Bush: Seeking new ways to harm the country

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

We have a huge shortage of judges at the federal level (thanks so much, dems), and basically none have been appointed due to filibustering.

Not even close.

The vast majority of Bush's nominees have been appointed. The democrats have blocked a total of three.

When Bush assumed office, there were 100 federal judgeships to be filled. Many of the judgeships were those that the Republicans had refused to fill during the Clinton years.

Republicans aggressively sought to block Clinton's judicial nominations. The problem of a backlog of federal judgeships that needed to be filled was so bad that Rehnquist (a Republican) spoke out and prodded the Republican-controlled Senate for failing to act on nominations.

In the last five years of the Clinton presidency, Republicans blocked 20% of the nominees submitted to the Senate. In President Bush's first three years, only 3.4% of judicial nominees have been rejected.

[Kennedy 0]

And we can't forget that even if the SCUS hadn't cut the illegal and biased recounts short, Bush still won Florida under every scenario.

The plain fact is BUSH WON FLORIDA. People need to GET OVER IT.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

And we can't forget that even if the SCUS hadn't cut the illegal and biased recounts short, Bush still won Florida under every scenario.

The plain fact is BUSH WON FLORIDA. People need to GET OVER IT.

Ummm...you and Chuck are the only ones mentioning it.

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

Quote

And we can't forget that even if the SCUS hadn't cut the illegal and biased recounts short, Bush still won Florida under every scenario.

The plain fact is BUSH WON FLORIDA. People need to GET OVER IT.

Ummm...you and Chuck are the only ones mentioning it.

No, I think you brought up the subject when you said the Rs controlled all three branches. How else should that statement have been interpreted?

[PhillyKev 0]

It should have been interpreted that the majority of the supremes are conservative, along with the majority of appelate judges. I wasn't even thinking about the 2000 election. I'm over it. You're apparently are still hung up on it.

[chuckbrown 0]

No, I really don't care about the Florida election; obviously I misinterpreted your comment. I still fail to see how being "conservative" means that the Rs "control" the judiciary. Actually, considering how many federal judges are ruling the sentencing guidelines unconstitutional, I would even disagree that the judiciary is "conservative." Throwing out mandatory sentencing guidelines is not exactly a "conservative" thing to do.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Throwing out mandatory sentencing guidelines is not exactly a "conservative" thing to do.

It certainly should be. Somewhere along the line, though, conservatives got confused. I thought the rep line was that they are against federal gov't pushing a centralized will on the states. What the hell is mandatory sentencing, then?

[chuckbrown 0]

No, actually I think the root of the judicial revolt that's going on, is that judges don't like Congress telling them what they can and can't do when it comes to sentencing. Separation of powers thing.

[PhillyKev 0]

Which is a good thing, and a conservative stance.

Hey look everybody...I said something right wing was good, how long does this burning sensation last?