Intellectual property? I'll be glad to read why you think some talking points are intellectual property.
Political advantage? Am I supposed to somehow believe that Republicans do this and Democrats don't? If Democrats can get ahold of some Republican material, you bet they would use it. I have no doubt about it. Likewise the Democrats were caught LYING in these memos. Claiming to oppose Estrada because of ideology when it was also because of his ethnicity is RACIST and LYING.
Claiming that they are holding up judges because of competence yet they let the nominee go through after the case has been decided (I believe they held up the nomination for about 10 months if I recall correctly, then let it go on through) is tampering of the worst kind.
I consider both of those very high stakes political gains advanced by lies and manipulation. Do I hear a little "That's crap, bullshit, etc." from you over them?
What this really is about, with the wrongs on both sides, is the attempt by the Democrats to control via the judiciary that which they cannot control via legislation. If they would just stop lying about the reasoning for turning down judges, then no one would have to take steps, be they right or wrong, to call them out on their lies and manipulations.
Nick
I hate democrats and republicans equally. I would be bitching and screaming just as much if the roles were reversed. The point is you can't separate the two acts. If I was a policeman and just knocked down random doors without warrants and in the process caught a terrorist who wanted to blow up a bus, I'm no hero. Yes, it's great the terrorist has been caught but I trampled the rights of everyone else in the process. That isn't kosher.
No, it's what it's called when the waters are muddied by someone who knows, on some level at least, that he's defending the indefensible.
I agree. Shawn attempting to defend the indefensible actions taken by Democrats in not even allowing someone like Estrada to come before the Senate for questioning and a confirmation vote is pretty terrible.
Even more indefensible is Bunge claiming that Democrats needed more information to let him come out of committee when they would have gotten the ability to question and ask about the personal views of the candidate in the full senate confirmation hearing.
It is indefensible that the petitioned information from the solicitor general that was declare inappropriate not just by the current person filling the role, but by the seven previous people filling the roll including four Democrats and three Republicans. Their view was unanimous that it was inappropriate.
It is indefensible that Estrada, given a unanimous rating of "more than qualified" by the American Bar Association for the role of federal judge cannot even get out of committee because of Democratic filibuster threats.
It is indefensible that they did this because he is a "dangerous Latino." He is dangerous because he is highly qualified and not a single person here can claim an iota of information about how he is unqualified. They claim it isn't about race, yet cannot define a single piece of information related to any other aspect of his abilities.
So while it might be indefensible how the Republicans learned about and acted on this information, I think what the Democrats did is far, far worse than reading a strategy memo relating how Democrats were going to act in a racist and wrong manner.
So while it might be indefensible how the Republicans learned about and acted on this information, I think what the Democrats did is far, far worse than reading a strategy memo relating how Democrats were going to act in a racist and wrong manner.
which is exactly why this is just going to off and die. neither party really wants to push the issue because they both did things they really have no defense for.
I agree. Shawn attempting to defend the indefensible actions taken by Democrats in not even allowing someone like Estrada to come before the Senate for questioning and a confirmation vote is pretty terrible.
Even more indefensible is Bunge claiming that Democrats needed more information to let him come out of committee when they would have gotten the ability to question and ask about the personal views of the candidate in the full senate confirmation hearing.
Your other points have some merit, but not these. He did have his hearing. He was questioned at length, although he essentially refused to answer any questions. "Going to the full senate" doesn't mean getting more hearings, it just means getting a vote. The hearings are done in the committee, not in the full senate. In the full senate the senators just debate each other, they wouldn't have heard any more from Estrada.
Your other points have some merit, but not these. He did have his hearing. He was questioned at length, although he essentially refused to answer any questions. "Going to the full senate" doesn't mean getting more hearings, it just means getting a vote. The hearings are done in the committee, not in the full senate. In the full senate the senators just debate each other, they wouldn't have heard any more from Estrada.
Estrada answered numerous questions about his judicial philisophy. He also consented to personal meetings with Senators and was made available to answer additional questions in writing if they were submitted. Among the 10 Democratic committee members 2 questions were submitted and from the full 100 member Senate, no questions were submitted. Additional confirmation hearings could have been added or scheduled by Senators who still had questions, but none were.
Estrada did refuse to answer some political philosphy questions, but he wasn't running for a political office. Stating a preference or prejudging a case before you have heard the facts or circumstances is exactly what you want a judge to strive most often not to do. Estrada stated as many different ways as can be stated that he would put aside his own views and decide any case on the merits. Repeatedly attempting to divulge what those personal views are is pointless since a good judge will be able to set them aside and enforce the law.
Senate Democrats couldn't get past this. They had to know what those personal views were so that they could of course, claim that they wouldn't be set aside, etc. When Estrada wouldn't play this game, Democrats kept repeating until it appeared to be true, that he wouldn't answer questions. However the Democrats had full opportunity for addition confirmation hearings, submitting questions in writing and personal interviews. It is clear most of them prejudged Estrada and cared nothing about his ability to judge. Rather they wanted to try to play "Gotcha" politics with ever changing hypotheticals via asking him to prejudge cases.
He is appointed by the president... a political beast... he has his own agendas when he puts someone forward for consideration... the senators have every right to try to figure that out.
He could have answered the questions with the caveat that those views would not affect his objective viewpoint...
If the guy said I'm a moderate or I believe in this... but I would follow the supreme courts lead... blah blah blah... when you refuse to answer questions... you look like you have something to hide... or are actually hiding something.
Estrada answered numerous questions about his judicial philisophy. He also consented to personal meetings with Senators and was made available to answer additional questions in writing if they were submitted. Among the 10 Democratic committee members 2 questions were submitted and from the full 100 member Senate, no questions were submitted. Additional confirmation hearings could have been added or scheduled by Senators who still had questions, but none were.
But you're still wrong that Democrats blocked hearings. Republicans controlled the senate. They voted him out of committee, and the vote went to the floor. Democrats didn't block him from more hearings. They blocked the vote, just like a minority of 40 can block most any other vote in the senate.
By the way, do you know why there's even a spot for Estrada on this court? Because the frickin' Republicans blocked Clinton's nominees to the same damn court. So of course there's an opening, but now Repubs are mad their nominee is getting blocked. Hmm.
And the Repubs always play the race card on Dems. It's their MO. When the Dems didn't like one of Bush's white judicial nominees, Repubs said it was because Dems are prejudiced against Catholics, despite the fact that most of the Dems on the committee were Catholic.
He is appointed by the president... a political beast... he has his own agendas when he puts someone forward for consideration... the senators have every right to try to figure that out.
He could have answered the questions with the caveat that those views would not affect his objective viewpoint...
If the guy said I'm a moderate or I believe in this... but I would follow the supreme courts lead... blah blah blah... when you refuse to answer questions... you look like you have something to hide... or are actually hiding something.
How in a political climate can you answer a question, I have this bias but I promise it won't effect this very important case?
The Senators job is not to find out what brand of toilet paper he wipes with, it is to advise and consent as to whether he would be a good judge. The questioning should be about how he would judge.
Likewise you talk about again... staking out a position before you are even on a court. Why would you want a judge who prejudges?
But you're still wrong that Democrats blocked hearings. Republicans controlled the senate. They voted him out of committee, and the vote went to the floor. Democrats didn't block him from more hearings. They blocked the vote, just like a minority of 40 can block most any other vote in the senate.
By the way, do you know why there's even a spot for Estrada on this court? Because the frickin' Republicans blocked Clinton's nominees to the same damn court. So of course there's an opening, but now Repubs are mad their nominee is getting blocked. Hmm.
And the Repubs always play the race card on Dems. It's their MO. When the Dems didn't like one of Bush's white judicial nominees, Repubs said it was because Dems are prejudiced against Catholics, despite the fact that most of the Dems on the committee were Catholic.
If you call a threatened filibuster not blocking, that is your perogative. Likewise if you want to call screaming that they can't get information while not actually submitting any questions honest, that is again your perogative.
As for the spot for Estrada, I read that there were four openings. So the two late term Clinton appointees have nothing to do with whether Estrada would have had a spot.
Likewise Democrats always place the race card, amazingly even against people of other races. They decided Estrada wasn't "Hispanic enough."
Likewise Democrats always place the race card, amazingly even against people of other races. They decided Estrada wasn't "Hispanic enough."
Why do you keep blabbering on about this bullshit? Do you actually believe the Democrats wouldn't like a liberal Hispanic becuase he's Hispanic? Don't be stupid.
Why do you keep blabbering on about this bullshit? Do you actually believe the Democrats wouldn't like a liberal Hispanic becuase he's Hispanic? Don't be stupid.
Well obviously you don't understand their thinking in that you can't be hispanic without being liberal. Thus a conservative hispanic isn't "hispanic enough" because he isn't liberal enough.
If you don't like how I blabber, don't reply. I assure you that when you post nonsense, I often ignore it.
That comment has no basis in reality. Perhaps the conservative hispanic isn't LIBERAL enough?
EDIT: Ah you edited your post. Good. But you really need to backup this race idea...
I don't see an edit but whatever...
As for this "race" idea. It isn't my idea that someone could be denied their heritage based off their political views. That is only suggested by liberals who claim things like Estrada isn't hispanic or Clarence Thomas isnt black. It is those types of supposed leaders who make up racial criteria and then declare someone "authentic" if they meet the criteria. In most cases the criteria involves being politically liberal.
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnJ
This discussion went to hell.
Is that what it is called when you lose?
Nick
Well done, Nick.
Originally posted by trumptman
Intellectual property? I'll be glad to read why you think some talking points are intellectual property.
Political advantage? Am I supposed to somehow believe that Republicans do this and Democrats don't? If Democrats can get ahold of some Republican material, you bet they would use it. I have no doubt about it. Likewise the Democrats were caught LYING in these memos. Claiming to oppose Estrada because of ideology when it was also because of his ethnicity is RACIST and LYING.
Claiming that they are holding up judges because of competence yet they let the nominee go through after the case has been decided (I believe they held up the nomination for about 10 months if I recall correctly, then let it go on through) is tampering of the worst kind.
I consider both of those very high stakes political gains advanced by lies and manipulation. Do I hear a little "That's crap, bullshit, etc." from you over them?
What this really is about, with the wrongs on both sides, is the attempt by the Democrats to control via the judiciary that which they cannot control via legislation. If they would just stop lying about the reasoning for turning down judges, then no one would have to take steps, be they right or wrong, to call them out on their lies and manipulations.
Nick
I hate democrats and republicans equally. I would be bitching and screaming just as much if the roles were reversed. The point is you can't separate the two acts. If I was a policeman and just knocked down random doors without warrants and in the process caught a terrorist who wanted to blow up a bus, I'm no hero. Yes, it's great the terrorist has been caught but I trampled the rights of everyone else in the process. That isn't kosher.
Originally posted by trumptman
Is that what it is called when you lose?
Nick
No, it's what it's called when the waters are muddied by someone who knows, on some level at least, that he's defending the indefensible.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Oh look. We're not discussing the subject of the thread anymore: we discussing the dodgy internal politics of the Democratic Party.
Well done, Nick.
Sure the claimed memos mentioned as stolen by the Republicans have nothing to do with this nominee at all.
Time for some Hassan logic:
Talking about the memos = on topic.
Talking about what is in the memos = off-topic.
Nick
Fellows
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
No, it's what it's called when the waters are muddied by someone who knows, on some level at least, that he's defending the indefensible.
I agree. Shawn attempting to defend the indefensible actions taken by Democrats in not even allowing someone like Estrada to come before the Senate for questioning and a confirmation vote is pretty terrible.
Even more indefensible is Bunge claiming that Democrats needed more information to let him come out of committee when they would have gotten the ability to question and ask about the personal views of the candidate in the full senate confirmation hearing.
It is indefensible that the petitioned information from the solicitor general that was declare inappropriate not just by the current person filling the role, but by the seven previous people filling the roll including four Democrats and three Republicans. Their view was unanimous that it was inappropriate.
It is indefensible that Estrada, given a unanimous rating of "more than qualified" by the American Bar Association for the role of federal judge cannot even get out of committee because of Democratic filibuster threats.
It is indefensible that they did this because he is a "dangerous Latino." He is dangerous because he is highly qualified and not a single person here can claim an iota of information about how he is unqualified. They claim it isn't about race, yet cannot define a single piece of information related to any other aspect of his abilities.
So while it might be indefensible how the Republicans learned about and acted on this information, I think what the Democrats did is far, far worse than reading a strategy memo relating how Democrats were going to act in a racist and wrong manner.
Nick
So while it might be indefensible how the Republicans learned about and acted on this information, I think what the Democrats did is far, far worse than reading a strategy memo relating how Democrats were going to act in a racist and wrong manner.
which is exactly why this is just going to off and die. neither party really wants to push the issue because they both did things they really have no defense for.
Originally posted by trumptman
I agree. Shawn attempting to defend the indefensible actions taken by Democrats in not even allowing someone like Estrada to come before the Senate for questioning and a confirmation vote is pretty terrible.
Even more indefensible is Bunge claiming that Democrats needed more information to let him come out of committee when they would have gotten the ability to question and ask about the personal views of the candidate in the full senate confirmation hearing.
Your other points have some merit, but not these. He did have his hearing. He was questioned at length, although he essentially refused to answer any questions. "Going to the full senate" doesn't mean getting more hearings, it just means getting a vote. The hearings are done in the committee, not in the full senate. In the full senate the senators just debate each other, they wouldn't have heard any more from Estrada.
Originally posted by BRussell
Your other points have some merit, but not these. He did have his hearing. He was questioned at length, although he essentially refused to answer any questions. "Going to the full senate" doesn't mean getting more hearings, it just means getting a vote. The hearings are done in the committee, not in the full senate. In the full senate the senators just debate each other, they wouldn't have heard any more from Estrada.
Estrada answered numerous questions about his judicial philisophy. He also consented to personal meetings with Senators and was made available to answer additional questions in writing if they were submitted. Among the 10 Democratic committee members 2 questions were submitted and from the full 100 member Senate, no questions were submitted. Additional confirmation hearings could have been added or scheduled by Senators who still had questions, but none were.
Estrada did refuse to answer some political philosphy questions, but he wasn't running for a political office. Stating a preference or prejudging a case before you have heard the facts or circumstances is exactly what you want a judge to strive most often not to do. Estrada stated as many different ways as can be stated that he would put aside his own views and decide any case on the merits. Repeatedly attempting to divulge what those personal views are is pointless since a good judge will be able to set them aside and enforce the law.
Senate Democrats couldn't get past this. They had to know what those personal views were so that they could of course, claim that they wouldn't be set aside, etc. When Estrada wouldn't play this game, Democrats kept repeating until it appeared to be true, that he wouldn't answer questions. However the Democrats had full opportunity for addition confirmation hearings, submitting questions in writing and personal interviews. It is clear most of them prejudged Estrada and cared nothing about his ability to judge. Rather they wanted to try to play "Gotcha" politics with ever changing hypotheticals via asking him to prejudge cases.
Nick
He could have answered the questions with the caveat that those views would not affect his objective viewpoint...
If the guy said I'm a moderate or I believe in this... but I would follow the supreme courts lead... blah blah blah... when you refuse to answer questions... you look like you have something to hide... or are actually hiding something.
Originally posted by trumptman
Estrada answered numerous questions about his judicial philisophy.
So you're finally willing to admit you're wrong on both counts?
Originally posted by trumptman
Estrada answered numerous questions about his judicial philisophy. He also consented to personal meetings with Senators and was made available to answer additional questions in writing if they were submitted. Among the 10 Democratic committee members 2 questions were submitted and from the full 100 member Senate, no questions were submitted. Additional confirmation hearings could have been added or scheduled by Senators who still had questions, but none were.
But you're still wrong that Democrats blocked hearings. Republicans controlled the senate. They voted him out of committee, and the vote went to the floor. Democrats didn't block him from more hearings. They blocked the vote, just like a minority of 40 can block most any other vote in the senate.
By the way, do you know why there's even a spot for Estrada on this court? Because the frickin' Republicans blocked Clinton's nominees to the same damn court. So of course there's an opening, but now Repubs are mad their nominee is getting blocked. Hmm.
And the Repubs always play the race card on Dems. It's their MO. When the Dems didn't like one of Bush's white judicial nominees, Repubs said it was because Dems are prejudiced against Catholics, despite the fact that most of the Dems on the committee were Catholic.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
He is appointed by the president... a political beast... he has his own agendas when he puts someone forward for consideration... the senators have every right to try to figure that out.
He could have answered the questions with the caveat that those views would not affect his objective viewpoint...
If the guy said I'm a moderate or I believe in this... but I would follow the supreme courts lead... blah blah blah... when you refuse to answer questions... you look like you have something to hide... or are actually hiding something.
How in a political climate can you answer a question, I have this bias but I promise it won't effect this very important case?
The Senators job is not to find out what brand of toilet paper he wipes with, it is to advise and consent as to whether he would be a good judge. The questioning should be about how he would judge.
Likewise you talk about again... staking out a position before you are even on a court. Why would you want a judge who prejudges?
Nick
Originally posted by BRussell
But you're still wrong that Democrats blocked hearings. Republicans controlled the senate. They voted him out of committee, and the vote went to the floor. Democrats didn't block him from more hearings. They blocked the vote, just like a minority of 40 can block most any other vote in the senate.
By the way, do you know why there's even a spot for Estrada on this court? Because the frickin' Republicans blocked Clinton's nominees to the same damn court. So of course there's an opening, but now Repubs are mad their nominee is getting blocked. Hmm.
And the Repubs always play the race card on Dems. It's their MO. When the Dems didn't like one of Bush's white judicial nominees, Repubs said it was because Dems are prejudiced against Catholics, despite the fact that most of the Dems on the committee were Catholic.
If you call a threatened filibuster not blocking, that is your perogative. Likewise if you want to call screaming that they can't get information while not actually submitting any questions honest, that is again your perogative.
As for the spot for Estrada, I read that there were four openings. So the two late term Clinton appointees have nothing to do with whether Estrada would have had a spot.
Likewise Democrats always place the race card, amazingly even against people of other races. They decided Estrada wasn't "Hispanic enough."
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Likewise Democrats always place the race card, amazingly even against people of other races. They decided Estrada wasn't "Hispanic enough."
Why do you keep blabbering on about this bullshit? Do you actually believe the Democrats wouldn't like a liberal Hispanic becuase he's Hispanic? Don't be stupid.
Originally posted by bunge
Why do you keep blabbering on about this bullshit? Do you actually believe the Democrats wouldn't like a liberal Hispanic becuase he's Hispanic? Don't be stupid.
Well obviously you don't understand their thinking in that you can't be hispanic without being liberal. Thus a conservative hispanic isn't "hispanic enough" because he isn't liberal enough.
If you don't like how I blabber, don't reply. I assure you that when you post nonsense, I often ignore it.
Nick
EDIT: Ah you edited your post. Good. But you really need to backup this race idea...
Originally posted by ShawnJ
That comment has no basis in reality. Perhaps the conservative hispanic isn't LIBERAL enough?
EDIT: Ah you edited your post. Good. But you really need to backup this race idea...
I don't see an edit but whatever...
As for this "race" idea. It isn't my idea that someone could be denied their heritage based off their political views. That is only suggested by liberals who claim things like Estrada isn't hispanic or Clarence Thomas isnt black. It is those types of supposed leaders who make up racial criteria and then declare someone "authentic" if they meet the criteria. In most cases the criteria involves being politically liberal.
Nick
USA Today
National Review
MSN