[Breaking] Judge Charles W. Pickering Retiring

Hunh. So, now I'm an extremist because I'm pro-choice and believe in civil rights for gays and believe in the separation of church and state? Wow. Interesting how he never talks about how anyone my oppose him or any other judge because they might feel that the freakin' constitution might actually be an important document.

It's just this kind of missive that illustrates what's so scary about these people.

Right, this is exactly the rhetoric that scares the moderates and undecideds. Unbelievable.

Anyone who calls others extremists and then gives thanks to Zell Miller???? Anyway...

I am glad he and his wife are at peace. Guess what? I am a bit more at peace now as well--one down. ;-)

The issue should never have been about mostly whether or not Pickering shared an office with a bigot (he did), or even about the cross-burning case as much. The discussion should always have been about whether or not he was going to uphold the Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause, one-man-one-vote and the efforts to equalize the playing field for minorities in the circuit with a higher percentage of non-whites than any other circuit.

I have yet to see a good analysis of Pickering's true qualitifications in the mass media.

oh dear, I never bothered to read his statement. "Extreme groups...
these groups ..these far left groups.."
does he actually feel threatened? I doubt it. just a few last (hopefully) mud flings.
As for the media carefully analyzing his past rulings in depth, can we really
expect that from them? but it must be out there somewhere....hmmm.
do we care anymore?

Curious that the only Independent...who the Republicans despise supported his nomination...He's not running for relection...has no dog in the hunt....Why is that?

Your comment here, Lee, is a bit cryptic. Can you make your point clearer? I truly don't understand what you're saying, but it may just be me.

Well... he's in the middle..... We aren't.... that's neither left nor RIGHT. And again... the RIGHT doesn't like him (Jeffords). Me included. So... could this guy be considered neutral?

I'm still not following, but I would disagree that Pickering is "in the middle," if that is what you're saying. And what the heck are you saying about Jeffords?? Puzzled over here.

Jeffords could be neutral.....

which means....what?
Neutrality is possible? Pickering isn't? Neutral is better? Indicator of lack of passion? Indicator of superior intelligence? Indicator of apathy? Indicator stupidity?
Seems like you're reaching for a conclusion about Jeffords, and then plan on using that conjecture to argue something else. Whatever. Still don't think I'm an "extremist", despite what Pickering writes in his letter.

Many on the left are "extremist"...Are you? No one said you were.

Lee, have you even read what Pickering wrote? He wrote:

"Extreme special interest groups opposed my nomination primarily due to their hostility to any nominee with strong religious convictions who personally disagrees with them on abortion, marriage and references to God at public ceremonies and institutions. "

I support abortion rights. I think the government should stay away from defining marriage for anyone. I think that we need to be aware of the need for the separation of church and state. Therefore, according to Pickering, I'm an extremist.

Lee, on this thread, you're talking in cryptic gibberish here. I mean this respectfully, but why not use complete sentences and say what you mean, instead of strings of words separated by elipses? We're all wasting our time on this one so far.

Some on the left are extremist; so are some on the right. Can't we stipulate that painfully obvious fact? That doesn't mean, however, that everyone Pickering is fingering (ick) is actually "extremist." Clearly, Pickering is characterizing people who disagree with his rather extreme right-wing stances as "extremists" (as extremists tend to do). This is offensive to many of us whom he would stereotype in such a way. He's name-calling without a rational basis for it.

I thought we were blogging... Donna... (oops there I go again) not trying to be HARVARD types here.

Are "complete sentences" the rule here? This place is more akin to a chat-room than the Harvard Business Journal. Really.

Lee, there's a long way between cryptic gibberish and being a "Harvard type." The point is, you haven't made any sense on this particular thread, yet.

But, if that's the "rule" then so be it. I will follow; I just hope everyone else will.

Yes, you may consider posting comments that make basic sense to other people a rule. Otherwise, it's a waste of space.

I'll try once more. The Right HATES Jeffords. He would be viewed as the most neutral Senator in the land. He bucked the RIGHT and the LEFT. That's my point... might he be a good judge of character? So, MAYBE Pickering isn't such a bad choice. BTW... would you live next to him? Pickering that is. If you had to that is. If the price on the land or house was right. Just curious.

Oh, so you're using Jeffords as the arbiter off who should and should not support Pickering? I guess that's an argument, but as much as I agree with Jeffords on some issues, I'm perfectly capable of thinking for myself. As are we all. I also like McCain a lot, even as I disagree with him on a lot of issues. I like independent thinkers. But none of that changes my view that Pickering's views are much more disturbing than people give it credit for being.

Why wouldn't I live next to Pickering? It's his views on stuff like, say, one-man-one-vote that I find offensive. And he does that stuff in the courtroom. I'm not a big fan of his son, either, but I've had great conversations with him recently. Again, your point escapes me.

Over and out.

I thought we were blogging... Donna... (oops there I go again) not trying to be HARVARD types here.

Um, that would be Columbia, but I thought Columbia was in Marion County-- not Neshoba. ;-)

Um, that would be Columbia, but I thought Columbia was in Marion County-- not Neshoba. ;-)

Hardy har har, Ex. Don't you dare call me a "Columbia type." I may have gone there, but I like to think of myself as an "outside agitator," as much as I fussed about various Ivy habits (like lack of diversity). I don't just raise hell south of the Mason-Dixon, for the record.

And I was a Dawg first. ;-D

Heh, I know. I just couldn't resist. ;-)

Dat's OK, Ex. U da man ...

;-D

Now if his son will retire we will be in great shape!