|
28 Jun 01 - 08:10 AM (#493803) Subject: another end run From: kendall Have you heard the latest from "Foggy Bottom?" The Senate republicans are demanding that Bush appoinees be allowed to bypass the Senate Judiciary committee, and, go directly before the full senate. I can see it now, a bench full of Clarence Thomas' YUK! |
|
28 Jun 01 - 10:46 AM (#493934) Subject: RE: BS: another end run From: LR Mole One can choose to believe it or not, but news says that Anita Hill was character-mugged so that Clarence Thomas could become a Supreme. New book out by someone who was there, and helped. Stay tuned. |
|
28 Jun 01 - 10:51 AM (#493942) Subject: RE: BS: another end run From: kendall I have always believed she was telling the truth, and, I'll never forgive Joe Biden and the other democrats for caving in on this nomination. She did not want to testify because she knew what they would do to her. There were other eyewitnesses who were not allowed to testify according to her. That man is either a fool or a liar, claiming he had never discussed Roe v Wade with anyone! |
|
28 Jun 01 - 11:08 AM (#493960) Subject: RE: BS: another end run From: Irish sergeant Why this surprises anyone over say twenty is beyond me. These are the same people who ran a self-confessed felon (Oliver North) for senate in the state of Virginia. These are also the same people who want Governor Keating to head the FBI. The same Keating of the mid-eighties banking scandal. Write or E-mail your congressional represenatives and senators and let them know that you disapprove of that plan. Be they Democrat or Republican. Apparently the rules only apply if you're a Democrat or if they favor the Republicans. I have to tell you the GOP has been going down hill ever since Lincoln was murdered. Kindest reguards, Neil |
|
28 Jun 01 - 11:15 AM (#493964) Subject: RE: BS: another end run From: Bill D yeah, I heard it on the radio...the guy (a right wing Republican) says he flatly lied in print to protect Thomas and destroy Anita Hill, and now is embarassed to have sold out as a journalist..... So. now that the Senate Judiciary committee has a Dem. chair, they don't want appointees in front of it? Why, sure that seems reasonable...those picky Democrats might want have the temerity to ask the wrong questions. |
|
28 Jun 01 - 11:35 AM (#493994) Subject: RE: BS: another end run From: jeffp ...those picky Democrats might want have the temerity to ask the wrong questions. ...and expect truthful answers. |
|
28 Jun 01 - 12:14 PM (#494030) Subject: RE: BS: another end run From: Whistle Stop Not only did he lie in print -- he published a best-selling book of his lies. It was called "The Real Anita Hill," by David Brock, I believe. Mr. Brock presented fabricated evidence about Ms. Hill, and was widely quoted as saying that the evidence showed her to be "a little bit nutty, a little bit slutty". Mr. Brock has now recanted. |
|
28 Jun 01 - 12:18 PM (#494037) Subject: RE: BS: another end run From: kendall He should be forced to apologize on national TV. |
|
28 Jun 01 - 02:18 PM (#494136) Subject: RE: BS: another end run From: DougR Yes, he should, Kendall. Brock evidently will do ANYTHING to promote his books, and TV talking head shows will be scrambling to get him on their programs to give him more publicity. Why should anyone believe him now? A liar recants? Big deal. Oh, and yes, he has another new book to tout on those shows. Incidentally, he never was a conservative republican. When he wrote the book "exposing" Anita Hill, conservative talk-show hosts touted the book on their programs, but they were duped too, and Mr. Brock probably sold many of his books containing his lies as a result of their proving him free publicity. DougR |
|
28 Jun 01 - 02:31 PM (#494143) Subject: RE: BS: another end run From: DougR On the judicial issue, Kendall, I believe the Republicans fully expect that the nominees will be submitted to the the Judiciary Committee. What they want to be assured of is that the nominees will not be locked up in committee because of their political beliefs. They want the committee to refer all nominees, after the committee has considered them, to submit them to the full Senate for consideration. The committee will likely recommend the ones they don't like not be approved. The full Senate, however, would be allowed to vote up or down on each candidate. What's unreasonable about that? Sure, the majority of them will philosophically be conservatives but why should that be surprising. Bush is President and he is a conservative Republican (perhaps not as conservative as many think he is however). Nominees should not be savaged as Robert Bork was. A man who Senator Lehey lauded as being a very qualified candidate and then when he appeared before the committee, joined Senator Kennedy and other liberal senators in ripping him apart for being a conservative. Three hundred plus judges nominated by President Clinton were approved by a Republican dominated Senate. All our side is asking for is the same fair treatment. If a candidate is qualified on legal terms, he/she should be approved, regardless of his/her political beliefs. Judges are not there to make laws; they are there to interpret laws. DougR |
|
28 Jun 01 - 03:42 PM (#494181) Subject: RE: BS: another end run From: kendall Any new judges appointed by Bush should be run through the same process that they have always been run through. This is clearly another attempt to bypass the committee so he can get more Clarence Thomas' on the bench. Why should his nominees get any better treatment than any other judge has had in the past? Also Bork was not jumped on because he was conservative, he was jumped on because, among other things, he had never done one minute of Pro Bono work. I dont recall how many of Clintons nominees were shot down by the republicans, more than one I'm sure. No my friend, the old rules applied to Clinton, and the old rules should apply to Bush. No more Clarence Thomas' |
|
28 Jun 01 - 09:08 PM (#494397) Subject: RE: BS: another end run From: DougR Shucks, Kendall, you're tough! **BG** |
|
28 Jun 01 - 09:30 PM (#494410) Subject: RE: BS: another end run From: kendall I know it! I hate that in a man!! |
|
29 Jun 01 - 08:03 AM (#494651) Subject: RE: BS: another end run From: Whistle Stop According to a recent story on NPR, the Republican-dominated Senate during the Clinton administration had an appalling record on approval of judicial nominees. They routinely held them up in committee, where a single nay vote could tie up a nomination indefinitely (I'm not sure exactly why this is, but apparently it's how the rules work). This led to the current shortage of federal judges in this country. Now the Republicans want to fill the void (or stack the deck?) by fast-tracking their nominees through the same process, and the Democrats are resisting this -- which constitutes either revenge or fair play, depending on your point of view. |
|
29 Jun 01 - 08:17 AM (#494664) Subject: RE: BS: another end run From: kendall What's good for the goose............can be rough on a woodpecker. |
|
29 Jun 01 - 05:26 PM (#495027) Subject: RE: BS: another end run From: Hollowfox If this goes through, the Republicans will want to get rid of it, when there's a Democrat in the presidency and there's a democrat controlled congress. That's what happened with the two term presidential limit. |
|
30 Jun 01 - 01:01 PM (#495433) Subject: RE: BS: another end run From: DougR I read in the paper this morning that the Republicans caved on the issue. Rather than bring the senate to a halt, they agreed to accept written assurance from the Democrats that they would follow the standard rules, and submit the nominees to the full senate for consideration. How that differs from what the Republicans wanted, I'm not quite sure. DougR |
|
30 Jun 01 - 01:30 PM (#495441) Subject: RE: BS: another end run From: thosp oooooooops -- i thought this was a football thread --- sorry -- some of you know what GREAT faith i have in politicians! ;) |
|
01 Jul 01 - 12:21 AM (#495720) Subject: RE: BS: another end run From: kendall If they are going to send the whole list to the full Senate anyway, why bother with a committee? |
|
01 Jul 01 - 12:57 AM (#495736) Subject: RE: BS: another end run From: DougR Well, this is just a guess, Kendall, but I suspect that it is the job of the Senate to advise and consent, not the committee. But that's just a guess. Any good fishing in Maine, by the way? Fly fishing, I mean. DougR |
|
01 Jul 01 - 09:08 AM (#495830) Subject: RE: BS: another end run From: kendall I gave up fly fishing, too hard to clean them. Seriously, You are asking the wrong man, dont go fishing at all, but, if you were to visit L.L.Bean, they have a school which I believe is free, and, one of their outdoor experts could steer you in the right direction. I do know that we have some great salmon rivers, but, I have no clue about seasons etc. My working days were on the high seas (commercial fishing). If you do come to Maine, I sure would like to meet you. |
|
01 Jul 01 - 12:35 PM (#495904) Subject: RE: BS: another end run From: DougR Well, one of these days I might pop up there to see my friend, Nan Wilder, who lives in Newcastle. If I ever do, we sure will meet! Doug |