@DCGoldPants Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 I think as far as Souter. We might never now what Bush really knew. Things got very confusing. However, I bet that if this gets shot down. It will happen when the tables are turned. going to lunch. Enjoy fighting with Chief. I read that post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Yeah, this ones done. Enjoy lunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Originally posted by Bandit You know. I used to think Democrats were whiney, uneducated people who could just label problems but had no solutions. But after reading some of the hardcore Repubican response from you guys.....I feel so different now. My role? I pay my taxes and stay calm like they ask me to. I have faith that the area that I live in is being protected pretty well right now and in the end we'll win. What's your? :laugh: I'm Independant, but I'm on the Republican side of this issue... But I have to laugh at the REP/DEM stereo types.. they are so true. Dems are winey at times and don't offer solutions Repubs are bossy, name callers that think their way is the only way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 12, 2003 Author Share Posted February 12, 2003 bandit...no offense taken...and I don't expect any special grace or respect just cuz i'm in the military (there are great folks and putzes in the military - as in all walks of life).......... just got a little po'd by.... yes please. I wonder if Saddam was running on the Repub ticket...if you'd vote for him. without trying to sound like a homer, my friends are the ones doing the dirty work, right or wrong, in removing this guy. it was a bit insulting to hear someone say this. but enough on that.....as for being a republican..........most of my posts take issue with liberal and democratic policy positions or statements, and very few if any have been republican advocacy positions. i vote where I think my (and my family's) interests lie and what I think is right by virtue of some reasoning process. it's very clear that the dems have been hijacking the judicial nomination process. for the most part, i view it as "business as usual in dc". but this estrada is a quality individual who has EARNED the position. i'm a bit peeved as we just got through being lectured by dems how diversity was still a national requirement. it's the hypocrisy of moralizing others on how they should live their lives but not hewing to the same standard that is so grating....hence, this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Fansince62, I can't speak for anyone else's intentions, but I often say to my relatives "if Satan himself ran as a republican, they would vote for him" I think it is a stereotype that people have about people that vote a straight ticket. I don't do that, and I side with GOP on a few issues and the DEMs on other issues... (I don't know if you vote a straight party ticket or not, so I wasn't trying to offend you or say the quote fit.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 12, 2003 Author Share Posted February 12, 2003 code...I can neither confirm nor deny...but I will say that we share one thing in common: I won't vote for a republican just cuz he's republican.......I started on the left in HS/college, drifted to the right as my life experiences (and taxes) grew...and have been inching toward a watered down libertarian frame-of-mind..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 So, our Supreme Court should be filled with people based solely on their belief on abortion rights? Kilmer, Both sides are doing this. How many prochoice judges have the Bush's nominated? I'll tell you zero! It's my understanding that this fellow is not willing to come before the committee to answer questions. He's been instructed to say nothing by the Bush administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama Fansince62, I can't speak for anyone else's intentions, but I often say to my relatives "if Satan himself ran as a republican, they would vote for him" I think it is a stereotype that people have about people that vote a straight ticket. I don't do that, and I side with GOP on a few issues and the DEMs on other issues... (I don't know if you vote a straight party ticket or not, so I wasn't trying to offend you or say the quote fit.) that's exactly what I meant. and as far as respect. In my Dad's home office he has two walls covered with pictures. One is cover with buddies of his from the war, places he was and even the kids that were around there. The other wall is from his 30+ years as a journalist. If I don't so proper respect to those walls, even though I am bigger, stronger and faster than him now...I had no doubts he would fully take me down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Jack, You wrote "Both sides are doing this. How many prochoice judges have the Bush's nominated? I'll tell you zero! " That wasn't the issue. The issue is the Dems stopping an appointment solely because of political view. The GOP has NOT stopped any appointment because a candidate was prochoice. And while the Dems have NEVER nominated a prolife judge, Bush Sr. appointed Souter and Reagan appointed OCOnnor. Estrada has been before the committee 3 times now and the only question he refuses to answer is the one phrased "Which Supreme Court decision (s) do you disagree with?" That should have NO bearing on his qualifications to be a judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Kilmer, I hear you, but you know the GOP held up a ton of Clinton judges so long they never made it to the floor. Also for a job this important Estrada should answer any question any senator has on the committee. Why is he afraid to answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 His answer is he has respect for all of the opinions of previous courts. Should they ask him his sexual preference? I know that's extreme, but it needs to be. All questions shouldnt be answered. I dont know the GOP held up any justice appointee. Can you provide an example? I do know that they havent held up a SCOTUS nominee. Which is essentially what the Estrada deal is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 12, 2003 Author Share Posted February 12, 2003 Jack......go back and review the stats...the Clinton years witnessed a wholesale politization of the judiciary....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Should they ask him his sexual preference? I know that's extreme, but it needs to be. All questions shouldnt be answered. Kilmer, What are you trying to say? Not that there's anything wrong with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Just pointing out that he shouldn't have to answer stupid questions. He should have to answer questions about his qualification for the appointment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 I agree but I don't think asking him questions about his opinion about different supreme court decisions are stupid questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 12, 2003 Author Share Posted February 12, 2003 what has happened, of course, is that judiciary appointments have been thoroughly politicized..........the deeper issue then becomes one's perspective on the role of the judiciary (activist vs strict constructionist). the point remains.....a supremely qualified hispanic nominee is being held up for a very slender, targeted political reason......the dems should never preach diversity again as a matter of principle or argue the case that it should be embodied in law: they don't act on this principle themselves. in a way, it's rather amusing.....if the dems follow through on the threat to filibuster they will likely pay a high cost in the hispanic community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 http://www.msnbc.com/news/870468.asp enjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 and to be fair and not just show something good for one side. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62608-2003Feb12.html ok, all even steven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/12/senate.estrada.ap/index.html One more then its off to the gym. toodles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.