tgnyc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-24-05 01:05 PM
Original message |
And if Bush nominates Owens or Brown for SCOTUS? |
|
If either of these two makes it on a floor vote for lower courts, why wouldn't Bush go for it at the SCOTUS level? A chance to put up a woman, or, even better, a BLACK woman? Would he not jump at the chance? They would essentially be unfilibusterable, thanks to the new aggreement. And do we really envision enough GOP Senators voting against either, if she's what Bush wants, to stop it? So how do we feel about that?
|
GreenArrow
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-24-05 01:06 PM
Response to Original message |
onehandle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-24-05 01:07 PM
Response to Original message |
|
And since we caved on them this time, they're shoe-ins for SCOTUS.
|
paineinthearse
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-24-05 01:09 PM
Response to Original message |
3. There is no requirement that a SC justice come from the Appellate Courts |
|
Or even be a member of the bar.
I believe this "agreement" was for these specific appointments, not for their lives.
Or do I misunderstand the "agreement"?
|
tgnyc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-24-05 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. The agreement prevents use of the filibuster in judicial |
|
appointments, barring "extraordinary circumstances." That goes for all judicial appointments, including SCOTUS.
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-24-05 01:18 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
ComerPerro
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue May-24-05 01:23 PM
Response to Original message |
6. You know the two most interesting things I have heard about Brown? |
|
(1) She is a black woman
and
(2) She was overwhelmingly voted in by California by a "wide margin"
That is all well and good, however:
(1) Why in the world would we care if she is black or white, male or female? Moreover, why would conservatives care. Aren't they supposedly concerned with someone's qualifications and not their race or gender? Isn't that why they are against affirmative action? Why then would they keep mentioning that she is black.
and
(2) She was voted in, yes. But she was uncontested, and got 76%. How is that "overwhelmingly"?
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun May 05th 2024, 07:59 AM
Response to Original message |