Thread: Real values ya got there

Apparently it's okay to do this if it's for a good cause...

When the balance of power shifts in Washington, views on the virtues of filibustering shift with it. Four years ago, the Senate Republican majority faulted the minority Democrats for threatening what they called an "unconstitutional filibuster" of President George W. Bush's court nominees. Democrats then saw the filibuster as a needed check on extremism from the majority.

Now, both parties are adjusting their perspectives. In the Senate, the filibuster rule allows talk to prevent action. It takes 60 votes, not just a 51-vote majority, to cut off debate and bring about a vote.

In a letter to the president this month, the 41 Senate Republicans described choosing judges as a "shared constitutional responsibility." They recommended Obama renominate three of Bush's failed nominees: Peter Keisler, Glen Conrad and Paul Diamond.
And if

Are these assholes high? Why the fuck would Obama nominate one of their judges? Especially since they've done nothing but criticize him since he's been in office.

GOP senators warn of fights on judicial picks

What the hell are they thinking? Why did they even bother wasting their time writing such a silly letter?

Originally Posted by Blueneck

Apparently it's okay to do this if it's for a good cause...

If it is good enough for the Dems why shouldn't it be good enough for the Reps?

From the Senate Democrat Policy Committee

"The responsibility to appoint fair judges to our federal courts is shared. Under the Constitution, the President has the power to propose individuals for positions of public trust and the Senate has the power to approve or decline to approve those nominees. The President should not abuse this power by nominating people whose records do not demonstrate that they will uphold the law and decide cases fairly. The Senate should not abuse its power by rubber-stamping extreme nominees. The Senate has acted responsibly in approving 198 of President Bush's judicial nominees and reducing vacancies to the lowest level in 16 years, while refusing to confirm unfit or unfair nominees."
http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-...e=fs-108-2-197

Originally Posted by Blueneck

Apparently it's okay to do this if it's for a good cause...

Are these assholes high? Why the fuck would Obama nominate one of their judges? Especially since they've done nothing but criticize him since he's been in office.

GOP senators warn of fights on judicial picks

Because he is lefist loser and is worthy of all criticism. Chairman Obama is not even an American and he hates America. No good will come from his term in office. And he has done nothing to prove me wrong. In fact he has proven me right.

Originally Posted by Stinger

If it is good enough for the Dems why shouldn't it be good enough for the Reps?

From the Senate Democrat Policy Committee

"The responsibility to appoint fair judges to our federal courts is shared. Under the Constitution, the President has the power to propose individuals for positions of public trust and the Senate has the power to approve or decline to approve those nominees. The President should not abuse this power by nominating people whose records do not demonstrate that they will uphold the law and decide cases fairly. The Senate should not abuse its power by rubber-stamping extreme nominees. The Senate has acted responsibly in approving 198 of President Bush's judicial nominees and reducing vacancies to the lowest level in 16 years, while refusing to confirm unfit or unfair nominees."
Senate Democratic Policy Committee Web Site

It sounds to me like the Dems have wanted to weasel thier way into the Republican decision making regarding Supreme Court appointments...just like Republicans are doing, and have done the same since...who knows, the research was daunting and I didn't find any crossover appointments. I acknowlege that there may be, so lets not slow on this unless you know Stinger.

So far Conservative adminstrations appoint Conservative justices, and Liburul Administrations appoint Liburul justices. And it is what it is...and that's how it gets balanced, sometimes.

Like the electoral college, and the selection process for the Attorney General's office, it is something that could be done fairly but those who are given an advantage by it will prevent the change.