Souter to Retire

coming from the biggest democrat whiner for the past 8 years....LMAO

why must go out of your way to antagonize me and jeopardize our fledgling friendship?

this post had no other purpose.

I NEVER whined about Roberts or Alito. not once.


and the post shows what a total LIAR you are... you have not known me for eight years and have no idea what I was saying even four years ago, let alone eight.
 
Interesting.

I don't really recall his appointment to the bench, but from what I've read Souter was generally an unknown quantity at the time of his appointment and was pressed upon Bush the Elder by John Sununu who assured Bush that Souter was more reliably conservative than Ken Starr(!). As it turns out, Sununu was incorrect and Souter was quite moderate.

I don't believe there was much "morphing" involved and suggestions that Souter is "liberal" is kind of silly. He's basically a Rockefeller Republican, not really conservative but not really liberal either. If he were in the House or Senate he'd probably fall right in with Collins, Snowe, Specter, Nelson and Bayh.
What's interesting is your perspective on who is a moderate. I wouldn't consider any on that list to be so. Why not call them what they are- liberals?
 
why must go out of your way to antagonize me and jeopardize our fledgling friendship?

this post had no other purpose.

I NEVER whined about Roberts or Alito. not once.


and the post shows what a total LIAR you are... you have not known me for eight years and have no idea what I was saying even four years ago, let alone eight.

lmao...from the one who says i am not a christian, my purported christian faith etc...are you drunk? you just insulted me, called me a coward and now you're whining that i call you a hypocrite....

wuss

and i really don't think we're friends, you've made that quite clear
 
lmao...from the one who says i am not a christian, my purported christian faith etc...are you drunk? you just insulted me, called me a coward and now you're whining that i call you a hypocrite....

wuss

and i really don't think we're friends, you've made that quite clear

I give you what I get from you. I do not, however, insult your profession, yet you continue to insult mine. let's both try harder.
 
What's interesting is your perspective on who is a moderate. I wouldn't consider any on that list to be so. Why not call them what they are- liberals?


OK. You see, the way I view things terms like "moderate" or "liberal" or "conservative" are relative and exist on a continuum with "moderate" right about smack dab in the center. In the Senate the folks I listed are just about smack dab in the center of things. Hence, the term "moderate."

I'm afraid you just aren't too familiar with what a real liberal looks like.
 
OK. You see, the way I view things terms like "moderate" or "liberal" or "conservative" are relative and exist on a continuum with "moderate" right about smack dab in the center. In the Senate the folks I listed are just about smack dab in the center of things. Hence, the term "moderate."

I'm afraid you just aren't too familiar with what a real liberal looks like.
I know exactly what real liberals look like, and unfortunately will have to see them again next month during a family reunion.
 
I know exactly what real liberals look like, and unfortunately will have to see them again next month during a family reunion.


My bleeding liberal heart breaks for you.

In other news, the GOP has decided to make Jeff Sessions their front person for their fight against Obama's eventual nominee.

This is quite hilarious because Sessions himself was once a judicial nominee way back in the 1980s and was rejected by a Republican-controlled committee for being, well, a racist shithead.

This will work out real well for the GOP I'm sure.
 
It doesn't really matter, since The Chosen One will get any hack that he wants in there. My guess is he'll chose some kid in diapers so to have as much long range impact on the court as possible.
 
my guess is, that by the time the the Senate needs to vote on Obama's SCOTUS pick, Coleman's options will have been exhausted, Franken will have been seated, and the whole filibuster discussion will be moot.
Doesn't matter because in 2005 Frist threatened the Nuclear Option if the dems kept delaying votes on Bush appointees. The gang of 14's agreement prevented the Nuclear option which would have put the matter to a vote. For those not in the know This is the Nuclear Option:

The Nuclear Option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option[/ame]

Republicans are going to piss and shit themselves and call the dems unfair and all sorts of other names, but remember friends, it was the Repubs that threatened this first.

From the same site:

Pro-nuclear option Republicans retorted that they had won recent elections and in a democracy the winners rule, not the minority.[55] They also argued that while the Constitution requires supermajorities for some purposes (such as 2/3 needed to ratify a treaty), the Founders did not require a supermajority for confirmations, and that the Constitution thus presupposes a majority vote for confirmations. Furthermore, Republicans noted that they had voted for all qualified and ethical nominees nominated by Democratic Presidents, while Democrats had repeatedly voted based on ideology. Some expressed a concern that a new ideological test will be standard in future nominations.

SOOOOO go piss up a rope losers.
 
so was obama wrong to call for a filibuster of bush's appointees socreates?
Not judging what is right or wrong, only telling you that if Franken is not seated before a vote on Souter's replacement, the Nuclear option will be exercised and Republicans will whine, but only so much since they brought the option up.
 
I think that a filibuster should be a real gawddamn filibuster instead of the watered down version that the Senate has enacted for the past several years. Just like Gore and Byrd fighting civil rights legislation, on the stump, 24, 36, or 48 hours straight, reading pages of the local newspaper to a chamber full of sweating, sleeping Senators with bloodshot eyes.
 
I think that a filibuster should be a real gawddamn filibuster instead of the watered down version that the Senate has enacted for the past several years. Just like Gore and Byrd fighting civil rights legislation, on the stump, 24, 36, or 48 hours straight, reading pages of the local newspaper to a chamber full of sweating, sleeping Senators with bloodshot eyes.
Actually the great race baiter and ashamed father of a black daughter, Strom Thurmond has the longest filibuster of any single senator, 24 hours and 18 minutes in an unsuccessful attempt to derail the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
 
But in my mind, if an appointment is qualified, he or she should get an up or down vote.

i agree...obama does not

and one must admit it is hypocritical of him to complain about any alleged republican obstructionism when he himself voted no and wanted to filibuster the apptee
 
Filibusters should only be valid when Democrats use them. I mean, two words for you that should make you thank Democrats: Harriet Myers.
 
Back
Top