Reply With Quote
why would her political views not be based on the consitution?she would be able to put her political views aside if confirmed to the high court, and make rulings based on the Cons ution.
Senate GOP leader opposes Kagan
By DAVID ESPO (AP) – 20 hours ago
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan drew opposition Friday from Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and two members of the GOP rank and file, raising the prospect of a confirmation largely along party lines.http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...Hs5kQD9GN5SI00Kagan served as an aide in Bill Clinton's White House and is currently solicitor general in President Barack Obama's Justice Department. She testified this week she would be able to put her political views aside if confirmed to the high court, and make rulings based on the Cons ution.
In a written statement, McConnell quoted Kagan as telling the Senate Judiciary Committee this week it is "difficult to take off the advocate's hat and put on the judge's hat."
The statement added, "That difficulty is particularly acute for someone like Ms. Kagan, who has spent so much of her adult life practicing the art of political advocacy rather than practicing law."
I had a problem with Bush picking one of his buddies. Same goes for Barry. It should be an experienced judge where their experience can be examined. Barry has a right to appoint whomever he wants, but the Senate also has the right to fillabuster. Did the Dems ever stop their filibuster of Bush's appointments? Repubs need to stop being wimps!
why would her political views not be based on the consitution?she would be able to put her political views aside if confirmed to the high court, and make rulings based on the Cons ution.
1) Old 2) white 3) southern 4) Senator to vote against a
1) fat (not Southern Belle pretty)
2) Jewish
3) New Yorker
4) woman
Dammit, these GOPpers never fail to surprise.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 07-03-2010 at 03:25 PM.
Wow, someone in the GOP opposes Kagan?
That's amazing.
Have the Republicans stopped theirs?Did the Dems ever stop their filibuster of Bush's appointments?
No.
They were blocking 120 of them last I checked. Including DoD and DHS appointments.
Why do Republicans hate national security?
My bet is that not one GOP Senator from southern or western states will confirm.
Obama should let them filibuster. It's going to make the GOP just look dumber.
Dems set the precedent.
Link to the first instance.
Thanks in advance.
No link. It's common knowledge.
EDIT: Why are you avoiding the sector question in the Pelosi unemployment check topic?
Last edited by spursncowboys; 07-03-2010 at 03:55 PM.
Also, give us the score of filibuster in the last 20 years Repug vs Dem, leaving out the Repugs' constant threat of filibuster w/o actually filibustering.
If it's common knowledge you can tell us the first instance.
We're waiting.
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (2 members and 1 guests)
ChumpDumper, spursncowboys
Still looking?
Not so common after all.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Com...rmation-CrisisA filibuster means 60 senators must vote to end debate before the Senate can vote on a nomination, even though a majority would then approve the nomination.
The "extremist" targets of the filibuster include Miguel Estrada and Pricilla Owen. Both nominees have outstanding credentials. Estrada, for example, received a unanimous "well qualified" rating from the American Bar Association and is backed by a series of Democratic Justice Department officials for whom he has worked. Owen was re-elected to the Texas Supreme Court in 2000 with near-record voter approval and with the endorsement of every major newspaper in Texas.
Senate opponents have cited procedural reasons to justify their opposition, including the false charge that Estrada did not answer all of their questions. In truth, they seem to oppose these nominees because they do not espouse the liberal activist positions some Senate Democrats believe women and minority judges should hold. Such motivations have a name: Bigotry.
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.
You Obama yes men really need to go revisit how the Dems treated Bush's appointees. Can you guys remember what bush did after he won in 00?
http://content.usatoday.com/communit.../04/65264623/1
Yeah it is. If you didn't know that the dems set precedent by no giving a large amount of bush's nominations an up or down vote then you are as ignorant as your posts suggest.
Are you saying the blocking of presidential nominations for political reasons never happened before GW Bush?
Yeah it is. If you didn't know that the dems set precedent by no giving a large amount of bush's nominations an up or down vote then you are as ignorant as your posts suggest.
Yes or no.
Is that a yes or a no?
I wasn't in that thread, genius.EDIT: Why are you avoiding the sector question in the Pelosi unemployment check topic?
Why are you avoiding this question now?
chump is the king to want links
If people can't back up the they make up, they shouldn't make it up in the first place.
explaining everything to you through articles, like you can't google, isn't my job or curse.
It's common knowledge that multiple presidential appointments were blocked before GW Bush was president.
By Republicans.
Would you like a link showing how wrong you are?
Yes or no.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
