Ted Kennedy Calls Bush Minority Nominees 'Neanderthals'

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Corn
They started this trend of fillabustering nominees and are now complaining when used against them.........
If that's true, you should have no problem with providing a single example of the Republicans fillabustering any judicial nominees.
I don't have a transcipt.. but former senator thomson fron tenn did'nt deby it when confronted. So I went looking since you asked nicly.

"In 1968, President Lyndon Johnson nominated Associate Justice Abe Fortas to replace Earl Warren as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court when Warren announced his intention to retire. The Judiciary Committee approved the Fortas nomination by a vote of 11 to 6, but conservative Senators, led by Senator Strom Thurmond and others, mounted a filibuster on the floor on the motion to proceed to the nomination. Their objections to Fortas were based, among other things, on concerns that his opinions as a member of the Warren Court were too liberal in the areas of civil liberties and the rights of the accused9as well as concerns about Justice Fortas? refusal to respond to some allegations leveled against him."

Text
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
That was a nice try Zebo. Evidently you didn't bother to read the article that contained that paragraph you quoted. While the fillibuster was indeed initiated by the Republicans, it was quickly ended by cloture, thus allowing an up and down vote on Fortas (which never did come as Fortas withdrew because he knew he didn't have the votes to pass).

Perhaps I should have restated my request in the following manner: Please provide me a single example of the Republicans using the fillibuster to defeat the vote of any judicial nominee.

What the Democrats have done is without precedent, period.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Corn
That was a nice try Zebo. Evidently you didn't bother to read the article that contained that paragraph you quoted. While the fillibuster was indeed initiated by the Republicans, it was quickly ended by cloture, thus allowing an up and down vote on Fortas (which never did come as Fortas withdrew because he knew he didn't have the votes to pass).

Perhaps I should have restated my request in the following manner: Please provide me a single example of the Republicans using the fillibuster to defeat the vote of any judicial nominee.

What the Democrats have done is without precedent, period.
Not to mention that "trend" implies continued.... The only trend here is the continued obstruction via filibuster(threat) by the Democrats.

CkG
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Maybe if the repubs had any balls whatsoever, they'd call 'em on the filibuster rather than caving like a bunch of school girls. ;)
 

Genesys

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2003
1,536
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Maybe if the repubs had any balls whatsoever, they'd call 'em on the filibuster rather than caving like a bunch of school girls. ;)
theyd "call" them on the filibuster...wtf are you talking about? they already have, thats what the 30hr talkathon that some of you thought was a colosal waste a time was about!
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Genesys
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Maybe if the repubs had any balls whatsoever, they'd call 'em on the filibuster rather than caving like a bunch of school girls. ;)
theyd "call" them on the filibuster...wtf are you talking about? they already have, thats what the 30hr talkathon that some of you thought was a colosal waste a time was about!
Took 'em long enough, but plainly that tactic didn't work. What's next?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Maybe if the repubs had any balls whatsoever, they'd call 'em on the filibuster rather than caving like a bunch of school girls. ;)
If the Democrats were honest and practiced as they preached(do I need to bring the quotes out?) they wouldn't be using this tactic to obstruct the will of the majority.

But sadly yes - I wish there was a way for them to force the Dems to blabber on and on until the lost the floor...but those rules seem to not be in effect or atleast used.

CkG
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
I must be dreaming.. or Deja Vu ing.. I thought we already did this one... to death. I'm getting old, I guess. :)

The minority the constitution sought to protect was the individual states... hence the two senators per state regardless of population. The minority was further protected by the constitution for various other issues requiring a super majority. Judicial nominees are not among the consent issues the constitution sought to protect by a super majority.
The senate rule allowing infinite debate subject to cloture takes the vested authority of the Executive to nominate Judicial branch members and subjects it to a condition not provided for in any of the Articles which so vest. A clear violation of the constitution in my opinion. This is what must be protected even at the expense of having very undesirable Judges and Justices from the minority point of view. (I would support one of the four blocked judges, BTW)
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
I must be dreaming.. or Deja Vu ing.. I thought we already did this one... to death. I'm getting old, I guess. :)

The minority the constitution sought to protect was the individual states... hence the two senators per state regardless of population. The minority was further protected by the constitution for various other issues requiring a super majority. Judicial nominees are not among the consent issues the constitution sought to protect by a super majority.
The senate rule allowing infinite debate subject to cloture takes the vested authority of the Executive to nominate Judicial branch members and subjects it to a condition not provided for in any of the Articles which so vest. A clear violation of the constitution in my opinion. This is what must be protected even at the expense of having very undesirable Judges and Justices from the minority point of view. (I would support one of the four blocked judges, BTW)
You're so very right, Grumpster, we've done this to death. Heh, can I call you that too? :) Pleeeeease? ;)
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Corn
That was a nice try Zebo. Evidently you didn't bother to read the article that contained that paragraph you quoted. While the fillibuster was indeed initiated by the Republicans, it was quickly ended by cloture, thus allowing an up and down vote on Fortas (which never did come as Fortas withdrew because he knew he didn't have the votes to pass).

Perhaps I should have restated my request in the following manner: Please provide me a single example of the Republicans using the fillibuster to defeat the vote of any judicial nominee.

What the Democrats have done is without precedent, period.
Just cause they did'nt have votes to put off cloture does'nt mean they did'nt try and threaten to fillibuster..and initiate the idea of fillibustering which now Dems are using any they are cying about. Personally I think being pro-abortion is a sad litmus test but you can't deny fillabsutering judical nominees is a Republican precedent. If you want to split hair over success or not that's fine but intent and actions are more important IMO.

. ? Strong Republican opposition to several of President Clinton?s nominees for Courts of Appeals, and the use of extreme delaying tactics against them, prompted cloture votes during the 1990?s.

o Rosemary Barkett, nominated to the Eleventh Circuit in 1993, was accused by Republicans of being ?soft on crime.?28After Republican opponents announced their intention to filibuster the nomination, a cloture motion was filed.29Lacking the votes to sustain a filibuster, Republican opponents accepted a time agreement, the cloture petition was withdrawn, and Barkett was confirmed.30

o H. Lee Sarokin, nominated to the Third Circuit in 1994, was vigorously opposed by Senators who characterized him as a liberal on criminal law, affirmative action, and other issues.31Republicans threatened a filibuster32and a cloture motion was filed. Cloture was then invoked, and Sarokin was confirmed.

o In 2000, cloture motions were necessary to obtain votes on the nominations of Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon to the Ninth Circuit, after Republican opponents who considered them too liberal repeatedly delayed action on their nominations (over four years for Paez and over two years for Berzon).33Those opposing the nominations acknowledged that cloture was required ?due to holds that we placed on them . . . as notice to the Senate that if the nominations were brought to the full Senate for debate they would be filibustered.?34On the floor, Republican Senator Bob Smith, citing the Fortas, Rehnquist and other filibusters as precedents, said ?I do not want to hear that I am going down some trail the Senate has never gone down before by talking about these judges and delaying. It is simply not true. I resent any argument to the contrary because it is simply not true.?35He declared the next day that he had led a filibuster on the Berzon and Paez nominations, having built a coalition of Senators (including Senator Jeff Sessions) to block them because of the nominees? judicial philosophy.36Cloture was invoked on both nominations, whereupon Senator Sessions moved to indefinitely postpone the Paez confirmation vote,37but both nominees were confirmed.

 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: LunarRay
I must be dreaming.. or Deja Vu ing.. I thought we already did this one... to death. I'm getting old, I guess. :)

The minority the constitution sought to protect was the individual states... hence the two senators per state regardless of population. The minority was further protected by the constitution for various other issues requiring a super majority. Judicial nominees are not among the consent issues the constitution sought to protect by a super majority.
The senate rule allowing infinite debate subject to cloture takes the vested authority of the Executive to nominate Judicial branch members and subjects it to a condition not provided for in any of the Articles which so vest. A clear violation of the constitution in my opinion. This is what must be protected even at the expense of having very undesirable Judges and Justices from the minority point of view. (I would support one of the four blocked judges, BTW)

Perhaps you should read this:

The Constitutional Argument Against the Filibuster

The June 5 hearing - led by Trent Lott, the former Republican Senate majority leader - posed a few constitutional questions relating to the filibuster. Senator Lott stated that he was cognizant that federal courts, including the Supreme Court, might well decline to resolve these questions based on the "political question" doctrine, which suggests that some questions are not susceptible for judicial review. But he still wanted answers, referring to the oath he had taken to uphold the Constitution.

First, the Senators asked, how can one square the filibuster device and practice with the Constitution itself?

As Professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Catherine Fisk have noted in an elegant law review article, in seven instances, the Constitution requires the use of supermajority rules by one or both houses of Congress. But the filibuster rule is not among them.

For instance, the Constitution requires a 2/3 supermajority of each House to override a Presidential veto of legislation. In addition, it requires a 2/3 majority of the Senate to convict and remove an officer of the United States who has been impeached by the House (as many will remember from President Bill Clinton's impeachment).

In short, some suggest, ordinary majority rule is the Constitution's baseline, and the Constitution is careful and explicit in detailing the situations in which supermajorities are required. Thus, the Constitution's drafters plainly knew how to impose a supermajority rule when they wanted to. They didn't, however, impose the supermajority requirement for ending debate in the Senate.

Therein lies the primary argument against the constitutionality of the filibuster: In failing to expressly include the Senate cloture rule, the Constitution implicitly excludes it. (The Latin term for this interpretive rule is expressio unius est exclusio alterius.) The Constitution, on this reading, gives an exhaustive, exclusive list of all supermajority rules that can be applied in the House or Senate.

The Argument for the Filibuster's Constitutionality

Unfortunately for filibuster opponents, things are not that simple. Another hallowed interpretive principle suggests that a list - such as the Constitution's list of supermajority vote situations - can be illustrative, not exhaustive. It can suggest the kind of circumstances in which a supermajority rule might be appropriate, without providing an exhaustive list of all such rules that can ever be imposed.

Moreover, the Constitution, in Article I, section 5, anticipates that the House and Senate will make rules beyond those set forth in the Constitution, and specifically gives them authority to do so: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings." And, aren't the filibuster rule and companion cloture vote rule just these types of procedural rules? Remember, when a filibuster is ongoing, the cloture rule technically requires a supermajority to end debate - a procedural occurrence - not a supermajority to enact the legislation or approve the nomination in question.

Finally, most constitutional analysts are understandably reluctant to disturb practices that have a long historical pedigree - which the filibuster certainly does. In light of this reality, the constitutional case against the filibuster becomes even weaker.

Text
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
What? Conservatives are whining and bitching about 4 judges not getting an up-down vote? Awwwww, poor activist conservative judges who want to preach their morality from the bench. :( Cry me a river...

I don't feel a damn bit sorry for 'em. Nominate some sensible "fair and balanced" judges to the circuit court and see the difference. For repubs to play the "race card" when there's absolutely no basis for it is beyond weak. It's lame. It's King Kamehameha lame.
You know that is BS. These are not activist judges...they are just *gasp* conservative. These judges passed commitee review and now are supposed to be voted on. Calling them "dangerous" or calling them Neanderthal's doesn't change the fact that they are VERY qualified judges and would do their job well. I'm not sure you can sit there and talk about the Republican whining when infact it's the Democrats who are whining about "activist judges" and calling them names.

Take a look at the memo situation in regards to these nominees. It'll tell you who is behind these obstructions. Feel free ignore the Estrada stuff though because we all know that Democrats can't use racial reasons and be racist...even if they use the word "dangerous".

CkG
Alright so you agree that it's not about race rather about them being too conservative.

It is exactly because they're too conservatives which makes them unfit. They're not suppose to be liberal or conservative idealogues rather constitutionalists.

The democrats view these judges as dangerous idealogues, and frankly they're quite right in their view, that's why they only blocked these only these four and approved the rest.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
DealMonkey,

You're so very right, Grumpster, we've done this to death. Heh, can I call you that too? :) Pleeeeease? ;)
Sure... if I can call you 'Dealer' :D
They call me that cuz since they were iddy biddy I'd lower my voice a few octaves when I wanted them to comply with my direction. Which they only would smile at.. they still do.. but, now they add... 'you can't fool us by trying to be grumpy .. grumpster' :D Thank God they are great kids...

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Zebo,
"The question of whether requiring 60 votes to invoke cloture was constitutional was debated extensively. Lloyd Cutler, former Counsel to President Carter, testified that the requirement for a supermajority is unconstitutional and that the Senate needs to correct this. ``I also submit that the Senate, which is in part a judicial body, has a judicial duty to consider and decide this question. And if a majority of the Senate were to agree that the supermajority requirements are unconstitutional, that same majority can, in my view, and should, amend the rule so that a majority vote would be sufficient to cut off debate.''9 Whether ``filibusters or the supermajority requirements of the rule are desirable or undesirable is beside the point,'' he continued.10

Mr. Cutler offered several arguments in support of his assertion, including the absence in the Constitution of ending debate among the cases where a supermajority is needed to take action. Also, he cited the quorum clause of the Constitution which states that a majority shall constitute a quorum to do business. ``For the Senate to adopt a rule, as it has, requiring the affirmative vote of 60 Senators to pass such a motion clearly violates the quorum clause of the Constitution...It means a supermajority of at least 61 Senators...must be present as the quorum to do the business of voting on the cloture motion and that 60 of them must be present to vote for cloture. That is a plain violation of the quorum provision of the Constitution itself.''11 Some Members countered that because the Constitution allows each House to determine the rules of its proceedings, the Senate may adopt a rule requiring a supermajority to invoke cloture.

Former Vice President Walter Mondale, the last witness to appear before the Joint Committee, spoke against major changes in the cloture rule but also warned that indiscriminate use of dilatory tactics might force changes in long-standing Senate traditions. ``I continue to support the current rules governing filibusters. I helped lead the fight to bring about the current 60-vote threshold. The reason I still stick with the need, though, is that I went through a time when I think American liberty was under threat. I went through a time here when wars were being started without the knowledge of the Senate. I went through a time here when money was being spent or impounded illegally . . . A lot of us found the ability to ventilate an issue, to get it out, to debate it, to stall everything, to be essential. There was no other place to go, really . . . No other institution in our system can perform this task. On the other hand, the increasing use of the filibuster on what appear to be normal, even routine, legislative issues may be weakening public support for this instrument...If Members continue to use the filibuster to fight over issues that are most appropriately resolved through simple majority vote, the body may soon find itself under pressure to get rid of this important protection, and I believe that would be a tragedy.''



Ya gotta go down to the Senate and within that to debate and cloture for this quote.

edit: I mean 'filibuster and cloture'
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
What? Conservatives are whining and bitching about 4 judges not getting an up-down vote? Awwwww, poor activist conservative judges who want to preach their morality from the bench. :( Cry me a river...

I don't feel a damn bit sorry for 'em. Nominate some sensible "fair and balanced" judges to the circuit court and see the difference. For repubs to play the "race card" when there's absolutely no basis for it is beyond weak. It's lame. It's King Kamehameha lame.
You know that is BS. These are not activist judges...they are just *gasp* conservative. These judges passed commitee review and now are supposed to be voted on. Calling them "dangerous" or calling them Neanderthal's doesn't change the fact that they are VERY qualified judges and would do their job well. I'm not sure you can sit there and talk about the Republican whining when infact it's the Democrats who are whining about "activist judges" and calling them names.

Take a look at the memo situation in regards to these nominees. It'll tell you who is behind these obstructions. Feel free ignore the Estrada stuff though because we all know that Democrats can't use racial reasons and be racist...even if they use the word "dangerous".

CkG
Alright so you agree that it's not about race rather about them being too conservative.

It is exactly because they're too conservatives which makes them unfit. They're not suppose to be liberal or conservative idealogues rather constitutionalists.

The democrats view these judges as dangerous idealogues, and frankly they're quite right in their view, that's why they only blocked these only these four and approved the rest.
I didn't say it WASN'T about race, but it may have played a part. Just because their main complaint was about someone being a "Conservative" doesn't mean that they didn't also use race.

Case in point - from "the memo" to Senator Durbin:
"They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."
Wow! Now the "they" is a group of various Civil Rights leaders and Sen. Ted Kennedy who had a meeting Nov.6, 2001 -the day before this memo was sent. Now if what was said in that memo was said by a Repubican(or came from a Republican meeting) - there would be outcry like never seen before...double standard? I think so...;)

Psstt- it's up to atleast 5 now;) I'm sure you can explain why these judges are "extreme" enough to be "dangerous" though...or did you parrot that because you read it? Do you even know anything about these judge's records?

Oh, and one little other bit of info for you people to digest - judges in first 2 years

CkG
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Breyer and Ginsburg are the only Justices nominated and appointed by the Democratic Executive.. I think Stevens was in '75 by Ford. But, if you look at the makeup of the decisions rendered today you'd think four and maybe O'Connor were appointed by the left. What one does when they reach the Supreme Court is a lot different than what they seem to be on the Circuit or District Court. It amazes me at times when I read an old case of one and then a recent opinion either in dissent or concurrence.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,677
136
Face it, guys, the Republican leadership wants these 4 so badly precisely because they are reactionary ideologues. Very simple. And that's why the Dems are very much in opposition. What happened to the much vaunted bipartisanship proposed by Bush shortly after his election? Oh, yeh, they're now using the Grover Norquist definition, "Date Rape"....

Republican charges of obstructionism are groundless, considering the 168 nominees sent thru so far, and also considering their own conduct during the Clinton years. Reasonable folks would recognize at least some legitimacy in the opposition, alter their nominee selections to conform to the reality of the situation.

Nope. Gotta whine instead. It's most disingenuous for the party who's played on hidden race insecurities to control the South for forty years to point fingers at the opposition. Republicans have been the beneficiaries of lingering southern racism, and have played it masterfully.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Face it, guys, the Republican leadership wants these 4 so badly precisely because they are reactionary ideologues. Very simple. And that's why the Dems are very much in opposition. What happened to the much vaunted bipartisanship proposed by Bush shortly after his election? Oh, yeh, they're now using the Grover Norquist definition, "Date Rape"....

Republican charges of obstructionism are groundless, considering the 168 nominees sent thru so far, and also considering their own conduct during the Clinton years. Reasonable folks would recognize at least some legitimacy in the opposition, alter their nominee selections to conform to the reality of the situation.

Nope. Gotta whine instead. It's most disingenuous for the party who's played on hidden race insecurities to control the South for forty years to point fingers at the opposition. Republicans have been the beneficiaries of lingering southern racism, and have played it masterfully.
Wow - you didn't read my post(2 before yours)..did you click that link? Do you understand that there have been memos leaked that show that the Democrats were/are infact playing obstructinist games with the nominees? ...better wait until the court decides X before we allow Y to be brought up for a vote... Yeah - Obstructionist? Nahhh - not the Democrats...


Date rape eh? Do you happen to know how 'Ol swimmer(Ted Kennedy) has been acting since Bush extended his hand? Yeah...date rape alright.

And we've been over the differences between then and now...but again, even if Republicans were guilty back then - (here comes the Liberal motto on this board:D) do two wrongs make a right? ...didn't think so;)

CkG
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
You're right Cad, two wrongs certainly don't make a right. There's a lot of underhanded politics going on right now: Redistricting in TX and CO to ensure Republican hegemony; An obscure election law in CA used to replace a democratic gov with a republican gov; Senate Democrats threatening the filibuster. It's a hostile country out there right now. I think the dems know they're getting slammed all over the place and the filibuster is their only 'weapon' in the Senate. Don't you think they're going to use it?

Those memos are pretty damning though. For the life of me I can't figure out why the dems would care that Estrada was latino. Why would that make an ounce of difference? Offhand, that seems very racist to say the least...
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Those memos are pretty damning though. For the life of me I can't figure out why the dems would care that Estrada was latino. Why would that make an ounce of difference? Offhand, that seems very racist to say the least...
Have you read them? The actual memos? They are out there if you look.

What I'd really like to know who was writing them and who the "xxx and I" was/is. The little chart of "Good - Bad -Ugly" was funny though:p

CkG
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Those memos are pretty damning though. For the life of me I can't figure out why the dems would care that Estrada was latino. Why would that make an ounce of difference? Offhand, that seems very racist to say the least...
Have you read them? The actual memos? They are out there if you look.

What I'd really like to know who was writing them and who the "xxx and I" was/is. The little chart of "Good - Bad -Ugly" was funny though:p

CkG
Well I can't find them in their entirety. I did find the WSJ Opinion piece here. I'm interested in how they were obtained - I recall reading something about a computer break-in. The drama's getting pretty thick already. :)
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Those memos are pretty damning though. For the life of me I can't figure out why the dems would care that Estrada was latino. Why would that make an ounce of difference? Offhand, that seems very racist to say the least...
Have you read them? The actual memos? They are out there if you look.

What I'd really like to know who was writing them and who the "xxx and I" was/is. The little chart of "Good - Bad -Ugly" was funny though:p

CkG
Well I can't find them in their entirety. I did find the WSJ Opinion piece here. I'm interested in how they were obtained - I recall reading something about a computer break-in. The drama's getting pretty thick already. :)
Yeah, how they were obtained is becoming the complaint of the day, but that is hardly the biggest issue with them at this point. The plot behind this obstruction is quite interesting though:)

Hehe - your WSJ link:
"Their real bosses are the liberal interest groups that more or less tell the Senators when to sit, speak and roll over--and which Bush judges to confirm or not."
I'm suprised you didn't comment on that DM :p

CkG
 

PainTrain

Member
Jun 22, 2003
170
2
0
My take on my Estrada being latino would be significant is because, if you recall, Bush ran for office as being sensitive to the Latino's. I remember in El Paso TX he stopped by once or twice to get out the hispanic vote, and he did. He speaks horrible spanish, but they appreciated the fact that he at least tried. He promised all sorts of involvement with Vincinte Fox, they ate that up to. Needless to say this hurt the Dem since Latino's typically lean overwhelmingly to the left. Didn't happen then and they don't want it to happen next time around. Reps get a latino judge, that makes great PR as they appear sensitive to the Latino's. I'd like to think they'd remeber all the empty promises from the first campaign, but who knows. Evidently the Dems are worried.

As far as it being a "racialy motiviated" issue, I find that comlpetely rediculous and just another shining example of the well crafted Republican spin machine.
 

Skyclad1uhm1

Lifer
Aug 10, 2001
11,383
87
91
Why are US democrats such wussies? Just kill the damn judges and be done with it! Cleans up the problems nicely.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY