>>My issues with Ashcroft stem from how he has dealt with >>and will deal with the law.
But surely after Waco, Elian and Wen-Ho Lee couldn't this statement be understood as an attempt by individuals of a certain political persuasion to run for the supposed `high ground`? Life in the Justice Department has hardly been a straight road of fair-minded democracy over the last eight years. I can understand why some people panic when they see the good old `Christian right` rising, but to raise doubts about Ashcroft's ability to translate law seems as solid as campaining against GW Bush because at one time he was supposedly a "bit of a womanizer". (i.e. after the last lot, the question of competency and integrity is really no question)
>>He's always been a particularly political animal, whose >>career has been almost singlehandedly financed and >>sustained by the Christian Right.
I apologise if the routine of "yeah - but what about the last lot" grates, but why do the Christian right (by deduction) somehow seem to be less deserving of a voice when individuals such as Messers Rich, Spielberg and McCaffrey can seemingly buy themselves into the same political circles? Now I appreciate how you might find the PTL mindset distasteful, but how is it any less disasteful than the way any dodgy businessman and/or some B/C/D list actor and his wife can buy their way into the good books of the then president by a nice fat check into the political coffers?
Or does it boil down to the fact that we shouldn't care who embezzles what and who churns out distasteful partsian pap that they call a `feature film`, just as long as they don't tell us how to live our lives...
>>He made a practise of hiring paralegals to cull through >>the decisions made by judges to find statements that he >>could distort to make the judge look "soft on crime", or >>"anti-Christian", or some other such nonsense, and stem >>confirmation. Distort them he did, repeatedly.
I didn't know that. The one case that I did hear of (the black judge who was turned down for the Supreme court) only happened because the judge supposedly went soft on a proven criminal.
>>Basically, my issue with Ashcroft is that he strikes me as >>the worst kind of hypocrite (snip) He shouldnt be in >>charge of the Justice Department any more than his >>counterparts on the Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist extremes.
If the Senate is gridlocked...how can he take any radical ground? If the Republicans were in a majority I could understand the worry. I read that Teddy Kennedy was considering a filibuster, so you can rest easy in your bed.
>>As far as that goes, how would you feel if a hard-right >>Muslim with minimal or no hands-on Justice experience was >>about to take over the FBI?
The only time that would concern me was if the sitting government had a massive majority and could pass whatever laws they wanted. The role of Attorney General can't be obtained in the same way you or I could run for Senatorial office in New York (you need to have spent realtime on the job...not just be knowledgeable about an aspect of it or have an agenda that excites liberals and femminists)
I know that people of more liberal leaning want to get away from the fact that the country was founded by Christian fanatics, so unless that foundation can be destroyed (which I can't see happening)...I don't see this `problem` going away.
I agree that extremists from any background shouldn't have major `power` but if you do away with Christians because they offend your `moral code` then I would have to say that we should do away with all religions from the national stage. Why the heck should faith `A` have preference over faith `B`? Is it because faith `A` has minorities in and we haven't got the guts to tell *their* extremist leaders where to stick their political agendas.
>>The Justice Department should be headed by a cop. It's a >>cop's job.
Whose to know that cops can't be bought and sold in the same way?
Richard
Re: Not The Issue
A
anonymous
(view)
>>My issues with Ashcroft stem from how he has dealt with >>and will deal with the law.
But surely after Waco, Elian and Wen-Ho Lee couldn't this statement be understood as an attempt by individuals of a certain political persuasion to run for the supposed `high ground`? Life in the Justice Department has hardly been a straight road of fair-minded democracy over the last eight years. I can understand why some people panic when they see the good old `Christian right` rising, but to raise doubts about Ashcroft's ability to translate law seems as solid as campaining against GW Bush because at one time he was supposedly a "bit of a womanizer". (i.e. after the last lot, the question of competency and integrity is really no question)
>>He's always been a particularly political animal, whose >>career has been almost singlehandedly financed and >>sustained by the Christian Right.
I apologise if the routine of "yeah - but what about the last lot" grates, but why do the Christian right (by deduction) somehow seem to be less deserving of a voice when individuals such as Messers Rich, Spielberg and McCaffrey can seemingly buy themselves into the same political circles? Now I appreciate how you might find the PTL mindset distasteful, but how is it any less disasteful than the way any dodgy businessman and/or some B/C/D list actor and his wife can buy their way into the good books of the then president by a nice fat check into the political coffers?
Or does it boil down to the fact that we shouldn't care who embezzles what and who churns out distasteful partsian pap that they call a `feature film`, just as long as they don't tell us how to live our lives...
>>He made a practise of hiring paralegals to cull through >>the decisions made by judges to find statements that he >>could distort to make the judge look "soft on crime", or >>"anti-Christian", or some other such nonsense, and stem >>confirmation. Distort them he did, repeatedly.
I didn't know that. The one case that I did hear of (the black judge who was turned down for the Supreme court) only happened because the judge supposedly went soft on a proven criminal.
>>Basically, my issue with Ashcroft is that he strikes me as >>the worst kind of hypocrite (snip) He shouldnt be in >>charge of the Justice Department any more than his >>counterparts on the Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist extremes.
If the Senate is gridlocked...how can he take any radical ground? If the Republicans were in a majority I could understand the worry. I read that Teddy Kennedy was considering a filibuster, so you can rest easy in your bed.
>>As far as that goes, how would you feel if a hard-right >>Muslim with minimal or no hands-on Justice experience was >>about to take over the FBI?
The only time that would concern me was if the sitting government had a massive majority and could pass whatever laws they wanted. The role of Attorney General can't be obtained in the same way you or I could run for Senatorial office in New York (you need to have spent realtime on the job...not just be knowledgeable about an aspect of it or have an agenda that excites liberals and femminists)
I know that people of more liberal leaning want to get away from the fact that the country was founded by Christian fanatics, so unless that foundation can be destroyed (which I can't see happening)...I don't see this `problem` going away.
I agree that extremists from any background shouldn't have major `power` but if you do away with Christians because they offend your `moral code` then I would have to say that we should do away with all religions from the national stage. Why the heck should faith `A` have preference over faith `B`? Is it because faith `A` has minorities in and we haven't got the guts to tell *their* extremist leaders where to stick their political agendas.
>>The Justice Department should be headed by a cop. It's a >>cop's job.
Whose to know that cops can't be bought and sold in the same way?
Richard
But surely after Waco, Elian and Wen-Ho Lee couldn't this statement be understood as an attempt by individuals of a certain political persuasion to run for the supposed `high ground`? Life in the Justice Department has hardly been a straight road of fair-minded democracy over the last eight years. I can understand why some people panic when they see the good old `Christian right` rising, but to raise doubts about Ashcroft's ability to translate law seems as solid as campaining against GW Bush because at one time he was supposedly a "bit of a womanizer". (i.e. after the last lot, the question of competency and integrity is really no question)
>>He's always been a particularly political animal, whose >>career has been almost singlehandedly financed and >>sustained by the Christian Right.
I apologise if the routine of "yeah - but what about the last lot" grates, but why do the Christian right (by deduction) somehow seem to be less deserving of a voice when individuals such as Messers Rich, Spielberg and McCaffrey can seemingly buy themselves into the same political circles? Now I appreciate how you might find the PTL mindset distasteful, but how is it any less disasteful than the way any dodgy businessman and/or some B/C/D list actor and his wife can buy their way into the good books of the then president by a nice fat check into the political coffers?
Or does it boil down to the fact that we shouldn't care who embezzles what and who churns out distasteful partsian pap that they call a `feature film`, just as long as they don't tell us how to live our lives...
>>He made a practise of hiring paralegals to cull through >>the decisions made by judges to find statements that he >>could distort to make the judge look "soft on crime", or >>"anti-Christian", or some other such nonsense, and stem >>confirmation. Distort them he did, repeatedly.
I didn't know that. The one case that I did hear of (the black judge who was turned down for the Supreme court) only happened because the judge supposedly went soft on a proven criminal.
>>Basically, my issue with Ashcroft is that he strikes me as >>the worst kind of hypocrite (snip) He shouldnt be in >>charge of the Justice Department any more than his >>counterparts on the Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist extremes.
If the Senate is gridlocked...how can he take any radical ground? If the Republicans were in a majority I could understand the worry. I read that Teddy Kennedy was considering a filibuster, so you can rest easy in your bed.
>>As far as that goes, how would you feel if a hard-right >>Muslim with minimal or no hands-on Justice experience was >>about to take over the FBI?
The only time that would concern me was if the sitting government had a massive majority and could pass whatever laws they wanted. The role of Attorney General can't be obtained in the same way you or I could run for Senatorial office in New York (you need to have spent realtime on the job...not just be knowledgeable about an aspect of it or have an agenda that excites liberals and femminists)
I know that people of more liberal leaning want to get away from the fact that the country was founded by Christian fanatics, so unless that foundation can be destroyed (which I can't see happening)...I don't see this `problem` going away.
I agree that extremists from any background shouldn't have major `power` but if you do away with Christians because they offend your `moral code` then I would have to say that we should do away with all religions from the national stage. Why the heck should faith `A` have preference over faith `B`? Is it because faith `A` has minorities in and we haven't got the guts to tell *their* extremist leaders where to stick their political agendas.
>>The Justice Department should be headed by a cop. It's a >>cop's job.
Whose to know that cops can't be bought and sold in the same way?
Richard
