CCTAU 3,342 Posted October 27, 2003 Share Posted October 27, 2003 That is exactly the ploy being used against Judge Charles Pickering. Racist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted October 27, 2003 Share Posted October 27, 2003 Counterpoint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,342 Posted October 28, 2003 Author Share Posted October 28, 2003 Counterpoint This from professors who have lived in the "same" world as I? I think not. When you spend your life teaching this drivel, you forget what is really going on. These gusy have proven that they only want a libeeral and it doesn't matter if he has the credentials or not. And what do they have to do with politics. Here is an explanation of who they are: The Southern Historical Association was organized November 2, 1934. Its objectives are the promotion of interest and research in southern history, the collection and preservation of the South's historical records, and the encouragement of state and local historical societies in the South. As a secondary purpose the Association fosters the teaching and study of all areas of history in the South. SHA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 This from professors who have lived in the "same" world as I? I think not. When you spend your life teaching this drivel, you forget what is really going on. These gusy have proven that they only want a libeeral and it doesn't matter if he has the credentials or not.And what do they have to do with politics. Here is an explanation of who they are: The Southern Historical Association was organized November 2, 1934. Its objectives are the promotion of interest and research in southern history, the collection and preservation of the South's historical records, and the encouragement of state and local historical societies in the South. As a secondary purpose the Association fosters the teaching and study of all areas of history in the South. SHA Yeah, you may be right. I guess it is a little perverse to think that historians might know something about history, especially with them stuck in classrooms lecturing all the time. I forgot how ever-changing history is and how, if you don't keep your finger on its' pulse, you might not have a clue. I'm sure Orrin Hatch and the rest of the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Comittee NEVER turned down ANY of President Clinton's nominees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,053 Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 I'm sure Orrin Hatch and the rest of the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Comittee NEVER turned down ANY of President Clinton's nominees. They did turn down som sure, but they NEVER made it a point to turn dow ALL! They never fillibustered to keep them from coming to a vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 They did turn down som sure, but they NEVER made it a point to turn dow ALL!They never fillibustered to keep them from coming to a vote. Do you REALLY think that ALL (or even most) of Bush's nominees have been denied??? I'll direct your attention to the SJC Nominations List. You speak as if fillibustering is some wretched taboo! It is a perfectly legal and acceptable action that is sometimes used. If I were you, I'd be more curious as to why Bush dismissed the services of the ABA after almost fifty years of reviewing judicial candidates. 'Extremists' like Miguel Estrada, Bill Pryor and others would have never wasted the committee's time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,053 Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 You speak as if fillibustering is some wretched taboo! It is a perfectly legal and acceptable action that is sometimes used. And the fillibuster could be broken since the Republicians do have a majority, that is what is strange, that they don't. Say what you will, but the Demoncrats only objective is to obstruct anything this administration does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarolinaTiger 0 Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 I'm sure Orrin Hatch and the rest of the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Comittee NEVER turned down ANY of President Clinton's nominees. so this is just "politics"? tit for tat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,342 Posted October 28, 2003 Author Share Posted October 28, 2003 I'm sure Orrin Hatch and the rest of the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Comittee NEVER turned down ANY of President Clinton's nominees. so this is just "politics"? tit for tat? Yep. The ugly side. But if it were reversed and the repubs were doing this, the media would portray them all as satan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 so this is just "politics"?tit for tat? I'll have to disagree with CCTAU for the most part. Sure, EVERYTHING these guys do is to some degree or another about "politics," hence the name "politicians." Everybody knows that every judge that gets trotted in front of the Committee is, more or less, conservative. If that were the sole criteria, though, it would be a 10-9 party-line vote everytime and they'd all go to the Senate for confirmation. The Democrats on the SJC are looking for centrists at best, 'cause that's the best they're gonna get. It's the ones that are waaaaay to the right in both ideology AND practice that they go nuts over. Same thing would (and did) happen if it were liberals being considered. The Repugs on the committee would be saying they were extreme liberals who were trying to re-write the Constitution to promote the Socialist agenda, as everyone knows we all are!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,053 Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 would be saying they were extreme liberals who were trying to re-write the Constitution to promote the Socialist agenda, as everyone knows we all are!!! At least you are truthful on this matter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 would be saying they were extreme liberals who were trying to re-write the Constitution to promote the Socialist agenda, as everyone knows we all are!!! At least you are truthful on this matter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.