GWB Approval Rating 4/24/06

POSTED BY: STDOUBT
UPDATED: Monday, April 7, 2025 04:26
VIEWED: 6755
PAGE 6 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, April 28, 2006 1:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The GOP didn't in any way think that Ginsberg was 'moderate', but they still honored the idea that the President has the right to choose whom he wants to sit on the bench. In short, the GOP acted like statesmen, and not fanatical, partisan hacks as the Dems have become. The Senate is charged w/ the duty of 'advice and consent 'when the President nominates an executive or judicial post, and that's what the they did. Even though the GOP could have tried to play Quid Pro Quo for the the Bork lynching, they felt the interest of the country was best served to simply take the vote and move on.

The Dems werent' so compelled to do the same.

Normally I just ghost these threads. However, I had to jump in and call BS on this blatent revisioning of history that AURaptor is engaging in. It may be the official party talking points but it doesn't jive with the record. I'll pull a quote from an article about this topic:

Quote:
excerpted from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/14/AR2005
111401021.html
In fact, then-Judge Ginsburg was a consensus choice, pushed by Republicans and accepted by the president in large part because he didn't want to take on a big fight. Far from being a crazed radical, Ginsburg had staked out a centrist role on a closely divided appeals court. Don't take it from me -- take it from Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). In his autobiography, the Utah Republican describes how he suggested Ginsburg -- along with Clinton's second pick, Stephen G. Breyer -- to the president. "From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democratic administration," Hatch writes.

Okay. Back to lurking (Oh, a big hello to Signym and Rue

)

Hmmm. And, to kind of get back on topic, here's my interpretation of the poll results:

32% - Thank you sir, may I have another?
60% - No, I don't believe that George Bush is God *
8% - Tu whubba who?

* shamelessly stolen from somewhere I can't remember

AURAPTOR

Friday, April 28, 2006 4:42 AM

SoupCatcher -

Ruthie is undeniably a Liberal justice.

She is considered to be part of the "liberal wing" in the current court and has a Segal-Cover score of 0.680 placing her as the most liberal (by that measure) of current justices, although more moderate than those of many other post-War justices.

She has consistently supported abortion rights and joined in the Supreme Court's opinion striking down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion law in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000),

She has been an advocate for the use and citation of foreign law and norms in judicial opinions,

She favors legalization of prostitution. ( Not saying that would be a BAD thing, but it's certainly not a conservative position )

She is considered to be part of the "liberal wing" in the current court and has a Segal-Cover score of 0.680 placing her as the most liberal (by that measure) of current justices, although more moderate than those of many other post-War justices.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg .680
Stephen Breyer .475
Anthony Kennedy .365
David Souter .325
John Paul Stevens .250
Clarence Thomas .150
John Roberts .120
Samuel Alito .100
Antonin Scalia .000

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, April 28, 2006 5:49 AM

Your own post makes her sound moderate...

The most liberal judge on that court isn't very impressive...and sure she's on the left wing of the court, but its a little stubby wing that doesn't stray as far as you suggest from center. .680 isn't a very radical score if we compare that to the other end of the spectrum of Scalia's 0. So yeah, thanks for the numbers...it puts things into the perspective. She was much more moderate than what Clinton could have picked, and the GOP were happy about that. And much more moderate by your own numbers than say Scalia or Roberts. Hmmm.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 28, 2006 6:08 AM

Hey Soup! I wondered if you were still around. Howdee!

Say 'Rap- you said the economy was doign well and I'm still waiting to see why you say that. I'm still looking forward to that point by point...

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, April 28, 2006 6:11 AM

AURaptor,

You're missing the significance of the quote from Orrin Hatch's autobiography. Hatch suggested Ginsburg to Clinton as a nominee that the Republicans would confirm (and later suggested Breyer). Ginsburg was Hatch's choice. Whether or not she is a liberal justice (and I agree, she is *eta: although, as was pointed out by Righteous9, not as liberal as the right wing likes to portray her) she was pre-selected by the Republican leadership as a nominee they could live with. The same with Breyer.

The revisionism I spoke of, which surfaced around the time of Alito's confirmation, that you used was that the Republicans didn't fight against Ginsburg because they believed in the President's right to nominate whoever he wants. The implication was that the Republicans didn't like her liberal views but swallowed their opinion because this was the President's choice. The reality was that Clinton accepted the suggestion of Orrin Hatch because he would've been in for a dogfight if he nominated someone the Republicans hadn't given the greenlight to. Ginsburg was a Republican selection.

So my objection to your statement wasn't that you said Ginsburg was liberal, it was in your parroting of the rewriting of history, with respect to the Ginsburg nomination, that appeared and was popularized throughout the GOP apparatus at the time of the Alito confirmation.

* edited to add: Hey Signym! Looks like we were posting at around the same time. Yup, I'm still here. Lurking for the most part. But around.

AURAPTOR

Friday, April 28, 2006 12:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
AURaptor,

You're missing the significance of the quote from Orrin Hatch's autobiography. Hatch suggested Ginsburg to Clinton as a nominee that the Republicans would confirm (and later suggested Breyer). Ginsburg was Hatch's choice. Whether or not she is a liberal justice (and I agree, she is *eta: although, as was pointed out by Righteous9, not as liberal as the right wing likes to portray her) she was pre-selected by the Republican leadership as a nominee they could live with. The same with Breyer.

The revisionism I spoke of, which surfaced around the time of Alito's confirmation, that you used was that the Republicans didn't fight against Ginsburg because they believed in the President's right to nominate whoever he wants. The implication was that the Republicans didn't like her liberal views but swallowed their opinion because this was the President's choice. The reality was that Clinton accepted the suggestion of Orrin Hatch because he would've been in for a dogfight if he nominated someone the Republicans hadn't given the greenlight to. Ginsburg was a Republican selection.

So my objection to your statement wasn't that you said Ginsburg was liberal, it was in your parroting of the rewriting of history, with respect to the Ginsburg nomination, that appeared and was popularized throughout the GOP apparatus at the time of the Alito confirmation.

* edited to add: Hey Signym! Looks like we were posting at around the same time. Yup, I'm still here. Lurking for the most part. But around.

It's called 'politics', Soup. Senators can make any statement on day, then take the opposite position later on and not bat an eye. I was unaware that Orin Hatch spoke for all Republicans. Since that must have been the case, I stand correcttd.

Ginsberg was a Clinton seleciton, through and through.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Friday, April 28, 2006 12:44 PM

Soup, some people simply cannot abide facts.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

CITIZEN

Friday, April 28, 2006 1:07 PM

The problem with AURaptor is that he has no word for 'Facts'.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, April 28, 2006 7:33 PM

AURaptor,

Hatch was on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He would become chairman of that committee when the Republicans regained control of the Senate a few years later. The only Republican on that committee who had been in the Senate longer than Hatch was Thurmond. I'd say that, in this instance, he pretty much does speak for the Republicans. Here is a longer excerpt from his autobiography:

Quote:
from http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/01/how-clinton-treated-hatch/
[It] was not a surprise when the President called to talk about the appointment and what he was thinking of doing.

President Clinton indicated he was leaning toward nominating Bruce Babbitt, his Secretary of the Interior, a name that had been bouncing around in the press. Bruce, a well-known western Democrat, had been the governor of Arizona and a candidate for president in 1988. Although he had been a state attorney general back during the 1970s, he was known far more for his activities as a politician than as a jurist. Clinton asked for my reaction.

I told him that confirmation would not be easy. At least one Democrat would probably vote against Bruce, and there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side. I explained to the President that although he might prevail in the end, he should consider whether he wanted a tough, political battle over his first appointment to the Court.

Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer’s name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg.

I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.

In the end, the President did not select Secretary Babbitt. Instead, he nominated Judge Ginsburg and Judge Breyer a year later, when Harry Blackmun retired from the Court. Both were confirmed with relative ease.

There is a tendency to always try and make the other party look bad. Oftentimes, there is evidence to support that position. This isn't one of those times. In an effort to claim the moral high ground during the Alito confirmation the GOP machine manufactured a myth about Ginsburg's nomination. Evidence does not support that myth. This didn't stop many pundits from parroting the myth and many loyal Republicans from following suit. Spit the hook. At least in this one case. You can always swallow the next narrative.

STORYMARK

Friday, April 28, 2006 8:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
... I was unaware that Orin Hatch spoke for all Republicans. Since that must have been the case, I stand correcttd.

Ginsberg was a Clinton seleciton, through and through.

So, an experienced Republican Senator, who was actually involved with the issue at hand, doesn't have the story straight, but you do.

Okay. I think I've got it now. Orin Hatch doesn't speak for all Republicans. AURaptor does.

Wow.

Just...wow.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE