enter the fray: our reader discussion forum
Search in:
Advanced
View:FlatThreaded
OK to block Bush's nominees
by chancerockwell
-1 Reply
But now . . . Oh My God! We can't have democrats getting the same treatment! For democrats to win the playing field MUST be tilted to their advantage
Re: OK to block Bush's nominees
by iwiwiwa
Are you bad at math, comprehension, or just being intentionally dishonest or dense? "...Republicans say that Democrats have abused the filibuster by blocking 10 of the president's 229 judicial nominees in his first term -- although confirmation of Bush nominees exceeds in most cases the first-term experience of presidents dating to Ronald Reagan." <link>
Re: OK to block Bush's nominees
by Liberal Patriot
chancerockwell:
But now . . . Oh My God! We can't have democrats getting the same treatment! For democrats to win the playing field MUST be tilted to their advantage
Jumped into the muddy waters of the Fray only to find that iwiwiwiwa led you into quicksand.
Re: OK to block Bush's nominees
by Greatbear452

You realize that it's exactly this "they did it too" attitude that has led to our current state of affairs. The republicans block Clinton appointees.Then the democrats block some more Bush appointees. And now we've reached the state where two republican senators from Georgia can support a nominee for the bench in their state, the nominee can sail through the committee unanimously, and the republicans are still blocking him just because they can. Putting a controversial nominee under scrutiny may be one thing, but blocking nominees who have bipartisan support "just 'cause" is ridiculous.

Enough is enough. What happened to "every one of the president's nominees deserves an up or down vote"? The use of federal judges to play partisan games has reached the saturation point. Only 4th graders should care who started this mess. It's time to put a stop to it.

Re: OK to block Bush's nominees
by lloyd667

chancerockwell,

I agree.

If only the Democrats had shown the same backbone as the Republicans, we would not now be enjoying the musings of Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts. I for one regret that Democrats did not play the game with the same dedication as Republicans are doing.

Google "Borking"...
by gringo_911
Come back after you find out what this term means.
And this has what to do with
by degsme

gringo_911:
Come back after you find out what this term means.
And this has what to do with the average judges?

Bork was a bad choice. Under his reading of the Constitution, women and children would once again be chattel.

Now I realize this is soething you agree with, but its not something the American Public has ever agreed with.

Note also that Bork was some 25 years ago - and since then numerous compromises have been agreed to by Dems. but in essence what you are saying is that Dems SHOULD deploy the "nuclear option". because the GOP will NEVER be reasonable, rational nor equitable.

Re: Google "Borking"...
by Greatbear452

Obviously, you missed the part where I said it's childish to keep whining about who started it. Both sides have done egregious things to this process and it's time for both to put a stop to it.

But if your partisan mind can only think of terms of payback, well then, you'll just continue to be part of the problem.

Not really...
by gringo_911

But if your partisan mind can only think of terms of payback, well then, you'll just continue to be part of the problem.

If payback is a b-tch, then people think twice about attacking you...

Re: And this has what to do with
by gringo_911

Bork was a bad choice. Under his reading of the Constitution, women and children would once again be chattel.

Obama's judges want to build socialism...

And where is
by degsme
gringo_911:

Bork was a bad choice. Under his reading of the Constitution, women and children would once again be chattel.

Obama's judges want to build socialism...

And where is socialism precluded in the US Constitution?

First off Bork was 'payed back' already
by degsme

First off Bork was 'payed back' already during Clinton's term.

Secondly, Since the Dems DID negotiate to make the process work under GWB - all you are doing is advocating that the GOP cannot be trusted to act equitably when tables are turned. So the Nuclear Option SHOULD be deployed since you are likely to deploy it ANYWAY the next time you are in power. OK.

Re: Not really...
by Greatbear452
gringo_911:

But if your partisan mind can only think of terms of payback, well then, you'll just continue to be part of the problem.

If payback is a b-tch, then people think twice about attacking you...

No, it just means that they will then attack you twice as hard next time and things will continue to escalate.

But like I said, you're determined to be part of the problem.

View as RSS news feed in XML