In Senate, Eye-For-An-Eye Filibuster Stops Democratic Nominee – Byron York – Townhall Conservative. First of all, why be coy? I’m not a fan of party politics or name calling, but this really really is the party of “no”. I wonder .. when was the last time we saw a party so unwilling to work with anyone other than themselves? They have dug in their heels and refused to work with Obama specifically but democrats in general. We all know I’m not a huge Obama fan either, but seriously nothing productive could possibly come from a strategy aimed at just blocking (with the occasional shoving – think Madison). But secondly, this kind of totally reactive politics should not be tolerated by people:
Liu’s nomination was blocked recently by a Republican filibuster — the first successful filibuster against a judicial nominee since Democrats stopped all 10 of George W. Bush’s appeals court nominees from 2003 to 2005. Although no one back then could have predicted that today’s fight would be about Liu, everyone knew it was going to happen sometime. Once Democrats crossed the line to filibuster those Bush nominees, you could bet Republicans would strike back. And now they have.
Liu was as good a target as any for the GOP. A legal scholar who has never been a judge and has little experience practicing law, Liu occupies a place on the far left side of the legal spectrum
I didn’t really start paying attention to the news and politics until the last year of Bush’s presidency, so I cannot speak to the democrats stopping 10 of Bush’s nominees. And I could see why a party would be tempted to strike back. Because, you know, they haven’t done that enough elsewhere. And of course if they really see him as being on the “far left side of the spectrum” then he’s probably going to be biased (second paragraph). Ah, but it wasn’t just his positions, they were personally offended by him:
It wasn’t just Liu’s legal positions that did him in. Republicans were particularly rankled by the professor’s testimony during the 2006 confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. Appearing to model his remarks on Ted Kennedy’s infamous 1987 “Robert Bork’s America” speech, Liu said Samuel Alito’s America would be one in which cops kill young suspects over minor crimes, all-white juries send black men to their deaths, and federal agents terrorize innocent civilians. After his own nomination, when he had gotten a taste of criticism himself, Liu apologized, saying his language had been “unduly harsh.” But the damage was done.
admittedly, I had to wikipedia Samuel Alito. Democrats grilled him during his confirmation hearing because he was affiliated with the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which I also had to wikipedia. This group was opposed to women and people of color being allowed to Princeton. His response to them?
Alito stated that he had listed an affiliation with the group on his application to Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department in order to establish his conservative credentials: “You have to look at the question that I was responding to and the form that I was filling out… I was applying for a position in the Reagan administration. And my answers were truthful statements, but what I was trying to outline were the things that were relevant to obtaining a political position.”
Sounds like someone I’d want to nominate… not. Also, it says something pretty gnarly about the Reagan administration that being a part of a group opposed to equal opportunities for women and people of color was a highlight. Reagan is a conservative hero. And they wonder why we think they’re ass holes.
But in the case of party politics, i’m an equal opportunity hater. These wankers need to lock it up and do their jobs. Do what needs to get done to make sure that average people aren’t suffering so god damn much instead of hashing out highschool drama. With this kind of crap happening, i’m amazed at people’s bewilderment when I express my revolutionary ideals. This cannot be reformed.