LowerCaseRepublican Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 The Republicans were 5 votes short of ending the filibuster thus ending the dreams of the appointment of Estrada. Woohoo for the Democrats! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 The Republicans were 5 votes short of ending the filibuster thus ending the dreams of the appointment of Estrada. Woohoo for the Democrats! sounds racist to me apu...you better rethink your position Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted March 8, 2003 Author Share Posted March 8, 2003 Estrada is notorious as an extreme member of the right wing. He wouldn't answer basic questions on where he stood on topics like abortion, etc. so he shouldn't have gotten the position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Estrada is notorious as an extreme member of the right wing. He wouldn't answer basic questions on where he stood on topics like abortion, etc. so he shouldn't have gotten the position. no he is not a notorious member of the extreme right wing...his record is impeccable..whatever his personal views are he has not allowed them to alter his view of the law...which is pretty mainstream... back when our forefathers decided who would appoint judges they could have given that task to congress..instead they gave it to the president...its president bush's right as the elected president (get over the stolen election crap) to appoint judges...there was nothing in estrada's record to warrant a filibuster by the democrats....what the dems did was s*** all over the constitution...but you should be used to that... remember even though this guy is not cuban he has ties to their communites...im sure the cuban community in miami will not forget this....they made the dems pay for elian..they will make them pay for this too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Estrada is notorious as an extreme member of the right wing. He wouldn't answer basic questions on where he stood on topics like abortion, etc. so he shouldn't have gotten the position. Right wing..... abortion..... the Democrats had to ask where he stood on this? Interesting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Estrada did, in fact, answer those questions. He said that he stood on the side of the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted March 8, 2003 Author Share Posted March 8, 2003 Estrada did, in fact, answer those questions. He said that he stood on the side of the law. He wouldn't give his personal stances on the issues. When a man won't say where he stands, he should not become a judge. It is the Senate's duty to scrutinize possible judges according to the Constitution. It's over with now. Score one for the left! Where's that GOP majority now, eh? Couldn't even stop a filibuster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Estrada did, in fact, answer those questions. He said that he stood on the side of the law. He wouldn't give his personal stances on the issues. When a man won't say where he stands, he should not become a judge. It is the Senate's duty to scrutinize possible judges according to the Constitution. It's over with now. Score one for the left! Where's that GOP majority now, eh? Couldn't even stop a filibuster. thats alright apu..we will be scoring quite a few for the right in about 9 days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted March 8, 2003 Author Share Posted March 8, 2003 thats alright apu..we will be scoring quite a few for the right in about 9 days If Bush goes to war, it'll be the stupidest mistake he has ever made (well besides being a chickenhawk, a coke addict, a boozehound, and saying his favorite childhood book which didn't come out until after he graduated from college) Even you've seen the polls that said only 20% of the US believes that we should go to war without a UN Resolution. He'll be going against the nation. And I am glad that you can jest about the death and destruction of innocent Iraqis. That brings such a warm fuzzy feeling to me heart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 thats alright apu..we will be scoring quite a few for the right in about 9 days If Bush goes to war, it'll be the stupidest mistake he has ever made (well besides being a chickenhawk, a coke addict, a boozehound, and saying his favorite childhood book which didn't come out until after he graduated from college) Even you've seen the polls that said only 20% of the US believes that we should go to war without a UN Resolution. He'll be going against the nation. And I am glad that you can jest about the death and destruction of innocent Iraqis. That brings such a warm fuzzy feeling to me heart. have you listen to any iraqis in this country???....you wont find one that doesnt want the US to go in and take out saddam...the guy is a butcher..he is pure evil...youre the one condoning the killing of innocent iraqi men , women and children with your opposition to this war...someday maybe youll realize that.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted March 8, 2003 Author Share Posted March 8, 2003 thats alright apu..we will be scoring quite a few for the right in about 9 days If Bush goes to war, it'll be the stupidest mistake he has ever made (well besides being a chickenhawk, a coke addict, a boozehound, and saying his favorite childhood book which didn't come out until after he graduated from college) Even you've seen the polls that said only 20% of the US believes that we should go to war without a UN Resolution. He'll be going against the nation. And I am glad that you can jest about the death and destruction of innocent Iraqis. That brings such a warm fuzzy feeling to me heart. have you listen to any iraqis in this country???....you wont find one that doesnt want the US to go in and take out saddam...the guy is a butcher..he is pure evil...youre the one condoning the killing of innocent iraqi men , women and children with your opposition to this war...someday maybe youll realize that.. Killing killers only makes more killers. There are diplomatic ways to topple Saddam that don't involve body bags for our troops. I advocate those methods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 thats alright apu..we will be scoring quite a few for the right in about 9 days If Bush goes to war, it'll be the stupidest mistake he has ever made (well besides being a chickenhawk, a coke addict, a boozehound, and saying his favorite childhood book which didn't come out until after he graduated from college) Even you've seen the polls that said only 20% of the US believes that we should go to war without a UN Resolution. He'll be going against the nation. And I am glad that you can jest about the death and destruction of innocent Iraqis. That brings such a warm fuzzy feeling to me heart. have you listen to any iraqis in this country???....you wont find one that doesnt want the US to go in and take out saddam...the guy is a butcher..he is pure evil...youre the one condoning the killing of innocent iraqi men , women and children with your opposition to this war...someday maybe youll realize that.. Killing killers only makes more killers. There are diplomatic ways to topple Saddam that don't involve body bags for our troops. I advocate those methods. dimplomatic ways to topple saddam...its been 12 years and he is still there as strong as ever.. whats the goal of the diplomacy there??...old age??? diplomacy only works if it is backed up by a real threat of war... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 There are diplomatic ways to topple Saddam that don't involve body bags for our troops. I advocate those methods. 12 more years Baggs and maybe Saddam will die of natural causes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 The constitution requires the advice and consent of the Senate - it is not the president's right to appoint whoever. Estrada stonewalled the committee on his reocrd and efuses top release the memos he wrote for the Solicitor General. This type of stealth nominee does not belong on any federal court. The Republican spin machine is alive and well on these boards. Answer the questions - release the memos - and then we can see what Estrada and the Bush-Rove politics as confrontation team is hiding. (And payback for the stalling on Clinton's nominees is only fair - the Republicans blocked nominee after nominee by not scheduling hearings. The Dems at least scheduled hearings - and Estrada refused to anser questions. For the Republicans to cry about judicial nominees is the height of partisan political hypocrasy. Hatch saying the Republicans were wrong to do it so the Dems shouldn't do it - how f***ing two-faced can one be?) As for diplomacy only being back up by violence - sounds like a Monty Python skit here, or perhaps, the Army report from the days of Vietnam that the village needed to be destroyed to save it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted March 9, 2003 Author Share Posted March 9, 2003 The constitution requires the advice and consent of the Senate - it is not the president's right to appoint whoever. Estrada stonewalled the committee on his reocrd and efuses top release the memos he wrote for the Solicitor General. This type of stealth nominee does not belong on any federal court. The Republican spin machine is alive and well on these boards. Answer the questions - release the memos - and then we can see what Estrada and the Bush-Rove politics as confrontation team is hiding. (And payback for the stalling on Clinton's nominees is only fair - the Republicans blocked nominee after nominee by not scheduling hearings. The Dems at least scheduled hearings - and Estrada refused to anser questions. For the Republicans to cry about judicial nominees is the height of partisan political hypocrasy. Hatch saying the Republicans were wrong to do it so the Dems shouldn't do it - how f***ing two-faced can one be?) As for diplomacy only being back up by violence - sounds like a Monty Python skit here, or perhaps, the Army report from the days of Vietnam that the village needed to be destroyed to save it. It's nice to see that everybody isn't blinded by Bush's empty war rhetoric. Estrada wanted to be a dick, so he didn't get the position. It's sad and pathetic that people try to place the race card...especially when we are all one race, human. Just remember everybody, George W. Bush has a record "that's conservative and compassionated." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 No question Bush-Rove are playing the race card. They are truly venial plotting strategies to divide and force confrontation to create issues for upcoming campaigns rather than actually do acts of good government. I am glad the Dems held - as they will need to hold on all of the court appoinments that fit the Estrada definition - a lot of conservative judges have been confirmed but there is no reason for the 49 Democrats in the Senate to roll over and spread their ass to faciliate their f***ing by the forces of extreme right wing nominees. Estrada knows if he answers the questions, he is dead - he'll lose the votes of Snowe, Chafee, and other Republicans with intregrity. Thus we get the Bush-Rove scoarched earth stonewall approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 No question Bush-Rove are playing the race card. They are truly venial plotting strategies to divide and force confrontation to create issues for upcoming campaigns rather than actually do acts of good government. I am glad the Dems held - as they will need to hold on all of the court appoinments that fit the Estrada definition - a lot of conservative judges have been confirmed but there is no reason for the 49 Democrats in the Senate to roll over and spread their ass to faciliate their f***ing by the forces of extreme right wing nominees. Estrada knows if he answers the questions, he is dead - he'll lose the votes of Snowe, Chafee, and other Republicans with intregrity. Thus we get the Bush-Rove scoarched earth stonewall approach. so anyone who is pro life has no integrity???... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 so anyone who is pro life has no integrity???... bulls*** that is not what I said and sometimes I get angry with you, I wish you would quit latching on to one word to make some ad hominem attack - Estrada has no integrity in his refusal to answer questions in his hearing and his refusal to relase the memos he wrote to the Soliciter General. I expect any nominee for the courts to support the settled law of the land in Roe vs Wade and that will be a litmus test. If a person is anti Roe vs Wade and wants to get on the court so he/she can undo it, and thus dissembles or lies or refuses to answer questions on the beliefs in committee, then that person has no integrity. And the senators with integrity are those who vote as they call them, their consitutional obliogation not voting automaticaly for any nominee out of blind party loyalty. The 45 Democrats who voted against cloture did so out of intregrity because of Estrada's stealth tactics - other judicial nominees have been confirmed. This nomination of Estrada is being filibustered because of the Rove-directed stealth tactics of not being forthcoming in committee and hiding his legal writings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.