Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE

What happened to Supreme Court nominees deserving an up or down vote?

Neehai Zapata
Unofficial Parent
Join date: 8 Apr 2004
Posts: 1,970
10-28-2005 05:22
Could the radical right of the Republican party be more hypocritical?

They don't like Miers so they kill her nomination?

I don't want to hear the "every nominee deserves an up or down vote" ever again from these people.
_____________________
Unofficial moderator and proud dysfunctional parent to over 1000 bastard children.
Alexin Bismark
Annoying Bastard
Join date: 7 May 2004
Posts: 208
10-28-2005 06:06
From: Neehai Zapata
Could the radical right of the Republican party be more hypocritical?

They don't like Miers so they kill her nomination?

I don't want to hear the "every nominee deserves an up or down vote" ever again from these people.



So do *you* believe every nominee deserves an up or down vote?
Neehai Zapata
Unofficial Parent
Join date: 8 Apr 2004
Posts: 1,970
10-28-2005 07:08
I believe if the Republicans communicate a standard then they should hold themselves to that standard and not change the rules as they see fit.

They whined and whined about john Roberts deserving an up or down vote and the Democrats worked with Republicans and confirmed the Presiden't nominee.

However, the next nominee was killed by conservatives contradicting their own request for an up or down vote.

As for Hariet Miers, yes there should have been an up or down vote so that everyone could seewhich Republicans support their President as he fights terror around the world and which ones don't. :) After all, you are either with him or against him.

Which Republicans are against the President and the war on terror?
_____________________
Unofficial moderator and proud dysfunctional parent to over 1000 bastard children.
Billy Grace
Land Market Facilitator
Join date: 8 Mar 2004
Posts: 2,307
10-28-2005 07:29
Maybe you missed the memo Neehia but "she" stepped down. Since when is there an "up or down" vote for a nominee who has stepped down?
_____________________
I find it rather easy to portray a businessman. Being bland, rather cruel and incompetent comes naturally to me.
John Cleese, 1939 -
Siro Mfume
XD
Join date: 5 Aug 2004
Posts: 747
10-28-2005 07:38
From: Billy Grace
Maybe you missed the memo Neehia but "she" stepped down. Since when is there an "up or down" vote for a nominee who has stepped down?


After weeks of screaming from various conservative political outlets, media, and even TELEVISION ADs telling the president to withdraw her nomination... If you think the message didn't somehow reach her and she made her decision without such pressure, I don't know what to tell you.
Billy Grace
Land Market Facilitator
Join date: 8 Mar 2004
Posts: 2,307
10-28-2005 07:40
From: Siro Mfume
After weeks of screaming from various conservative political outlets, media, and even TELEVISION ADs telling the president to withdraw her nomination... If you think the message didn't somehow reach her and she made her decision without such pressure, I don't know what to tell you.

Prove that it happened... that is only speculation and you know it.

Honestly, I could care less anyway and am not going to argue about something that is a non-issue at this point.
_____________________
I find it rather easy to portray a businessman. Being bland, rather cruel and incompetent comes naturally to me.
John Cleese, 1939 -
Malachi Petunia
Gentle Miscreant
Join date: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 3,414
10-28-2005 07:49
From: Billy Grace
Prove that it happened... that is only speculation and you know it.

Honestly, I could care less anyway and am not going to argue about something that is a non-issue at this point.
Then maybe you ought stop arguing? :p
_____________________
Siro Mfume
XD
Join date: 5 Aug 2004
Posts: 747
10-28-2005 08:02
From: Billy Grace
Prove that it happened... that is only speculation and you know it.

Honestly, I could care less anyway and am not going to argue about something that is a non-issue at this point.


I can't prove anything I didn't record and that they won't post on their website. So the existance of a TV ad would be a non-issue. How about the radio ad? I didn't record that either, however it was also featured on conservative radio stations. Amusingly, it aired again after she had withdrawn. There was also a petition to remove her. At least two organizations formed for the sole purpose to prevent her from becoming a justice. It was extremely blatant and successful attempt to prevent a nomination from getting a vote. Republicans are better at that than Democrats apparently.

Oh, here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401744_pf.html
Kevn Klein
God is Love!
Join date: 5 Nov 2004
Posts: 3,422
10-28-2005 09:41
I think she stepped down because she knew there was no hope, both sides were against her. Not to mention she had no experience with the corrupt nature of the US courts. Anyhow, it's better to step down than to be pushed down.
Zuzu Fassbinder
Little Miss No Tomorrow
Join date: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 2,048
10-28-2005 09:53
From: Alexin Bismark
So do *you* believe every nominee deserves an up or down vote?


I think what the conservatives did was well within their rights. It seems to me that the biggest complaint about it is that when the democrats did similar things they hemmed and hawwed about it. Have some conviction to your moral stands and stick to them. Policy is good to change when you get new information, but your principles should be firmly grounded.
_____________________
From: Bud
I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.
Seth Kanahoe
political fugue artist
Join date: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 1,220
10-28-2005 10:14
Many believe that the Bush administration never intended for Ms. Mier to become an associate justice of the Supreme Court. She was what is called a "stalking horse" from the get-go - and the administration vetted and handled her for that purpose.

The thinking in Washington - among Democrats, Republicans, journalists, and academics - is that Miers was nominated as part of a larger strategy. By offering herself as a sacrificial candidate, she may have cleared the way politically for any arch-conservative, controversial candidate the administration will now turn to. The Miers nomination, in other words, was a rather craven and transparent ploy to "soften up" the evaluation process in preparation for another nominee.
_____________________
Cory Edo
is on a 7 second delay
Join date: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 1,851
10-28-2005 10:17
From: Seth Kanahoe
Many believe that the Bush administration never intended for Ms. Mier to become an associate justice of the Supreme Court. She was what is called a "stalking horse" from the get-go - and the administration vetted and handled her for that purpose.

The thinking in Washington - among Democrats, Republicans, journalists, and academics - is that Miers was nominated as part of a larger strategy. By offering herself as a sacrificial candidate, she may have cleared the way politically for any arch-conservative, controversial candidate the administration will now turn to. The Miers nomination, in other words, was a rather craven and transparent ploy to "soften up" the evaluation process in preparation for another nominee.


I like the way you think.
_____________________
www.electricsheepcompany.com
Bill Diamond
when all else fails...x=8
Join date: 22 Mar 2005
Posts: 98
10-28-2005 10:17
From: someone

Originally Posted by Neehai Zapata
Could the radical right of the Republican party be more hypocritical?

They don't like Miers so they kill her nomination?

I don't want to hear the "every nominee deserves an up or down vote" ever again from these people.



1. "They" didn't kill her nomination, she withdrew. The reason she withdrew was that in order to get out of the Judiciary Committee she would have had to provide documents that would have compromised National Security & Client-Attourney Priveledge between her and the President.

2. The "up or down" vote was for nominees that already made out out of committee and were being filebustered on the Senate Floor (she never made it that far).

So, in answer, No...I don't think you can make the claim that they anyone is being hypocritical here.
Kevn Klein
God is Love!
Join date: 5 Nov 2004
Posts: 3,422
10-28-2005 10:20
From: Zuzu Fassbinder
I think what the conservatives did was well within their rights. It seems to me that the biggest complaint about it is that when the democrats did similar things they hemmed and hawwed about it. Have some conviction to your moral stands and stick to them. Policy is good to change when you get new information, but your principles should be firmly grounded.


Conservatives didn't hold up the vote(filibuster). They simply let the president know in advance the votes weren't there to confirm this unknown.

Conservatives should expect the president to pick a known conservative, just as the liberals expected Clinton to select liberals. It's part of the advantage of holding the executive branch.
Ulrika Zugzwang
Magnanimous in Victory
Join date: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 6,382
10-28-2005 10:41
From: Billy Grace
Maybe you missed the memo Neehia but "she" stepped down.
Why did you quote the pronoun "she"? Are you questioning her gender?

~Ulrika~
_____________________
Chik-chik-chika-ahh
Chance Abattoir
Future Rockin' Resmod
Join date: 3 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,898
10-28-2005 14:59
From: Ulrika Zugzwang
Why did you quote the pronoun "she"? Are you questioning her gender?

~Ulrika~


Maybe Billy is a litmus test for the red states and reflects the prevailing attitudes of the people that pressured "her" into stepping down. Maybe they all questioned whether or not "she" was a she and if "she" wasn't, then they would have to question whether or not "she" had the balls to support their agenda.
_____________________
"The mob requires regular doses of scandal, paranoia and dilemma to alleviate the boredom of a meaningless existence."
-Insane Ramblings, Anton LaVey
Neehai Zapata
Unofficial Parent
Join date: 8 Apr 2004
Posts: 1,970
10-28-2005 14:59
From: someone
Maybe you missed the memo Neehia but "she" stepped down. Since when is there an "up or down" vote for a nominee who has stepped down?

Well gooly gee Billy you are correct. I apologize for my original post.

It does seem that Ms. Miers just plum near decided she didn't want to be on the Supreme Court no more. I guess everybody's entitled to choose which job they like and which one they don't.

That reminds me of the time I thought I wanted to go for ice cream and then I just changed my mind and grabbed a cupcake.
_____________________
Unofficial moderator and proud dysfunctional parent to over 1000 bastard children.
Chance Abattoir
Future Rockin' Resmod
Join date: 3 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,898
10-28-2005 15:04
From: Neehai Zapata
Well gooly gee Billy you are correct. I apologize for my original post.

It does seem that Ms. Miers just plum near decided she didn't want to be on the Supreme Court no more. I guess everybody's entitled to choose which job they like and which one they don't.

That reminds me of the time I thought I wanted to go for ice cream and then I just changed my mind and grabbed a cupcake.


Was it THIS cupcake?
_____________________
"The mob requires regular doses of scandal, paranoia and dilemma to alleviate the boredom of a meaningless existence."
-Insane Ramblings, Anton LaVey
Alexin Bismark
Annoying Bastard
Join date: 7 May 2004
Posts: 208
10-28-2005 15:05
From: Neehai Zapata

As for Hariet Miers, yes there should have been an up or down vote so that everyone could seewhich Republicans support their President as he fights terror around the world and which ones don't. :) After all, you are either with him or against him.


Because I note a qualification on your answer I'll ask it again.


Do *you* believe every nominee deserves an up or down vote? Not just Hariet Miers, but every nominee?
Zuzu Fassbinder
Little Miss No Tomorrow
Join date: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 2,048
10-28-2005 15:11
From: Kevn Klein
Conservatives didn't hold up the vote(filibuster). They simply let the president know in advance the votes weren't there to confirm this unknown.

Conservatives should expect the president to pick a known conservative, just as the liberals expected Clinton to select liberals. It's part of the advantage of holding the executive branch.


Isn't that what I said?
_____________________
From: Bud
I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.
Neehai Zapata
Unofficial Parent
Join date: 8 Apr 2004
Posts: 1,970
10-28-2005 16:14
From: someone
Do *you* believe every nominee deserves an up or down vote? Not just Hariet Miers, but every nominee?

I don't understand the point of this question.

If you have something you would like to say, then you should say it.
_____________________
Unofficial moderator and proud dysfunctional parent to over 1000 bastard children.
Alexin Bismark
Annoying Bastard
Join date: 7 May 2004
Posts: 208
10-28-2005 18:23
From: Neehai Zapata
I don't understand the point of this question.

If you have something you would like to say, then you should say it.


It's a pretty simple question. Do you actually believe that every nominee deserves an up or down vote? Or do you only believe that when you believe it provides a suitable platform for your argument with the right wing of the Republican Party (i.e. Harriet Miers). The main thing you appear to be taking issue with in starting this thread was the Right Wing of the Republican Party's unwillingness to take a consistant stand on the question whether every nominee deserves an up and down vote, making them hypocrits, in your view, for not sticking to their position. I'm simply asking if you're taking a stand with which you will be consistent with. Do you actually believe that every nominee deserves an up or down vote?
Kevn Klein
God is Love!
Join date: 5 Nov 2004
Posts: 3,422
10-28-2005 18:28
From: Zuzu Fassbinder
Isn't that what I said?


The democrats filibustered to stop an up or down vote. The conservatives didn't stop a vote, they warned the president the votes weren't there.
Zuzu Fassbinder
Little Miss No Tomorrow
Join date: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 2,048
10-28-2005 18:46
From: Kevn Klein
The democrats filibustered to stop an up or down vote. The conservatives didn't stop a vote, they warned the president the votes weren't there.


I wasn't talking about filibusters, but since you bring it up thats another one. During the Reagan era the Republicans used them like crazy and now they whine when Democrats do it. Same thing with things like fast track and line item vetos. They demanded them and when Clinton used them they said it wasn't fair.

Opposing a candidate you feel is not right is what they should be doing. And at some time in the future when the Democrats run advertisements to oppose some nomination I better not hear any whining.
_____________________
From: Bud
I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.
Chance Abattoir
Future Rockin' Resmod
Join date: 3 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,898
10-28-2005 19:25
From: Alexin Bismark
The main thing you appear to be taking issue with in starting this thread was the Right Wing of the Republican Party's unwillingness to take a consistant stand on the question whether every nominee deserves an up and down vote, making them hypocrits, in your view, for not sticking to their position.


Isn't that what politics is about? -Sticking to a point of view belligerantly despite contrary facts because you don't want to be called a waffler? I mean, if you change your view on anything in politics then you lose more than if you stick to your guns and go to certain doom because everyone will call you a failure and a waffler instead of someone who was "defeated." What's with that anyway?
_____________________
"The mob requires regular doses of scandal, paranoia and dilemma to alleviate the boredom of a meaningless existence."
-Insane Ramblings, Anton LaVey
1 2 3