GWB Approval Rating 4/24/06
POSTED BY: STDOUBT
UPDATED: Monday, April 7, 2025 04:26
VIEWED: 6755
PAGE 7 of 10
Soupcatcher:
You make an interesting point about the Ginsberg nomination, but I think your arguement may be a little deceptive. Not that I want to defend Aruptor, but I believe the premise of your arguement is that because Sen. Hatch mentioned Judge Ginsberg as on of the nominees that he and his fellow Republicans saw as
Quote:that she is somehow transformed into the Republican Selected Nominee? That seems a bit of a stretch since they had no power to actually make the selection in the first place. This is easily verified by that fact that the Republicans first choice wasn't even under consideration by the Clinton administration. The selection was purely Clinton's.
..far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.
You also asserted that there was revisionism
Quote:You seem to take the position that this is not the case at all since Hatch actually selected Ginsberg. Actually I think one of your own quotes from Sen. Hatch's autobiography contradicts your assertion,
...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...
Quote:
...I(Sen. Hatch) 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.
I think the operative words here are "while liberal". The fact that he was willing to vote for Judge Ginsberg was a reflection of his respect for the President's choice (granted at his own suggestion) even though he disagreed with her philosophies in general.
In conclusion, I respectfully disagree with your assertion. I don't believe there was any revisionism at all. It's clear to me from Sen. Hatch's autobiography that while he disagreed with her liberal philosophy he did not obstruct Judge Ginsberg's nomination because he knew she was honest and capable. That is essentially the arguement many Republicans made in rebuttal to Democratic opposition to Alito.
-----------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."
---Napoleon Bonaparte
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It would be easier to make these two cases seem symetrical if Alito had been Suggested by a Democrat to the Presidency. I do believe Meyers was, and Cudo's to bush for taking Reids suggestion.
I think the suggestion was disingenous, and I think it was disingenous because I don't think Reid or anybody could actually get Bush to pick somebody they wanted or anybody close, but they could help to lead him to pick somebody who would make his decision look ridiculous, which he did.
Why, if Democratic leaders had no hand in the selection process of Alito, in contrast to Hatch's hand in the choice of Ginsburg, would you even try to make the argument that the situations were the same?
Of course the Republicans wanted somebody less liberal than Ginsburg, but they picked a best-case scenario and they got it. They didn't vote for her out of respect for his choice...they voted for her because of his respect for their choice.
Why do you expect the Democrats to jump on board these worst case scenarios we were offered, and then say "thank you sir may I have another?"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Razza,
Let's go back to AURaptor's original post, the one to which I objected, and look at it bit by bit:
Quote:
The GOP didn't in any way think that Ginsberg was 'moderate',
Agree.
Quote:
but they still honored the idea that the President has the right to choose whom he wants to sit on the bench.
Disagree. According to Hatch, "there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side," to Bruce Babbitt. In other words, if Clinton had nominated Babbitt, the Republicans would have fought like hell to keep him from being confirmed. Being the minority party at the time they probably would have lost that fight (although there was some objection to Babbitt from his home state Senator,IIRC, which might have nixed the whole thing in the bud). If, as Hatch claims, the Republicans would've resisted Babbitt, than I have a hard time seeing how this correlates with AURaptor's statement that, "they still honored the idea that the President has the right to choose whom he wants to sit on the bench." That's the BS right there. Hatch told Clinton straight out that they weren't going to honor his choice.
Quote:
In short, the GOP acted like statesmen, and not fanatical, partisan hacks as the Dems have become.
Let's go back to Hatch: "there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side" Sounds partisan to me.
Much as I hate to admit it, the one who comes out of this looking the most like a statesman is Clinton. He had the majority in the Senate. He could've rammed through a much more liberal judge. Instead, he called up a member of the minority party and ended up selecting someone they assured him would be confirmed.
Quote:
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.
This is half right. To the Republicans at that time, the consent part was contingent on the President accepting the advice. The advice, from Hatch, was to choose another nominee because there would be no consent for the first choice.
Quote:
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.
Once more, let's go back to that line: "there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side" That doesn't sound to me like they were prepared to take the vote and move on.
Quote:
The Dems werent' so compelled to do the same.
Impossible to know. Here is what would've had to happen to be able to say this: Bush calls up the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee; Finds out they won't support Alito; Discusses alternatives that the Democrats would support; Nominates one of those alternatives; Democrats filibuster the compromise nominee.
What I find interesting in this whole thing is that, according to Hatch, Clinton had not thought about Ginsburg until Hatch mentioned her name.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Razza,
Okay. Now let's move on to your post.
Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
Soupcatcher:
You make an interesting point about the Ginsberg nomination, but I think your arguement may be a little deceptive. Not that I want to defend Aruptor, but I believe the premise of your arguement is that because Sen. Hatch mentioned Judge Ginsberg as on of the nominees that he and his fellow Republicans saw asQuote:that she is somehow transformed into the Republican Selected Nominee?
..far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.
Well, Clinton had not even thought about Ginsburg before speaking with Hatch. Hatch is a Republican. Sounds like a Republican selected nominee to me.
Quote:
That seems a bit of a stretch since they had no power to actually make the selection in the first place.
Exactly. Which is one of the amazing things about the whole story. The Republicans had no power. And yet Clinton first asked their advice and then agreed to their suggestion.
Quote:
This is easily verified by that fact that the Republicans first choice wasn't even under consideration by the Clinton administration. The selection was purely Clinton's.
Huh? The two names that Hatch mentioned as acceptable to Republicans were Breyer and Ginsburg. One wasn't even under consideration by Clinton: Ginsburg. Both ended up being nominated by Clinton to the Supreme Court. How does that make Ginsburg's selection purely Clinton's???
Quote:
You also asserted that there was revisionismQuote:You seem to take the position that this is not the case at all since Hatch actually selected Ginsberg. Actually I think one of your own quotes from Sen. Hatch's autobiography contradicts your assertion,
...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...Quote:
...I(Sen. Hatch) 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.
I think the operative words here are "while liberal". The fact that he was willing to vote for Judge Ginsberg was a reflection of his respect for the President's choice (granted at his own suggestion) even though he disagreed with her philosophies in general.
Here is the revisionism that I spoke of (and that AURaptor's original post parroted):
Clinton nominated a liberal judge. The Republicans didn't like her but voted for her anyway because they believed anyone the President nominated should be accepted. Bush nominated a conservative judge. The Democrats should vote for him because anyone the President nominates should be accepted.
Do you see where this diverges from reality?
Quote:
In conclusion, I respectfully disagree with your assertion. I don't believe there was any revisionism at all. It's clear to me from Sen. Hatch's autobiography that while he disagreed with her liberal philosophy he did not obstruct Judge Ginsberg's nomination because he knew she was honest and capable. That is essentially the arguement many Republicans made in rebuttal to Democratic opposition to Alito.
Disagree. The beginning of the story is being omitted. The whole story is that the Republicans were prepared to fight against Clinton's nomination. He threw them a bone by asking who they would support instead. A few names were tossed out. The judges were liberal, the Republicans were the minority party after all and this was a Democratic adminstration so they couldn't ask for a conservative judge and expect to be taken seriously, but not as liberal as judges that Clinton could've nominated. Rather than risking an ugly confirmation battle, Clinton accepted their suggest
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
AURaptor,
.
Longevity in the Senate does not always equate to 'speaking for the party.'.
The politics of personal desturction is alive and well in the DNC. Witness is clearly shown by the Left's mindless, factless and vitriol filled attacks on Roberts and Alito. ( even making Alito's wife cry and leave the hearings )
Shame on the petty, hate filled and obscenely partisan Democrats.
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. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Longevity in the Senate does not always equate to 'speaking for the party.'.
You are aware of the role that the Senate Judiciary Committee plays in the nomination process, aren't you? In two years, Hatch would become chairman of that committee. In this instance I'd put money on his claims over yours.
Quote:
The politics of personal desturction is alive and well in the DNC. Witness is clearly shown by the Left's mindless, factless and vitriol filled attacks on Roberts and Alito. ( even making Alito's wife cry and leave the hearings )
I see we're moving to a different field now. Okay. Because of your track record, forgive me if I'm wary of the accuracy of your claims. How about going through the transcript of that particular day of the Alito confirmation hearings and pulling out "factless" or "vitriol filled attacks" from Democrats to support your claims. (I'll concede "mindless" since that could easily apply to a number of things I've heard from Senators of both parties). I believe that there were quite a few hours of transcript before Mrs. Alito left the room. If memory serves me correctly, she teared up and left right in the middle of one of Republican Senator Graham's statements. That might help you in searching through the text.
Quote:
Shame on the petty, hate filled and obscenely partisan Democrats.
Umm. Okay. You're screed has been duly noted and will be placed in their permanent file.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Shame on Partisan Racists who think all Muslims are evil and should be exterminated on mass. Shame on petty minded little fools who can't see past their own bullshit. Shame on people who spread government sponsored hate because they really lack the mental abillity to think for themselves, and require some fool to tell them what to think.
Shame on the kind of moron who'll forgive their side for lying and cheating because it really didn't happen because they're the good guys.
Shame on the kind of person who is a fascist's wet dream, that's what I say.
What have you been told to think about it AU?
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Shame on Partisan Racists who think all Muslims are evil and should be exterminated on mass. Shame on petty minded little fools who can't see past their own bullshit. Shame on people who spread government sponsored hate because they really lack the mental abillity to think for themselves, and require some fool to tell them what to think.
Shame on the kind of moron who'll forgive their side for lying and cheating because it really didn't happen because they're the good guys.
Shame on the kind of person who is a fascist's wet dream, that's what I say.
What have you been told to think about it AU?
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.
Go back to sleep, citizen.
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. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not the one who is sleeping, and stop snoring, AU.
Isn't it time you went back to reindoctination camp? You need some new ideas, you've run out of your pre-programmed ones, it would seem.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:None of that in any way changes the substance of my post.
You are aware of the role that the Senate Judiciary Committee plays in the nomination process, aren't you? In two years, Hatch would become chairman of that committee. In this instance I'd put money on his claims over yours.
Quote:My track record on accuracy is pretty damn good, thank you very much
I see we're moving to a different field now. Okay. Because of your track record, forgive me if I'm wary of the accuracy of your claims. How about going through the transcript of that particular day of the Alito confirmation hearings and pulling out "factless" or "vitriol filled attacks"
You not liking what I say doesn't discredit my record one bit. You want to go back and rehash over what's been documented? Why ? What purpose would it serve ? Why don't you go read it for yourself, and maybe you'll read some of what I'm talking about for the 1st time. I know what I heard and read during the process. Graham was HIGHLIGHTING what it was the Democrats had done. ( I knew you'd try to spin it that way, though. ) But the record is clear. Look at how the Left treated the likes of Alito, Roberts and all the way back to Thomas and even Bork. I challenge any one to find similar treatment in the interview portion of the vote by the GOP on a Democrat nominee. You can't, because it simply hasn't happened. Not nearly to the same level of vitriol demonstrated by the Dems.
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. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME