Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
There is a simple answer to the original question.
Liberal judges DO NOT threaten the livelihood of the masses. Liberal means open-minded, which is what most of us are, given the type of work we do.
Anything that Bush does is problematic to EVERY citizen who does not live their life or honor the beliefs of the Christian Conservatives.
ANYONE that Bush promotes is ONLY chosen to carry out the agenda of the Religious Right, which is pushing to make Biblical Law the law of the land. ANY lifestyle that is not condoned by the Religious Right is having it's legality endangered.
Clinton appointees don't have an agenda to criminalize non religious lifestyles. They are not threatening to make the Religious Rights lifestyles illegal, They are open to the Christian Conservatives AND the "normal" peoples beliefs.
Liberal means open minded. Conservative means closed minded.
Closed minded old fahioned people who are trying to use a political party to further their power and economic gain in this country are a threat to us ALL.
Therefore ANYONE and ANYTHING that is promoted by the Bush Administration MUST be challenged.
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Quote:
Clinton appointees don't have an agenda to criminalize non religious lifestyles. They are not threatening to make the Religious Rights lifestyles illegal
Ah yes, but these judges DO have an agenda which effectively forces those who live (and work) within a traditional lifestyle to economically subsidize those who do not. While this does not make either lifestyle illegal, it certainly penalizes the traditional lifestyle and tacitly encourages non-traditional lifestyles.
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tina
There is a simple answer to the original question.
Liberal judges DO NOT threaten the livelihood of the masses. Liberal means open-minded, which is what most of us are, given the type of work we do.
Anything that Bush does is problematic to EVERY citizen who does not live their life or honor the beliefs of the Christian Conservatives.
ANYONE that Bush promotes is ONLY chosen to carry out the agenda of the Religious Right, which is pushing to make Biblical Law the law of the land. ANY lifestyle that is not condoned by the Religious Right is having it's legality endangered.
Clinton appointees don't have an agenda to criminalize non religious lifestyles. They are not threatening to make the Religious Rights lifestyles illegal, They are open to the Christian Conservatives AND the "normal" peoples beliefs.
Surely you are not claiming that Clinton didn't appoint judges whose ideology was in agreement with his own. And if Clinton appointed judges whose philosophy he agreed with, the question remains. Why is it wrong for GWB to do the same? Other than the fact that you personall disagree with him.
Quote:
...Closed minded old fahioned people who are trying to use a political party to further their power and economic gain in this country are a threat to us ALL.
As this is different from the way gays, unions, teachers, and environmentalists are using the democratic party how?
Quote:
Therefore ANYONE and ANYTHING that is promoted by the Bush Administration MUST be challenged.
I remember when Clinton was president. There were all these right-wing wackos espousing these same thoughts. I don't see any difference. So you are saying that the only person GWB could appoint to the Supreme Court (or any other position, for that matter) that you would be willing to accept is someone whose ideology was in total opposition to Bush's?
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Quote:
Originally Posted by Destiny
So here's the question. 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?
Perhaps the facts should be looked at here? When Clinton nominated Ginsburg he did it after bipartisan consultation, Orrin Hatch (Rep) was even the one who made the recommendation to Clinton, an even further look shows she had a largely moderate record during her times on the US Court of Appeals often voting with conservatives. Why would republicans fight that?
Here's a good link: http://mediamatters.org/items/200507070002
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard_Head
Perhaps the facts should be looked at here? When Clinton nominated Ginsburg he did it after bipartisan consultation, Orrin Hatch (Rep) was even the one who made the recommendation to Clinton, an even further look shows she had a largely moderate record during her times on the US Court of Appeals often voting with conservatives. Why would republicans fight that?
Here's a good link:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200507070002
RH: I continue to get the same non-answer which is, "Ginsburg is not as liberal as you say". My response is this. I don't care how liberal or mainstream Ginsberg is.
The point is this. In making his nominations, Bill Clinton sought out judges whose judicial philosophy and ideology was in agreement with his own. That was his perogative as president. So why then, is it wrong for GWB to do the same? Can anyone honestly claim that a judge that would even hint that some restrictions on abortion were permissible stood a chance of being nominated by the Clintons? If then, Clinton was allowed a, "litmus test" on the issue, why is GWB not allowed a "litmus test" as well?
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Quote:
Originally Posted by Destiny
RH: I continue to get the same non-answer which is, "Ginsburg is not as liberal as you say". My response is this. I don't care how liberal or mainstream Ginsberg is.
How is that a non answer? Fact is Clinton could have, and probably would have, nominated someone more liberal if he thought that he could have gotten them confirmed without an ugly fight. Given that he didn't want an ugly fight he went with Ginsburg, who although liberal, was recommended to him by the republicans. It's called politics, any good politician knows that some give and take is needed to get things accomplished.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Destiny
The point is this. In making his nominations, Bill Clinton sought out judges whose judicial philosophy and ideology was in agreement with his own. That was his perogative as president. So why then, is it wrong for GWB to do the same? Can anyone honestly claim that a judge that would even hint that some restrictions on abortion were permissible stood a chance of being nominated by the Clintons? If then, Clinton was allowed a, "litmus test" on the issue, why is GWB not allowed a "litmus test" as well?
My understanding is that there were quite a few conservative judges, judges whose judical philosophy an idealogy were in very close agreement with GWB, that the dems would have had no issue with and who would have sailed through the nomination process. GWB consulted with the dems on those judges then completely discounted them (in essence asking for a fight).
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Quote:
Fact is Clinton could have, and probably would have, nominated someone more liberal if he thought that he could have gotten them confirmed without an ugly fight. Given that he didn't want an ugly fight he went with Ginsburg, who although liberal, was recommended to him by the republicans. It's called politics, any good politician knows that some give and take is needed to get things accomplished.
In fairness, it must be pointed out that the will of the American people in the 1992 and 1996 elections put in office a democratic president, a barely democratic/evenly divided senate, and a distinctly republican house of representatives. Thus it is certainly arguable that US voters did NOT provide democrats with a clear majority, leading to a NEED for 'give and take' politics. Even so, the appointment of Ruth Ginzberg would certainly appear to have included a whole lot of take and very little give.
Be that as it may, during the 2004 election US voters elected a republican president, a clearly republican senate, and a very republican house of representatives. Thus any NEED for give and take in regard to GWB's appointments does NOT stem from lack of constitutional clout. Any need for give and take must therefore stem from A. democratic senators' (improper) use of filibuster, B. the non-democratic non-elected power of mainstream media, or C. common courtesy/generosity on the part of the GWB administration re their interpretation of the 'advise and consent' role of the senate.
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Fortunately the United States was set up with a system of checks and balances (including the fillibuster) to keep the majority from imposing their free will upon the minority. Instead of complaining about the use of the fillibuster by democrats why haven't the republicans worked with the democrats to avoid the fillibuster (i.e. the use some give and take)?
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Quote:
Instead of complaining about the use of the fillibuster by democrats why haven't the republicans worked with the democrats to avoid the fillibuster (i.e. the use some give and take)?
Actually they did (the gang of 14 filibuster compromise) and the nomination of Roberts versus Luttig or another clear conservative judicial nominee. Now it remains to be seen whether or not the democrats will live up to their end of the compromise, which based on responses from Sen's Kennedy, Schumer etc. so far looks extremely doubtful. Thus when Bill Frist is forced to exercise the 'nuclear option' i.e. re-changing the senate rules on filibusters as democrat Sen. Byrd did after the Fortas filibuster, republicans will be in the position of being able to say that they DID attempt to compromise, and that democrats reneged on their end of the bargain.
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
Actually they did (the gang of 14 filibuster compromise) and the nomination of Roberts versus Luttig or another clear conservative judicial nominee.
I think it's a bit early to reach that judgement as no one appears to know a thing about Roberts at this point.
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
RH: You quoted me but I couldn't help but notice you failed to answer my question:
Can anyone honestly claim that a judge that would even hint that some restrictions on abortion were permissible stood a chance of being nominated by the Clintons? If then, Clinton was allowed a, "litmus test" on the issue, why is GWB not allowed a "litmus test" as well?
I'd be curious what some others would answer as well.
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Quote:
Originally Posted by Destiny
RH: You quoted me but I couldn't help but notice you failed to answer my question:
Can anyone honestly claim that a judge that would even hint that some restrictions on abortion were permissible stood a chance of being nominated by the Clintons? If then, Clinton was allowed a, "litmus test" on the issue, why is GWB not allowed a "litmus test" as well?
I'd be curious what some others would answer as well.
I am sure GWB has applied the test in his choosing - it is the question of if the Senate can apply the test.
Re: Hypocrisy of the Left
Destiny,
I think the answer to your question is probably:
Because Democrats aren't notably split on the issue. It would be bizarre for Clinton to choose a candidate who DIDN'T agree with his views on RvW, since the vast majority of Dems do. I don't think it's as hard to find pro-choice (or at least pro-RvW) conservatives.
Imagine if the issue was gun control, and Clinton (or any Democratic president) was being warned that the Republicans would filibuster anyone who he might nominate who had a radically restrictive interpretation of what "the right to bear arms" really meant. Then the Dems would say, "Well, if Republicans always have a litmus test for candidates which involves a liberal attitude towards the ownership of guns, why can't we have a litmus test on gun ownership too?"
And the answer, of course, is: You can. But you'd better be ready to fight over it in the Senate and the courts of public opinion if the opposing party thinks it makes political sense for them to challenge you.