quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
This is not governing kinkroids.

It's not rubberstamping. If the GOP is opposed to a candidate for good reasons...

Republicans' opposition to universal healthcare had/has nothing whatsoever to do with any good reason.

As a group, I haven't seen them do anything 'for good reason' in ... ages.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Besides, repugs "tend" to appoint constitutionalists ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Besides, repugs "tend" to appoint constitutionalists ...

Parroting that myth? Just like the media told you?

These same 'constitutionalists' who ruled that "free speech" goes to the highest bidder?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
This is not governing kinkroids.

It's not rubberstamping. If the GOP is opposed to a candidate for good reasons, why should it matter if that candidate doesn't get confirmed? And, that goes especially for judicial appointees. Those appointees are going to help shape the way the law is interpreted, so a biased, or believed to be biased appointee shouldn't be confirmed.

While all the above is true, regardless of which party runs the Senate or which party is making the appointment, I doubt Obama's appointees are all not worthy of confirmation.

Politics is getting more and more partisan. The D's and R's are moving away from each other (it's not just one party or the other). I doubt it's going to get any better any time soon.

Except the repubs are getting much more partisan then the dems were under Bush and historically and if what you say is the problem, then why no votes ? This is the second OP I've done with the other, where the senate had a voice vote on a proposed floor vote for 17 judges already vetted and voted "out' of committee, just to see the repubs table them.

I'd love to see the the dems become at least as partisan and do what they can to hold all of any right or repub judges off the table from now on...not a single vote if they have the power at all. Yes, I fear right wing judges much more so than moderate and left judges.

Biden and Kennedy invented the term "Borked". Don't give me any repugs worse them Dems. Besides, repugs "tend" to appoint constitutionalists while Dems appoint people down for the cause who be live the constitution is a living breathing document...such as a wise Latina who will have a better judgement than a white male.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Then you're part of the problem, aren't you?

You fight fire...with fire. Plus I don't want today's version of repub judges on the bench.

IOW, yes.

Best of luck to you, MrRodgers.

Fighting fire with fire is going to get more fire and stronger fire. It's like fighting racism with more racism. It doesn't balance out. It just makes it worse and more divisive.

Well maybe but given the last 30-40 years since Reagan, I am not hopeful at all. The mere fact that the repubs are not even meeting with or giving a committee hearing to Garland, is enough to put me over the edge. Add to that, that the repubs have vetted many of Obama's judge nominees and simply will not have a floor vote to deny their seating, does more than put me over the edge...but over the top.

Actually the expression of fighting fire with fire began with the discovery that it...puts fires out. So your suggestion that one would just get more fire speaks to your very likely corresponding level of cynicism.

And...the nuclear option when when Reid ran the senate didn't put you over the edge? Truth be discussed, the democrats have never won a policy decision by vote, it's all been by judges on the team. The bad part is that the republicans, with their feathered nests, didn't care until recently when grass root conservatives started pounding it home. So the Dems just got away with it for decades. Now, as Obama's spiritual advisor says, the chickens are coming home to roost.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
This is not governing kinkroids.

It's not rubberstamping. If the GOP is opposed to a candidate for good reasons...

Republicans' opposition to universal healthcare had/has nothing whatsoever to do with any good reason.

As a group, I haven't seen them do anything 'for good reason' in ... ages.

Well...when you live in your mom's basement drinking koolaide with your nerds friends and only look at, or discuss, your own Dungeon and Dragons stories, I'm not surprised YOU haven't seen someone do something.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Besides, repugs "tend" to appoint constitutionalists ...

Parroting that myth? Just like the media told you?

These same 'constitutionalists' who ruled that "free speech" goes to the highest bidder?

Ah, see, you're projecting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Besides, repugs "tend" to appoint constitutionalists ...

Parroting that myth? Just like the media told you?

These same 'constitutionalists' who ruled that "free speech" goes to the highest bidder?

Ah, see, you're projecting.

"Well...when you live in your mom's basement"


From an expert on projecting.

My mom's been ten years gone, glad yours is still supporting you and all your efforts.

I have financially and in-house supported 5 different family members at various times due in no small part to suck-ass Republican policies, especially regarding higher education and healthcare. Some of it had nothing to do with that, just normal hiccups of life. But a lot of that would never have been an 'issue' if living in a northern european country.

I'm not complaining about any of that at all, glad to do it. But not everyone has that source.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Plus once you bring up their re-election prospects, the repubs do this as merely as petty, little, power barons, concerned then not with country but only their narrow short term self-interest.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
This is not governing kinkroids.

It's not rubberstamping. If the GOP is opposed to a candidate for good reasons...

Republicans' opposition to universal healthcare had/has nothing whatsoever to do with any good reason.
As a group, I haven't seen them do anything 'for good reason' in ... ages.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
This is not governing kinkroids.

It's not rubberstamping. If the GOP is opposed to a candidate for good reasons, why should it matter if that candidate doesn't get confirmed? And, that goes especially for judicial appointees. Those appointees are going to help shape the way the law is interpreted, so a biased, or believed to be biased appointee shouldn't be confirmed.

While all the above is true, regardless of which party runs the Senate or which party is making the appointment, I doubt Obama's appointees are all not worthy of confirmation.

Politics is getting more and more partisan. The D's and R's are moving away from each other (it's not just one party or the other). I doubt it's going to get any better any time soon.

Except the repubs are getting much more partisan then the dems were under Bush and historically and if what you say is the problem, then why no votes ? This is the second OP I've done with the other, where the senate had a voice vote on a proposed floor vote for 17 judges already vetted and voted "out' of committee, just to see the repubs table them.

I'd love to see the the dems become at least as partisan and do what they can to hold all of any right or repub judges off the table from now on...not a single vote if they have the power at all. Yes, I fear right wing judges much more so than moderate and left judges.

Biden and Kennedy invented the term "Borked". Don't give me any repugs worse them Dems. Besides, repugs "tend" to appoint constitutionalists while Dems appoint people down for the cause who be live the constitution is a living breathing document...such as a wise Latina who will have a better judgement than a white male.

While the strict origin of 'Borked' is unknown in fact, and hardly applies when he got a hearing and a vote both and even after the committee voted him down. The repubs by contrast...have done neither. And even in the cases where the committee has been voted out, still refuse a floor vote. So there is no comparison and simply another partisan reach to suggest as much.

I spoke to many repubs at the time who were against Bork as damn near a fascist who had no quarter for the BOR. They knew going in that Bork was as partisan an ideologue as had ever been nominated.

The repubs appt. no such 'constitutional judges as they appt. every bit as much partisan ideologues as the dems. do...if not more so. Sex and race are the same...partisan reach with the obvious implication that only white men have a true grasp on the constitution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Then you're part of the problem, aren't you?

You fight fire...with fire. Plus I don't want today's version of repub judges on the bench.

IOW, yes.

Best of luck to you, MrRodgers.

Fighting fire with fire is going to get more fire and stronger fire. It's like fighting racism with more racism. It doesn't balance out. It just makes it worse and more divisive.

Well maybe but given the last 30-40 years since Reagan, I am not hopeful at all. The mere fact that the repubs are not even meeting with or giving a committee hearing to Garland, is enough to put me over the edge. Add to that, that the repubs have vetted many of Obama's judge nominees and simply will not have a floor vote to deny their seating, does more than put me over the edge...but over the top.

Actually the expression of fighting fire with fire began with the discovery that it...puts fires out. So your suggestion that one would just get more fire speaks to your very likely corresponding level of cynicism.

And...the nuclear option when when Reid ran the senate didn't put you over the edge? Truth be discussed, the democrats have never won a policy decision by vote, it's all been by judges on the team. The bad part is that the republicans, with their feathered nests, didn't care until recently when grass root conservatives started pounding it home. So the Dems just got away with it for decades. Now, as Obama's spiritual advisor says, the chickens are coming home to roost.

Haven't the slightest idea what country you've been watching. The dems only resistance to policy is the protection of the minority that our founders assumed would have better virtues put to use than by the modern, cheap partisanship of the repubs of the last 40-60 years.

The repbs for that time have been nothing but fascist leaning, theocratic, rent-seekers for the religious right and corporate America.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

While I disagree with most of what you say, the true point is that until Biden and Kennnedy went after Bork appointing judges was a pretty non-partisan act of congress.

quote:

It was only after Biden and Kennedy made it partisan that this infighting began.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I'm sure only the Democrats do things for "good reason," right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

While I disagree with most of what you say, the true point is that until Biden and Kennnedy went after Bork appointing judges was a pretty non-partisan act of congress.

The president appoints, congress approves, or not.

quote:

It was only after Biden and Kennedy made it partisan that this infighting began.

Nomination of Bork was Reagan's highly partisan choice by itself, he displayed having no qualms about his potential rulings being ideologically based. That was a first. But now it's those challenging such blatant partisanship who invoked partisanship for the first time?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

I admit Reagan was a constitutionalist.