Comments on: One Alito Upside

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 02:01:45 +0000

Hey, if “fake but accurate” is a good enough standard, why not “accurate but snarky”?

Still, you were right to question “consultation” for Supreme Court Justices. You’ve just exposed another fissure b/t Bush and his base. Wanna have a say about who goes on the court? Win a f#$($in election!!

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:01:53 +0000

Article is from July 15, 2005. Roberts was nominated 4 days later.

My mistake.

I thought you were only bullshitting us here:

President Bush consulted with the Senate.

I failed to realize that you compounded your deception here:

The nomination to replace Sandra Day O Conner, of course.

Again, my apologies.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:01:28 +0000

I mean, you were chiming in on this:

Compare Alito s confirmation to Breyer s or Ginsburgs. President Clinton consulted with and assured the approval of Breyer and Ginsburg with the Republican congress, in something referred to as bipartisanship .

Weren't you?

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:01:03 +0000

Article is from July 15, 2005. Roberts was nominated 4 days later. So “Chief Justice Roberts” would be the answer to your question, and he WAS given an up/down vote.

If you’re erroneously referring to Ms. Myers, she obviously did not have bipartisan support, or even partisan, support.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:01:46 +0000

The nomination to replace Sandra Day O Conner, of course.

C'mon, Farris. You can say her name. Yes, I know she's been designated a nonperson and all official references have been consigned to the memory hole. Don't you actually recall the actual subject of those consultations you pointed out just a little while ago?

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:01:19 +0000

The nomination to replace Sandra Day O’Conner, of course. You really think that Bush simply forgot everything that went on in those meetings?

(Silly me, I forgot I’m talking to a liberal. You think Bush would forget to wear pants if Cheney/Rove didn’t remind him.)

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 20:01:41 +0000

President Bush consulted with the Senate. It was the Democrats that didn't hold up their end of the deal.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 20:01:05 +0000

Uh, Farris?

That article you linked was about Bush consulting with the Senate on whose nomination?

When did that “up or down vote” take place, eh?

By: Semanticleo

Semanticleo — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 20:01:02 +0000

“this vote proves without a doubt that Republican are far more tolerant of people with ideas that differ from their own”

Marty; I thought we were competing for ‘most stupid remark’ award.

If you thought the contest was about ‘insightfulness’ you’re welcome to
try your hand at it

By: Marty

Marty — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:01:54 +0000

The real silver lining Oliver, (at least for us) is that this vote proves without a doubt that Republican are far more tolerant of people with ideas that differ from their own and are much more likely to have deference for a President’s Supreme Court nominee that makes it through the Judiciary Confirmation process.

Compare Alito’s confirmation to Breyer’s or Ginsburgs.

Do you really think that true moderates from either side of the political spectrum are impressed with the Democrats performance in this whole process? Do you think that the true independents didn’t notice the Kerry/Kennedy antics?

Sorry, Oliver but losing Chafee to a Democrat is a zero net loss. Tell you what- we’ll trade you Chafee for Lieberman.

Now go back to writing your comedy stylings.

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:01:38 +0000

Compare Alito s confirmation to Breyer s or Ginsburgs.
President Clinton consulted with and assured the approval of Breyer and Ginsburg with the Republican congress, in something referred to as “bipartisanship”.

Do you think that the true independents didn t notice the Kerry/Kennedy antics?
I think they’re too busy having families and working at their jobs to give two poops about inside the beltway minutia.

By: Marty

Marty — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:01:35 +0000

Wow, Leo. That was insightful.

I think they re too busy having families and working at their jobs to give two poops about inside the beltway minutia.

Here’s hopin’ for the Democrats sake, eh Oliver?

By: Semanticleo

Semanticleo — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:01:34 +0000

Marty;

Go back to reading “Dick and Jane”

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:01:36 +0000

Be careful what you wish for, OW.

Sometimes the extremist “sure” loser surprises everybody and wins. I’d rather see a choice between Chafee and a solid Dem. Let the nutjobs mutter to each other–out of the spotlight.

By: JD

JD — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:01:21 +0000

Here is my contrarian take on this matter, for what it is worth. The left seems to get far too caught up in the minutia of these types of events. Those of us that actually follow politics may understand the questionable relevancy of the CAP and Vanguard issues, but in the end, to Joe Q. Midwesterner, there is not much to go against with a nominee like Roberts and Alito, other than that they were nominated by President Bush. Each had exemplary academic and judicial records, and were well respected by politicians and their legal peers. It is simply difficult to make somebody out to be a monster that does not look like a monster.

By: Semanticleo

Semanticleo — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:01:54 +0000

When the request for paper trail were refused, the dems on committee
could have boycotted the hearings entirely, leaving nothing but an echo
chamber for the republicans. Capitualtion? No, protest. It speaks louder
in it’s silence than dems did during hearings or cloture debate.

By: elrod

elrod — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:01:02 +0000

Anthony,
The problem was no coordination. Why the excessive focus on CAP and Vanguard, when there just wasn’t much there? Why not focus on excessive deference to the Executive? That’s the real issue. I’m still not sure if it would have been enough to block Alito, but at least the narrative would have been set: The Democrats want to make sure the other branches of government hold the Executve accountable to the law.

By: anthony

anthony — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:01:12 +0000

Well Oliver

If my yellow-dog Democratic friends needed further confirmation that their Party has been effectively neutered, you’ve provided it with this “silver lining” gasp….

(My goodness, did anyone see Sen Kennedy yesterday fulminating and frothing as he “went down fighting” for this lost cause?)

By: elrod

elrod — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 07:01:10 +0000

Any idea what the polling is for Laffey-Chaffee. Unlike the Toomey-Specter primary battle in PA, I am 100% certain that a Laffey victory would mean a Democratic pickup.