vote no

[CWebster]

31. Obama.."different than his vote for Miss Condoleeeeza"

wonder if he got a couple of strong nudges...

[Just Me]

34. I didn't know Obama taught law for ten years!!!

Wow.

He's even identifying three steps to restore "trust".

Of course, Gonzales will never, as merely an arm of the pResident, follow those steps.

[CWebster]

35. 'nuther dunderhead

doing the bio. Soon to predictably start chastising Dems.

[Skidmore]

36. It's Howdy Doody time again--

Allen is up. We're gonna get the same speech from him he's give at least 2x a day for the last 3 days.

Why do they keep carping on the time Gonzalez said the he would stand against torture "if confirmed"? What else would he say? He wants the job. The time for him to have stood against it was at the time of the original discussions a couple of years ago.

Some Dem needs to get up there and call them on that con.

[gottaB]

37. Thomas Joseph Dodd: A Treasury of the Human Spirit

http://www.lib.uconn.edu/online/research/speclib/ASC/Exhibits/ascexh1.html

[rogue emissary]

39. Why the hell is Allen talking about Reagan now?

[E_Smith]

40. "thank god for the birth of ronald reagan"

[rogue emissary]

41. Now Warner, I guess they couldn't talk for 10-15 min about Gonzales. LOL

[CWebster]

42. Watch him take it upon himself to lecture the Dems. nt

[rogue emissary]

45. That's all he can come up with. n/t

[ralps]

43. Warner is almost making me puke. He's calling Gonzales a distinguished

american.
:puke:

[ralps]

46. Coleman is on now. Notice how he is speaking over the time limit.

When it got to 15 minutes after the hour the chair reminded Obama of the limit but now the chair is silent.
:puke:

[CWebster]

47. Yep, I speculated about that happening

Normy.

[CWebster]

48. Schumer

headphones back on.

[ralps]

49. Schumer is on now.

[CWebster]

50. He is ..."unsure"?nt

[ralps]

52. He sounds so wishy washy. He will vote no

[gottaB]

51. Protected Persons (GC IV)

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList2/Humanitarian_law%3AProtected_persons_and_property?OpenDocument

See esp. the piece by Knut Dörmann, The legal situation of “unlawful/unprivileged combatants”.

[RuleofLaw]

53. ENRON FRAUD!

[selmo7]

Gonzales worked for ENRON as outside counsel!

O gaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwddddddddddddd

[selmo7]

56. Senator Cantwell - GO GIRL! Hammer it HOME!

[CWebster]

54. Can it ,schumer

Sounds like he was pushed against his will.

Thank goodness this woman Senator doesn't have a problem and is blasting him on ENRON!

Yes!

[CWebster]

55. Wow...

new Enron dirt.

[ralps]

57. Senator Cantwell will vote no because Gonzales would not recuse himself

from the Enron case

[McCamy Taylor]

60. Good point. He was with Vinson and Elkin. Enron is the worst

scandal of the Bush administration the one for which * could be impeached because he actually rolled back the price caps himself in order to let Kenny Boy price gouge California.

All the other scandals can be laid at the feet of advisers, but Enron is the one that * can not blame on anyone else. A case can be made for every underhanded thing the administration has done having been done to cover up Enron.

Note that Enron is the one scandal that no one bothers to attact the suffix -gate to because it doesnt need -gate. Enron says it all.

[CWebster]

64. And they want the common schmuck without the golden

parachute to invest their retirement in the stock market?

[CWebster]

58. She was great!

and a new angle too!

[ralps]

59. Sen. Bingaman on now. It sounds like he will no

[gottaB]

61. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Rasul v. Bush

Hamdi: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-6696

Rasul: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-334

[Just Me]

63. Gonzales & Republicans are advocates of lawlessness!!!

They are ANTI-LAW, anti-civil protections, anti-constitution, anti-democracy. They are thugs who impose a "rule of the jungle".

[ralps]

65. Sen.Tim Johnson of SD on now. He will vote no. He's talking about

Gonzales' horrible judgements.

[CWebster]

67. Hatch again.

This idiot again.

[G_j]

77. puzzled as to how Hatch gets so much time? n/t

[ralps]

79. Hypothetically each side gets one half an hour.

[CWebster]

83. I guess they feel he is their best spokesman

Whiny little bastard.

No more playing nice with these scumbags. Social security is the last straw.

[Q]

68. I haven't been watching this spectacle...

...but in a small way it's good that they're even having a debate about Gonzales record.

Have any Democrats so far said they will vote for him? What have I missed?

[nickinSTL]

70. From what I read here yesterday...

Salazar of CO and Lieberman are planning to vote yes.

Haven't heard of any other Dems voting for yet.

[ralps]

69. Sen. Hatch thinks Gonzales is a good man & how Gonzales' opponents

allege things things that are not true.
:puke:

[Supersedeas]

72. Hatch is an absolute disgrace to that body--Utah, even Utah, should be

ashamed.

[E_Smith]

71. Hatch actually making arguments

regarding the President disregarding laws that are unconstitutional. Unlike many other repub clowns, Hatch makes decent arguments.

[Just Me]

73. Doing a "hocus pocus" legalese speech PROVES his disrespect for law.

His arguments are not merely tenuous, they are based upon a complete and utter disrespect for the legal authority that dictates our country today.

He's "making up" law,...again!!!

What a schmuck!!!

He should lose his licensure for such misrepresentation of the state of the law in our country!!!

[gottaB]

74. a string of bad examples does not make good precedent, imo

It seems to me he's saying that because past Presidents overstepped their constitutional authority and got away with it, it must be therefore be constitutional. But that's just my naive impression.

What impresses you?

[E_Smith]

75. I think the argument holds some water constitutionally

basically, the president takes an oath to uphold the constitution, so therefore it is hypothetically possible for the president to disregard a statute he believes is unconstitutional. he then cited examples, as well as prior DOJ arguments stating such. so I think he did undermine that angle against Gonzo... but it still obviously doesn't address the torture memo. he tried to refute that issue by simply saying that gonzales didn't write the memo or oversee the writing of the memo. that was weak.

[gottaB]

78. Who else takes an oath to uphold the constitution?

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Oath_Office.htm

[E_Smith]

81. all three branches of govt must do so

so Hatch's point was that the president's check and balance is just as strong as the congress's. i guess a conflict betweent the two could be heard by the supreme court.

[RuleofLaw]

80. The fallacy with that argument is

that in our system of separation o powers, it is not up to the president to determine whether a statute is unconstitutional. Only the courts can make such a determination. If the executive branch feels that a statute is unconstitutional, they must take that controversy to the courts. They cannot make such a determination on their own!

[E_Smith]

85. apparently there is precedent to the contrary

cited by Hatch... if an unconstitutional statute is passed by congress, it would be the President's duty not to enforce such statute. the courts could make the determination if a case was brought against the president for breaking the law. but clearly, the executive branch has the power to make an independent determination.

[Spazito]

89. No, there is nothing that says the President can override the

USSC and that is the ultimate issue. Mr. Hatch conveniently left out that little fact. The President can override legislation passed by Congress if he/she deems it unconstitutional but the USSC overrules the President and is the final adjudicator on whether legislation is constitutional or unconstitutional.

[E_Smith]

91. I agree with you. Not what I said. n/t

[ralps]

76. Sen. Levin on now. He will vote no

[gottaB]

82. Schlesinger and Fay reports

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hottopics/abughraib.php

http://www.do-what-must-be-done.org/do/crimes/iraq-ours/reports

[JoMama49]

88. The Senior Senator up again --

I like that statement:

The War Room in the WH became the Torture Room!!!

You go Teddy!

[Lizardking]

84. Gonzales just named in Germany War Crime indictment

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=9392
He is a party to warcrimes under international law.
Found on Rense.com

[sabra]

86. New Thread?

[CWebster]

87. Go for it

Kennedy up

[ralps]

90. Sen. Kennedy on now. "If we where voting on his life story he would be

voted in in an instant" i did'nt get the quote exactly. Gonzales is at the heart of the torture scandel. Gonzales did not aks for the Bybee memo to be rewritten. So far they have let Gonzales take full responsibility, not the DOD, not the CIA, not the President. He is saying lots more. he makes some really good points.
:bounce: