Some Moran
(675 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-14-03 02:10 AM
Original message |
What's the Repug counter-argument for the judicial nominee comparison? |
|
You know...How do the :puke:s counter the "We approved 98% of your judges, while you only approved 60% of ours" argument?
|
wtmusic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-14-03 02:17 AM
Response to Original message |
1. You mean you didn't listen until 2 AM this morning? |
|
They just keep carping on how it's not what our founding fathers intended blah blah blah hijacking justice blah blah blah you didn't approve ours in committee blah blah blah...
Ya didn't miss a thing.
|
leftyandproud
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-14-03 03:16 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
7. simple...and I don't yet know a clear refutation of this... |
|
227 years of the Republic and there has NEVER been an actual obstruction/filibuster of judicial nominees by a minority in the Senate. This is technically correct...They never let some of Clinton's nominees come to the floor when they held power...This is also true. The party in power does generally have the right to an up or down vote for its nominees however. This is the first time in history they are being blocked a vote. Personally, I say good...f*ck em!...though I do worry about the consequences for us when we take the senate back. They could do this to EVERY democratic nominee to get revenge.
|
ermoore
(474 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-14-03 02:18 AM
Response to Original message |
2. Know thine enemies . . . |
blackcat77
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-14-03 02:21 AM
Response to Original message |
3. The other argument I've heard is... |
|
...that the confirmations don't really count because those aren't IMPORTANT seats. Circuit Court judges go straight to the SCOTUS and so the Dems obviously don't want any good conservatives there who would be ready to take the place of the commies when they finally die off.
|
JackSwift
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-14-03 02:46 AM
Response to Original message |
TreasonousBastard
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-14-03 03:07 AM
Response to Original message |
|
They simply out and out lie, and refuse to admit that happened. That's their only answer, because the facts betray them.
Unlike Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and Shrub, Clinton never proposed an ideologicallly indentifiable judge because there was no way in hell he could get one through. Even then, they refused to let half his nominees get to a floor vote. Senior judges were screaming at the caseloads and magistrates were doing most of the work because of so many empty seats and the increased workload.
It was a right-winger, or no one. Now that they have complete control, they think they can have their way.
Never, ever, before has a rightwing thinktank like the Federalist Society been in charge of vetting judicial nominees. This is destroying the balance in the Federal courts, and spells doom for years.
Way beyond the grisly economics or bloody wars, this will have the most far-reaching effect of any of his vile actions.
Everything else we can undo, everything but a rightwing Federal judiciary.
|
Robbien
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-14-03 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. Yep, and Senator Levin just got finished pointing this out |
|
I love that he is the one on the floor right now countering all this fuzzy logic of the illogical religious right.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Apr 24th 2024, 07:18 PM
Response to Original message |