1990 US Senate makeup: 55-45 Dem(Souter confirmation).
1991 US Senate was 56 Dem Senator, which was Thomas pick which got very ugly. He made it through, after a Civil war and I'd submit if he wasn't black he would not have been confirmed.

other Justices:
Kennedy confirmation: 55-45 Dem
Stevens confirmation: 57-40 Dem
Blackmun confirmation: 57-43 Dem

O'Connor is the exception, with a 53-46 GOP senate and Reagan. She, like Thomas, had alot to do with Identity Politics and trying to reverse political trends against the GOP as being "anti-woman" or 'anti-black'.


Under Clinton, both justices were picked in 1993 and 94

Ginsburg(1993) - Senate balance 57 -43 Dem
Breyer 1994 - Senate balance 56 - 44 Dem


see the Trend here

(07-15-2009 02:01 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Republicans are known for nominating liberals for the bench. Have Democrats ever nominated conservatives? In the past 40 years?

Byron White was the last "conservative" nominated by a Democrat President (JFK)

(07-15-2009 01:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-15-2009 01:48 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(07-15-2009 01:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It is precisely by compromising on principle that liberals have swung the agenda in their direction over the last 50 years.

I'm not seeing history the same as you.

OK, take gay rights, for example.
That's actually an issue where my views are pretty tolerant/liberal.
How many people in 1968 have imagined that things would be where they are today?
Very few, probably including most gays.
Did gays get everything they wanted up front?
Of course not.
Would they have gotten where they are today if they had insisted on everything up front?
No way.
So they compromised on principle, picked their fights, took a little here and a little there, and look where they are today.
That's what I'm talking about.

I don't see them having compromised. I see them accepting each compromise, then planning their next foray. They never ceded their ultimate goal, they were just willing to get there incrementally.

That's not compromise.

You might suggest that the political right take that approach, that's a possibility. I certainly think the anti-abortiionists should consider that. They've had times where public sentiment favored their cause, and they could have gained incremental ground.

However, I don't see those on the political right should compromise their principles. That has not worked in the past 40 years. Reagan stood strong on his principles (love em or hate em) and they worked for him, and the echo of his presence continued long after he was gone.

(07-15-2009 02:20 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Reagan stood strong on his principles (love em or hate em) and they worked for him, and the echo of his presence continued long after he was gone.

thats not exactly true, he was all about compromise which he did often. Had to, to get anything done.

I do think Reagan would support opposing this Judge the thread is about however.

Reagan prioritized where he stood strong vs. compromising.

Quote:‘When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn’t like it.

‘Compromise was a dirty word to them and they wouldn’t face the fact that we couldn’t get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don’t get it all, some said, don’t take anything.

‘I’d learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: ‘I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.’

‘If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that’s what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.’

--Ronald Reagan

(07-15-2009 01:48 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(07-15-2009 01:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Look, replacing Souter with Sotomayor won't make a big difference.

There is some legitimacy in that point. I think it's worth pushing on this though. And opposing an ulitimately successful nomination will be helpful, not hurtful.

Quote:It is precisely by compromising on principle that liberals have swung the agenda in their direction over the last 50 years.

I'm not seeing history the same as you.

Realize that there is enough of a tradition of not applying idelogical "litmus tests" that the Republicans risk expending political capital and alienating Hispanic/minority voters in order to gain only a pyrrhic victory. I personally don't believe the Republicans will make substantial inroads among minority voters in the timeframe that would matter here (whatever happens with Sotamayor won't matter in 4 or 6 years anyways as far as Hispanic voters go). I think the bigger risk is alienating social moderates by trying to apply ideological litmus tests.

The best the Republicans can really hope for is to dig up enough to discredit Sotamayor so that she is eternally viewed in same kind of negative light that will always shadow Clarence Thomas (21+ years after his nomination).

But, DrTorch - what is the "principle" that you would suggest the Republicans defend here? That you can't allow a liberal to get on the court? That this nominee is incompetent? Or, that there are specific issues that you can't compromise on?

(07-15-2009 02:20 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  I don't see them having compromised. I see them accepting each compromise, then planning their next foray. They never ceded their ultimate goal, they were just willing to get there incrementally.
That's not compromise.
You might suggest that the political right take that approach, that's a possibility. I certainly think the anti-abortiionists should consider that. They've had times where public sentiment favored their cause, and they could have gained incremental ground.
However, I don't see those on the political right should compromise their principles. That has not worked in the past 40 years. Reagan stood strong on his principles (love em or hate em) and they worked for him, and the echo of his presence continued long after he was gone.

I'm not saying give up the ultimate goal.
I'm saying you're not going to get there in one fell swoop.
So pick your battles and compromise, inching closer to the goal each time.
And this is not a battle I'd pick.
The difference between Sotomayor and Souter is minimal. If you turn down Sotomayor, it's Obama who gets to pick somebody else, who's going to be very similar. The prospect of further ruffling feathers with Hispanic voters is great. The deck is pretty well stacked 60-40 anyway.
Save your powder for the health care debate.

(07-15-2009 02:24 PM)I45owl Wrote:  That you can't allow a liberal to get on the court? That this nominee is incompetent? Or, that there are specific issues that you can't compromise on?

Well that is the Democrat strategy against Republican/conservative nominees, breaking from tradition long ago.

If the GOP used Obama's litmus test when he was Senator, they would oppose every single nominee Obama nominates.


of course if the GOP was Obama and the Democrats, while they did this they'd have the MSM running stories around the country labeling the judge an "Ultra Liberal Radical" and all sorts of other labels.


Remember when the Democrats made Alito's Wife Cry???? Didn't hurt them at the ballot box did it

(07-15-2009 02:23 PM)GGniner Wrote:  thats not exactly true, he was all about compromise which he did often. Had to, to get anything done.

I do think Reagan would support opposing this Judge the thread is about however.

Reagan prioritized where he stood strong vs. compromising.

Quote:‘If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that’s what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.’

--Ronald Reagan

Once again, that isn't real compromise. It's effective, but not compromise.

.

If we, the Law Abiding Citizens, do not have the Absolute Legal Right to Self Defense ....

Then the Non-Law Abiding Citizens have the Absolute Right to Storm us down and Harm or Murder Us.

Logic dictates, "You can't have it Both Ways" .... so which one do we choose ???

.

(07-15-2009 02:31 PM)GGniner Wrote:  

(07-15-2009 02:24 PM)I45owl Wrote:  That you can't allow a liberal to get on the court? That this nominee is incompetent? Or, that there are specific issues that you can't compromise on?

Well that is the Democrat strategy against Republican/conservative nominees, breaking from tradition long ago.

If the GOP used Obama's litmus test when he was Senator, they would oppose every single nominee Obama nominates.


of course if the GOP was Obama and the Democrats, while they did this they'd have the MSM running stories around the country labeling the judge an "Ultra Liberal Radical" and all sorts of other labels.


Remember when the Democrats made Alito's Wife Cry???? Didn't hurt them at the ballot box did it

What one inconsequential (at least by all rights) senator does is different than what the leadership does or should do. During the Roberts nomination, I don't recall the Democrat's deviating too much from tradition. The Alito nomination marked a substantial change in how the court would act for a number of years (especially since the next nominations are likely to be the liberal justices, not conservatives).

42 Democrats voted against Alito(i.e. almost every single one of them, including Harry Reid)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro...vote=00002

only 4 dems voted for Alito, Nelson, Byrd, Conrad and Johnson

Now Roberts was a little closer, only 22 Democrats voted against. One of which was Leader Harry Reid, and of course Obama.


Traditionally the Senate confirms the Presidents nominee once they confirm they aren't nuts. Soytomayor is in fact nuts, or atleast professes that she can't attempt to be impartial.


As to the Politics of this, it goes to show the GOP plays the game with a knife, while the Dems are conducting a Gun fight. Now, I'm not necessarily arguing the GOP has to get Rabidly partisian and dirty like the Dems for a level playing field. But that is only because of who controls the Information in the country and how they would frame the GOP in the ongoing PR debate/campaign for popularity and ultimately power.

(07-15-2009 11:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-15-2009 11:04 AM)Rebel Wrote:  That question stumped Brock's nominee to replace Souter.



Just. Damn.

It probably would have stumped Souter too, based on his record.

If fiscal conservatives are to reverse the course to destruction that Obama has us on (and to be fair, his predecessors had us pretty far down the road), then they need to pick their fights. And this ain't the one to pick.

Let her be confirmed, and focus on the really big problems, like health care and the economy. We probably can survive Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court. We probably cannot survive Obamanomics and Obamacare. At least, not as a livable country.

... I think it is over.... its too late. The government owns the largest auto company....they control 80% of the educational system...... with Obamacare they will have effective control of 100% on the Health Care industry..... they make loans to the the companies/friends they like.....cap and trade a huge tax increase on the PEOPLE and provides no significant energy sources..... Times are tough right now, but the noose is going to get significantly tighter.

The real problem with Obama & the government is that there is not much they can do to make things much better for the next few years, but to destroy and dismantle the economic structure gives ZERO hope for the future. We won't have the resources to defend ourselves adequately, there will not be enough capital available for new ideas, jobs and business. I grew up in the greatest country in the world and today I live in backward banana republic. ..... Its like Boooby Bowden running the damn country...... squandering all that potential / talent / resources .........

.

(07-15-2009 05:24 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  

(07-15-2009 11:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-15-2009 11:04 AM)Rebel Wrote:  That question stumped Brock's nominee to replace Souter.
Just. Damn.

It probably would have stumped Souter too, based on his record.
If fiscal conservatives are to reverse the course to destruction that Obama has us on (and to be fair, his predecessors had us pretty far down the road), then they need to pick their fights. And this ain't the one to pick.
Let her be confirmed, and focus on the really big problems, like health care and the economy. We probably can survive Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court. We probably cannot survive Obamanomics and Obamacare. At least, not as a livable country.

... I think it is over.... its too late. The government owns the largest auto company....they control 80% of the educational system...... with Obamacare they will have effective control of 100% on the Health Care industry..... they make loans to the the companies/friends they like.....cap and trade a huge tax increase on the PEOPLE and provides no significant energy sources..... Times are tough right now, but the noose is going to get significantly tighter.
The real problem with Obama & the government is that there is not much they can do to make things much better for the next few years, but to destroy and dismantle the economic structure gives ZERO hope for the future. We won't have the resources to defend ourselves adequately, there will not be enough capital available for new ideas, jobs and business. I grew up in the greatest country in the world and today I live in backward banana republic. ..... Its like Boooby Bowden running the damn country...... squandering all that potential / talent / resources .........

Took the words right out of my mouth.

(07-15-2009 02:51 PM)Tripster Wrote:  .

If we, the Law Abiding Citizens, do not have the Absolute Legal Right to Self Defense ....

Then the Non-Law Abiding Citizens have the Absolute Right to Storm us down and Harm or Murder Us.

Logic dictates, "You can't have it Both Ways" .... so which one do we choose ???

.

Trip, right now the only threat I sense against me, my family and my property are liberal politicians. Can I shoot them?

(07-15-2009 03:01 PM)GGniner Wrote:  One of which was Leader Harry Reid,

Those words just don't go together...

I can't find the quote now, but the other day Lindsey Graham was talking about how he appreciated the fair treatment by democrats of the past two nomination proceedings (unless I grossly misinterpreted his comments). Yeah, I know, RINO RINO RINO ...

How was she stumped by this question? She said what constitutes self defense depends on the particular facts of the case as wall as the criminal statutes in place. She even gave an example illustrating the diffuculty in answering such an ambiguous question.

You really find that question ambiguous?

You guys should see Beck's Goldman Sachs flowchart. It's truly disturbing. Do you realize ALL of Goldman Sach's competitors have been taken out? Also that many members of GS, and people that have HUGE interests in GS, are now in the government? Or that they've invested millions into this "green" ****?

Gangster Government is what we have running the country.

It is pretty clear that these people in gowns think that they are gods. Once they are in power....they get to decide what the constitution says.."to them". What it actually says...is inconsequencal. F...the constitution!

(07-15-2009 06:37 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-15-2009 02:51 PM)Tripster Wrote:  .

If we, the Law Abiding Citizens, do not have the Absolute Legal Right to Self Defense ....

Then the Non-Law Abiding Citizens have the Absolute Right to Storm us down and Harm or Murder Us.

Logic dictates, "You can't have it Both Ways" .... so which one do we choose ???

.

Trip, right now the only threat I sense against me, my family and my property are liberal politicians. Can I shoot them?

The "Constitution of the United States" gives American Citizens the Legal Right to "Remove and Illegitimate Government", that has run amuck and is not Representative of the We The People.

Truly, if any U.S. Government as Run Amuck in our History, it is our Present One.

That is why you hear more about States Seceding from the Union the Deeper into the Doo Doo we slide, than almost ever before since the Civil War.

I do believe we are going to have a Grand Period of Civil Unrest never before seen in this Nation; not even as when they Cranked Up the Revolutionary War against Britain.

We have the Legal Constitutional Right to Remove a Dictatorial, Tyrannical, and a Non-Representative Government even by Force if necessary.

The Square Heads and Yobs voted in a f'cking "Movie Star" without knowing squat about him Politically, so who is this Character Really Representative of ????

.