Over 800 hundred federal judgeships left open by Harry Reid when GW Bush was president.

We are about to hear some major league caterwauling from the democratic party but they don't really have a ethical leg to stand on. The final YEARS (not 11 months) of Bush's administration saw Harry Reid of the Senate block the votes, if they got a vote, of hundreds of Bush nominees for federal and appeal judgeships. The press never questioned if Harry Reid was right or wrong but the flood gates did open after Obama got into the White House. So there is precedent for the Senate to block judgeship votes.

It is also constitutional. The beauty of having three branches of government (and a bicameral legislative branch) was that if one branch got too radical the other two branches could drag that branch back into the moderate zone. If a president nominees a card carrying communist, black panther, or someother GLTB activist then it is the responsibility for the Senate to stop such a vote in it's tracks. Even a less radical nominee, if outside the mainstream, should be given very careful consideration. Justices like Scalia were conservative but unlike so many liberals (Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan) give respect to the US Constitution which should be the standard.

Lets not forget

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is criticizing Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell for saying the Senate should not move forward with a Supreme Court nominee during President Obama's remaining months in office.

"You know, the kind of obstructionism that Mitch McConnell's talking about, he's harkening back to his old days. You know, he recently he said, 'Well, I want regular order,' " Schumer said on ABC's "This Week."

However

When George W. Bush was still president, Schumer advocated almost the exact same approach McConnell is planning to pursue. During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/fl...#ixzz40C1rpAPr

Sure enough. "They were sleazy, scummy politicos when they did it, so we should do the same--or worse." Of course when "we" do it, it will be just and fair!"

Pure BS when the Dems did it, pure BS now if the Reps do it.

But most here will only think one side is wrong.

We are about to hear some major league caterwauling from the democratic party but they don't really have a ethical leg to stand on. The final YEARS (not 11 months) of Bush's administration saw Harry Reid of the Senate block the votes, if they got a vote, of hundreds of Bush nominees for federal and appeal judgeships. The press never questioned if Harry Reid was right or wrong but the flood gates did open after Obama got into the White House. So there is precedent for the Senate to block judgeship votes.

It is also constitutional. The beauty of having three branches of government (and a bicameral legislative branch) was that if one branch got too radical the other two branches could drag that branch back into the moderate zone. If a president nominees a card carrying communist, black panther, or someother GLTB activist then it is the responsibility for the Senate to stop such a vote in it's tracks. Even a less radical nominee, if outside the mainstream, should be given very careful consideration. Justices like Scalia were conservative but unlike so many liberals (Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan) give respect to the US Constitution which should be the standard. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

We are about to hear some major league caterwauling from the democratic party but they don't really have a ethical leg to stand on. The final YEARS (not 11 months) of Bush's administration saw Harry Reid of the Senate block the votes, if they got a vote, of hundreds of Bush nominees for federal and appeal judgeships. The press never questioned if Harry Reid was right or wrong but the flood gates did open after Obama got into the White House. So there is precedent for the Senate to block judgeship votes.

It is also constitutional. The beauty of having three branches of government (and a bicameral legislative branch) was that if one branch got too radical the other two branches could drag that branch back into the moderate zone. If a president nominees a card carrying communist, black panther, or someother GLTB activist then it is the responsibility for the Senate to stop such a vote in it's tracks. Even a less radical nominee, if outside the mainstream, should be given very careful consideration. Justices like Scalia were conservative but unlike so many liberals (Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan) give respect to the US Constitution which should be the standard. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

And if the Dems gain control of the Senate and a Republican wins the Presidency. ... should the Dems hold up the process for two years JD?

No value judgement made here but just showing the hypocrisy of the left and the precedent that exists both the left will deny. Another difference is that ideology will be the source for this latest stonewall which is line with the Constitution. What Reid did was pure obstructionism for the sake of political advantage which is not in accordance with the Constitution.

No value judgement made here but just showing the hypocrisy of the left and the precedent that exists both the left will deny. Another difference is that ideology will be the source for this latest stonewall which is line with the Constitution. What Reid did was pure obstructionism for the sake of political advantage which is not in accordance with the Constitution. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

B.S.. Obstructionism is obstructionism.

ADMITTED it was "Pure BS when the Dems did it Originally Posted by Old-T

So.. why should THEY be the only ones allowed to get away with it and now the Republicans "have to play fair"?
And in answer to WTF's question "should the Dems hold up the process for two years JD? "

Why expect anything different? Harry Reid ALREADY DEMONSTRATED that they would be willing to do that.. and got away with it.

That has always been the way the last few decades; the democrats cheat, lie, and obstruct which is fair from their point of view but let the GOP do the same thing (for different reasons) and the shit hits the rotating air flow device.

There is a difference Old T. The Consitution allows for one branch to block the other branches from taking certain actions. This was intentional to prevent one branch from going radical. Reid admitted that what he did was to prevent Bush from filling judgeships so that they could be given to cronies of the democratic party. Just like when Reid lied about Romney's taxes. When confronted long after the election, Reid wasn't even remorseful or ashamed. His only comment was that Romney wasn't president. Reid is a total disgrace to the body politic.

It's going to happen with or without your inoculation, JDrunk. Your boys will either compromise or die politically.

Seems like the "caterwauling" began somewhere around post #1..


HAHAHAHAHAHhahahahahahahahaha!

And if the Dems gain control of the Senate and a Republican wins the Presidency. ... should the Dems hold up the process for two years JD? Originally Posted by WTF

http://www.politico.com/story/2007/0...t-picks-005146

The Senate is founded upon traditions. So now you want an exception?

You are just another little spoiled brat, whining about "equal protection"!

Hold on...LLephantMan...

Do you believe... That tradition trumps the ...fucking constitution...?

http://www.politico.com/story/2007/0...t-picks-005146

The Senate is founded upon traditions. So now you want an exception?

You are just another little spoiled brat, whining about "equal protection"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

What tradition applies here LLiar?

What tradition applies here LLiar? Originally Posted by WTF

Are you yelling at the keyboard when you make Big Chief letters?

You posting in a thread about legal matters is an insult.

What tradition, LLephantMan?

Is this ANOTHER simple question you're unwilling to answer?

http://www.politico.com/story/2007/0...t-picks-005146

The Senate is founded upon traditions. So now you want an exception?

You are just another little spoiled brat, whining about "equal protection"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Your man plans to block it.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ted-c...ry?id=36922959