TheAnvil 0 #26 November 23, 2007 Remian in the shadows? Obviously not. Bigots Jack$on, $haprton and Farrakhan are quite the public figures. As are the folks they associate with. The DemoKKKratic Party DOES field candidates for every election, does it not? Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #27 November 23, 2007 QuoteRemian in the shadows? Obviously not. Bigots Jack$on, $haprton and Farrakhan are quite the public figures. As are the folks they associate with. The DemoKKKratic Party DOES field candidates for every election, does it not? Then perhaps they are not the RACISTS you make them out to be.... I mean perhaps they are trying.. but the conservative GOOD OLE BOYS have over a hundred and fifty year start . QuoteDemoKKKratic Party You forget Vinnie.. that in the 1960's all of the Dixiecrats.. ran away from the Democratic Party to YOUR party....after Johnson stabbed them in the back.. and they sure as hell did not want to be in a party that actually supported human rights.. or supported THOSE people. More revisionism....but go ahead and believe what you will....its a very common tactic of the far right... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #28 November 23, 2007 Not racists? Perhaps you should look up the definition of racist. Face the fact whenever you like. There is no revisionism. Get your facts straight. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #29 November 23, 2007 Could you two move your analysis of Jeb to another thread? I'm a bit dubious to his prospects of being the third, though if the GOP had to endure 8 years of Hillary, they might respond with him if they thought it would be a slam dunk. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #30 November 23, 2007 Quote My response to your (note that I'm also responding to kelpdiver) feeling that having 4 out of 9 judges confirmed under the two Bush presidents (over 40%) is on the high side (one called it Bush-Stacking) is that neither president had a choice in the matter. If, say Pres. Clinton had to nominate judges for four seats during the time he was in office, that's the way it goes. We just happened to have two Bush's that each had two empty seat open up duing their terms. As you said, the same thing could happen if HR Clinton were to be elected. I'm sorry, this is the elementary school version of the US Government. The Presidents certainly have a choice in the matter, and if you look at the judges you'll find that their retirement planning is very often done with the idea of who is in the White House. (Sometimes they die before their party wins again) My sense is that the Bushes did a bit better in getting their idealogical candidates in than did Clinton. BC struggled with the power of the opposition and/or minority party in the Senate, where the fillibuster prevented him from doing a lot of his agenda. I present Thomas as best example. And when you consider the age of these 4 people...it's an influence that will last quite a while, unless the other 5 all happen to leave during a Democratic reign (which strictly by probability, is slim) over the next couple decades. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #31 November 23, 2007 QuoteThe Presidents certainly have a choice in the matter, and if you look at the judges you'll find that their retirement planning is very often done with the idea of who is in the White House. (Sometimes they die before their party wins again) I don't see how the presidents could have a choice in re how many SC judges die or retire during their terms. Please explain. You made the statement about retirement planning in response to my claim that the president has no control over who or how many of the SC judges retire during his/her term in office. If there is evidence that either Bush ever caused or promoted the retirement of a judge, please present it. Otherwise, a discussion of their retirement dates is something for another thread. ---------------------- QuoteMy sense is that the Bushes did a bit better in getting their idealogical candidates in than did Clinton. BC struggled with the power of the opposition and/or minority party in the Senate, where the fillibuster prevented him from doing a lot of his agenda. I present Thomas as best example. And when you consider the age of these 4 people...it's an influence that will last quite a while, unless the other 5 all happen to leave during a Democratic reign (which strictly by probability, is slim) over the next couple decades. I'll assume that the above statement is a general comment and was not made in support of your claim that the Bush's "Stacked" the SC. If my assumption is wrong, please let me know. You're right, though, about the effect the Senate and Congress can have on the confirmation of nominees. Also, if a president's first choice is for some reason not confirmed, then it can be assumed that whatever judge does get confirned won't be as good an idealogical match as the first. But the only two ways a nominee can be stopped is if the president withdraws the nomination prior to the confirmation vote, or if the vote is not a majority in favor of the nominee. As an aside, during the Clinton/Bush years, two SC nominees were NOT eventually confirmed. They were both GW Bush nominees which were withdrawn by him. So it looks like it was not Bush(s) that were more successful in getting ideologically similar judges confirmed. It was Mr. Clinton. ------------------- "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #32 November 25, 2007 Quote If there is evidence that either Bush ever caused or promoted the retirement of a judge, please present it. Jesus Fucking Christ! Sorry - can't have a serious conversation on the subject if you're going to put yourself on the defensive like this. The 'evidence' is plainly out there regarding the past 3 Presidents. It's not a sinister sequence of events, or an evil conspiracy, just politics in action. If you can't view it from a detached perspective, you're likely to miss the boat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #33 November 25, 2007 QuoteQuote If there is evidence that either Bush ever caused or promoted the retirement of a judge, please present it. Jesus Fucking Christ! Sorry - can't have a serious conversation on the subject if you're going to put yourself on the defensive like this. The 'evidence' is plainly out there regarding the past 3 Presidents. It's not a sinister sequence of events, or an evil conspiracy, just politics in action. If you can't view it from a detached perspective, you're likely to miss the boat. You say that there is evidencs that the last three presidents have promoted or caused the retirement of an SC justice. I can't see it, but admittedly, I don't know what to look for. There is nothing unreasonable in me asking you to provide evidence supporting your assertions. Thanks. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #34 November 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote If there is evidence that either Bush ever caused or promoted the retirement of a judge, please present it. Jesus Fucking Christ! Sorry - can't have a serious conversation on the subject if you're going to put yourself on the defensive like this. The 'evidence' is plainly out there regarding the past 3 Presidents. It's not a sinister sequence of events, or an evil conspiracy, just politics in action. If you can't view it from a detached perspective, you're likely to miss the boat. You say that there is evidencs that the last three presidents have promoted or caused the retirement of an SC justice. I can't see it, but admittedly, I don't know what to look for. There is nothing unreasonable in me asking you to provide evidence supporting your assertions. Thanks. I said (very clearly) that justices choose to time their retirements based on whose in the Oval Office. How you changed this around in your mind to be that the president was in charge of this process beats the hell out of me. And no, the timing is not random. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #35 November 25, 2007 kelpdiver, Here's what might have happened: The original issue (Thread topic) was "Stacking" of the court by the Bush Family, which you claimed had taken place. After going through the jurist placement process, I claimed that a president couldn't "stack" the SC because he had no choice in the matter (of if/when a jurist would retire and leave an open seat). Your responded to my claim by disagreeing, and in the same post you intoduced the retirement issue. I then replied by asking you to 1) explain your disagreement with my claim, and 2) either relate the retirement issue to the topic (by showning how the pres could influence retirement dates or discuss it elsewhere. Your response to the above ignored question 1, and quoted/responded to question 2 as follows: Quote ***If there is evidence that either Bush ever caused or promoted the retirement of a judge, please present it. The 'evidence' is plainly out there regarding the past 3 Presidents. Note: I edited your reply to simplify by removing unrelated content ----------------- Your last post was a continuation of replies to the above post. My guess is that you intended to reply to question one, but quoted question 2 in error. Is what happened? ------------------ "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #36 November 26, 2007 Let's assume Hilary actually wins both of the next two elections; that would mean 24 years of Presidency held by TWO families. Sad really and that wouldn't necessarily be the end of it either. And to think we used to worry about the Kennedys..... It would be odd to hink this reasoning might be used against Hillary, but not against Jeb. Time was when the only father/son fluke was the Adams presidents, but that was so long ago as to be ancient history, and besides Pops was already dead before JQ was even elected. A Constitutional amendment barring family relatives for a minimum of fifty years might be in order, but would never happen, besides which it would've barred FDR from running. Maybe voters just need to THINK a little more about who they vote for ? Now there's a concept ! Because Presidents will nominate the people who think like them for the Supreme Court. and for the Courts of Appeals, and for the District Courts. As for Bushes and/or Clintons doing the nominating, I don't see that their choices are any different from any other Republicans or Democrats likely to serve in the White House. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #37 November 26, 2007 QuoteHere's what might have happened: The original issue (Thread topic) was "Stacking" of the court by the Bush Family, which you claimed had taken place. At which point you unnecessarily went into a GOP apologist mode, and managed to not read anything that would disagree with this war making stance. Got nothing more to write on the subject - it was well covered. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
At which point you unnecessarily went into a GOP apologist mode, and managed to not read anything that would disagree with this war making stance.
Got nothing more to write on the subject - it was well covered.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites