Comments on: What Liberals Don’t Get About Supreme Court Nominees http://hungryblues.net/2005/10/07/what-liberals-dont-get-about-supreme-court-nominees/ Ben Greenberg's Weblog Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:43:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: ruthie http://hungryblues.net/2005/10/07/what-liberals-dont-get-about-supreme-court-nominees/#comment-443 ruthie Fri, 07 Oct 2005 16:05:09 +0000 http://hungryblues.net/2005/10/07/what-liberals-dont-get-about-supreme-court-nominees/#comment-443 What I find bizarre about this comment: do you think we were asleep for the entirety of the Clinton presidency, and didn't somehow notice that the Republicans created a backlog of nominees to the federal bench? Consistency and integrity, indeed! Senate conservatives are consistent about pursuing the interests of their own demographically small constituency, and are utterly faithful to the principle of serving their own narrow interests. What I find bizarre about this comment: do you think we were asleep for the entirety of the Clinton presidency, and didn’t somehow notice that the Republicans created a backlog of nominees to the federal bench? Consistency and integrity, indeed! Senate conservatives are consistent about pursuing the interests of their own demographically small constituency, and are utterly faithful to the principle of serving their own narrow interests.

]]> By: Nate Hertel http://hungryblues.net/2005/10/07/what-liberals-dont-get-about-supreme-court-nominees/#comment-442 Nate Hertel Fri, 07 Oct 2005 10:14:46 +0000 http://hungryblues.net/2005/10/07/what-liberals-dont-get-about-supreme-court-nominees/#comment-442 And what's not reported here is that liberals are much more unprincipled than conservatives. Centuries of Senate tradition has recognized the power of the President to nominate judicial nominees (it's in a thing called the Constitution) and the power of the Senate to 'advise and consent'. Advise and consent has historically meant determine if the nominee has the temperament and capacity to rule on the given court. Democrats have proved incapable of realizing that it would be harmful if ideology became a part of the criteria. John Roberts, who even the jester Chuck Schumer called one of the most qualified candidiates to ever come before the Judiciary Committee, was confirmed with only half the votes of democrats in the Senate (plus Jefford's, who is now a democrat, vote making it 23-22). Contrast that to the 96-3 vote for Ginsburg, whose views couldn't possibly be more offensive to conservatives. Yeah, and yb the way, she replaced Justice White, who along with Rehnquist dissented form Roe v. Wade. Democrats have *never* sought "balance" on the court previously. Liberals are a despciable species of parasite with no concern for integrity or principles, and have demonstrated a contempt for any consistency in the values they claim to have. http://radarblog.blogspot.com/2005/10/principled-opposition-to-miers.html And what’s not reported here is that liberals are much more unprincipled than conservatives.

Centuries of Senate tradition has recognized the power of the President to nominate judicial nominees (it’s in a thing called the Constitution) and the power of the Senate to ‘advise and consent’. Advise and consent has historically meant determine if the nominee has the temperament and capacity to rule on the given court. Democrats have proved incapable of realizing that it would be harmful if ideology became a part of the criteria.

John Roberts, who even the jester Chuck Schumer called one of the most qualified candidiates to ever come before the Judiciary Committee, was confirmed with only half the votes of democrats in the Senate (plus Jefford’s, who is now a democrat, vote making it 23-22). Contrast that to the 96-3 vote for Ginsburg, whose views couldn’t possibly be more offensive to conservatives. Yeah, and yb the way, she replaced Justice White, who along with Rehnquist dissented form Roe v. Wade. Democrats have *never* sought “balance” on the court previously.

Liberals are a despciable species of parasite with no concern for integrity or principles, and have demonstrated a contempt for any consistency in the values they claim to have.

http://radarblog.blogspot.com/2005/10/principled-opposition-to-miers.html

]]>