Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Baptist in Richmond, Jun 2, 2009.
It's Only Wrong When Democrats Do It....
What? Kill a nomination by not considering the jurisprudential expertise of a judgeship candidate and go entirely by his or her politics and statements meant to please the addressed audience? If that is right for Democrats, it's also right for Republicans.
Whatever happened to all that talk about up or down votes? :laugh:
Bunch of hypocrites.
So, are you saying that the Democrats should have filibustered Alito? That is not what Manuel Miranda said back then, was it?
Again, I suppose it's only wrong when Democrats do it......
Hope all is well with you tonight,
Precisely why I left the GOP in 2001 and became a disillusioned indy......
Oh, don't I believe that?
I'm glad the Harriet Meyers pick was slammed. Seems like this racist Sotomayor should face scrutiny. I'm all for it. And FTR, I never gavethe dems a hard time for Bush's picks. The good ones passed, even with a democrat congress.
Then we should expect the Dems not to complain if the Republicans do it. Otherwise they would be hypocrits.
When is everyone gonna figure out that both parties are hypocrites??
Amen to that. Wow, the Democrat and Republican apologists are running loose tonight. Is it a full moon, or did someone unlock the zoo cages?
I agree Bro Curtis, I think she should be thoroughly vetted by congress and what ever will be will be. I wish the media would give Congress a chance but I guess this is how it works...
You got that right, both parties are hypocrites and I think it's time we tell them all to shut up and get to work legislating and stop the media acting. I don't think either party would recognize truth if it sat next to them on the bus.
I don't have a problem with a filibuster. There's nothing wrong with doing that. Didn't the Democrats attempt that with Alito?
There's nothing wrong with leaving the Republican Party. In fact, I never voted for Bush. Of course, I never supported the liberals either. I voted for the most conservative candidate running in 2000, 2004, & 2008.
My question is why are you so supportive of Sotomayor? Is it because she is a woman? Is it because she is Hispanic? Is it because she feels like she is better qualified to preside over cases better than a white man can? I'm curiuous to know.
Did any one actually read the article beyond the first paragraph?
With the way the Dems have been rushing everything through (since the light of truth would damage their agenda) the Repubs just want to slow down the process and give time for a fair vetting.
So now we see that the title to the op is in error as is the spirit of it.
You should not talk about democrats that way!:wavey::wavey::wavey:
How's it taste, Mitch?
You don't have to believe it, Alcott, but it's true nonetheless. I am actually very close to several on this board with which I have absolutely nothing in common politically. Read MP's quote from Thomas Jefferson in the signature line. It's great advice with which to live/conduct one's self.
BiR (in rainy St. Louis)
It never got that far. Remember the phrase "Constitutional Option?"
In contrast, I was a very active Republican - worked in numerous campaigns. I voted for Bush in '92, Dole in '96 and Bush in 2000, working in each campaign. I was never a conservative, but a moderate. I became more and more of a liberal as I got older.
Truth be told, I am not that excited about her. I have already said in another thread that I want someone more like Ruth Bader Ginsburg. What I find so bizarre is the manner in which the GOP is attacking her. The fact that Newt Gingrich (an all-around bad guy) doesn't like her is enough for me to support her.
As someone else already noted: what about the "up or down vote?" Remember that? That was all we heard from Sean Hannity and the rest of the acolytes. Now, all of the sudden, the same GOP (some of the very same people too) are now fired up about using the filibuster to block this. If the Democrats were smart, they would force the GOP to do the filibuster, forcing them to vote no again and again and again. Then they could work them over in the midterm elections, noting that the party that complains the loudest about government works the hardest to stall the system. Fortunately for the GOP, the Democrats aren't that smart.
Now I have a question for you: why would you ask me questions based upon her gender and ethnicity? I have not even touched upon either subject in my posts. Neither is even an issue for consideration as far as I am concerned, which is why I have not addressed them.
Thanks for a thoughtful response, enjoy reading your opinions,
BiR (in St. Louis)
Anyone who would question your meaning of that obviously doesn't know you.
Back to the topic. The GOP should not use the filibuster. There should be vigorous and comprehensive debate, intense scrutiny, and then an up or down vote. The filibuster is IMHO unConstitutional. Like that matters anymore :tear:
I have read that quote, and I know it's really untrue of Jefferson. He did let his political differences with John Adams drive a wedge between them. [Later, they mostly reconciled.]
I saw a news report this morning that Newt Gingrich was backing off of Sotomayor. He was actually saying that she is not a racist. He's not the conservative I once thought he was.
The reason I mentioned the ethnicities in my questions was because, if an average white male had made the comments she made, Democrats would be calling for him to withdraw from being confirmed. That's all I meant by it. I was under the impression you were for Sotomayor. You've made yourself clear that you're not.
Your welcome. Likewise.