The Dem Litmus Test: All Conservatives Are Disqualified

Adam's Apple

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
4,092
Reaction score
454
Points
48
Who Started The Supreme Court Circus?
by L. Brent Bozell III, Media Research Center
July 6, 2005

When Sandra Day OÂ’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 didnÂ’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
 
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:
 
Max Power said:
A little revisionist history, no?


http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0512/p02s01-uspo.html


It does happen with Democratic nominations.

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.
 
rtwngAvngr said:
The point is the extreme personal nature of the attacks and the vociferousness with which libs pursue their destructive adhominen slash and burn policies.

The louder the libs scream about the appointee, the better the appointment...I hope they scream their heads off!!

Twice.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom