Previous Supreme Court Confirmation Votes

[JoshK]

Anybody notice the pattern? With the exception of Scalia, all of the conservative judges have had significant resistance. All of the progressive judges have passed by overwhelming majorities, as has Sandra, who I would rank as a moderate.

 

Stephen Breyer

Confirmed 87-9 on 7/29/94

 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Confirmed 96-3 on 8/3/93

 

Clarence Thomas

Confirmed 52-48 on 10/15/91

 

David H. Souter

Confirmed 90-9 on 10/2/90

 

Anthony M. Kennedy

Confirmed 97-0 on 2/3/88

 

Douglas Ginsburg

Withdrew before confirmation hearings

 

Robert H. Bork

Rejected 42-58 on 10/23/87

 

Antonin Scalia

Confirmed 98-0 on 9/17/86

 

William H. Rehnquist (for Chief Justice)

Confirmed 65-33 on 9/17/86

 

Sandra Day O'Connor

Confirmed 99-0 on 9/21/81

 

John Paul Stevens

Confirmed 98-0 on 12/17/75

 

William H. Rehnquist (for Associate Justice)

Confirmed 68-26 on 12/10/71

[catbirdseat]

Scalia certainly WAS an anomaly.

[underworld]

liberals are obstructionists?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Anybody notice the pattern? With the exception of Scalia, all of the conservative judges have had significant resistance. All of the progressive judges have passed by overwhelming majorities

 

Republicans believe in democracy and follow the constitution as constructionists, and are more fair-minded. They realize that when the president is a Democrat, he has the right to nominate his choice for supreme court justices. Democrats are like whiny little children who kick, scream, and cry foul when they don't get their way.

[olyclimber]

Anybody notice the pattern? With the exception of Scalia, all of the conservative judges have had significant resistance. All of the progressive judges have passed by overwhelming majorities

 

Republicans believe in democracy and follow the constitution as constructionists, and are more fair-minded. They realize that when the president is a Democrat, he has the right to nominate his choice for supreme court justices. Democrats are like whiny little children who kick, scream, and cry foul when they don't get their way.

 

nice troll. now what do you really think? we all know you're in love with JFK, just admit it.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

we all know you're in love with JFK, just admit it.

 

JFK was the last Democrat president that I respect.

 

I can even overlook his dalliances, for unlike Bubba, at least he had affairs with attractive women.

[olyclimber]

Just as I thought...another Kennedy loving liberal.

[JoshK]

I knew a righty would have something stupid to say.

 

Last time I checked senators are supposed to represent their state's interest not bow to the president's whim. You might want to retake a basic American political systems course.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I knew a righty would have something stupid to say.

 

Last time I checked senators are supposed to represent their state's interest not bow to the president's whim. You might want to retake a basic American political systems course.

 

the precedent is to confirm the President's nominees unless they are grossly unqualified.

 

BTW - eat s**t.

Edited September 29, 2005 by KaskadskyjKozak

[JoshK]

I knew a righty would have something stupid to say.

 

Last time I checked senators are supposed to represent their state's interest not bow to the president's whim. You might want to retake a basic American political systems course.

 

the precedent is to confirm the President's nominees unless they are grossly unqualified.

 

BTW - eat s**t.

 

If you want to talk precedent, it was also precedent to not threaten rule changes to block fillibusters.

 

Irregardless, a senator's "boss" is his state's citizens, not the president.

 

In any event, I was never really against this Roberts character. I think he is certainly unqualified to be Chief Justice as I tend to think Chiefs should be nominated from existing Justices, or at least somebody with a history at the federal court level. He has nither. But aside from that, i'll take him as a presumed improvement to Renquist.

[selkirk]

It seems the checks in balances were designed to be active, and not just rubber stamps.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

It seems the checks in balances were designed to be active, and not just rubber stamps.

 

These days its all about obstructionism - far beyond a check and balance. The last two administrations have been blocked in their court nominees in ways that are utterly ridiculous. The president has a right to nominees justices and have them checked and voted on in a timely manner.

[selkirk]

The president has a right to nominees justices and have them checked and voted on in a timely manner.

 

I can agree with that. But it doesn't mean they have to be confirmed.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The president has a right to nominees justices and have them checked and voted on in a timely manner.

 

I can agree with that. But it doesn't mean they have to be confirmed.

 

Sure, but that hasn't been the norm. They didn't invent the term "Borked" for nothing.

[cj001f]

Sure, but that hasn't been the norm. They didn't invent the term "Borked" for nothing.

Fortased just doesn't work as well.

[olyclimber]

Prior usage

 

[Mal_Con]

There was a time when Supreme Court Justices were selected for their knowledge, experience and temperment. If that were the situation now I would not have a problem with going along with the presidents choices. Now, however, the emphasis seems to be on installing as young a Justice as possible with the presidents idelogical bent in order to influence future decisions. This is a legitmate exercise of presidential power but it does not follow that those with different ideoligies should defer. When a justice is selected for their biases and positions on cases sure to be determined by the Court it should be permissable to object on those same grounds by filibuster or similar means. There are thousands of attorneys and judges who make decisions based on law without an idelogical agenda and each of these would recive wide support in the Senate. When decisions are made on the basis of ideolgy the result will be division lawbreaking.

[Stonehead]

Star Chamber

[JoshK]

Mal_Con, very well put.

 

Kasakstan or whatever your name is: again, I recommend you return to a basic level American politics class. What you call "obstructionism" is the way the founders intented the government to work. Things are supposed to change slowly and over a period of time. Our system was not designed so that sweeping radical reform can happen overnight. So you may challenge that this is far and beyond what the intended and it is now obstruction for the sake of obstruction. Well, to that I say this: you are watching the system work exactly as planned. When presidents nominate very left or right of mainstream judges we SHOULD see things take a while. The entire point is to keep the representation of our government in line with what the overall population wants, not one hard line president determined to push his crap agenda through.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Mal_Con, very well put.

 

Kasakstan or whatever your name is: again, I recommend you return to a basic level American politics class. What you call "obstructionism" is the way the founders intented the government to work. Things are supposed to change slowly and over a period of time. Our system was not designed so that sweeping radical reform can happen overnight. So you may challenge that this is far and beyond what the intended and it is now obstruction for the sake of obstruction. Well, to that I say this: you are watching the system work exactly as planned. When presidents nominate very left or right of mainstream judges we SHOULD see things take a while. The entire point is to keep the representation of our government in line with what the overall population wants, not one hard line president determined to push his crap agenda through.

 

In a battle of wits, you are an unarmed opponent. Posture elsewhere, moron.

[olyclimber]

in a battle of cliches, you are the clear winner, however.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

in a battle of cliques, you are the clear winner, however.

 

cliques? or cliches?

 

the only clique I see here is the hoard of likeminded leftist sheeple

[olyclimber]

You're one to talk, Mr. McLimbaugh.

[Peter_Puget]

Oh my MalCon you must be thinking of the 1930's!

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

You're one to talk, Mr. McLimbaugh.

 

lick sack

Edited September 29, 2005 by KaskadskyjKozak