Bush resends 20 court nominees

[SuperTool]

Did I mention only 2 of the 9 USSC justices have been appointed by a Democrat (Clinton) and the other 7 were appointed by a Republican.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Did I mention only 2 of the 9 USSC justices have been appointed by a Democrat (Clinton) and the other 7 were appointed by a Republican.

Kind of gives a litmus test to how far right the Republican party has gone.

 

[Engineer]

Ah hell, let him have his mandate. If the country goes too far one way (left or right), it always (ALWAYS) turns and goes the other way.

Once it becomes the one party system, it will break itself.

Give them a vote - of course they will be approved as the country is run by Republicans. Give them credit if things are done right - give them hell if not.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Did I mention only 2 of the 9 USSC justices have been appointed by a Democrat (Clinton) and the other 7 were appointed by a Republican.

Kind of gives a litmus test to how far right the Republican party has gone.

Yep. Earl Warren to Clarence Thomas. Makes me wonder if Thomas would have dissented in Brown v Board of Education. He did say it was OK for prosecutors to dismiss black jurors to get an all white jury in cases with black accused.

 

[justly]

SuperTool , I dont want to start a heated discussion (as I am to tired, and they tend to polarize opinions anyhow) but since you, so kindly, pointed out that 7 of 9 USSC justices where appointed by a Republican then how are these others "a threat to American way of life"?

Maybe it would be easier if you named names and what you think is wrong with them, or why they don't qualify for the position, that way maybe I can agree with you.
Its not that I want proof (I don't need a plethera of links), all I want to know is that you are not condemning these people just because they where nominated by a Republican.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Uniter indeed.

Exactly. And when the Dems respond exactly as any rational person would expect, the Bushies will be back yapping about how Bush extended his hand but the Dems bit it. That's their vision of working "together": do it my way.

It's there way or the highway. Democracy at it's finest. Damn partisian democrats. 😉

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
What would Bush have to do to achieve bipartisanship on this issue? Easy. Withdraw the names of his rightwing ideologues, nominate folks with ideology along the lines of the other 95% of his nominees... Solid Republicans, every one.

And, of course, Repubs didn't have to resort to a filibuster to block Clinton's nominees- they had a slight majority, and never let those names out of committee...

Just raving Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! isn't much of an argument, CsG... You'll need to do better than that to convince anybody other than yourself....

hehe...don't confuse him with facts.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: justly
SuperTool , I dont want to start a heated discussion (as I am to tired, and they tend to polarize opinions anyhow) but since you, so kindly, pointed out that 7 of 9 USSC justices where appointed by a Republican then how are these others "a threat to American way of life"?

Maybe it would be easier if you named names and what you think is wrong with them, or why they don't qualify for the position, that way maybe I can agree with you.
Its not that I want proof (I don't need a plethera of links), all I want to know is that you are not condemning these people just because they where nominated by a Republican.

I am talking about the 7/210 that were filibustered. That's 3%. They are the radical fringe.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: justly
SuperTool , I dont want to start a heated discussion (as I am to tired, and they tend to polarize opinions anyhow) but since you, so kindly, pointed out that 7 of 9 USSC justices where appointed by a Republican then how are these others "a threat to American way of life"?

Maybe it would be easier if you named names and what you think is wrong with them, or why they don't qualify for the position, that way maybe I can agree with you.
Its not that I want proof (I don't need a plethera of links), all I want to know is that you are not condemning these people just because they where nominated by a Republican.

I am talking about the 7/210 that were filibustered. That's 3%. They are the radical fringe.

those 7 were the only ones being appointed to the higher courts...

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: justly
SuperTool , I dont want to start a heated discussion (as I am to tired, and they tend to polarize opinions anyhow) but since you, so kindly, pointed out that 7 of 9 USSC justices where appointed by a Republican then how are these others "a threat to American way of life"?

Maybe it would be easier if you named names and what you think is wrong with them, or why they don't qualify for the position, that way maybe I can agree with you.
Its not that I want proof (I don't need a plethera of links), all I want to know is that you are not condemning these people just because they where nominated by a Republican.

I am talking about the 7/210 that were filibustered. That's 3%. They are the radical fringe.

those 7 were the only ones being appointed to the higher courts...

... link ?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: justly
SuperTool , I dont want to start a heated discussion (as I am to tired, and they tend to polarize opinions anyhow) but since you, so kindly, pointed out that 7 of 9 USSC justices where appointed by a Republican then how are these others "a threat to American way of life"?

Maybe it would be easier if you named names and what you think is wrong with them, or why they don't qualify for the position, that way maybe I can agree with you.
Its not that I want proof (I don't need a plethera of links), all I want to know is that you are not condemning these people just because they where nominated by a Republican.

I am talking about the 7/210 that were filibustered. That's 3%. They are the radical fringe.

those 7 were the only ones being appointed to the higher courts...

... link ?

Let me dig it up...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: justly
SuperTool , I dont want to start a heated discussion (as I am to tired, and they tend to polarize opinions anyhow) but since you, so kindly, pointed out that 7 of 9 USSC justices where appointed by a Republican then how are these others "a threat to American way of life"?

Maybe it would be easier if you named names and what you think is wrong with them, or why they don't qualify for the position, that way maybe I can agree with you.
Its not that I want proof (I don't need a plethera of links), all I want to know is that you are not condemning these people just because they where nominated by a Republican.

I am talking about the 7/210 that were filibustered. That's 3%. They are the radical fringe.

those 7 were the only ones being appointed to the higher courts...

... link ?

Let me dig it up...

linkage

Not quite as I remembered, but not far off.

84% confirmation on lower court judges.

The ones being filibustered are for the higher courts.

The administration says Bush has made 46 nominations to the appeals court, but only 29 have won confirmation. "That's a 63 percent confirmation rate. Clinton had an 80 percent confirmation rate at the same time," Nowacki said. "There is something different going on here. It's an obstruction at an entirely different level."

 

[SuperTool]

That info looks dated, but the headline is : "Federal bench vacancy rate hits 13-year low"
Maybe if Bush starts nominating moderate judges instead of ideologues, his approval rate will go up.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
That info looks dated, but the headline is : "Federal bench vacancy rate hits 13-year low"
Maybe if Bush starts nominating moderate judges instead of ideologues, his approval rate will go up.

not too dated nov 2003 is when this was an issue. There are several judges that are being filibustered that I would not consider radical, Estrada being one of them.

 

[Jhhnn]

The problem with your "Just let him have his mandate" pov, Engineer, is that it's not that much of a mandate, for starters, and that Federal court appointments are for life.

Doing what you advocate means that even after the electorate comes to their senses that the far right will still have a blocking position in the courts, probably for the next 30 years...

Estrada and Pryor, for example, are both relatively young men, under 50.

Court appointments have always been a touchy subject, and Chief Executives actually seeking some common ground and bipartisan effort have been cognizant of this fact, tailoring their selections to be less than noxious to the opposition. Clinton's SCOTUS nominees come to mind... as do the 95% of apparently unimportant Bush nominees...

As charrison pointed out earlier, the rejectees have largely been from the appeals court nominees, which means that GWB is attempting the usual smokescreen, where moderate opinion can always be overruled by less moderate ones higher up the foodchain. Which is precisely why the most radical nominees were to the appeals courts. Maybe he'll just go ahead and nominate Pat Robertson to the SCOTUS, or the far right's spiritual guru, Grover Norquist..

Let's not forget, either, that GWB is essentially reneging on a deal he made with the Dems, a variation on the favored bait and switch routine...

 

[justly]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: justly
SuperTool , I dont want to start a heated discussion (as I am to tired, and they tend to polarize opinions anyhow) but since you, so kindly, pointed out that 7 of 9 USSC justices where appointed by a Republican then how are these others "a threat to American way of life"?

Maybe it would be easier if you named names and what you think is wrong with them, or why they don't qualify for the position, that way maybe I can agree with you.
Its not that I want proof (I don't need a plethera of links), all I want to know is that you are not condemning these people just because they where nominated by a Republican.

I am talking about the 7/210 that were filibustered. That's 3%. They are the radical fringe.

All I really wanted to know was that you could think for yourself and this is what I get :roll:

What did they do to be labeled "radical fringe"?
Do you even know thier names?
I guess I need to ask for a link (just like you did to charrison).

 

[joshw10]

I'm not familiar with the people whose nominations have been blocked, but if the numbers thrown around here are accurate (200 nominations gone through, 20 blocked) then I have to wonder why them? It sure seems like the only reasonable explanation is there's something so radical about those 10% that nearly half of the Senate will go as far as they can to prevent their nominations. If a nomination gets that kind of a rise out of that many people, then I don't want that person to be nominated, whether they're on the "left" or the "right"

 

[justly]

Originally posted by: joshw10
I'm not familiar with the people whose nominations have been blocked, but if the numbers thrown around here are accurate (200 nominations gone through, 20 blocked) then I have to wonder why them? It sure seems like the only reasonable explanation is there's something so radical about those 10% that nearly half of the Senate will go as far as they can to prevent their nominations. If a nomination gets that kind of a rise out of that many people, then I don't want that person to be nominated, whether they're on the "left" or the "right"

What I want to know is, what is "so radical about those 10% that nearly half of the Senate will go as far as they can to prevent their nominations." I also think a "reasonable explanation" is not to much to ask before we go calling them radicals.

 

[Jhhnn]

Charrison's allegation that the blocked nominations were the only ones to higher courts is incorrect, and misleading. According to the WP article, 42 of 52 Bush nominees to appeals courts have been approved...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../A22384-2004Dec23.html

And according to this info, from the Senate Dems, passage of Bush's nominees is about as good as it's ever been in modern history-

http://democrats.senate.gov/dp...?doc_name=fs-108-2-197

If the Repub leadership has their way, about the time folks figure out who the people they've voted in really are, it'll be way too late. Your vote won't matter, at all, when the court system is packed with ideologues and partisan extremists...

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The problem with your "Just let him have his mandate" pov, Engineer, is that it's not that much of a mandate, for starters, and that Federal court appointments are for life.

There was a hint of sarcasm in there, especially since it's Lord Bush. The approval ratings are dropping. The Iraq war now has 56% of the people stating that it wasn't worth fighting. As far as it takes "TWO" to unite, Bush has united with the two to three extra voices in his head and isn't going to negotiate with himself.

As I said, if the country goes too far one way, it always does a turnabout and goes the other. Would be nice to see a moderate country with fiscal conservatives in control, but it won't happen again. Too many votes bought with their own money.