RUMPLEMINTZ
(218 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-26-06 09:18 AM
Original message |
|
confirmed 78-15. How in the world could so many democrats vote for this fascist sonofabitch?
|
tanyev
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-26-06 09:20 AM
Response to Original message |
OneBlueSky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-26-06 09:23 AM
Response to Original message |
2. easy . . . they're part of the problem . . . |
|
and, therefore, not part of the solution . . .
anyone who thinks that most House and Senate Democrats are anything other than BushCo enablers hasn't been paying sufficient attention . . .
|
paparush
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-26-06 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. You sure got that right...it is time to CLEAN HOUSE!!! (and Senate) |
skipos
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-26-06 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. Yes, let's get rid of DINO's like Bayh |
|
oh wait... he voted "nay."
|
abluelady
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-26-06 09:32 AM
Response to Original message |
3. He's Probably Going to Be Another Brownie |
|
and will be out of office before you know it. Bush's appointments that can be gone are going. Too bad the Supreme Court isn't like that!
|
life_long_dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-26-06 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
7. No kidding, what is with that appointed for life bullshit? |
|
Absolutely a stupid idea. Even though the founding fathers had some great ideas, that was not one of them.
|
RaleighNCDUer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-26-06 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
10. Well, to be fair, at the time "life" meant maybe 25 years -- |
|
Edited on Fri May-26-06 10:15 AM by NCevilDUer
it took a man into his 40's to develop a sterling reputation to qualify for the court, and 70 was way above average for the lifespan. Don't have the stats, but I'd bet that the vast majority of SC appointees in the first hundred years sat for fewer than 25 years, and a significant number for fewer than 20.
Now, we get a Roberts or Scalia or Thomas in their forties, and expect to see them on the bench for 40 years. That's a significant difference. That should be reviewed. Maybe put a 25 year cap on appointments.
|
life_long_dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-26-06 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
11. It's a good thing that people don't live to be 800 years old like they |
|
used to in the first centuries. I mean, who could forsee that they would live for so long? Imagine a Scalia on the Supreme Court for like 760 years.
I think a 400 year cap would have been appropriate back then. LOL
|
Teaser
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-26-06 09:41 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Fri May-26-06 09:59 AM by Teaser
you know the Democrats strategy by now don't you? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out...
They are going to lay low until the elections and hope that by not stirring up any trouble they will look wise and statesmanlike and win big.
Is this a foolish strategy? I think so. Is it likely to work? Probably not. Will we win anyway? Perhaps.
But this is the strategy they've adopted. Shouting
ZOMG! WHY WONT THE DEMS SHOW SOME BACKBONE! WTF!!!111!!!
Every time this happens is just a ridiculous outcry, and its tiresome. Complain about them if you want, but don't act surprised...because you know why they're doing it. Puffing out your chests to show you've got the biggest outrage on the block only impresses the n00bs. And not even them soooo much.
|
AlCzervik
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-26-06 09:48 AM
Response to Original message |
8. i wish i could say i was shocked but i can't. |
|
Edited on Fri May-26-06 09:53 AM by chimpsrsmarter
|
wisteria
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-26-06 09:53 AM
Response to Original message |
9. Reid, as minority leader would have been the one to "use the |
|
powder" on this nominee, but he voted for his confirmation.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed May 08th 2024, 06:31 PM
Response to Original message |