Samuel Alito
-
once a runner
- Official BleacherCoach
- Posts: 972
- Joined: January 30th, 2004, 12:16 pm
Re: Samuel Alito
I can't say I approve of the way Alito was treated during his nomination, but I also can't say I'm shocked. Certainly by now, a nominee must know what he/she is going to go through during the confirmation process. If you can't handle it, don't accept the nomination. It is a free country and nobody is forcing your hand. It reminds me of the players who used to complain about Bobby Knight. They KNEW what kind of coach he was going in and still went to IU....it shouldn't come as a shock to them that they are going to get treated like dogs.
You guys keep complaining about a "liberal" court, despite the fact that 7 of the 9 were nominated by republican presidents. Don't you think that maybe if the republicans had fought a littler harder for "true conservatives" then you wouldn't have this so called liberal court to worry about. Why didn't the republicans fight a little harder against Breyer and Ginsburg when they had the chance? I'll bet you wish they had!
I do think it's good that a nominee is grilled during the nomination process. It certainly is one of the most powerful positions in the country and comes with a lifetime appointment. I would hardly feel comfortable giving any nominee a free pass to the bench. I do think it would be a good idea to take the cameras out of the confirmation process. That might reduce the length of the questions.
You guys keep complaining about a "liberal" court, despite the fact that 7 of the 9 were nominated by republican presidents. Don't you think that maybe if the republicans had fought a littler harder for "true conservatives" then you wouldn't have this so called liberal court to worry about. Why didn't the republicans fight a little harder against Breyer and Ginsburg when they had the chance? I'll bet you wish they had!
I do think it's good that a nominee is grilled during the nomination process. It certainly is one of the most powerful positions in the country and comes with a lifetime appointment. I would hardly feel comfortable giving any nominee a free pass to the bench. I do think it would be a good idea to take the cameras out of the confirmation process. That might reduce the length of the questions.
Last edited by once a runner on September 20th, 2011, 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Samuel Alito
[quote="once a runner";p="117129"]
I can't say I approve of the way Alito was treated during his nomination, but I also can't say I'm shocked. Certainly by now, a nominee must know what he/she is going to go through during the confirmation process. If you can't handle it, don't accept the nomination. It is a free country and nobody is forcing your hand. It reminds me of the players who used to complain about Bobby Knight. They KNEW what kind of coach he was going in and still went to IU....it shouldn't come as a shock to them that they are going to get treated like dogs.
You guys keep complaining about a "liberal" court, despite the fact that 7 of the 9 were nominated by republican presidents. Don't you think that maybe if the republicans had fought a littler harder for "true conservatives" then you wouldn't have this so called liberal court to worry about. Why didn't the republicans fight a little harder against Breyer and Ginsburg when they had the chance? I'll bet you wish they had!
I do think it's good that a nominee is grilled during the nomination process. It certainly is one of the most powerful positions in the country and comes with a lifetime appointment. I would hardly feel comfortable giving any nominee a free pass to the bench. I do think it would be a good idea to take the cameras out of the confirmation process. That might reduce the length of the questions.
[/quote]
Where to begin?
1. Yes, unfortunately a nominee must now know what they are in for. I wonder how many more highly qualified candidates will put themselves through this process in the future, after seeing what Alito today and Bork yesterday has been put through.
2. Yes, 7 of 9 were appointed by Republicans - you love to keep pointing that out. But keep in mind that the non-conservative justices were appointed when Democrats controlled the Senate. With a Democratic controlled Senate, what good what it have done to run their names through the mud like the Democratics do? Seriously, trying to paint them as a racist, as someone that doesn't hold women equal, etc. etc. etc. - when everyone knows it's not true, is downright shameful and you know it.
3. Grilling them about their judicial philosophy is fair game. However, asking them questions that they know they can't answer, which by the way is a tactic used by Democratic nominees as well, and then crowing about them not being responsive is uncalled for as well. I forget which Democrat Senator it was, but when Ginsburg went through the confirmation hearings, a Democratic Senator told her she shouldn't have to answer certain questions if they might come up before the court. The same senator then turned around and accosted Roberts for not answering those same questions.
For the life of me I can't understand why some of you libs condone this, and are allowing your Democratic party to run as far to the left as it possibly can.
I can't say I approve of the way Alito was treated during his nomination, but I also can't say I'm shocked. Certainly by now, a nominee must know what he/she is going to go through during the confirmation process. If you can't handle it, don't accept the nomination. It is a free country and nobody is forcing your hand. It reminds me of the players who used to complain about Bobby Knight. They KNEW what kind of coach he was going in and still went to IU....it shouldn't come as a shock to them that they are going to get treated like dogs.
You guys keep complaining about a "liberal" court, despite the fact that 7 of the 9 were nominated by republican presidents. Don't you think that maybe if the republicans had fought a littler harder for "true conservatives" then you wouldn't have this so called liberal court to worry about. Why didn't the republicans fight a little harder against Breyer and Ginsburg when they had the chance? I'll bet you wish they had!
I do think it's good that a nominee is grilled during the nomination process. It certainly is one of the most powerful positions in the country and comes with a lifetime appointment. I would hardly feel comfortable giving any nominee a free pass to the bench. I do think it would be a good idea to take the cameras out of the confirmation process. That might reduce the length of the questions.
[/quote]
Where to begin?
1. Yes, unfortunately a nominee must now know what they are in for. I wonder how many more highly qualified candidates will put themselves through this process in the future, after seeing what Alito today and Bork yesterday has been put through.
2. Yes, 7 of 9 were appointed by Republicans - you love to keep pointing that out. But keep in mind that the non-conservative justices were appointed when Democrats controlled the Senate. With a Democratic controlled Senate, what good what it have done to run their names through the mud like the Democratics do? Seriously, trying to paint them as a racist, as someone that doesn't hold women equal, etc. etc. etc. - when everyone knows it's not true, is downright shameful and you know it.
3. Grilling them about their judicial philosophy is fair game. However, asking them questions that they know they can't answer, which by the way is a tactic used by Democratic nominees as well, and then crowing about them not being responsive is uncalled for as well. I forget which Democrat Senator it was, but when Ginsburg went through the confirmation hearings, a Democratic Senator told her she shouldn't have to answer certain questions if they might come up before the court. The same senator then turned around and accosted Roberts for not answering those same questions.
For the life of me I can't understand why some of you libs condone this, and are allowing your Democratic party to run as far to the left as it possibly can.
Last edited by LionPride on September 20th, 2011, 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
We have the duty to protect the life of an unborn child. - Ronald Reagan
-
once a runner
- Official BleacherCoach
- Posts: 972
- Joined: January 30th, 2004, 12:16 pm
Re: Samuel Alito
[quote="LionPride";p="117140"]
1. Yes, unfortunately a nominee must now know what they are in for. I wonder how many more highly qualified candidates will put themselves through this process in the future, after seeing what Alito today and Bork yesterday has been put through.[/quote]
When was Bork up for nomination? Around 1987? How about Thomas? Was Alito blind to those nominations? Certainly he must have known that he would be in for a tough time in questioning, and yet, he still went through it. The Supreme Court is the ulimate for any judge. Any possible justice who would turn down a spot on the high court because they are afraid of a few days of questioning doesn't have what it takes to sit on the court.
Democrats and republicans may have fundamental differences of opinions on issues, but politics is abundant with hypocrites on both sides of the spectrum.
1. Yes, unfortunately a nominee must now know what they are in for. I wonder how many more highly qualified candidates will put themselves through this process in the future, after seeing what Alito today and Bork yesterday has been put through.[/quote]
When was Bork up for nomination? Around 1987? How about Thomas? Was Alito blind to those nominations? Certainly he must have known that he would be in for a tough time in questioning, and yet, he still went through it. The Supreme Court is the ulimate for any judge. Any possible justice who would turn down a spot on the high court because they are afraid of a few days of questioning doesn't have what it takes to sit on the court.
I said I did not approve of the way Alito was handled. It's not the democrats fault that the republican president didn't have the backbone, or find a candidate who had the backbone, to stand up the democratic majority. Do you really thinik Clinton would have nominated a moderate conservative just because the republicans controlled the congress?2. Yes, 7 of 9 were appointed by Republicans - you love to keep pointing that out. But keep in mind that the non-conservative justices were appointed when Democrats controlled the Senate. With a Democratic controlled Senate, what good what it have done to run their names through the mud like the Democratics do? Seriously, trying to paint them as a racist, as someone that doesn't hold women equal, etc. etc. etc. - when everyone knows it's not true, is downright shameful and you know it.
You continue to think that hypocrisy is the sole domain of the democrats. I know there are hypocrtical democrats. You just pointed one out. But to think the republicans are above this is ridiculous. The rep. demanded that Alito just be given an up or down vote, but at the same time, were so afraid of what Harriet Miers brought to the table, they put a great deal of pressure on her to step down before the hearings, yet alone the vote. The conservatives wanted to know where Miers stood on abortion and would have been equally upset if she refused to answer.3. Grilling them about their judicial philosophy is fair game. However, asking them questions that they know they can't answer, which by the way is a tactic used by Democratic nominees as well, and then crowing about them not being responsive is uncalled for as well. I forget which Democrat Senator it was, but when Ginsburg went through the confirmation hearings, a Democratic Senator told her she shouldn't have to answer certain questions if they might come up before the court. The same senator then turned around and accosted Roberts for not answering those same questions.
For the life of me I can't understand why some of you libs condone this, and are allowing your Democratic party to run as far to the left as it possibly can.
Democrats and republicans may have fundamental differences of opinions on issues, but politics is abundant with hypocrites on both sides of the spectrum.
Last edited by once a runner on September 20th, 2011, 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Samuel Alito
[quote="once a runner";p="117162"]
When was Bork up for nomination? Around 1987? How about Thomas? Was Alito blind to those nominations? Certainly he must have known that he would be in for a tough time in questioning, and yet, he still went through it. The Supreme Court is the ulimate for any judge. Any possible justice who would turn down a spot on the high court because they are afraid of a few days of questioning doesn't have what it takes to sit on the court.
[/quote]
You cited 2 justices (Bork and Thomas) who were both strict constitionalist appointed by Republican presidents. Both had their names run through the mud, just like Alito.
So I'll ask again. When was the last time a Democrat appointment got the same treatment?
Yes, Alito knew what he was in for, and by the way he handled himself, I'd say he was up to the challenge. But there's a big difference in getting hard questions about your judicial philosphy and getting accused of being a racist.
When was Bork up for nomination? Around 1987? How about Thomas? Was Alito blind to those nominations? Certainly he must have known that he would be in for a tough time in questioning, and yet, he still went through it. The Supreme Court is the ulimate for any judge. Any possible justice who would turn down a spot on the high court because they are afraid of a few days of questioning doesn't have what it takes to sit on the court.
[/quote]
You cited 2 justices (Bork and Thomas) who were both strict constitionalist appointed by Republican presidents. Both had their names run through the mud, just like Alito.
So I'll ask again. When was the last time a Democrat appointment got the same treatment?
Yes, Alito knew what he was in for, and by the way he handled himself, I'd say he was up to the challenge. But there's a big difference in getting hard questions about your judicial philosphy and getting accused of being a racist.
Last edited by LionPride on September 20th, 2011, 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
We have the duty to protect the life of an unborn child. - Ronald Reagan
-
southpaw
- Official BleacherCoach
- Posts: 2906
- Joined: September 5th, 2003, 12:33 pm
- Location: Helixville
Re: Samuel Alito
They can't answer the question LP because we all know what the cold hard truth is. There is a double standard for supreme court nominees. Did RBG get grilled about her communist leanings or get blasted for working for the American Communist Leninist Union?
Last edited by southpaw on September 20th, 2011, 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I'm your huckleberry"
Re: Samuel Alito
It's official - Samuel Alito is now the 110th Supreme Court Justice on a 58-42 vote. 4 Dems crossed party lines and 1 Republican crossed party lines. Does anyone know who those 5 are?
Last edited by LionPride on September 20th, 2011, 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
We have the duty to protect the life of an unborn child. - Ronald Reagan
-
once a runner
- Official BleacherCoach
- Posts: 972
- Joined: January 30th, 2004, 12:16 pm
Re: Samuel Alito
You guys keep pontificating about the treatment of Alito even though I said in my 2 previous posts that I agreed with you about the way he was questioned. What you apparently have a hard time with is your blatant stereotyping of democrats. If one far left democrat believes something, then all democrats must believe it. You paint every democrat as a far left liberal.
I thought it was kind of funny that one of the dems that you like to pick on, Robert "KKK" Byrd of West Virginia was one of the 5 democrats who crossed party lines and voted for Alito. Don't you just hate when those stereotypes fail?
I thought it was kind of funny that one of the dems that you like to pick on, Robert "KKK" Byrd of West Virginia was one of the 5 democrats who crossed party lines and voted for Alito. Don't you just hate when those stereotypes fail?
Last edited by once a runner on September 20th, 2011, 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
southpaw
- Official BleacherCoach
- Posts: 2906
- Joined: September 5th, 2003, 12:33 pm
- Location: Helixville
Re: Samuel Alito
OAR...once again you deftly dodge the debate as good as any liberal senator.
You say what Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito went through in their hearings was no worse than what treatment RBG received. What garbage.
You keep harping about sterotyping democrats as far left extreme radicals but who else do we hear from except Durbin, Kerry, and Teddy KGB? Where is the moderate democrat voice? Absent?
Robert KKK Byrd is 127 years old and is suffering from dementia. Or maybe Bobby Byrd thinks Alito is a racist and would make a fine addition to the SC.
Funny how RBG rhymes with KGB!
You say what Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito went through in their hearings was no worse than what treatment RBG received. What garbage.
You keep harping about sterotyping democrats as far left extreme radicals but who else do we hear from except Durbin, Kerry, and Teddy KGB? Where is the moderate democrat voice? Absent?
Robert KKK Byrd is 127 years old and is suffering from dementia. Or maybe Bobby Byrd thinks Alito is a racist and would make a fine addition to the SC.
Funny how RBG rhymes with KGB!
Last edited by southpaw on September 20th, 2011, 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I'm your huckleberry"
Re: Samuel Alito
Confirmation roll call
Nays:
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Yeas:
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Cloture motion roll call ('nay' vote joined filibuster)
Nays:
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Yeas:
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Nays:
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Yeas:
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Cloture motion roll call ('nay' vote joined filibuster)
Nays:
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Yeas:
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Last edited by Lemmy on September 20th, 2011, 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. Pre
-
once a runner
- Official BleacherCoach
- Posts: 972
- Joined: January 30th, 2004, 12:16 pm
Re: Samuel Alito
[quote="southpaw";p="117526"]OAR...once again you deftly dodge the debate as good as any liberal senator.
You say what Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito went through in their hearings was no worse than what treatment RBG received. What garbage.
[/quote]
I never said such a thing...if I did, please point where because I can't seem to find it. I never disputed the point that Thomas, Bork and Alito have had more difficult nominations than any democrat.
Why is it that anytime one of the "far left liberal wackos" does something you agree with, you find other nonsensical ways to bring him/her down? Can't admit that someone you dislike did something you agree with?
You say what Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito went through in their hearings was no worse than what treatment RBG received. What garbage.
[/quote]
I never said such a thing...if I did, please point where because I can't seem to find it. I never disputed the point that Thomas, Bork and Alito have had more difficult nominations than any democrat.
Why is it that anytime one of the "far left liberal wackos" does something you agree with, you find other nonsensical ways to bring him/her down? Can't admit that someone you dislike did something you agree with?
Last edited by once a runner on September 20th, 2011, 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.