Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Guess who suggested those men to Clinton?
When President Clinton made his two judicial nominations to the Supreme Court, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) was the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The following is an excerpt from Hatch’s autobiography:[It] was not a surprise when the President called to talk about the appointment and what he was thinking of doing.
President Clinton indicated he was leaning toward nominating Bruce Babbitt, his Secretary of the Interior, a name that had been bouncing around in the press. Bruce, a well-known western Democrat, had been the governor of Arizona and a candidate for president in 1988. Although he had been a state attorney general back during the 1970s, he was known far more for his activities as a politician than as a jurist. Clinton asked for my reaction.
I told him that confirmation would not be easy. At least one Democrat would probably vote against Bruce, and there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side. I explained to the President that although he might prevail in the end, he should consider whether he wanted a tough, political battle over his first appointment to the Court.
Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer’s name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg.
I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.
In the end, the President did not select Secretary Babbitt. Instead, he nominated Judge Ginsburg and Judge Breyer a year later, when Harry Blackmun retired from the Court. Both were confirmed with relative ease.
Another comment I do not have references for yet:
"Justice Ginsburg was never general counsel for the ACLU. The term general counsel carries with it the meaning of the top lawyer for an organization. Justice Ginsburg was a law professor who worked on one aspect of the ACLU's work, Women's Rights. Before her appointment to the court she had served as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for at least ten years. Attempting to characterize her as general counsel for the ACLU is nothing more than a lie."
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Quote:
Why was it okay for Bill Clinton to nominate people that fit his ideology, but if George Bush does the same thing it is evil?
Boosh is teh dephil!
No worries this time around; Gonzales will get the nomination, and he'll be approved fairly easily, since the Christian Right isn't all that thrilled about him.
Luttig will be much tougher to get through, as will McConnell.
It's only the beginning.
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
There's a reason it's called getting Borked, and the Democrats did that. It's only gotten uglier.
"Advice and consent." What a concept.
"..he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court. . ."
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Quote:
Originally Posted by Destiny
...two liberal judges to the court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993, and Stephen G. Breyer in 1994.
...liberal democrat mold. .
.., the liberal wing in the Supreme Court.
...liberal judges?...
Damn. One more repetition of the label would have made it true. It isn't. Stevens and Souter are arguably to the left of Clinton's appointees, if you feel such a strong need to label their opinions. Take a closer look and you'll find that eight of the nine Justices have delivered opinions demonstrating a complexity to their jurisprudence theory that defies such simple labels. Thomas is the exception. He's Scalia's bitch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LD
...[Hatch recommends Ginsberg and Breyer]...
Good catch. Frightenly, the Republican party has moved so far right, kissing ass of the fundamentalist religious nuts, that Orin Hatch has become a moderate by comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CO
No worries this time around; Gonzales will get the nomination
I hope so. He's pretty much a crook and bitch for corporate evil doers, which makes him a Republican wet dream, but he may be the best of the worst. His pro-Enron decision will score him major additional points with Cheney and his energy industry puppeteers. If Cheney gets him to the top of the list, he can surely count on being richly rewarded for yet another act of naked corruption.
I'll take corrupt over religious nut any day.
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Quote:
Originally Posted by Destiny
Why was it okay for Bill Clinton to nominate people that fit his ideology, but if George Bush does the same thing it is evil?
Because they said so, that's why. What other explanation do you expect from a nanny government? They don't want you to think, they want you to sit down and shut up and give them more money. They're a lot like evangelists that way.
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
I'm not sure I would take at full face value recollections in an autobiography 9 years after the fact. I'm sure Clinton chatted with Hatch (and I'm disappointed that Babbitt didn't get an appointment...I love Babbitt). GWB consulted with Harry Reid a few days ago. But it tests the bounds of credulity a bit (to me at least) that Hatch recommended exactly the two people Clinton would later nominate. It wouldn't surprise me if 20 names came up including those two...
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Quote:
Originally Posted by lildreamer316
Another comment I do not have references for yet:
"Justice Ginsburg was never general counsel for the ACLU. The term general counsel carries with it the meaning of the top lawyer for an organization. Justice Ginsburg was a law professor who worked on one aspect of the ACLU's work, Women's Rights. Before her appointment to the court she had served as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for at least ten years. Attempting to characterize her as general counsel for the ACLU is nothing more than a lie."
First of all, read my post. I did not state that Ginsberg was general counsel for the ACLU, I said she was a lawyer for them. However, you are incorrect in your assertion that Ginsberg was never general counsel for the ACLU, she in fact was:
In 1971, Ginsburg was instrumental in launching the Women's Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, and served as the ACLU's General Counsel from 1973-1980, and on the National Board of Directors from 1974-1980. In this position, Ginsburg successfully argued several women's rights cases before the Supreme Court, including 1973's Frontiero v. Richardson.
Reference
You might want to check your facts before you start calling people names.
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Zeno
There's a reason it's called getting Borked, and the Democrats did that. It's only gotten uglier. . . ."
No Jay, it's only ugly when a Republican president nominates someone for the Supreme Court, which is my point. Do some checking, you'll find that the both Ginsberg and Breyer were quickly approved by a large majority. In the case of Ginsberg, some Republican Senators wanted to hold more hearings on her writings for the ACLU and were denied that.
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Yap, yap, yap.
These are all politicians people. Left and Right. They all have what we like to call "agendas". They further these agendas through various means and appointments, including court appointments. The reason the left gets "ugly" is because they know perfectly well that Bush is furthering his "agenda" through these appointments (how they found this out, I don't know. Evidently the fact that politicians have agenda is a well kept secret). His agendas (anti choice, pro non secular state, etc.) clash strongly with the left agenda. The right forwards it's agenda in the way it feels best serves itself (like making a national incident over a blowjob). Jesus Christ. You act like they are kids being told to play nice at the monkey bars. Hypocrisy doesn't come into it.
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Quote:
Originally Posted by stant
Damn. One more repetition of the label would have made it true. It isn't. Stevens and Souter are arguably to the left of Clinton's appointees, if you feel such a strong need to label their opinions. Take a closer look and you'll find that eight of the nine Justices have delivered opinions demonstrating a complexity to their jurisprudence theory that defies such simple labels. Thomas is the exception. He's Scalia's bitch.
It's not me labeling them, that's how people that write about the Supreme Court describe them. Use whatever label you want, or none at all, the point remains. Bill Clinton nominated judges that fit his ideology and they were easily confirmed. The democrats are promising "war" if George Bush does the same. Why is that okay?
Quote:
Good catch. Frightenly, the Republican party has moved so far right, kissing ass of the fundamentalist religious nuts, that Orin Hatch has become a moderate by comparison.
A common claim. "The Republican Party has moved to far to the right...they are a buch of extremists...blah, blah..." Bullshit. The Republicans have won 5 of the last 7 presidential elections while also taking control of both the House and Senate. If the Republicans have moved to the right, then a marjority of the country has as well. Ever hear of representative government?
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Wikipedia sources mean shit when talking about politics. It's an online encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone. If I wanted to I could make an addendum to that entry right now that she eats baby eyeballs for breakfast and has blood orgies.
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergent D
Wikipedia sources mean shit when talking about politics. It's an online encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone. If I wanted to I could make an addendum to that entry right now that she eats baby eyeballs for breakfast and has blood orgies.
You know, this is getting a little tiring:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice, was born in Brooklyn, New York, March 15, 1933. She married Martin D. Ginsburg in 1954, and has a daughter, Jane, and a son, James. She received her B.A. from Cornell University, attended Harvard Law School, and received her LL.B. from Columbia Law School. She served as a law clerk to the Honorable
Edmund L. Palmieri, Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, from 1959–1961. From 1961–1963, she was a research associate and then associate director of the Columbia Law School Project on International Procedure. She wasa Professor of Law at Rutgers University School of Law from 1963–1972, and Columbia Law School from 1972–1980, and a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Stanford, California from 1977–1978. In 1971, she was instrumental in launching the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, and served as the ACLU’s General Counsel from 1973–1980, and on the National Board of Directors from 1974–1980. She was appointed a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1980. President Clinton nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and she took her seat August 10, 1993.
Source: U.S. Supreme Court
I guess people that can't debate the substance of my statement try to argue the facts?
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
I think Jenny is pretty much right on, by the way. It's just politics as usual, right? Democrats try to pick political battles where they stand on solid ground in terms of public support (abortion rights, social security) in the same way that Republicans try to pick political battles in their areas of strength (gay rights, homeland security).
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Quote:
Hypocrisy doesn't come into it.
No, it's not about hypocrisy, but what comes into it is the fact that Bork's failed nomination was not based on his qualifications for the position--as has been historically the case--but on his ideology. Since 1987, every nominee has had to endure questions that they aren't even supposed to answer! They're not supposed to have to answer prejudicial questions from senators looking for litmus-test answers.
The borking of Bork changed this process forever, and that's perhaps Destiny's larger point.
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casual Observer
No, it's not about hypocrisy
Ahem.
"The Hypocricy of the Left"
Perhaps, enough said?
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
And there is an entirely different level of hypocracy involved when you consider whether Democratic politicians are speaking on behalf of Democrats, versus speaking on behalf of Liberals !
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
And there is yet another level of hypocracy when Democrats are calling for every detail of Robert Novak's sources be publicly revealed re the Rove accusations - while at the same time not only have Democrats NOT made a similar call for Judith Miller's sources being publicly revealed re the very same Rove matter, but they are also condemning the judge who jailed her on contempt charges and advocating her 'supposed' right to keep sources anonymous.
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Destiny,please read my post again carefully . I am not calling names; I said that was a comment made (on the same website the other quote came from) that I had not found backup for yet. That was not me speaking. I post regularly on several political forums and do not need to resort to calling anyone names; we can agree to disagree, no?and; well of course I should check my sources; that's why I qualified said statement by saying I didn't have a source yet. ????? I was just giving food for thought. I think it's productive to have a lively conversation; no good if no one throws other things into the mix.
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
So we all agree the GWB has an, "agenda". Great. Part of that agenda is that he favors Supreme Court Justices in the Scalia/Thomas mold. Knowing that, a majority of Americans elected him to a second term. So what's the problem? Why was it okay for Bill Clinton to nominate justices in line with his "agenda" but if Bush does the same we will have "war" in the Senate?
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergent D
Wikipedia sources mean shit when talking about politics. It's an online encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone. If I wanted to I could make an addendum to that entry right now that she eats baby eyeballs for breakfast and has blood orgies.
That sort of thing usually gets corrected pretty fast.
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Quote:
Originally Posted by Destiny
Bill Clinton nominated judges that fit his ideology and they were easily confirmed. The democrats are promising "war" if George Bush does the same. Why is that okay?
This is simply false. Ginsberg was identifiably "liberal" on one issue, women's rights. Her written opinions and voting record prior to and since joining the Court are hardly a model of traditional liberal ideology. She has voted with the Scalia and Thomas duo on a number of occassions. She also wrote a landmark decision on copyright terms to which Scalia and company concurred.
Breyer is even further from any political ideology than Ginsberg. Generally he is characterized as "pragmatic" by contitutional law academics.
To say that a SC Justice [or appointee] fits some ideology is only accurate when the transparent intervention of such an ideology into their rulings is identifiable. This happens to be quite simple for Scalia, Rhenquist, and Thomas who have not been shy about their agenda. Read Scalia's recent obscene endorsement of what amounts to theocracy for just a glimpse at an actual agenda. He also wrote a harsh and bitter dissent to the opinion striking down the Texas sodomy law, which arose out of a case where two cops busted a gay couple having sex in their own home, based on a false alarm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by destiny
"The Republican Party has moved to far to the right...they are a buch of extremists...blah, blah..."Bullshit. The Republicans have won 5 of the last 7 presidential elections while also taking control of both the House and Senate. If the Republicans have moved to the right, then a marjority of the country has as well. Ever hear of representative government?
Easy there. Read more carefully. I didn't say just the politicians, or that this change wasn't representative. The number of religious (christian) fundamentalists in this country is indeed on the rise. The acceptance of creationism as science and indeed a belief that both the old and new testaments are literally factual by an increasing percentage of Americans is happening. A dangerous trend, in my opinion. I agree that this shift towards the extreme religious right is representative. I find ignorant religious nuts scary and dangerous. Islamic or Christian.
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Quote:
Originally Posted by Destiny
So we all agree the GWB has an, "agenda". Great. Part of that agenda is that he favors Supreme Court Justices in the Scalia/Thomas mold. Knowing that, a majority of Americans elected him to a second term. So what's the problem? Why was it okay for Bill Clinton to nominate justices in line with his "agenda" but if Bush does the same we will have "war" in the Senate?
Are you asking what's wrong with his agenda? I don't understand your question. Are you implying that individual rights should be considered through popular vote? Who cares what most Americans want? What most Americans want isn't the point. Rights of the Individual vrs the Tyranny of the Majority. You don't VOTE on people's rights.
As for what's wrong with his agenda - I think the attempt to move away from a secular state says it all.
And again - you are thinking, what? That the republicans rolled over and played dead for Clinton? No - as I said they furthered THEIR agenda in the way they thought most advantageous for them. That is what politics IS. It is not hypocritical when everyone is aware and partakes in the rules. Republicans trying to prevent an appointment non-advantageous to them may be inconvenient, but it's hardly immoral. What people find "immoral" is the agenda itself.
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Quote:
Originally Posted by stant
This is simply false...
It is? Here's what I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Destiny
Bill Clinton nominated judges that fit his ideology and they were easily confirmed. The democrats are promising "war" if George Bush does the same. Why is that okay?
Which part of that statement is false?
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Quote:
Originally Posted by Destiny
It is? Here's what I said: Which part of that statement is false?
Answer:
Quote:
Originally Posted by d
Bill Clinton nominated judges that fit his ideology...
You may recall that one of Bill Clinton's first acts as president was to modify a long standing policy of the military to bar homosexuals from serving, by executive order. Later during his first term, he attempted to enact legislation which would have to a degree nationalized health care. Both of these pure ideologically rooted efforts resulted in disastrous defeats. He learned his lesson.
Instead, President Clinton found that discussion, reasoning, compromise, and some amount of "horse-trading" with the oppostion was far more effective given the Congressional makeup at the time. He very rarely again put forth purely idological initiatives or appointees, and consistantly was able to win over the moderate Republicans in Congress (many of whom are now gone). Both the Breyer and Ginsberg nominations were deliberately designed NOT to attract partisan debate. Had he been up for another Bork or Thomas style fight, he no dount would have nominated a Justice more transparently ideologically liberal such as Thurgood Marshall.
Dubya, on the other hand, is in the position to potentially pass appointees with as radical an ideology or agenda as any right-wing extremest could dream for. Dubya has indicated this is precisely his intention.
Perhaps Clinton would have done the same given the Congressional majorities that have lubricated Dubya's agenda. But this never happened, and thus your premise is false.
---
An example of a moderate to conservative Breyer opinion, vacating a Ninth Circuit ruling in a case about housing discrimination against a mixed race couple:
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/01-1120.html