Sotomayor Reversed AGAIN!!!

[Bonestorm]

Rubbish. Bush conceded two positions so that he could get 5 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.

But it wasn't even Bush's compromise. It was an agreement between Moynihan and D'Amato. Bush didn't concede shit. He just followed the traditional practice of nominating those that were recommended by the home-state Senators. The home-state Senators in this case reached an agreement that D'Amato would recommend 5 and Moynihan 2. Since D'Amato recommended 5 others did Bush not nominate them?

Basically, your position is that, because home state senators recommend persons to open district court judge seats in their states, the president doesn't really nominate district court judges. It's stupid.

 

[Damocles]

But it wasn't even Bush's compromise. It was an agreement between Moynihan and D'Amato. Bush didn't concede shit. He just followed the traditional practice of nominating those that were recommended by the home-state Senators. The home-state Senators in this case reached an agreement that D'Amato would recommend 5 and Moynihan 2. Since D'Amato recommended 5 others did Bush not nominate them?

Basically, your position is that, because home state senators recommend persons to open district court judge seats in their states, the president doesn't really nominate district court judges. It's stupid.

Again, he nominated them, but he didn't select them (as the story states).

If I gave the moderator powers to the person you selected in such a compromise I gave them the moderator powers, but I didn't pick them. I let you do that.

And no, basically my positions is that because Bush entered into a compromise with the D Senators so that they would end a filibuster, he let them select two judges that he would not (and did not) select for those positions.

Your position appears to be that because most Presidents let the Senators from the home states select the judges that they all (the Presidents) selected those people? That's plain silly. If you let somebody else make a selection it doesn't magically become your selection.

 

[Bonestorm]

Again, he nominated them, but he didn't select them (as the story states).

If I gave the moderator powers to the person you selected in such a compromise I gave them the moderator powers, but I didn't pick them. I let you do that.

And no, basically my positions is that, because Bush entered into a compromise with the D Senators so that they would end a filibuster, he let them select two judges that he would not (and did not) select for those positions.

Bush didn't enter into any compromise with the D senators. None. He honored the compromise reached between Moynihan and D'Amato, the two New York senators at the time.

The time-honored tradition is for the President to consult with home-state senators to appoint judges for the district courts of their state. D'Amato (a Republican) and Moynihan (a Democrat) reached an agreement that, for the 7 open judicial seats, D'Amato would recommend 5 judges for open seats on the New York district court and Moynihan would recommend 2. Bush then nominated the persons recommended by D'Amato and Moynihan.

Under your theory Bush, although he nominated all 7 of these judges, didn't select a single one of them. And to the extent that Bush followed the same time-honored practice of nominating the persons recommended by home state Senators for other open district court seats, he may have nominated them but he didn't really select them.

And I guess Bill Clinton didn't really select Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Orrin Hatch did.


Finally, the Democrats were the majority party in the Senate at the time Bush nominated Sotomayor so I have no fucking idea why you keep talking about a filibuster. The majority party need not filibuster anything.

 

[Damocles]

Bush didn't enter into any compromise with the D senators. None. He honored the compromise reached between Moynihan and D'Amato, the two New York senators at the time.

The time-honored tradition is for the President to consult with home-state senators to appoint judges for the district courts of their state. D'Amato (a Republican) and Moynihan (a Democrat) reached an agreement that, for the 7 open judicial seats, D'Amato would recommend 5 judges for open seats on the New York district court and Moynihan would recommend 2. Bush then nominated the persons recommended by D'Amato and Moynihan.

Under your theory Bush, although he nominated all 7 of these judges, didn't select a single one of them. And to the extent that Bush followed the same time-honored practice of nominating the persons recommended by home state Senators for other open district court seats, he may have nominated them but he didn't really select them.

And I guess Bill Clinton didn't really select Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Orrin Hatch did.


Finally, the Democrats were the majority party in the Senate at the time Bush nominated Sotomayor so I have no fucking idea why you keep talking about a filibuster. The majority party need not filibuster anything.

*sigh*

From the link that Taichi gave:

Sotomayor was nominated by Bush as part of a compromise with Senate Democrats at the time to break a deadlock on judicial nominees. Under the agreement, then-Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat and senior member of the Judiciary Committee, was allowed to recommend judges for two of seven vacancies. One of his picks: Sotomayer.

The pick was Moynihans, however the compromise was reached.

Again, if I compromise with you and allow you to select somebody for a position like board moderator, it doesn't make that person my choice if I stick to the agreement.

Even if it were a time-honored tradition to allow other people to make the selection, as long as somebody else is selecting them, then I am not.

No matter how many ways you want to spin out of it, Moynihan chose her, not Bush. Even in this post you talk about how it was time-honored to allow the State's Senators pick people for the posts... The state's Senators are not Bush.

And the Democrats apparently were not the majority according to the role call vote that I linked to. 25 Rs voted for Sotomayor, 29 Against her, 1 did not vote. I can count.

 

[Bonestorm]

*sigh*

From the link that Taichi gave:



The pick was Moynihans, however the compromise was reached.

Again, if I compromise with you and allow you to select somebody for a position like board moderator, it doesn't make that person my choice if I stick to the agreement.

Even if it were a time-honored tradition to allow other people to make the selection, as long as somebody else is selecting them, then I am not.

No matter how many ways you want to spin out of it, Moynihan chose her, not Bush. Even in this post you talk about how it was time-honored to allow the State's Senators pick people for the posts... The state's Senators are not Bush.

*Sigh*

From the source in the link that Taichi gave (click through you numbskull):

The seven Southern District vacancies have existed for periods of from 7 to 39 months. Senator Alfonse D'Amato, R-N.Y., has recommended persons to fill five of the vacancies, and, under an agreement between the Senators, Senator Daniel Moynihan, D-N.Y., two.

Senator D'Amato's recommendations are Mr. O'Rourke; Richard C. Casey, a corporate partner at Brown & Wood, who has been blind for five years; Colleen McMahon, a litigation partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Manuel Quintana, general counsel of the City Housing Authority; Loretta A. Preska, a litigation partner at Hertzog, Calamari & Gleason; Paul Shechtman, counsel to Manhattan District Attorney Robert A. Morgenthau; and Acting State Supreme Court Justice Patricia Williams.

Senator Moynihan has recommended Ms. Sotomayor and Deborah A. Batts, associate professor at the Fordham University School of Law.

And I understand your point full well, no need to attempt to explain it with inapt analogies. It's just a stupid point. Apparently, Bush didn't select any judges in the New York district courts and Clinton didn't select Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Breyer. Good luck selling that . . . I'm not buying.

Lastly, thanks for not repeating the horseshit about filibusters.

Edit: Check the date on your roll call. Who was president in 1998?

 

[Damocles]

*Sigh*

From the source in the link that Taichi gave (click through you numbskull):



And I understand your point full well, no need to attempt to explain it with inapt analogies. It's just a stupid point. Apparently, Bush didn't select any judges in the New York district courts and Clinton didn't select Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Breyer. Good luck selling that . . . I'm not buying.

Lastly, thanks for not repeating the horseshit about filibusters.

Edit: Check the date on your roll call. Who was president in 1998?

Then the roll call was incorrect. I linked to it because he said the story stated that a majority of Rs voted for Sotomayor and it was the one that linked from Taichiliberal's original link (I did click through, it was where I got that roll call vote). But again, if you allow other people to choose somebody for you it doesn't make it your choice, no matter how many ways you think it does.

As the original link states, technically Bush nominated her (he did), but in reality it was not his selection. Apparently your point is that no President selects the appointees, which still doesn't change my point. It wasn't Bush's selection, there was a compromise so that Bush could get judges passed as there was deadlock on the judges.

 

[Damocles]

Then the roll call was incorrect. I linked to it because he said the story stated that a majority of Rs voted for Sotomayor and it was the one that linked from Taichiliberal's original link (I did click through, it was where I got that roll call vote). But again, if you allow other people to choose somebody for you it doesn't make it your choice, no matter how many ways you think it does.

As the original link states, technically Bush nominated her (he did), but in reality it was not his selection. Apparently your point is that no President selects the appointees, which still doesn't change my point. It wasn't Bush's selection, there was a compromise so that Bush could get judges passed as there was deadlock on the judges.

Wow, according to what I can find there was no roll call vote, once objections from another Senator were dropped she was confirmed by unanimous consent which means that nobody objected so there was no vote taken.

 

[Taichiliberal]

This is just plain sad now. Yes, your insipid stubborness is pathetic. But repeating yourself 6 ways to Sunday won't change the fact based order of things....no matter what YOU emphasize or negate.
The Ds selected Sotomayor as part of the compromise. Why you can't see reality is beyond reason. I never said they didn't, you braying jackass. LEARN TO READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY. In fact, the actual compromise was between D'Mato (a real POS from my hometown, I'm ashamed to say) and Moynihan....the Shrub ACCEPTED the deal that was APPROVED BY the state GOP. And again, as the articlepointed out before, there were many more GOP politicos that approved the decisions. If they didn't, we'd have someone else to talk about. Those are the facts in the order of which they happened....if you have proof to the contrary, please produce it. If not, give it a rest.

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.

You're simple if you think this version of reality will pass the muster...or that repeating it six ways to Sunday will change reality. The President ALWAYS has the final decision, and history shows that sometimes President's act against the wishes of their party. If what you said was true, the Bush wouldn't even have to sign the paper, would he genius? In this case, Bush accepted the judgement of his party's state senator, and made the final decision...period.

Even more embarrassing... according to your article, it was not majority R approval it was a "fair number". Again, you braying jackass, go back and READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY WHAT I WROTE. I never said "majority", I pointed to a sizeable 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. And you need to stop admiring yourself in the mirror and pay attention. Here's the quote from the article to which I pointed out and DID NOT change: One interesting bit of trivia: A fair number of Republicans voted in favor of her nomination at the time. According to the 1992 Senate roll call of the vote, she attracted support from seven Republicans who are still in office and will be weighing in on her Supreme Court nomination: Robert Bennett, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins, Judd Gregg, Orrin Hatch, Dick Lugar and Olympia Snowe. (Arlen Specter also voted in favor of her nomination, but he’s a Democrat now.) Among those who voted against her: Jeff Sessions, the current top Republican on the Judiciary Committee; Sam Brownback, John McCain; Mitch McConnell; Mike Enzi; Chuck Grassley, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Jim Inhofe, Jon Kyl, Pat Roberts and Dick Shelby.

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). See above response Also note on the Roll call, one of those Rs is a D now.

The Roll Call Link

See above responses.