The Truth about the Dems and their SC nominees

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: zendari
Try reading the article Darkhawk.

Senators have never before employed a filibuster against a Supreme Court nomination

Zindari, first of all cudos for expanding your OP to include more of your own commentary.

Seondly, maybe the democrats aren't quite the crazy liberals that has been stated by some of the more vocal conservatives, if they are rational enough to advise against a "lunatic fringe leftist". Lets hope the conservatives will be equally as wise.

Thirdly, we both know the conservatives were quite happy exercise thier power to advice and consent when thye didn;t control the white house. Don't be so partisan.

It would be nice if the Dems "advising and consenting" didn't start off with threats the way Ted Kennedy did, and were instead more cooperative like Orrin Hatch.

It would be nice if the Dems "advising and consenting" was actually worried about (in conjurs own words) the capabilities of a nominee and not their ideological leanings, but people like Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York don't feel the same way about it. The Republicans in 1994 didn't see the need for such intensive interrogation.

If would be nice if the Dems "advising and consenting" includes holding them to their agreement made a few weeks ago, but Sen. Joe Biden seems to want to bring out the filibuster on the same people whom were in the original agreement! :laugh: Comical.

But alas, as you and I and everyone knows, this isn't the Democratic Party of 1994. How the mighty have fallen.

lol, I don't know why I try to hold non partisan discussions anymore. Yes, you have pointed out several examples of behavior that I do not agree with from the deomcratic party, but you are diluding yourself if you think the Repulbicans behave any differently. So lets not degreade to partisan bickering.

The question your OP proposed was did the Democrats consider the more conservative republican ideals when selecting SC nominees and the answer would appear to be yes based on the fact that they deliberately removed more liberal nominees from the list ( I believe you used the term "lunatic fringe") to appease thier conserns. Given that they had the majority at the time, that seems pretty moderate of the democrats. I'll certainly grant you that both parties are acting FAR more partisan these days. But, it would appear to me that the only way for that to dissipate is for the majority party to demonstrate that they can compromise and nominate a more moderate candidate. They probably wont, and to be honest I kind of hope they dont. They are the majority party and as such can pass pretty much whatever they want. So, let them appoint whomever they want and let the voters decide what they think of it.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: zendari
Text

Justice Owen was first elected to the Texas Supreme Court in 1994after 17 years as a commercial litigator at Andrews & Kurth, LLP. Owen earned her undergraduate and law
degrees at Baylor University and has been rated ?well qualified? by the
American Bar Association.

Her rulings on abortion, however, are the primary reason for the vigorous opposition to her nomination by pro-choice advocates.


Yup, leave it to the Dems to ignore the capabiliites of a nominee and focus on their ideological leanings.

She had the LOWEST approval rating of any judge on the TX Supreme Court. She was pro-business beyond a fault. She was anti-individual beyond a fault. She's not a good judge. She's a good corporate toady. Never met an insurance company she didn't side with.

 

[zendari]

Her peers certainly thought she was a good judge. But I suppose one now becomes a bad judge because conjur doesn't like his/her rulings.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: zendari
Try reading the article Darkhawk.

Senators have never before employed a filibuster against a Supreme Court nomination

Zindari, first of all cudos for expanding your OP to include more of your own commentary.

Seondly, maybe the democrats aren't quite the crazy liberals that has been stated by some of the more vocal conservatives, if they are rational enough to advise against a "lunatic fringe leftist". Lets hope the conservatives will be equally as wise.

Thirdly, we both know the conservatives were quite happy exercise thier power to advice and consent when thye didn;t control the white house. Don't be so partisan.

It would be nice if the Dems "advising and consenting" didn't start off with threats the way Ted Kennedy did, and were instead more cooperative like Orrin Hatch.

It would be nice if the Dems "advising and consenting" was actually worried about (in conjurs own words) the capabilities of a nominee and not their ideological leanings, but people like Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York don't feel the same way about it. The Republicans in 1994 didn't see the need for such intensive interrogation.

If would be nice if the Dems "advising and consenting" includes holding them to their agreement made a few weeks ago, but Sen. Joe Biden seems to want to bring out the filibuster on the same people whom were in the original agreement! :laugh: Comical.

But alas, as you and I and everyone knows, this isn't the Democratic Party of 1994. How the mighty have fallen.

lol, I don't know why I try to hold non partisan discussions anymore. Yes, you have pointed out several examples of behavior that I do not agree with from the deomcratic party, but you are diluding yourself if you think the Repulbicans behave any differently. So lets not degreade to partisan bickering.

The question your OP proposed was did the Democrats consider the more conservative republican ideals when selecting SC nominees and the answer would appear to be yes based on the fact that they deliberately removed more liberal nominees from the list ( I believe you used the term "lunatic fringe") to appease thier conserns. Given that they had the majority at the time, that seems pretty moderate of the democrats. I'll certainly grant you that both parties are acting FAR more partisan these days. But, it would appear to me that the only way for that to dissipate is for the majority party to demonstrate that they can compromise and nominate a more moderate candidate. They probably wont, and to be honest I kind of hope they dont. They are the majority party and as such can pass pretty much whatever they want. So, let them appoint whomever they want and let the voters decide what they think of it.

They did compromise, hence that 14 senator resolution deal. But the left wants to back out of it.