Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
You can dance around the bottom line all you want, but Dush DID NOT HAVE TO PICK SOTOMAYOR. He had a choice. That is a matter of histor and fact. Deal with it.
Sotomayor Reversed AGAIN!!!
- Thread starter Bonestorm
- Start date
You can dance around the bottom line all you want, but Dush DID NOT HAVE TO PICK SOTOMAYOR. He had a choice. That is a matter of histor and fact. Deal with it.
The choice was no judges or the compromise. You can keep trying to get past the fact that Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan picked Sotomayor, but reality stops you dead. You can keep trying to spin but you've been outed...
When you get 'schooled', just take it like a man....
the more you whine and tapdance the more you show everyone what an ass you really are....Bush did not choose the bigot Sotomayer, he accepted her as part of a compromise with the dims...torturing the truth to ship it your way won't get you anywhere....
Maybe that 'brainlock' is affecting you thinking ?.....or maybe you just a dimwit from the jackass party....
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
And the alternative was NOT to have any input from the DEMS? Are you high? Do you have any clue as to how our gov't works? It's ALL compromise! Bush could have turned down the choice....he didn't. It was his call to haggle on the agreement...but a lot of republicans agreed that she was a good choice, and voted her nomination as such. BUSH AGREED TO THE CHOICES, AS THE DEMS AGREED TO THE OTHER 5. AND SINCE THE PRESIDENT HAS THE FINAL APPROVAL, IT'S HIS CALL. You can spin it to make it look like Bush was out the loop or his hands were tied or the GOP was dead set against her, but that is just not the case.
Now, you can repeat yourself ad nauseum, but the facts won't change....
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
More false Bravado from a willfully ignorant neocon parrot who doesn't have the brains or the guts to debate me directly....instead he rides the coattails of someone else.
Here stupid, read what I "schooled" Damo about...and then continue to bray like an ass: ....Do you have any clue as to how our gov't works? It's ALL compromise! Bush could have turned down the choice....he didn't. It was his call to haggle on the agreement...but a lot of republicans agreed that she was a good choice, and voted her nomination as such. BUSH AGREED TO THE CHOICES, AS THE DEMS AGREED TO THE OTHER 5. AND SINCE THE PRESIDENT HAS THE FINAL APPROVAL, IT'S HIS CALL. You can spin it to make it look like Bush was out the loop or his hands were tied or the GOP was dead set against her, but that is just not the case.
Last edited:
The alternative was zero judges, it was a deadlock. Read your own dang article. You are embarrassing yourself.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
I read it without your supposition and conjecture. Deadlock means back to the drawing board, or do you forget Daddy Bush's many a stubborn stance on bills from Congress he didn't like? But the choices were acceptable.....Bush had the final choice, he made it. Deal with it.
No, it doesn't. The Ds at the time were not going to approve any selection by Bush without the compromise.
The reality is this shows that Bush kept a promise, it certainly wasn't his selection.
What you have to deal with is you linked to an article that specifically described what actually happened, and many of us lived through that time, the compromise allowed the Democrats to select two of the judges so that he could get some of his appointments passed.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
This is just plain sad now.
The Ds selected Sotomayor as part of the compromise. Why you can't see reality is beyond reason.
Bush could not VETO their selection or refuse it if he wanted to get any of his judges onto a bench, it was really very simple. Therefore they made a deal, and Sotomayor was something he had to stomach, it wasn't his selection. It's silly to try to continue to spin this, you really are embarrassing yourself now. I'm starting to feel embarrassed for you. First you post "evidence" that says the opposite of your claim then try to spin your way out of it. The selection of Sotomayor was from Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan according to your own article.
Even more embarrassing... according to your article, it was not majority R approval it was a "fair number". Even in your article (which only mentioned currently serving Senators that voted for or against her) she gathered some R support but more voted against her than for her. Your spin isn't even halfway promising.
I'll note the roll call. 25 Rs voted for her, 29 voted against her, and 1 R did not vote (note how 29 is larger than 25 thus the majority did not vote for her). Also note on the Roll call, one of those Rs is a D now.
The Roll Call Link
I find it very interesting Damocles that you blame Iraq on the Democrats in Congress for giving up the power to go to war to Bush, yet you claim Bush did not Appoint Sotomayor becuase in a compromise he agreed to appoint one of those favored by Congress, thus giving up his power of appointment to the congress!
Silly. The war vote had no compromise, nor a filibuster. And voting for war is a power of the Congress, not the President. I blame Congress (all of them) for not enforcing the declaration clause.
Again, When the D Senator selected Sotomayor it was not Bush's choice, it was a condition of the compromise, one that was reached after the Senators exercised their power to filibuster and were not going to allow a vote on judges. I think it is stupid for him to do that, a long enough wait would have had the Ds in the Senate allowing votes on Judges again, but it is beside the point.
It doesn't change that Sotomayor was selected by another and the story brought forward as "evidence" clearly outlined that fact.
And the appointing of Judges is a power of the President!
However the vote is not. This is clearly outlined in the Constitution. The Senate Ds exercised their power of "Advise and Consent" and forced a concession from the Executive.
The very real fact is, as the story states, the selection was made by a D Senator, not by Bush as a condition of the compromise. Trying to twist it into "Bush chose her" is preposterous.
It was well-played politics by the Ds, but it certainly doesn't make it Bush's selection for that position, they would have filibustered his selection...
None the less, the congress could not have "comfirmed" her had Bush not appointed her! Bush did not have to appoint her yet he did! Congress did not appoint her, they merely comfirmed her. What ever "deals" Bush made with Congress do not change that fact.
Again, that is a sign that he stuck to an agreement, not that he chose her for the position. It is inane to suggest that he selected her when it is clear that Moynihan selected her. It is seriously twisting into spin mode to attempt to make it Bush's selection.
He did not have to make the agreement... Just like Congress did not have to give Bush the power to go to war.
Its a very simmular situation! Trading of powers for political reasons.
Of course he didn't have to make the agreement. And Congress did give Bush the power to go to war, they did it by conceding their power of declaration using that silly "War Powers Act" to hide behind so that idiots like Kerry could say they really didn't think it meant that he would take us to war.
But that still doesn't change reality, no matter how hard you try to spin it. Sotomayor was selected by Moynihan.
Are you fucking nuts? Moynihan recommended her. Bush nominated her. Bush didn't have to follow Moynihan's recommendation, although it is the generally accepted practice that the home-state senators typically recommend nominees for open district court seats in their states.
Moreover, and most importantly, Moynihan's recommendation came as a result of an agreement between him and Senator D'Amato, the Republican Senator from New York at the time, not between Bush and Moynihan.
To pretend that somehow Bush didn't nominate her is just plain stupid. Maybe he reluctantly nominated her, but that doesn't change the very basic fact that he nominated her.
Rubbish. Bush conceded two positions so that he could get five he wanted, Moynihan selected her, Bush just held up his side of a bargain. That's what compromises are, sometimes you agree to put forward somebody else's selection.
Even the fricking story that Taichi put forward as evidence made it clear who selected her for that appointment.
If you and I make a compromise that allows you to put forward the next moderator of the board, just because I stick to my agreement doesn't mean I chose the person that becomes that next moderator.