Jolt my brain a little:, how would you respond to this?

[lildreamer316]

From another board I am a member of:
"Well the "fight" over who will be the next Justice of the Supreme Court has begun in earnest. NOW warns in ominous tones, "...George W. Bush will try to replace her with a hard-right extremist justice..." People For the American Way has converted a 2,500-square foot conference room into a state-of-the-art war room, with more than 40 computer workstations and scores of phone lines that volunteers will use. The news is filled with the "F" word (fillibuster) and Democrats constanting repeat the same message: GWB must not nominate a conservative to the court!
How different from the previous democratic administration which filled two positions on the Supreme Court. Democrat Bill Clinton nominated two liberal judges to the court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993, and Stephen G. Breyer in 1994. Both these judges were in the liberal democrat mold. Justice Ginsberg was formerly a lawyer for the ACLU. On the court, these two justices have consistently formed the cornerstone of the liberal wing in the Supreme Court.
Did the Republicans in the Senate launch a "war" against these liberal judges? No. The Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously recommended both Ginsburg and Breyer for confirmation which they both won from the entire Senate in a very short time by large majorities. There were no fillibusters, in fact there was very little debate.So here's the question. Why was it okay for Bill Clinton to nominate people that fit his ideology, but if George Bush does the same thing it is evil?"
I promise I am not trying to be lazy, just to get my brain in gear...some jolting please? Thanks.

[Bouncy Ball]

1. How about

"we're the opposition party, we can do all the fucking OPPOSING that we damn well PLEASE. And it's not OUR fault your party wasn't ABLE to OPPOSE the nominations of Ginsburg and Breyer! Too bad for them, that time is OVER. But if you expect the Dems to just roll over and play dead, you can FORGET IT. Nothing doin'. Opposition party OPPOSES, get that through your head."

[Maddy McCall]

2. I would simply ask, "Can you construct any kind of argument that is...

NOT based on what Clinton did or did not do?"

[FreedomAngel82]

5. Really

Everything is about Clinton. :eyes: Tell them "get over it" where it concerns him. He's been out of office for five years now!

[lildreamer316]

6. Ahhh; okay, now we're thinking.

See, I wouldn't have looked at it from that angle. Now I can run with that; thanks.

[Son of California]

3. You are right to some extent

to me its not about the President getting what he wants, but rather keeping the balance, not letting the court get too liberal or too conservative. To this extent it is a big deal if Bush tries to replace a moderate with a conservative.

[Fiona]

4. actually

Orrin Hatch told Clinton that both Ginsburg and Breyer would be acceptable. Clinton consulted with the Repubs, they offered advice, and Clinton took it.

[lildreamer316]

8. Working on that & look what I found:

The Music of Senator Orrin Hatch, Exceptional Singer, Songwriter and Composer.
www.hatchmusic.com

LOL!!!:rofl:

[jobycom]

13. Exactly. Clinton consulted the other side, to do what was best for

the nation, rather than just his party. He found liberal judges that the Republicans could agree on. He treated the Republican Party with respect, even though they gave him little of it.

Clinton's first choice, remember, was Bruce Babbit, but several Republicans said they would oppose him. Instead of trying to cram Babbit down their throats, Clinton found the best candidates that everyone could agree on. It's the difference between being president of the whole country, and being the cheerleader for your own party.

If Bush actually did do what Clinton did, he would consult the Democrats in his process, come up with conservative judges with the capacity to make judicial--rather than political--rulings from the bench, and everyone would be satisfied. Not happy, but at least convinced that the nation was in good hands.

In other words, if Bush wants the support Clinton got from the opposition party, he needs to give that party the respect Clinton did.

[KTM]

7. Well, ask who suggested them to Clinton

Orin Hatch, then ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Clinton had been seeking a more liberal candidate, and Hatch proposed both of these names to him as being more acceptable.

That is the way bi-partisan politics is supposed to work... thats the way you have a "dignified" nomination and confirmation process - you approach the other side, take their input, and compromise.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/01/how-clinton-treated-hatch/

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/4602.html

[lildreamer316]

9. You are the shizznit; thanks! n/t

[wli]

10. "bi-partisan"

I'm nauseated. There should be more political parties.

[Tux]

11. Think of this

No abortion.
No consumer protections.
No civil or human rights.
No separation of church and state.
No labor laws or unions.
Endless free trade agreements that cause us to lose more jobs (which makes a college education worthless nowdays).
Consitution is rewritten as God' Laws.

[Maddy McCall]

12. Ok, then here's the fallacy of her argument:

Why was it okay for Bill Clinton to nominate people that fit his ideology, but if George Bush does the same thing it is evil?"

Tell her that her argument is based on fallacy, because Clinton dismissed nominating two who more closely fit his "ideology" when Hatch suggested Ginsberg and Breyer.

And, refresh her memory that Clinton was not a liberal ideologue. His administration passed NAFTA and Welfare Reform, and also cut spending in the Federal govt to the point of surplus. And Bush has done WHAT?

[lildreamer316]

14. Ok; great points. I am

crafting a response that quotes directly from Hatch's autobiography; I will get some sources for those also; thanks for the jog...

[Maddy McCall]

15. You HAVE to tell us how she responds.

:D

[lildreamer316]

16. As soon as she posts (prob. tomorrow)n/t

[hayu_lol]

17. Something else to include in your response:

How many of Clinton's nominees were turned down by the Repugnants?

Bush, so far, has an over 95% success rate with his nominees--he only reaches for disaster when he continually re-nominates extremely activist candidates. The people who are absolutely unqualified for these positions due to their judicial histories.