JoshK Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Scalia certainly WAS an anomaly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 liberals are obstructionists? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Just as I thought...another Kennedy loving liberal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted September 29, 2005 Author Share Posted September 29, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted September 29, 2005 Author Share Posted September 29, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 It seems the checks in balances were designed to be active, and not just rubber stamps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Sure, but that hasn't been the norm. They didn't invent the term "Borked" for nothing. Fortased just doesn't work as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Prior usage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal_Con Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Star Chamber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted September 29, 2005 Author Share Posted September 29, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 in a battle of cliches, you are the clear winner, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 You're one to talk, Mr. McLimbaugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Oh my MalCon you must be thinking of the 1930's! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 (edited) You're one to talk, Mr. McLimbaugh. lick sack Edited September 29, 2005 by KaskadskyjKozak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.