|
|
COMMENTS:
Sorry for the length of the ballot-it was hard to tell when I put it in :-/
Yep ... I'd have to agree with you, ceejjj: A polar opposite shift of opinion, based on whether they are in the majority or minority. Seems blatantly hyopocritical.
And going further, it is also blatant hypocrasy for those on the other side who are now mouthing the same (false) statements with which they previously violently disagreed.
I find this to be an excellent example of blatant hypocrasy ... for both parties.
It is all politics. Just like it is now with the republicans. Dems then complained about republicans blocking nominations then and now the shoe is on the other foot. I will point out that Bush's approval rate is basically identical to Clinton's. And, as I have pointed out before, the fillibuster helps make sure that moderate judges are appointed and not activist judges (conservative or liberal). That by itself is justification enough for leaving the fillibuster as an option.
If you want to shine light on hypocrasy, I applaud you ceejjj.
If, however, you only seek hypocrasy on one side ... be careful: The other party's house, especially after 5 years in the majority, is far worse.
I only bring up the hypocrisy now because the democrats are putting up such a fuss in the media, as I'm sure it was brought up on the other side when democratic nominees were up. Of course it is on both sides.
Fiddlefaddle, I pointed out on a previous ballot that Clinton's judicial approval was 85% plus and GWB's is 53%. Not exactly close. Plus one other note. The use of a fillibuster to block a yes or no vote of a judicial nominee has never been used. There was once instance with Abe Fortas, however, he was already a justice and it wasn't the same situation.
I don't think the democrats are being genuine when they talk of not wanting activist judges-they just don't want conservative activists-liberal activists would be fine.
Sounds hypocritical to me. Granted the republicans are doing the same thing. I think politics would be a lot better if politicians were kept out of it.
So, ceejjj, what's your point? @:>)
It is simply politics. Take your medicine. Both sides are playing the game.
Although there is absolutely no validity that the use of the filibuster is legitimate in reference to judicial nominations.
The use of the filibuster is tyranny of the minority.
I will go to my grave thinking that it's wrong to change the rules in the middle of the game. That's what's known as a coup.
If I were to support this sort of contempt for the law by a few dozen people who have more power than they are capable of being responsible for, then I would also have to support relieving them of that power. It's the American way.
And do I need to point out the irony of how similar this ballot description is to a filibuster?
Republicans do this to ceejj. It's called politics as usual.
Your statistics are wrong, ceejj. You have to count the number of nominees that were blocked by not even allowing them out of the judiciary committee. The approval rate is virtually identical when you do that.
So go through some new math to get the results you want. When a party has the majority they have the opportunity to let what they want in and out of the committees.
Changing rules in the middle of the game sound like what the Repubs were saying about the electoral college which we don't hear too much about anymore. Maybe that is because the Dems know that the Electoral College might well benefit them?
The President, and more importantly the Republicans won, they have the right to put on the courts who they want. Or should they roll over again and put in a Souter-lib again. It is not going to happen. Everytime the Repubs have backed down they have been screwed by the left. Why would they expect anything else at this late date?
The Dems have jsut declare that Owens, Pryor, and Brown are "radicals" and say no. Well isn't Ginsburg a "radical" she was the leader of the ACLU and to me that is a radical of the type I don't want on the bench. Should those types of people be held up? The Republicans to their shame didn't block Ginsburg.
And there is a big difference between the "pocket filibuster" and using the filibuster is not legitimate in this case. It is not one of the uses of the filibuster specified in the Constitution. But, hell why should the law get in the way of what the Democrats want.
So if you had to summarize the main point it is that you're making, int, what would it be?
okay got your point.
Yes it is hypocrisy.
No I don't like it.
Yes I would probably excuse it if the shoe was on the other foot.
ceeej:
I assume this means you're in favor of preserving the filibuster, then?
I don't know how I feel about it, why do you ask?
|
|
