1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Some thoughts on the present day SCOTUS confirmation process

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by KenH, May 29, 2009.

  1. KenH

    KenH Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Ratings:
    +0
    I am old enough to remember when people had respect for the results of elections. The president nominated a Supreme Court justice when the time arose and, unless the nominee was found ethically deficient, the confirmation was pretty much rancor free and the the nominee was confirmed quite easily.

    Nowadays these nominations to the SCOTUS are treated like they are brand new elections. I think our country's political institutions operated better in the former days before the rise of the multitude of interest groups on both sides looking to fill their coffers through the use of dire predictions and hyperbolic language and the rise of talk radio and the news channels on both sides looking to fill air time and their coffers with advertising revenue based on bringing in viewers to watch the political side show.

    Yes, I know I am old fashioned but since I love bluegrass and old-timey country music that is to be expected. :)
     
  2. targus

    targus New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Ratings:
    +0
    I think that it started when the Democrats invented "Borking".
     
  3. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Ratings:
    +1
    Ken must have never heard about Robert Bork or Anita Hill. Hello.

    Yeh, me too, like La Raza and NOW. They will have their woman on the bench.
     
    #3 LadyEagle, May 29, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 29, 2009
  4. KenH

    KenH Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Ratings:
    +0
    I referred to long before the late 1980s. I'm talking 45 years ago and it was even more civil before that. Read this:


    "President Warren G. Harding nominated former Utah Senator George Sutherland to the Supreme Court on September 5th, 1922. That same day the Judiciary Committee Chairman went straight to the Senate floor, and after a few remarks, made a motion to confirm the nomination. The Senate promptly and unanimously agreed."

    - www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-198546986.html

    The first time that a SCOTUS nominee appeared before the committee was 1925 with Harlan Fiske Stone. The current modern practice of hearings started in 1955 with John Marshall Harlan II.
     
  5. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    39,131
    Ratings:
    +2,360
    Faith:
    Baptist

    Liberal Translation:


    Since Obama is the President I want I would like to see him given the respect I refused to give Bush. I want him respected at all times and all criticism should stop. His nominees should pass without opposition because that is what I want.
     
  6. KenH

    KenH Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Ratings:
    +0
    Pastor Mitchell, you couldn't be more wrong. You need to get the facts before posting. For your information I emailed President Bush and congratulated him on his nominations of both Roberts and Alito.
     
  7. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    39,131
    Ratings:
    +2,360
    Faith:
    Baptist

    And? You supported them most likely regardless of who nominated them. The op is not just about who gets nominated but about respecting the President. Of course libbies who cried out it was American and responsible to criticize the President is not talking differently out of the other side of their face.
     
  8. KenH

    KenH Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Ratings:
    +0
    That's right. I am old school. I believe that elections matter whether the candidate I vote for wins or not, and that unless there is an ethical problem that a president should get the people confirmed that he nominates.
     
  9. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    39,131
    Ratings:
    +2,360
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Well guess what? There is an ethical problem with the current nominee. She is a racist. Add to that she thinks she should be setting policy form the bench. She is unqualified.
     
  10. targus

    targus New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Ratings:
    +0
    Ken, you may be old school but your math sure isn't.

    You begin by saying you remember when and later refer to 1922 and 1955.

    I know that you were not around to remember 1922 and even if you were born before 1955 I doubt you could even walk or talk yet.

    As for respecting election results - what was your attitude when Bush beat Gore? Did you think that he stole the election?

    How about the next time around when Bush won again? No complaints then either?
     
  11. KenH

    KenH Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Ratings:
    +0
    1) Stop and think for a minute, targus. Obviously, that is referring from the 1960s up until the Bork and Thomas confirmation hearings. :)

    2) I was rooting for George W. Bush to win - since I voted him. No, I do not think he stole the election.

    3) No complaints from me - I voted for George W. Bush.
     
    #11 KenH, May 29, 2009
    Last edited: May 29, 2009
  12. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Ratings:
    +1
    What about La Raza and NOW - is that okay with you, too, since your guy nominated her?
     
  13. KenH

    KenH Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Ratings:
    +0
    If you are asking if she should not be confirmed if she is associated with those organizations my answer would be no, that should not affect her confirmation - regardless if it was Ronald Reagan who nominated her.
     
  14. targus

    targus New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Ratings:
    +0
    Are there any affiliations that you would think would disqualify someone from the court?
     
  15. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Ratings:
    +0
    Hmmm...let's see...these may not be legal grounds, but should be weeded out during confirmation.

    Weather Underground
    KKK
    John Birch Society
    Symbionese Liberation Army
    Any Neo-Nazi group
    Black Panther Party
    NAMBLA
    Communist Party
    Baptist Board ( :laugh: - Just Kidding)
     
  16. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Ratings:
    +1
    Figures. Since Obama supports La Raza and she does and you support him, it was easy to conclude what you would say.
     
  17. KenH

    KenH Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Ratings:
    +0
    I would think being a member in good standing with the KKK or with NAMBLA would be a disqualification. I can't imagine nowadays a president nominating such a person.
     
  18. KenH

    KenH Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Ratings:
    +0
    Let's look at these items:

    Alberto Gonzales address to La Raza: www.nclr.org/files/30150_file_Remarks_of_Attorney_General_Alberto_Gonzales_National_Coun_.pdf

    John McCain addresses La Raza: www.nclr.org/content/news/detail/52276/

    George W. Bush addresses La Raza: www.nclr.org/content/news/detail/2178

    Karl Rove addresses La Raza: www.nclr.org/content/news/detail/40591/

    So, let's add this up - a Republican attorney general, a Republican presidential candidate, a Republican president(who won twice with the backing of conservatives), and a Republican president's chief advisor all addressed La Raza.

    Therefore, there is no way that the Republican senators can use an association with La Raza to knock down the nomination of Ms. Sotomayor. Their own party at the top is associated with La Raza.
     
  19. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Ratings:
    +0
    Doggone it, Ken. There you go again, confusing matters with the facts.
     
  20. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    39,131
    Ratings:
    +2,360
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Poor Ken,,,,libbies cannot make legitimate comparisons.
     
Loading...