Cry Me a River, Hugh
Posted by: Dale Franks on Thursday, October 27, 2005As far as the up-or-down vote thing goes, one notes that the problem conservatives had with the up-or-down vote requirement was that the Democrats were denying Senate votes on judicial nominees who had already been vetted, and reported out of the Judiciary Committee. At no point in time has the issue been that every presidential nominee, no matter how unqualified, must be accepted without dissent from the moment of nomination. Nor has the issue ever been that the president's supporters must remain silent to allow any nominee, regardless of qualifications, to complete the nomination process. The whole point of the argument was that qualified nominees, whose nominations were before the Senate, were refused a vote by senators of the opposing party. Conflating that with pundits who have nothing whatsoever to do with the nomination of confirmation process, and who merely express their opinions about the quality of a nominee, is either intentionally intellectually dishonest, or a sign of an sad inability to reason properly.
We have reduced all nominees to a fight over their political leanings. As Mark Steyn said, we are getting a system of rule by nine parliamentarians. I do not think we will like who gets on the court in the future, when libs are in the driver's seat.
As if we like Ginsberg. Sheesh. It's about time the GOP learns to oppose judicial nominees who indicate a willingness to legislate from the bench. The fact that the GOP didn't do that with Ginsberg is a black eye for the GOP.
As if we like Ginsberg. Sheesh. It's about time the GOP learns to oppose judicial nominees who indicate a willingness to legislate from the
bench. The fact that the GOP didn't do that with Ginsberg is a black eye for the GOP.
######
Sorry, I missed all the objections to HM that she would legislate from the bench.