<p>Newmassdad,</p>
<p>perhaps I am mis-using the term ‘neo-liberal’ and should have stuck to the well worn and simple liberal…is that what you are suggesting?</p>
<p>I would not be suprised to find out that I over-specified.</p>
<p>I’ve seen that the sexual revolution has brought us to where any woman who doesn’t put out after a month or two “isn’t comfortable with her sexuality;” where anyone who thinks that some form of self-restraint is a prude or bashing sex in general; and where emotions are deemed somehow irrelevant to the discussion of physical pleasure. I personally despise the fact that a lot of people think that swallowing a bunch of hormones or using a condom mean that there are no repercussions for sex - as if my psyche is an unfortunate attachment to my body that really shouldn’t be there. It’s dehumanizing. </p>
<p>IMO, you can’t blame the liberals entirely - neither they, nor the conservatives, discuss the emotional and psychological aspects of sex when everyone is fighting over what to teach in schools - and that goes for both men and women.</p>
<p>Aries, without getting specific, I can just say that this is totally untrue with my D and the young men and women she knows. She has always hung out with an activisty/lefty crowd, and any guy who didn’t take the emotions/psyche stuff very seriously would be considered to be behaving very badly. It’s just really bad form in their world. They obsess in talking about their emotions, each other’s emotions, etc. etc. Way more than the my generation, that’s for sure. I think its kind’ve cute.</p>
<p>woodwork, my reference was to clarify for aries that not everyone thinks that sex is a mandatory tip at the end of a dinner. If she or you are living in a community where you think that is true, I am sorry for you. I don’t see it with my male and female children, and I have taught both of them to be considerate of others feelings. Sex is not a dirty thing, nor is it a required thing. When done right some people think it is a good thing.</p>
<p>Are you posting this topic here because you think sex was behind the Presidents choice for supreme court?</p>
<p>No,</p>
<p>I was just following your rather curious and highfalutin train of thought to wherever it might lead a dismayed and bemused member of the gallery:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I had always assumed that women, even those un-liberated or un-enlightened by the sexual revolution had in fact enjoyed sex without considering themselves whores. The difference, it seems to me, is the seriousness within which they enjoyed it, and the depth with which they perceived it. </p>
<p>My rather traditional 64 year old mother still claims, rather bawdily, to enjoy her intimate moments with my father; I consider this a testament to my parents undying devotion and inconsumable energy, not her desire to sleep-around or his desire to hook-up.</p>
<p>I would make an even more personal testament to this effect, but my daughter, on occasion, peruses these tawdry postings of mine.</p>
<p>On with the show…</p>
<p>To get back on topic, perhaps everyone should read Ann Coulter’s take on this nominee:</p>
<p><a href=“anncoulter.org - This website is for sale! - anncoulter Resources and Information.”>anncoulter.org - This website is for sale! - anncoulter Resources and Information.;
<p>I never agree with her, but she makes a lot of good points here.</p>
<p>One more digression.</p>
<p>I agree with aries, there is too little emphasis on the emotional aspects of sexuality. Sure, guys will be nice, loving, and touchy-feely before, during and after a relationship gets sexual. There are plenty of nice, caring guys having sex with nice, caring girls. That’s not the problem. </p>
<p>The missing piece is these are young, impermanent relationships. They go away. After some number of ended affairs-- and it’s probably a different number for everyone-- you can’t help but get a little jaded, a little self protective, a little numb. </p>
<p>I believe that you do not bring as positive a version of yourself to your marriage if you have lost your hopefulness and emotional purity. </p>
<p>I am not saying premarital sex is bad. I am saying it has both physical and emotional consequences. Alcohol isn’t bad, it’s FUN-- but everyone knows 20 shots can get you into big trouble. Sex is fun, too-- but 20 broken hearts can leave you pretty shattered for later. Treating sex very casually is sort of pretending that the emotional consequences aren’t there and don’t add up.</p>
<p>Apparently many of you think that the answer to my question as posted, is sex.</p>
<p>Do any of you think this will open the door for a future Democratic President to appoint one of the Clintons, or Mario Cuomo? </p>
<p>Do you think this is the quality we want in the Supreme Court?</p>
<p>
This was an interesting read, thank you, Scootron</p>
<p>I saw the Ann Coulter column… and disagreed with her for the first time. First of all, the Supreme Court almost NEVER takes up patent law cases, so no need to learn about the doctrine of equivalents. Secondly, even though I’m an originalist, I don’t think that memorizing a bunch of cases makes for better interpretation. You have clerks. You have the briefs of counsel submitted to the Court. Memorizing cases does not and never has imparted any wisdom into a judicial decision.</p>
<p>Findlaw has some interesting articles on the nominees. Here are some for good reading:</p>
<p><a href=“http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20051005_gerber.html[/url]”>http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20051005_gerber.html</a>
(Arguing that lack of judicial experience is not disqualifying; points out the many of the top justices were appointed directly from legal practice; points out that many of the justices went to non-Ivy schools and are considered to be excellent.)</p>
<p><a href=“http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20051006.html[/url]”>http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20051006.html</a>
(Arguing that Miers is quite a moderate and demonstrates Bush’s desire to move leftward.)</p>
<p><a href=“http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20051006_wasserman.html[/url]”>http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20051006_wasserman.html</a>
(Mostly about fast food, but mentions Roberts’ decision in the case to allow arrest of 12-year-old girl for eating fast food - a non-arrestable offense. IMO, this is why Roberts scares me. He might have a wonderful brain, but he appears to lack for any type of wisdom and compassion.)</p>
<p>PS - the sex issue was because I was slammed for being a conservative - because apparently women aren’t allowed to be anything but liberal. My guess is that there will be a gender flip in the parties in a generation or so, as women become more educated than men and feel that liberalism has lost its compass. Anecdotally, all of my girlfriends up North are jealous that I’m in the South - because northern boys aren’t any more supportive of our careers but are a heck of a lot worse in the chivarly dep’t. All of my guy friends, who have never been out of New England except on vacation, assume that I’m being patronized to death because men hold doors for me when my arms are full of law books.</p>
<p>Garland - is your D under 20? I did notice a big change around that time period.</p>
<p>Anyway… the justices. Given how old the justices are, I do think that the conservatives came out en masse in 2004 to have conservatives appointed to the bench. Bush doesn’t have reelection to worry about, but appointed Miers - not Janice Rogers Brown (imagine the confirmation hearings - could the Dems oppose a black lady and keep a straight face?), but Miers. IMO, he’s aiming for a moderate. He actually is looking to replace O’Connor, not to convert her swing vote to a hard-line conservative. </p>
<p>For all this talk about her not being smart… how could she get where she was without brains? That lady must have a lot of brains, savvy, and diplomacy. Oh, but she’s not pedigreed… people, these are judges, not show dogs!</p>
<p>Aries, I contrast Roberts and Miers…Roberts is brilliant, even though I am opposed to his worldview, I’m no form of a strict constructionist of any flavor and will be happy to debate you over a bottle of Veuve Clicquot. But if you ignore the disagreements, it’s easy to see him in the pool of “Best Available.” </p>
<p>In contrast, the credentials that Miers has–aside from loyalty to Bush–could be found in hundreds if not thousands of people. One of the papers had an excellent sidebar on SC appointees without judicial experience. The only one who didn’t have a career substantially better than hers was Lewis Powell and his was still incrementally better to my read and imho he was one of the more undistinguished people to have a seat on the court in my lifetime. Miers is a benificiary of the NCLB…No Crony Left Behind…approach. (line happily purloined from elsewhere…wish I could take credit for it.)</p>
<p>And, yes, I could oppose Janice Rogers Brown with a straight face because she’s a raving loon, more of a loose cannon than anything else. Though I’d have to transpose that into suitable language were I participating in a hearing.</p>
<p>Maybe he was thinking that he wanted at least one member of the court who was his equal?!?</p>
<p>Aries, no, she is just short of 23.</p>
<p>TheDad - I do agree that Roberts’ resume is impeccable. No argument there. But - just for fun - let’s say that you want a H,Y, or S Law alum on the bench who is between the ages of 50 and 60. </p>
<p>HLS graduates 500 people every year;
YLS and S. graduate about 200 each annually
-> 900 H,Y, or S alums annually, 10 years -> yeah, about 10,000 people fit that description.</p>
<p>Hence my thoughts about wisdom. Despite Roberts’ intellect, I don’t think he is a wise person. Maybe I’m giving too much weight to the comments he made in his younger years, but there is no evidence of a mature psyche there. No evidence that he’s thought about what it means to be human or to live in a civilized society or how people can suffer - maybe he has, but it isn’t reflected in his opinions, memos, or any other type of work he’s done. </p>
<p>Maybe I’ll be wrong, but… conservative (well, conservative considering the area I grew up in!) that I am, I’m scared of Roberts. I’m even more scared of 30 years of him. Miers - eh, there are “better” candidates - those with experience, those with more legal acumen, those who are better writers or thinkers - but she doesn’t scare me. I don’t think that she’ll be a pushover to the Bush administration - she’s not stupid lady and knows what “lifetime appointments” means - and I think she’ll follow in the tradition of independent-minded justices. Roberts - (shivers).</p>
<p>If she gets appointed, what an opening of the list of who can serve…Granted you don’t have to be a judge, but it would be nice if you showed a great deal of thought and interest in Constitutional law and were considered a legal genus.</p>
<p>Lets face it, Bush has turned his back on the conservatives and others to pad the court with a cronie for the eventually that indictments start rolling in like when his Dad and Regan were President. (I know, Clinton had sex)</p>
<p>Well I can’t say that this is a surprise, but now will Bush pick an arch conservative judge like some want or someone a tad more to the center?</p>
<p>My bet is an arch conservative. It’s the lack of support from the right that led to Meir’s withdrawel, and besides, a fiesty debate in the senate would be a great distraction…</p>
<p>Ted Olsen 10 characters</p>
<p>Bush may now punt and pick Gonzo, giving the finger to those who persuaded him not to nominate Gonzo in the first place but then derailed Miers.</p>
<p>The Republican hypocrisy would be stunning if it weren’t such habit. WIth Miers, the notion of “deserving an up or down vote” went right out the window with the wingnuts. And suddenly and inspection of the nominees judicial philosophy was not only in bounds but mandatory. </p>
<p>What a pathetic bunch. I can’t wait for the whole rotten, corrupt, overreaching mass to come shattering to the ground. Mordor will fall, may I just live to see it. Better yet, may I be able to help.</p>