Hillary on the Supreme Court: watch out, America!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Monkeyleg

Member.
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
5,057
Location
Decatur, AL
Sen. Clinton Says Supreme Court Still Merits Mistrust
Recent Decisions on Gays, Affirmative Action Does Not Outweigh 'Dubious Rulings,' She Says

Friday, August 1, 2003; 5:06 PM


Sen. Hillary Clinton said Friday that Supreme Court victories this year for gay couples, minorities and women do not erase the distrust created by other "legally dubious" rulings, including the Bush v. Gore presidential election case.

The court ruled this summer that colleges may continue to use race as a factor in picking students, that gay men and women cannot be prosecuted for having sex and that state government workers are protected under a federal law intended to ease work and family conflicts.

The rulings angered conservatives and were opposed by some of the court's most conservative members.

"These favorable decisions in recent months should not obscure the torrent of aggressively activist and legally dubious decisions of times past," Clinton, D-N.Y., told the American Constitution Society.

She said this is "the same court that gave us Bush v. Gore, which made a mockery of one of our most cherished constitutional rights, the right to vote," a reference to the 2000 ruling that ended Democrat Al Gore's chances of winning the White House.

Clinton also mentioned past court rulings on guns, worker rights and age discrimination.

Clinton made the comments at the first convention of the American Constitution Society, a liberal lawyers' group which intends to challenge the older and more influential Federalist Society, a conservative law association. Clinton had also complained about the Supreme Court in a speech last year to society members.

"In addition to installing an American president, the current Supreme Court has invalidated federal laws at the most astounding rate in our nation's history," she said then.

On Friday, Clinton defended Senate Democrats' filibuster of three of President Bush's most conservative federal appeals court nominees: Texas judge Priscilla Owen, District of Columbia lawyer Miguel Estrada and Alabama Attorney General William Pryor.

Clinton said the White House was playing politics with the choices.

President Bush on Friday denounced the Democratic filibusters. "These obstructionist tactics are unprecedented, unfair and unfaithful to the Senate's constitutional responsibility to vote on judicial nominees," Bush said in a statement.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the GOP would keep fighting for Bush's blocked nominees when the Senate returns from its break in September.


© 2003 The Associated Press
 
Still proud to be a member, myself...

of Hillary's "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy". :D
 
I can't go there...I want to...but I can't...Art's Grammaw is around here I just know it. peeking around the corner

Sen. Clinton... Still Merits Mistrust

Hey Art, speaking of music ...you recall Jerry Jeff Walkers' "Pot can't call the kettle black"? gonna leave now... :D
 
You know, having looked at some supreme court rulings it seems to me that most of the really dubious (from a legal standpoint) rulings strongly favor the left.
 
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the GOP would keep fighting for Bush's blocked nominees when the Senate returns from its break in September.
Republicans moan and groan about evil Democrats holding up Bush's judicial appointments. For the moment we'll forget the gaimes republicans played when Clintoon was king. If the danger to the republic is as bad a republicans claim, if there is a judicial emergency as claimed, if the constitution is turned on its head by evil Democrats then republicans have a moral obligation to quit pussy-footing around and exercise the so-called nuclear option.

Since republicans are acting like playground wimps the only conclusion I can draw is there is no problem. So they should just shut up and quit tattling on the big, bad Democrats. Their actions do not indicate a serious problem.
 
most of the really dubious (from a legal standpoint) rulings strongly favor the left.

Today's liberal (socialists- Hitlary, Slick and all the rest) have no problem twisting the truth into obscene lies. There is a whole book written about them- Orwell's 1984 . What is frightening is that the growing numbers of sheeple are unable to recognize outright lies when they are smacked in the face with them. These people (Klintoons, et al) will do ANYTHING to regain and keep power. Someday freedom minded people in this country will see no other way to regain lost ground than to fight for it.

For now I guess we get the Republicans asking the playground bullies and whiners "please play nice".:banghead:
 
If these Dim Senators keep holding up the judicial nominees, they are going to lose in the long run. The election of 2004 will determine whether they hold the line or lose their asses to sink further into insignificance. The last time I checked there were about 43 Senators filibustering the President's nominees. The majority of Senators defending their seats in 2004 are Dims, if they lose more than four seats they are sunk in Washington. Their message won't matter cause nobody's going to be listening, anyway.

Plus the AW Ban is going to be a major issue for the hardcore true believers on both sides of the issue. The pro gunners have come out ahead since 1994 but it's not for a lack of effort on the anti's part. It's just that their arguments and theories defy common sense.
 
Since republicans are acting like playground wimps the only conclusion I can draw is there is no problem. So they should just shut up and quit tattling on the big, bad Democrats. Their actions do not indicate a serious problem.

Anyone care to comment on Senate Resolution 138? Link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90284,00.html

As I understand it, this would reduce the votes necessary to break a filibuster, from the current 60 to as few as 51 (effectively undercutting the tactic). It was voted out of the Rules Committee, but I don't know if/when it might be voted on by the full senate. If this succeeds, it seems like a pretty serious action on the part of Frist/Republicans, yes?

I suspect that all the Democrat posturing on the issue is a prelude to a senate vote, perhaps someone with more knowledge on the subject can weigh in.
 
Two possible actions exist which are described as the nuclear option.

First as you describe republicans could change the rules. It is possible and Democrats would say bad things. BUT IT AIN'T HAPPENED! So far only whimpering and whinning out of Frist.

Second opiton is what I call the thermonuclear option. Begin recess appointments right now. Get retired or previously rejected jurists to put in recess appointments which then last until the end of the president's term. The thought of a Robert Bork setting down on a bench would cause heart failure in Schumer or Lahey. I suspect one or two such recess appointments would loosen things up quite a bit. Downside is Democrats will say bad things.

The problem republicans face is not options to action. They have plenty of options but for some reason don't want to act so they play the schoolyard whimp. I'm personnally sick and tired of Frist whinning about evil Democrats yet he refuses to use the tools in his hand. The joker, Frist and Bush, simply do not know how to exercise domestic power so just shut up and go sit in a corner somewhere.
 
Waitone, good analysis. I agree excepting what you stated the repubs did to Clintons appointees - if you research it, $Bill got more of his appointees confirmed as a percentage than did most other presidents. he just failed to nominate and act on most judicial vacancies as he was getting whatever he wanted via executive order and judicial activism from the bench in liberal districts.

G-Dub took the Presidency with an alarming number of vacancies left from $Bill and now the rats won't let him fill them. They would rather have the issue for election than resolve it for the benefit of the American people. This shows the true color of the rats.

:cuss:
 
FWIW, here's an interesting CATO article on filibuster: http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-16-03.html

For some reason I was thinking that a rules change would require a only a simple majority, realizable in the current senate. I hadn't considered the prospect of a filibuster being used to block a vote on the filibuster rule change...
 
I hadn't considered the prospect of a filibuster being used to block a vote on the filibuster rule change...
Now that's just plain childish. Expect the Democrats to give it a shot. :fire:

Kharn
 
"In addition to installing an American president, the current Supreme Court has invalidated federal laws at the most astounding rate in our nation's history," she said then.

Isn't that what they're supposed to do with unconstitutional laws? :confused:
 
put on whiney voice......."We're gonna block their nominees cause' they blocked our nominees".....turn off whiney voice.

I am studying the Federalist Papers. They need to be studied mostly because "Publius" over 200 years ago had a vocabulary and proper useage of the English language to make it so this bright, parochial and public school edumacated, 60 year old, lifetime lover of reading and books, has to pore over every word in order to grasp the significance of what is being revealed in this magnificent apologism.

When I read the high hopes the founders had for the quality of Americans that they invisioned would be in the Congress and the respect they had for the judgement of the citizenry (factionalism aside) I could just weep when I look at what we offer our Constitutional Republic today.

God save our Constitutional Republic because the Republicans and the Democrats are doing their level best to destoy it and the citizens are fiddling while Washington burns.

Grampster:banghead:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top