| Liberal Democrats....simply unbelievable!
Posted: 4/21/2005 10:51:43 PM | I also hear Republican politicians and pundits claiming that the Democratic use of the procedural filibuster to block judicial nominations is unprecedented in Senate history.
That's a flat out lie. The Republican party was the first in Senate history to use the filibuster to block a judicial nominee, Abe Fortas, Lyndon Johnson's nomination for the Supreme Court. Johnson withdrew his nomination after the Senate failed to invoke cloture on October 1, 1967.
And if you caught Clinton talking to Katie Couric, you know that the republicans refused to allow 40 of Clinton's judicial nominees to a vote.
Seems the way is to change the rules rather than behavior.
Another example....Delay changes the House ethics committee rules on split votes even though it was the Republicans who put that rule in when Clinton was President. | |
|
| Liberal Democrats....simply unbelievable!
Posted: 4/21/2005 11:47:54 PM | Dems probably will win Congress in 2006.
But probably will NOT win White House in 2008.
Maybe 2012. Depends how Condi does in her first term. | |
|
| Liberal Democrats....simply unbelievable!
Posted: 4/22/2005 4:40:57 AM |
Okay, so it was a letter, not an article. You didn't make that clear before. Trying to get cheap points again?
A letter coming straight from the Democratic Caucus is not 'cheap points' it is as condemning as hell. This isn't a single radical liberal that initiated this, it was the Democratic caucus.
Not every Democrat is a low life, but this was a ridiculous, false attempt by Democrats to trash a conservative simply because he has a slot on Fox news.
As for Abe Fortes, his review ( a highly questionable filibuster) lasted 4 days. We have qualified Judicial nominees that have been filibustered by the Democrats for over a year. In fact we have one Judicial Nominee being filibustered because he is Hispanic.
A filibuster based on race IS unprecedented. If the Republicans ever tried that the ACLU would have them in court before the day was over yet here are the Democrats doing that very thing... | |
|
| Liberal Democrats....simply unbelievable!
Posted: 4/22/2005 7:01:40 AM | post a link for it.
oh wait, I forgot I don't care about this idiotic non-issue of some dems trying to score some cheap points by ragging on Hannity. BIG F'n DEAL. | |
|
| |
| Liberal Democrats....simply unbelievable!
Posted: 4/22/2005 10:59:26 AM | A filibuster is a filibuster. Johnson was forced withdraw his nomination.
You say they are filibustering a judge because he's hispanic?
Yeah...the Democrats hate hispanics.......sigh
What planet do you live on? | |
|
| |
| Liberal Democrats....simply unbelievable!
Posted: 4/22/2005 11:23:18 AM | Yes Varus, and that will be Bush's legacy because nothing else will get done.
And once the Republicans finish their fall from grace, they'll work feverishly to reverse the rules and Bush's legacy. | |
|
| Liberal Democrats....simply unbelievable!
Posted: 4/22/2005 11:55:38 AM | | yeah, you guys are all about states rights, except when it comes to gay marriage, and feeding tubes. I'm sure you won't have a problem with letting states decide whether or not they can choose to allow abortion rights. | |
|
| Liberal Democrats....simply unbelievable!
Posted: 4/22/2005 2:57:46 PM | You guys are unbelievable;
A memo written by Democrat staffers (or "slave catchers," as they were once known) to Durbin in November 2001 indicated that of all Bush's Court of Appeals nominees, Estrada was considered "especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment."
A series of Democrat memos on judicial nominations was leaked to the Wall Street Journal, where it was the subject of a November 14 editorial. The most disturbing information in the memos is highlighted in the editorial, which is attached. As one memo makes clear, for example, Democrats specifically targeted Miguel Estrada because he is Hispanic. (That memo alone would seem to give Estrada a prima facie Title VII claim.)
Miguel Estrada a highly qualified Judicial Nominee withdrew his name from consideration because the Democrats would not even vote up or down on the guy in more than two years!
The memos make it crystal clear what the democrats are up to and it's illegal;
http://fairjudiciary.com/cfj_contents/press/judges_1.pdf
| |
|
| Check the facts
Posted: 4/22/2005 3:01:30 PM |
HE violated the law by entering Mexico illegally and then violated it AGAIN when entering the US illegally.
Wrong. Hannity climed over a fence twice that was inside US territory and not on the border.
Let's hope you never get picked for jury duty elwood. | |
|
| Check the facts
Posted: 4/22/2005 3:38:06 PM | The Democrats were worried about a stealth conservative with no paper trail being given a free pass because he's latino.
You probably believe Bush nominates people like Clarence Thomas and Miguel Estrada because he cares about the black and latino communities. | |
|
| Check the facts
Posted: 4/22/2005 3:41:58 PM |
You probably believe Bush nominates people like Clarence Thomas and Miguel Estrada because he cares about the black and latino communities.
You're damn right.
History has shown what 40+ years of liberal "Great Society" programs have done to the African-American family.
But Democrats need to keep all of that in place. The Dems have to have African-Americans as a permanent underclass, so that they can rely on their votes to keep them in power. | |
|
| Check the facts
Posted: 4/22/2005 3:42:21 PM | | What the Democrats did was illegal... | |
|
| Check the facts
Posted: 4/22/2005 4:32:20 PM | oh boy, you poor child.
I cannot believe you just said that.
I suppose hundreds of years of Jim Crow had nothing to do with the plight of the black family.
You don't think a couple of hundred years of ripping babies from their mothers arms and selling them had anything to do with the plight of the black family? Or a couple of hundred years of enforcing the inferiority of Black Fathers with nooses, shotguns, jail, beatings had anything to do with that. Forcing them to work jobs that they can't support their families with. Forcing them to be submissive and uneducated and killing them when they act like a man has anything to do with that?
Although I'm not a Democrat, the modern Democratic party has done more to help poor people of all stripes achieve what they have.
Bush can appoint all the conservative minorities he wants, it doesn't win him the votes of those communities. | |
|
| Check the facts
Posted: 4/22/2005 4:45:37 PM |
In the old days, slaves who attempted to escape from the plantation were hunted down and returned to their masters for severe punishment or even death.
Slavery ceased to be politically correct, at least on one side of the aisle, when the Republican Party was formed in the 1850s specifically to counter the pro-slavery Democrat Party.
But still waters run deep.
The Democrat Party may not readily show its underlying pro-slavery current, since racism is no longer cool. But rest assured the party still metes out punishment to runaways.
Democrat Senators****Durbin and Ted Kennedy were recently caught with a virtual smoking gun in their hands after Democrat staff memos were leaked showing the senators did their virtual best to kill the Circuit Court nomination of Miguel Estrada, specifically because he was Hispanic but conservative. | |
|
| Check the facts
Posted: 4/22/2005 4:51:43 PM | I never said jim crow excluded Democrats.
if the republicans are so good for minorities, they'd be getting their vote. | |
|
| Check the facts
Posted: 4/22/2005 5:29:27 PM | | It's been changing, despite the fact that Democrats will do anything even break the law in trying to stop the Republicans from appointing minorities to positions of influence... | |
|
| Check the facts
Posted: 4/22/2005 6:09:21 PM | I'm 'hispanic' and I grew up in a so-called 'ghetto' with hundreds of thousands of mostly hispanics but also with blacks.
I respectfully disagree. Most latinos and blacks can not stand the republican party. (Except for cubans.)
And despite the democratic memo you cite (which in my mind you're taking out of context and purposefully reading literally), if you ask your average minority which party is anti-minority, they will tell you it's the republicans. | |
|
| Check the facts
Posted: 4/22/2005 6:29:15 PM |
(which in my mind you're taking out of context and purposefully reading literally
I posted the link containing the entire memo. It surely is not out of context. You can disagree but don't you think you should read the facts first? | |
|
| Check the facts
Posted: 4/22/2005 9:18:28 PM |
It's been changing, despite the fact that Democrats will do anything even break the law in trying to stop the Republicans from appointing minorities to positions of influence...
Does that mean the Republicans tactic of interfering with the voting of some groups of African Americans was legitimate? | |
|
| |
| Check the facts
Posted: 4/22/2005 11:41:33 PM | Out of curiousity, at what point do we all reconginze that politicians and political hacks (Hannity) have agendas that have nothing to do with the real issue, but rather about gaining attention like some little piglet runt trying to suck at the mother's teat (media)...
At which point we can all just start hugging and singing Kumbaya?
Not that I'm saying this is the time, I'm sure this thread can run on for another four or five pages of "Well, YOUR party did this..." and "Yeah? Well, YOUR party did this..."
But if we're all trying to preach to our respective choirs, I'd like to know when said choirs are gonna just do the whole sing-song bit... | |
|
| Check the facts
Posted: 4/22/2005 11:58:44 PM | | lmao... this guy cracks me up. Entirely too smart... and still funny as all hell. (Granted hell isnt supposed to be funny but...) | |
|
| defend the definition of liberalism WATCHDOG
Posted: 4/23/2005 7:28:25 AM | Does that mean the Republicans tactic of interfering with the voting of some groups of African Americans was legitimate?
That allegation has as much legitimacy as the one that claims Democrats paid Afro Americans in close run races to file suits alleging racial voting discrimination whem there clearly was none.. | |
|
Home
login 
