Sunday, April 3, 2016

My how times change.

In 2005, Sen. Clinton said the Senate had a right to reject a president’s nominee: “I believe this is one of the most important roles the Senate plays. This, after all, is in the Constitution. We are asked to give advice and consent, or to deny advice and consent.”

Today she calls for hearings on Garlands nomination.

My how times change.

21 comments:

  1. When I was a kid and got into an argument with my parents, it was never a winning defense to say, "She did it first".

    Yes or no, do you want the seat vacant for a year?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When you consider that the SCOTUS is no longer an an unbiased branch of government with highly partisan members, it probably does matter. Another great reason for term limits of 10 years on the SCOTUS.

      And yes I would prefer a year without another Obama appointee.

      Delete
    2. Agree on term limits for the SCOTUS.

      Delete
  2. Seems to me that calling for hearings is not the same as calling for approval.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah but just getting to the floor is another victory for uppity president Blackenstein and a failure for Foghorn Leghorn. We cant ignore that.

      Delete
    2. This is an insiders issue and not worth anyone's time. Ain't going anywhere this year. Low information voters think that Judge Judy is real.

      Delete
    3. Hey, I heard that Sarah Palin may be the new judge Judy.

      I so look forward to jurisprudence from a true scholar.

      Delete
    4. Max, perhaps you should get it to be reviewed in committee first.

      Baby steps.

      Delete
    5. They are taking baby steps. I had heard some one say there were rumblings to the effect that if the campaign is not going well and it looks like they are going to lose the general, they will confirm him. that kinga makes sense.

      Delete
    6. How would you feel about Ted Cruz being the next supreme? Hummmmm?

      Delete
    7. Honestly, I wouldn't feel good about it, but every decision would be utterly predictable. If brought by right leaning groups, he will rule in their favor. I think he would envision himself as a replacement for Scalia, and I think he would fall short of that.

      Scalia's claim to fame, as I understand it, is that the constitution is a dead document. IE, not a single bit of consideration can be given to how times and opinions have changed. I have no idea how Cruz views it. Cynically, I think Scalia's view tends to line up with modern conservatives not so much because they agree the constitution is a dead document, but more because conservatives seem to want a world that looks like the 1700's.

      Delete
    8. more because conservatives seem to want a world that looks like the 1700's.

      A poll or personal information via your extensive network of conservatives covering the entire US?

      One might think that this is a generalization via character assassination.

      Delete
    9. Good comeback, Ill remember to bring it up next time you talk about food stamps

      Delete
    10. Here is what I base it on, I look at the things conservatives dislike. They dislike the new deal and want to end social security. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any conservative to name a regulation they agree with. They dislike the results that the battle for civil rights spawned. They still way behind the curve in garnering any support from black people or women, let alone put them in positions of power within the Republican party anyway. And I'm not talking about the token few. And then you have little shits like Grover norquist who want the government to be so small it could be drown in a bathtub. We have multiple southern states using local law to create a defacto outlaw of abortion, and of course we have our champions of "religious freedom laws" who remain bothered by the fact that gay people are no longer ostracized.

      Do I really believe they all want to want to wear tights and live in the physical world of the 1700's? I don't. But I nonetheless believe they would relish a return of the mentality that existed then, when white dudes were the unquestioned rulers of the American universe, and everyone else accepted their place beneath them.

      Delete
    11. I am a conservative and have no issue with the original intent of SS. I disagree with the addition of wives that have not worked, children of deceased parents.

      Regulations?

      Many of the clean air/clean water regulations benefit the country which I as a conservative agree with. Many are over reach like regulating water in a ditch after a rain storm.

      Conservatives in general are not what you think they are. They are just like you and me.

      Delete
    12. Ted Cruz is not like you and me. I guess Lou, I feel like at one time, a person could be a conservative and moderate in their views and they could even compromise in legislation. This is not the case today. There has been a movement through the Republican party to destroy any Republican who does not speak with purity. A lot of that is driven by the tea party, but I don't think you can make any argument to me to that Republicans have moved toward the center rather than away from it.

      The people who seem to be running the party and who are also getting the face time would likely say you are not conservative. Each of us can claim whatever political space we want, heck, I consider my views conservatives on some issues. Nonetheless, I don't believe the conservatives of today who seem to hate anything associated with government would consider you OR Reagan to be a true conservative.

      Delete
    13. No one is completely conservative or liberal.

      The game has certainly change as we o longer seek the best and the brightest which is beyond obvious with the candidates from both parties that clearly do not represent mainstream America.

      America has let the lunatics run the asylum.

      Guess that's why I ended my party affiliation years ago as you have no voice in politics as proven in recent years.

      All is well in Camelot with low interest rates and the world in turmoil as we are the prettiest pig in the pen.

      Unfortunately it will not end well regardless of party as both are the same.

      Delete
  3. And the article isn't about left or right.
    It's about the convenience of change for both parties when it suits their needs.

    The left were crazed during the Bush years on nominations. yet today they are adamant about hearings.

    Now the Right is crazed about nominations by Obama.

    As a side note in the past 2 elections the media hammered away at the flip flops of the rights candidates yet we hear nothing this year. Could it be because neither party has a candidate that hasn't changed their position at least once???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One reason I stopped supporting either party.

      Delete
    2. I hear you William.

      Neither party are really for the people and represent their own best interests. This election is the perfect example. The Republican party detests the candidates and works to undermine them. The Democratic party ensures the person they want as a candidate with their super delegate vote.

      Pathetic what our political system has become.

      Delete
    3. Here in NJ Gov Christie has nominations for State Supreme court justice that are being blocked by the Democrat Senate and Assembly. All political. They will out wait him when he leaves to join the Trump administration or his term runs out in a year of so.

      They have the power to control the court and aren't bashful in using that power.

      Delete