Saturday, October 29, 2005

What We Lost


Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, May 15 2005: “Will we permit a fair, up-or-down vote on every judicial nominee?”

Senator Elizabeth Dole, November 13, 2003: “Every President, Republican or Democrat, deserves to have his nominees voted on. Every Senator has a responsibility to exercise his or her constitutional duty to vote on the President’s nominees, and every nominee deserves a hearing, a committee vote, and an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor”

President Bush, May 9 2003: “The framers of the Constitution knew that freedom and justice depend on fair and impartial judges. To ensure judges of the highest quality, integrity, they designed a system in which the President would nominate judges and the Senate would vote up or down on the nominees.”

We Conservatives promised up-or-down. On every nominee.


Anonymous said...

You are one of the least politically astute people on the planet. Amazing.

But man you can type a whole lotta words, huh?

antimedia said...

DJ, you are absolutely right, and the first commenter is completely wrong. As you've written in other posts, the future will reveal the folly of the recent debacle.

Tom P said...

I see you've adopted the left's talking points. You really shouldn't let your anger corrupt you this way.

Nobody denied Harriet Miers an up or down vote. If her nomination hadn't been withdrawn, she'd have had her hearings (I won't say it would have been pretty, but they'd have happened), and if she was voted favorably out of committee, she'd have had an up or down vote. That wouldn't have been pretty, either, as she'd probably have had more Democrat votes than Republican.

Please explain why you think the constitutionally mandated "advice" from the Senate that persuaded the president to withdraw her nomination is the moral equivalent of an unconstitutional filibuster?

Anonymous said...

Hey Mr. Words-a-lot:

Explain to us how Alito is such an inferior choice to Alito.

You brilliant political analyst, you! :)