Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If a judge is "outside the judicial mainstream" I expect the Senate to exercise their obligation to stop the appointment.
Kyl's definition of "outside the judicial mainstream" is anyone Obama appoints.
What about that wise "latino woman"? Was she Bork'd?? You sound like a partisan hack when you make unsubstantiated claims that fly in the face of the facts. You can do better.
Kyl's definition of "outside the judicial mainstream" is anyone Obama appoints.
What about that wise "latino woman"? Was she Bork'd?? You sound like a partisan hack when you make unsubstantiated claims that fly in the face of the facts. You can do better.
They didn't filibuster because they didn't have the votes to sustain it.
And as for Bork, cry me a river. It's a damn good thing that a guy who was massively corrupt (Saturday Night Massacre) and thought the government had the right to monitor every move you make was rejected.
What about that wise "latino woman"? Was she Bork'd?? You sound like a partisan hack when you make unsubstantiated claims that fly in the face of the facts. You can do better.
They didn't filibuster because they didn't have the votes to sustain it.
And as for Bork, cry me a river. It's a damn good thing that a guy who was massively corrupt (Saturday Night Massacre) and thought the government had the right to monitor every move you make was rejected.
The didn't filibuster - thus rendering your pathetically weak argument even more pathetic. If a nut job Marxist is nominated by Obama - he or she will be filibustered and they should be.
The second-ranking Republican in the Senate suggested on Sunday that the party would filibuster the next appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, if that nominee were deemed to be outside of the judicial mainstream.
"It will all depend on what kind of a person it is," Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) declared during an appearance on "Fox News Sunday." "I think the president should nominate a qualified person. I hope, however, he does not nominate an overly ideological person. That will be the test, and if he doesn't nominate someone who is overly ideological, you may see Republicans voting against, but I don't think you will see them engage in a filibuster."
...
Given the partisan rancor that has brought the Senate to a standstill much of this past year, the notion that a Supreme Court nominee would be subjected to a filibuster attempt doesn't seem all that dubious. And yet, if successful, it would resemble something of a high-water-mark for the politicization of the Court confirmation process. Robert Bork's nomination, for instance, was not filibustered. It was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 58-42.
Asked whether Republicans would appear hypocritical should they block the next Obama Court nominee after having decried the treatment of Bork and Bush-nominees by Democrats in Congress, Kyl acknowledged that the filibuster was "wrong and it shouldn't be done."Nevertheless, the Arizona Republican still wouldn't rule it out. "I think you would agree that if only one side is permitted to do it -- the Democrats and not the Republicans -- then you have a very unfair system," he said. "I would prefer to go back to the situation where it is not done by either party. But the Democrats won that fight. They filibustered Miguel Estrada."
Jon Kyl: GOP Willing To Filibuster Obama's Next Supreme Court Nominee
So all that jumping up and down demanding an "up-or-down vote" was bullshit. Not that I'm surprised.
Obama will probably pick one of his old Buddies... Van Jones, Reverend Rice or at least an ACLU, America hater.
If a judge is "outside the judicial mainstream" I expect the Senate to exercise their obligation to stop the appointment.
I agree, but it should be done with an up or down vote. Do you really want this circus going on every single time a vacancy opens on the Supreme Court? This is getting ridiculous.
The second-ranking Republican in the Senate suggested on Sunday that the party would filibuster the next appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, if that nominee were deemed to be outside of the judicial mainstream.
"It will all depend on what kind of a person it is," Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) declared during an appearance on "Fox News Sunday." "I think the president should nominate a qualified person. I hope, however, he does not nominate an overly ideological person. That will be the test, and if he doesn't nominate someone who is overly ideological, you may see Republicans voting against, but I don't think you will see them engage in a filibuster."
...
Given the partisan rancor that has brought the Senate to a standstill much of this past year, the notion that a Supreme Court nominee would be subjected to a filibuster attempt doesn't seem all that dubious. And yet, if successful, it would resemble something of a high-water-mark for the politicization of the Court confirmation process. Robert Bork's nomination, for instance, was not filibustered. It was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 58-42.
Asked whether Republicans would appear hypocritical should they block the next Obama Court nominee after having decried the treatment of Bork and Bush-nominees by Democrats in Congress, Kyl acknowledged that the filibuster was "wrong and it shouldn't be done."Nevertheless, the Arizona Republican still wouldn't rule it out. "I think you would agree that if only one side is permitted to do it -- the Democrats and not the Republicans -- then you have a very unfair system," he said. "I would prefer to go back to the situation where it is not done by either party. But the Democrats won that fight. They filibustered Miguel Estrada."
Jon Kyl: GOP Willing To Filibuster Obama's Next Supreme Court Nominee
So all that jumping up and down demanding an "up-or-down vote" was bullshit. Not that I'm surprised.
Just so happens I was watching that interview so I know that huffingsome post left out a major detail. The above bolded comment was followed by "but I am not for letting democwats be the only party who filibusters. In other words neither should do it but if the dems do it so will the Republican. That's why I like Fox news.. the tell the whole story.. what a bunch of fricking babies you guys are.
If a judge is "outside the judicial mainstream" I expect the Senate to exercise their obligation to stop the appointment.
I agree, but it should be done with an up or down vote. Do you really want this circus going on every single time a vacancy opens on the Supreme Court? This is getting ridiculous.
Then abolish it for both parties.
So all that jumping up and down demanding an "up-or-down vote" was bullshit. Not that I'm surprised.
Just so happens I was watching that interview so I know that huffingsome post left out a major detail. The above bolded comment was followed by "but I am not for letting democwats be the only party who filibusters. In other words neither should do it but if the dems do it so will the Republican. That's why I like Fox news.. the tell the whole story.. what a bunch of fricking babies you guys are.
That's included in the very article I posted. Also, it's total bullshit. Neither of Bush's nominees to the Supreme Court was filibustered.
The second-ranking Republican in the Senate suggested on Sunday that the party would filibuster the next appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, if that nominee were deemed to be outside of the judicial mainstream.
"It will all depend on what kind of a person it is," Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) declared during an appearance on "Fox News Sunday." "I think the president should nominate a qualified person. I hope, however, he does not nominate an overly ideological person. That will be the test, and if he doesn't nominate someone who is overly ideological, you may see Republicans voting against, but I don't think you will see them engage in a filibuster."
...
Given the partisan rancor that has brought the Senate to a standstill much of this past year, the notion that a Supreme Court nominee would be subjected to a filibuster attempt doesn't seem all that dubious. And yet, if successful, it would resemble something of a high-water-mark for the politicization of the Court confirmation process. Robert Bork's nomination, for instance, was not filibustered. It was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 58-42.
Asked whether Republicans would appear hypocritical should they block the next Obama Court nominee after having decried the treatment of Bork and Bush-nominees by Democrats in Congress, Kyl acknowledged that the filibuster was "wrong and it shouldn't be done."
Nevertheless, the Arizona Republican still wouldn't rule it out. "I think you would agree that if only one side is permitted to do it -- the Democrats and not the Republicans -- then you have a very unfair system," he said. "I would prefer to go back to the situation where it is not done by either party. But the Democrats won that fight. They filibustered Miguel Estrada."
Jon Kyl: GOP Willing To Filibuster Obama's Next Supreme Court Nominee
So all that jumping up and down demanding an "up-or-down vote" was bullshit. Not that I'm surprised.
So all that jumping up and down demanding an "up-or-down vote" was bullshit. Not that I'm surprised.
Just so happens I was watching that interview so I know that huffingsome post left out a major detail. The above bolded comment was followed by "but I am not for letting democwats be the only party who filibusters. In other words neither should do it but if the dems do it so will the Republican. That's why I like Fox news.. the tell the whole story.. what a bunch of fricking babies you guys are.
That's included in the very article I posted. Also, it's total bullshit. Neither of Bush's nominees to the Supreme Court was filibustered.
Just so happens I was watching that interview so I know that huffingsome post left out a major detail. The above bolded comment was followed by "but I am not for letting democwats be the only party who filibusters. In other words neither should do it but if the dems do it so will the Republican. That's why I like Fox news.. the tell the whole story.. what a bunch of fricking babies you guys are.
That's included in the very article I posted. Also, it's total bullshit. Neither of Bush's nominees to the Supreme Court was filibustered.
Indeed it is. I stand corrected. But it is not bullshit. What's good for one party is good for both.
Just so happens I was watching that interview so I know that huffingsome post left out a major detail. The above bolded comment was followed by "but I am not for letting democwats be the only party who filibusters. In other words neither should do it but if the dems do it so will the Republican. That's why I like Fox news.. the tell the whole story.. what a bunch of fricking babies you guys are.
That's included in the very article I posted. Also, it's total bullshit. Neither of Bush's nominees to the Supreme Court was filibustered.
Bush had many nominees filibustered for federal bench positions...
He nominated more than just Roberts and Alito, you dumb fuck...
That's included in the very article I posted. Also, it's total bullshit. Neither of Bush's nominees to the Supreme Court was filibustered.
Bush had many nominees filibustered for federal bench positions...
He nominated more than just Roberts and Alito, you dumb fuck...
We're discussing Supreme Court appointments. Please try to keep up.
Obama will probably pick one of his old Buddies... Van Jones, Reverend Rice or at least an ACLU, America hater.
that's exactly who he will pick,, an old ACLU guy, I don't remember his name but he is oriental and an extreme America hater. Just wait for it.
The second-ranking Republican in the Senate suggested on Sunday that the party would filibuster the next appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, if that nominee were deemed to be outside of the judicial mainstream.
"It will all depend on what kind of a person it is," Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) declared during an appearance on "Fox News Sunday." "I think the president should nominate a qualified person. I hope, however, he does not nominate an overly ideological person. That will be the test, and if he doesn't nominate someone who is overly ideological, you may see Republicans voting against, but I don't think you will see them engage in a filibuster."
...
Given the partisan rancor that has brought the Senate to a standstill much of this past year, the notion that a Supreme Court nominee would be subjected to a filibuster attempt doesn't seem all that dubious. And yet, if successful, it would resemble something of a high-water-mark for the politicization of the Court confirmation process. Robert Bork's nomination, for instance, was not filibustered. It was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 58-42.
Asked whether Republicans would appear hypocritical should they block the next Obama Court nominee after having decried the treatment of Bork and Bush-nominees by Democrats in Congress, Kyl acknowledged that the filibuster was "wrong and it shouldn't be done."
Nevertheless, the Arizona Republican still wouldn't rule it out. "I think you would agree that if only one side is permitted to do it -- the Democrats and not the Republicans -- then you have a very unfair system," he said. "I would prefer to go back to the situation where it is not done by either party. But the Democrats won that fight. They filibustered Miguel Estrada."
Jon Kyl: GOP Willing To Filibuster Obama's Next Supreme Court Nominee
So all that jumping up and down demanding an "up-or-down vote" was bullshit. Not that I'm surprised.
