kapkomet Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Wow. I'm shocked. This tells me that the guy must be pretty stand up because he's getting bi-partisan support, except from dickheads like Sen. Reid. and Barbara "b****" Boxer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 You knew he was in when Teddy was congratulating him. The battle will be over O'Conner's replacement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 21, 2005 -> 08:00 AM) This tells me that the guy must be pretty stand up because he's getting bi-partisan support, except from dickheads like Sen. Reid. and Barbara "b****" Boxer. Just because they have different standards for when to vote for or against a particular nominee doesn't mean that they're dickheads. Leahy is willing to vote for a guy who he disagrees with on a lot of issues, probably because he's convinced voting against Roberts will not do anything to get a better nominee out of Bush. Reid is not, possibly because he wants to send a message to Bush that the next pick needs to also be fairly moderate. Also...is that not a personal attack? If that's not getting edited, then can I restart using my angry nicknames about our governor out here? (Gov. A**-grabber and so forth) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 21, 2005 -> 10:07 AM) Just because they have different standards for when to vote for or against a particular nominee doesn't mean that they're dickheads. Leahy is willing to vote for a guy who he disagrees with on a lot of issues, probably because he's convinced voting against Roberts will not do anything to get a better nominee out of Bush. Reid is not, possibly because he wants to send a message to Bush that the next pick needs to also be fairly moderate. Also...is that not a personal attack? If that's not getting edited, then can I restart using my angry nicknames about our governor out here? (Gov. A**-grabber and so forth) I think the personal attacks thing went for fellow posters and Sox players. Politicians are fair game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Dear Cheat, Monday, I shared with you my Brown University speech setting out what needs to be said and done at this critical moment for our country. Today, in that same spirit of clarity and conviction, I want to tell you how I will vote on the nomination of John Roberts to serve as Chief Justice of the United States. I will vote against this vitally important nomination. Win or lose on this vote, it is essential that we act on our deepest convictions. And I refuse to vote for a Supreme Court nominee who came before the Senate intent on demonstrating his ability to deftly deflect legitimate questions about his views, opinions and philosophy. John Roberts owed the American people far more than that. If he is confirmed - and he may well be - the Roberts Court will shape the course of constitutional law for decades to come. It will decide dozens of cases that will define the depth and breadth of freedom in America - our commitment to civil rights, our dedication to civil liberties, our devotion to privacy and a woman's right to choose. With that much at stake, Judge Roberts needed to show us where his heart is. Instead he recited case law and said little about what he really thought. He needed to engage the Senate Judiciary Committee and the American people in a genuine conversation. He failed that test. And, while I recognize that other members of the Senate will legitimately make a different choice, I will vote "NO" on the Roberts nomination. Click here to read excerpts from the statement announcing my position on the Roberts nomination. I urge you to read them - and, whatever the outcome of the Roberts vote, I encourage you to join me in insisting on a far more complete and extensive process on the critical nomination President Bush must now make to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Please contact your Senators now. Tell them where you stand on the Roberts nomination and tell them that you insist on full, fair, and forthcoming hearings on the person George W. Bush puts forward for the pivotal seat now occupied by Justice O'Connor. Sincerely, John Kerry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 It was a shame Roberts took a page out of the "Ruth Bader Ginsburg book of nomination testimony" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 I believe the President has the responsibility to nominate someone with solid character, citizenship, morals, and who has demonstrated knowledge of Constitutional law. If those standards are met, the persons political ideology should not be a factor. I respect Bush's decision to find a conservative like himself, just like I respected Clinton's decision to reach out to Senate Republicans before making his selections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Kerry huh? "He needed to show us his heart". HAHAHAHAHA!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 21, 2005 -> 11:23 AM) It was a shame Roberts took a page out of the "Ruth Bader Ginsburg book of nomination testimony" Just remember this...the person who suggested to President Clinton that Ginsburg was a justice that would be easily confirmed by the Congress was Orrin Hatch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 John Roberts should be confirmed. However, Senator Reid - a pro-life mormon who's anything but a liberal - has genuine concerns that he thinks haven't been adequately addressed. If there were 49 or 50 opposing votes, I doubt Reid would have been the deciding vote. 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.