The Dem Litmus Test: All Conservatives Are Disqualified

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Adam's Apple, Jul 10, 2005.

  1. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    Who Started The Supreme Court Circus?
    by L. Brent Bozell III, Media Research Center
    July 6, 2005

    When Sandra Day O’Connor announced her intention to retire from the Supreme Court, Washingtonians gathered with one thought: the circus has come to town.

    Reporters quickly assured viewers this "titanic battle" that is guaranteed to be knock-down, drag-out, wall-to-wall ugly. They didn’t wonder: why does this always happen with Republican nominations, but not Democratic ones? In 1993, President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was calmly approved by a vote of 96 to 3. In 1994, Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer, who was confirmed by a vote of 87 to 9. By contrast, all hell broke loose with Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, with 58 senators against the one, and 48 votes against the other. The same pattern occurs with Attorney General nominees: 42 votes against John Ashcroft, 36 against Alberto Gonzales, and zero against Janet Reno. Why?

    It’s simple. Republicans have been willing to grant Democratic presidents their right to select nominees of their choice, while Democrats have used an explicitly ideological standard since the 1987 trashing of Robert Bork: if you’re conservative, you’re disqualified – period.

    These Democrats are emboldened because on high-profile, non-electoral fights like this, liberal bias flies fast and furious in the newsrooms. A classic example can be found in the work product of staunchly liberal National Public Radio reporter Nina Totenberg, who has tried to ruin two conservative Supreme Court bids.

    for full article:
    http://www.mrc.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2005/col20050706.asp
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. nosarcasm
    Offline

    nosarcasm Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Messages:
    931
    Thanks Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Idaho
    Ratings:
    +68
    good article, and I agree. The media liberal or not needs some fights
    so they make this out to be some great slugfest. If the Republicans
    are not totally of the rocker they consolidate the court in their directions
    If they get two free ones the internal party consensus should
    be on pro life and one true conservative.

    I am not sure why the Dems think they can win this,
    The Republicans have the nuclear option still in the back
    and should steamroll the dems because unlike Bolton this is important.

    I am still an NPR listener and financier (ok I dontated 50$)

    Let me have it :dev1:
     
  4. Max Power
    Online

    Max Power Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    A little revisionist history, no?


    http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0512/p02s01-uspo.html
    It does happen with Democratic nominations.
     
  5. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    The point is the extreme personal nature of the attacks and the vociferousness with which libs pursue their destructive adhominen slash and burn policies.

    I guess your procedural point was sort of cool. It just wasn't GREAT.
     
  6. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,887
    Thanks Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,159
    The louder the libs scream about the appointee, the better the appointment...I hope they scream their heads off!!

    Twice.
     

Share This Page