AP: Senate GOP leader opposes Kagan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

explaining everything to you through articles, like you can't google, isn't my job or curse.

---

If it were so easy, you would have done it. Clearly you've got nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

If it were so easy, you would have done it. Clearly you've got nothing.

---

It is easy if you are not making shit up.

Here, I'll show SnC how to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBS News, 2005

Traditionally, the filibuster has not been the only weapon in an opposition party's arsenal. There are other, less visible ways whereby the Senate's rules and traditions empower individual senators to block judicial and other nominations. Between 1996 and 2000, Republicans in control of the Senate developed these techniques to a high art.

Prior to 1996, when the Senate majority and the president were from opposing parties, senators usually deferred to the president with respect to lower-court judicial nominations. With the notable exceptions of the 1968 Fortas nomination and a failed Republican filibuster of H. Lee Sarokin in 1994, neither party filibustered the other's judicial nominations, and virtually all nominees received a hearing unless they were sent up after the presidential nominating conventions.

All this changed in 1996. Rather than openly challenge President Clinton's nominees on the floor, Republicans decided to deny them Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. Between 1996 and 2000, 20 of Bill Clinton's appeals-court nominees were denied hearings, including Elena Kagan, now dean of the Harvard Law School, and many other women and minorities. In 1999, Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch refused to hold hearings for almost six months on any of 16 circuit-court and 31 district-court nominations Clinton had sent up. Three appeals-court nominees who did manage to obtain a hearing in Clinton's second term were denied a committee vote, including Allen R. Snyder, a distinguished Washington lawyer, Clinton White House aide, and former Rehnquist law clerk, who drew lavish praise at his hearing -- but never got a committee vote. Some 45 district-court nominees were also denied hearings, and two more were afforded hearings but not a committee vote.

Even votes that did occur were often delayed for months and even years. In late 1999, New Hampshire Republican Bob Smith blocked a vote on 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Richard Paez for months by putting an anonymous hold on the nomination. When Majority Leader Trent Lott could no longer preserve the hold, Smith and 13 other Republicans tried to mount a filibuster against the vote, but cloture was voted and Paez easily confirmed. It had been over four years since his nomination.

---

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in683182.shtml

So not only is SnC completely full of shit -- the entire reason for his opposition to Kagan is based on the fact that Republicans obstructed her nomination to the DC Circuit eleven years ago.

Which was before GW Bush was in office.

(In case SnC can't count.)

It's all common knowledge.

DMX: It is very simple. Are you guys saying that the dems voted up or down on all of Bush's judicial appointees? That they did it as quickly for bush as they did with Barry?

http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2009...s_wheeler.aspx

SnC: It is very simple. Are you guys saying that the Republicans voted up or down on all of Clinton's judicial appointees? That they did it as quickly for Clinton as they did with GHW Bush?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in683182.shtml

Quote:

---

Until now, the only successful filibuster over any judicial nomination was in 1968, when the Senate stopped President Lyndon B. Johnson's effort to elevate Justice Abe Fortas to chief justice of the Supreme Court. That was a bipartisan filibuster. Senate records show no cases where an appellate nominee was filibustered to death.

---

Quote:

---

Until now, the only successful filibuster over any judicial nomination was in 1968, when the Senate stopped President Lyndon B. Johnson's effort to elevate Justice Abe Fortas to chief justice of the Supreme Court. That was a bipartisan filibuster. Senate records show no cases where an appellate nominee was filibustered to death.

---

Can't we all...just get along...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

Until now

---

Did all of Clinton's nominees get an up or down vote in the Senate?

Yes or no.

The whole partial-birth abortion dodging and attempts to stop military recruiting make me question this woman's ability to reason. THAT, and I saw her face on TV today and she's still ugly.

I vote: nay!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stringer_Bell

The whole partial-birth abortion dodging and attempts to stop military recruiting make me question this woman's ability to reason. THAT, and I saw her face on TV today and she's still ugly.

I vote: nay!

---

Shes a very poor choice for a Supreme Court justice. However, so was the man she's replacing. She's no worse, and if we conservatives complain too much, we might get even worse rammed in.

What's the point of complaining. Demonrats control both houses and the presidency. Unless there is real disqualifying dirt on this woman, she is going to be a Supreme Court justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Shes a very poor choice for a Supreme Court justice.

---

Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stringer_Bell

The whole partial-birth abortion dodging and attempts to stop military recruiting make me question this woman's ability to reason. THAT, and I saw her face on TV today and she's still ugly.

I vote: nay!

---

But she's funny.

I can't wait to read *her opinion. I am hoping for a Jon Stewart style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Why?

---

She went to college-career college student. She was a professor, then she went into politics. then she got appointed to the court of appeals by her boss at the time, and then went back to being a professor. Now she is to be appointed to the SCOTUS by her present boss. Do any of the Dems go to ethics class with all their years and years of college? She is a political hack, like Bush's first pick. She hasn't even been a judge. Can anyone say cronyism?
But since she has been to all the right schools-Princton, Oxford, Harvard Law, she'll get it. So the guy who never had executive experience is nominating someone to the SCOTUS who has no legislative experience. Sotomayor, even tho she got advanced thru the years by liberal affirmative action, atleast was a judge.

Raised on the upper west side. She was a career college student with a degree in History and Philosophy and finally a law degree. She has never married and has no kids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

She went to college-career college student. She was a professor, then she went into politics. then she got appointed to the court of appeals by her boss at the time, and then went back to being a professor. Now she is to be appointed to the SCOTUS by her present boss. Do any of the Dems go to ethics class with all their years and years of college? She is a political hack, like Bush's first pick. She hasn't even been a judge. Can anyone say cronyism?
But since she has been to all the right schools-Princton, Oxford, Harvard Law, she'll get it. So the guy who never had executive experience is nominating someone to the SCOTUS who has no legislative experience. Sotomayor, even tho she got advanced thru the years by liberal affirmative action, atleast was a judge.

---

So you were against Rehnquist all along, right?

You demanded he be removed, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

Raised on the upper west side. She was a career college student with a degree in History and Philosophy and finally a law degree.

---

Rehnquist had four degrees from Stanford and Harvard.

You must have hated that guy so bad -- you had to have openly protested him constantly.

chump: take barry's piece out of your mouth for a second. Should someone be nominated to the SCOTUS if they have no judicial experience? SHould appointments only be given to people who work with barry? Or only people who are from barry's cocktail parties?

WHat about all the people who deserve a chance to an appointment from their experience.

cronyism


Main Entry: cro·ny·ism
Pronunciation: \-nē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1840
: partiality to cronies especially as evidenced in the appointment of political hangers-on to office without regard to their qualifications

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

chump: take barry's piece out of your mouth for a second.

---

Why do you always go homo? Project much?

Quote:

---

Should someone be nominated to the SCOTUS if they have no judicial experience?

---

It has been pretty thoroughly proved that it is not a prerequisite since fully 36% of justices have had no experience. Your complete refusal to say anything bad about Chief Justice Rehnquist or his record on the court tells me you don't have a problem with it either as long as you agree with that justice's rulings.

Quote:

---

SHould appointments only be given to people who work with barry? Or only people who are from barry's cocktail parties?

---

This is not true of Sotomayor, so you are just making shit up again.

Quote:

---

WHat about all the people who deserve a chance to an appointment from their experience.

---

There are different kinds of experience.

Quote:

---

cronyism


Main Entry: cro·ny·ism
Pronunciation: \-nē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1840
: partiality to cronies especially as evidenced in the appointment of political hangers-on to office without regard to their qualifications

---

Again, she's as qualified as Rehnquist was. And her employment in the administration mirrors that of Rehnquist as well.

She was qualified to be an appellate judge when the Republicans obstructed her appointment by Clinton. Remember when you were saying that Republicans never did anything like that before Obama? You were so wrong about that, I don't blame you for trying to avoid dealing with that debacle.

You are a hypocrite.

spursncowboys thinks that John Marshall should never have been on the Supreme Court.

True story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You are a hypocrite.

---

how

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

how

---

Did you read the rest of my posts?

It's quite clear.

http://greatestofalltime.homestead.c...rren_court.jpg
spursncowboys argues the monumental decisions of this court should never have happened as the Republican-appointed chief justice was obviously unqualified and never should have been nominated.

True story.

It made sense to start out with Rehnquist. But your point is a good one.

(In 1946 Earl Warren won the nomination of the Democratic, Republican and Progressive parties for governor of California. I can't think of any analogous political figure who can say anything like that.)