Double Exposure for John Kerry, OR

[Tiger Al 0]

This is all political Kerry is worse than Gore on anti-gun legislation.

How so?

[CCTAU 3,327]

This is all political Kerry is worse than Gore on anti-gun legislation.

How so?

FOREST...TREES......

Don't knock yourself out on any of those low hanging branches now!!!

[Tiger Al 0]

This is all political Kerry is worse than Gore on anti-gun legislation.

How so?

FOREST...TREES......

Don't knock yourself out on any of those low hanging branches now!!!

CCT, you had your chance earlier and you gave it your best shot...

sKerry will lose.

And I'll keep my guns,

Doo dah. doo dah.

sKerry will lose.

And Al will cry.

Oh the doo dah daaaayyyyy!

Now, go play and let the adults talk.

[CCTAU 3,327]

This is all political Kerry is worse than Gore on anti-gun legislation.

How so?

FOREST...TREES......

Don't knock yourself out on any of those low hanging branches now!!!

CCT, you had your chance earlier and you gave it your best shot...

sKerry will lose.

And I'll keep my guns,

Doo dah. doo dah.

sKerry will lose.

And Al will cry.

Oh the doo dah daaaayyyyy!

Now, go play and let the adults talk.

Who took that chance away?

What are you talking about?

Who said these things?

Sounds real adult to me. You keep asking the same questions over and over but can't seem to get the answers when people have already given them. It obvious to all the adults that you have been answered and are too stuborn or stupid to see it. So on this topic, I ask everyone not to waste any more time trying to help you with your phonics!

[AUloggerhead 2,241]

Using your logic, where in the Constitution does it say that citizens do not have that right.

Not directly, but the 10th Amendment is pretty clear:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Even if Roe v Wade was overturned, that still wouldn't stop an individual state (such as Washington, for example) from passing legislation to guarantee abortion on demand. It's all about "state's rights." {uh oh, where have we heard this before? }

[AUloggerhead 2,241]

But don't forget you Repubs. support Bush's unconstitutional ban on partial birth abortions! Don't forget that you blame the Supreme Court for upholding the Constitution. You can't wait to pack the Court with dimwits so you get to selectively choose which Constitutional Rights are protected and which are abrogated!

Mmmm. Go figure. *grin*

Current events & stuff:

The Dems are currently blocking every Bush appointment to any federal court. They have been stonewalling for 4 years of this administration.

The last two dimwits (Breyer & Ginsburg) packed onto the SC were appointed by a Dem prez & approved by a Dem-controlled Senate. Go figure.

[DKW 86 7,429]

Using your logic, where in the Constitution does it say that citizens do not have that right.

Not directly, but the 10th Amendment is pretty clear:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Even if Roe v Wade was overturned, that still wouldn't stop an individual state (such as Washington, for example) from passing legislation to guarantee abortion on demand. It's all about "state's rights." {uh oh, where have we heard this before? }

Thank you!!

[Tiger Al 0]

The Dems are currently blocking every Bush appointment to any federal court.  They have been stonewalling for 4 years of this administration. 

Absolutely false!!!

[Tiger Al 0]

The Dems are currently blocking every Bush appointment to any federal court. They have been stonewalling for 4 years of this administration.

The last two dimwits (Breyer & Ginsburg) packed onto the SC were appointed by a Dem prez & approved by a Dem-controlled Senate. Go figure.

This may further shoot your theory down.

[AUloggerhead 2,241]

Absolutely false!!!

Absolutely true. Lib Senators have been stonewalling & footdragging Bush's nominees since he was sworn in in Jan 01:

Miguel Estrada

Note the timeframe Estrada was nominated (May 01) and the date of the article (Feb 03) where it states the Dems launced a fillibuster to block a vote on his nomination. Did you get that? The fillibuster was used to deny Estrada a simple confirmation vote. If I'm not mistaken I think this is the first Congress where Senators used the fillibuster tactic to block presidential nominees as opposed to fillibustering an actual bill. So, it's highly misleading to place Estrada in the "non-confirmed" statistic. He was never brought forward for a vote.

Estrada wasn't the only one, either. There have been more than enough for this to make news throughout Bush's term. Just this past summer.

And, there have been hints of collusion, too:

As political scandals go, the case of the U.S. Senate Democrat memos is difficult to assess thoroughly, for the moment. The evidence is currently under lock and key by the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms. That evidence consists of some three to four thousand memos from or to Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, believed to detail collusion between Democrats and leftist groups to block confirmation of many of President Bush’s judicial nominees.

The tiny fraction of memos that have been released reveal a cynical, no-holds-barred manipulation of the process by leftist groups, which have amassed gigantic war chests for their efforts. The most egregious memo exposed thus far, written by a staffer to Senator Ted Kennedy, bluntly discusses an effort to affect the outcome of a then-pending case by delaying confirmation of an appeals court judge. The memo specifically recognizes the impropriety of delay for that purpose. Another memo attacks Miguel Estrada, who subsequently withdrew his nomination. His offenses: his career has left no paper trail to be picked apart; he’s Latino, and was thought being groomed for the Supreme Court.

I post opinions on this forum all the time. If they're based on theories, I'll gladly call it that. Facts are facts, though.

[Tiger Al 0]

Absolutely false!!!

Absolutely true. Lib Senators have been stonewalling & footdragging Bush's nominees since he was sworn in in Jan 01:

Miguel Estrada

Note the timeframe Estrada was nominated (May 01) and the date of the article (Feb 03) where it states the Dems launced a fillibuster to block a vote on his nomination. Did you get that? The fillibuster was used to deny Estrada a simple confirmation vote. If I'm not mistaken I think this is the first Congress where Senators used the fillibuster tactic to block presidential nominees as opposed to fillibustering an actual bill. So, it's highly misleading to place Estrada in the "non-confirmed" statistic. He was never brought forward for a vote.

Estrada wasn't the only one, either. There have been more than enough for this to make news throughout Bush's term. Just this past summer.

And, there have been hints of collusion, too:

As political scandals go, the case of the U.S. Senate Democrat memos is difficult to assess thoroughly, for the moment. The evidence is currently under lock and key by the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms. That evidence consists of some three to four thousand memos from or to Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, believed to detail collusion between Democrats and leftist groups to block confirmation of many of President Bush’s judicial nominees.

The tiny fraction of memos that have been released reveal a cynical, no-holds-barred manipulation of the process by leftist groups, which have amassed gigantic war chests for their efforts. The most egregious memo exposed thus far, written by a staffer to Senator Ted Kennedy, bluntly discusses an effort to affect the outcome of a then-pending case by delaying confirmation of an appeals court judge. The memo specifically recognizes the impropriety of delay for that purpose. Another memo attacks Miguel Estrada, who subsequently withdrew his nomination. His offenses: his career has left no paper trail to be picked apart; he’s Latino, and was thought being groomed for the Supreme Court.

I post opinions on this forum all the time. If they're based on theories, I'll gladly call it that. Facts are facts, though.

Sorry, Loggerhead. When you said "every Bush appointment to any federal court" and Dems have "been stonewalling for 4 years" I really thought that's what you meant. I didn't realize that over 200 confirmations versus five or six rejections amounted to stonewalling every appointment to any federal court. :roll: If you'd do your homework you'd see stonewalling when it came to confirming Clinton's nominees. In 1996 alone, Republicans stonewalled 17 nominees despite there being over 100 vacancies (there are currently 29 vacancies or 3.4%) at the time.

[CCTAU 3,327]

Last word!

[AUloggerhead 2,241]

Sorry, Loggerhead. When you said "every Bush appointment to any federal court" and Dems have "been stonewalling for 4 years" I really thought that's what you meant. I didn't realize that over 200 confirmations versus five or six rejections amounted to stonewalling every appointment to any federal court.  :roll:  If you'd do your homework you'd see stonewalling when it came to confirming Clinton's nominees. In 1996 alone, Republicans stonewalled 17 nominees despite there being over 100 vacancies (there are currently 29 vacancies or 3.4%) at the time.

I did mean every appointment to any court. And stonewalling is the best description of what they've been doing. To say that now in the 4th year of his presidency, that a miniscule % of "rejections" is proof that the Dems aren't stonewalling is an outright lie. From the very beginning of his term, Bush's nominees have faced an uphill battle:

BUSH'S JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS: 

A Report Card on the 2001 Session of the U. S. Senate

With the 107th Congress returning to its second session, it is time to evaluate the record of the first session in handling President Bush's judicial nominations. The report card for the U. S. Senate for last year shows failing grades. Neither political party acquitted itself well, but Democrats certainly deserve an "F." For several years, Demo leaders railed at the GOP-controlled Senate, giving Republicans an "F" for their handling of Clinton's judicial nominees (although the GOP ratified 373 selections and rejected only one). Consider just a small sample of Democrat leaders' outcries.

The current Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy argued in 1997 that "A President should be given a great deal of latitude on who he nominates to the Federal courts."

And in 2000, the current Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle moaned that "There is a dire shortage [of judges on the federal bench]--we have a judicial emergency right now, throughout the country. And it's important for us to respond to that emergency, confirm the many, many judges whose nominations are still languishing either in [the Senate Judiciary] Committee or on the floor" [there were substantially fewer vacancies then than there have been in 2001 under the Democrat-controlled Senate].

The statistics concerning judicial nominations during 2001 reveal the Democrats' hypocrisy and strongly refute their claims of bipartisanship in their running of the Senate. During the years 1981-2000, the Senate confirmed an average of 45 nominees/year. During 2001, the Senate confirmed only 28 of President Bush's selections. Consider the following picture of the federal judiciary at the end of 2001:

No. of

Bush Nominees/ No. Confirmed /% Confirmed /Vacancies

Remaining

64/ 28/ 43%/ 96

This dismal picture comes into clearer focus when the allocation of vacancies is examined. Most of the confirmations have come in the less important district courts, and fewer in the increasingly powerful courts of appeals:

  No. of Bush Nominees/ No. Confirmed/ % Confirmed Vacancies/ Remaining

District Courts 36/ 22/ 61%/ 66/

Courts of Appeals 28/ 6/ 21%/ 30

It is also most informative to analyze the amount of time which the Senate has had to consider judicial nominees. President Bush made his first 11 nominations on May 9, 2001. Only three of these 11 have had a Committee hearing. Indeed, of the approximately three dozen Bush nominees still awaiting Senate action, 31 have not even had a hearing. Exacerbating the situation is the fact that, as Court Watch recently reported to you, President Bush has sent his judicial nominations to the Senate in an unusually expeditious manner.

Probably the most egregious example is the fillibuster tactic. The libs are using this to prevent a nominee from even getting a confirmation vote. Instead of a simple majority vote to win confirmation, a nominee is required to come up with 60 votes to break the fillibuster -- a greater majority than is required by the Constitution. In effect, Senate rules are being used to trump the Constitution. It's not right no matter which party does it. It's the Dems now but could be the Repubs in the future. You watch.