Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Remember when the democrats revewed nominees

Lookingatissues
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 10:55:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The democrat party has nominated, Loretta Lynch, for the position of Attorney General to replace Eric Holder. Since the republican party isn't acting on this nomination as Eric Holder and the democrat party thinks they should and are taking the time to review Loretta Lynch"s records and qualifications to fill this important position after the painful experience caused by not taking adequate time to investigate thoroughly Eric Holder, for Attorney General and having had to live with the results of too hastily approving someone to fill a most important office in government it appears entirely appropriate to make sure that the same mistakes aren't made over again. It seems a little absurd for Eric holder to now be berating the republicans for a practice that the democrats ,themselves had thought appropriate when reviewing republican nominees. The democrat party when they reviewed the republican parties president nominees ,didn't think that more than two years was too long a time for the republican parties nominee to wait to be approved. , for example, when George Bush nominated "Miguel Estrada for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, an Hispanic ...finally, after waiting for more than two years in limbo withdrew his name from consideration amid partisan wrangling over (President Bush's nomination...." Eric Holder was fast to throw out the "Race Card," over their nominee, Loretta Lynch, One has to wonder if it was racial bias on the democrats part when they refused to approve Miguel Estrada ,an Hispanic for "the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia." It Couldn't have been that Miguel Estrada was refused approval by the democrats because he was certainly qualified to take his seat on the bench, "Estrada, a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and an assistant solicitor general during the Clinton administration,...and .was.... a partner in a Washington law firm...."
Then The democrat party members reviewed Robert H. Bork nominated for the Supreme Court and again, the democrat party sat on his nomination and took their time in reviewing this Republican nominee for the Supreme Court The democrat party did such an obstructionist job of blocking Robert H. Bork's nomination that there was even a term (Borked) to describe the hatchet job. the democrats had done on Robert Bork.
And now Eric Holder has the Chutzpah to call out the republicans for being obstructionists because they're not acting fast enough on the democrats nominee for Attorney General, Loretta Lynch,
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 10:52:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This has nothing to do with "taking time to review the nomination". Republicans are using Lynch as a means of forcing democrats hands on completely unrelated bills. I didn't follow politics during the Bush years and I really don't care what the democrats did back then, wrong is still wrong.

BTW, to pretend that this is perfectly normal falls apart by the mere fact that Lynch's confirmation has been held up longer than the last 7 Attorney General nominees combined.
Lookingatissues
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 11:45:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 10:52:53 AM, Double_R wrote:
Double_R wrote........: This has nothing to do with "taking time to review the nomination". Republicans are using Lynch as a means of forcing democrats hands on completely unrelated bills. I didn't follow politics during the Bush years and I really don't care what the democrats did back then, wrong is still wrong.

BTW, to pretend that this is perfectly normal falls apart by the mere fact that Lynch's confirmation has been held up longer than the last 7 Attorney General nominees combined.
Lookingattheissues response to Double R comments above
I see, what your getting at, If someone is nominated by a democrat president then their approval should be granted immediately, no filibustering, no sitting on the democrat president's nomination for over 2 years like the democrats did to George Bush's nominee Miguel Estrada, nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals, no underhanded trickery like the democrats used when they (Borked) Robert H. Bork for the supreme Court.
I'm sure that the republicans have no intentions of doing what the democrats thought was a Good, fair, game to play when they played it on George Bush and the republican party.
If Loretta Lynch doesn't have issues with things that she has done in the past and isn't thought to be just another Eric Holder, only difference being that Loretta Lynch is a female version of Eric holder, If this proves to be the case if Loretta Lynch isn't approved, we won't be any worse off by keeping Eric Holder on until the end of his term.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 2:02:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 11:45:50 AM, Lookingatissues wrote:
At 3/22/2015 10:52:53 AM, Double_R wrote:
Double_R wrote........: This has nothing to do with "taking time to review the nomination". Republicans are using Lynch as a means of forcing democrats hands on completely unrelated bills. I didn't follow politics during the Bush years and I really don't care what the democrats did back then, wrong is still wrong.

BTW, to pretend that this is perfectly normal falls apart by the mere fact that Lynch's confirmation has been held up longer than the last 7 Attorney General nominees combined.
Lookingattheissues response to Double R comments above
I see, what your getting at, If someone is nominated by a democrat president then their approval should be granted immediately, no filibustering, no sitting on the democrat president's nomination for over 2 years like the democrats did to George Bush's nominee Miguel Estrada, nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals, no underhanded trickery like the democrats used when they (Borked) Robert H. Bork for the supreme Court.
I'm sure that the republicans have no intentions of doing what the democrats thought was a Good, fair, game to play when they played it on George Bush and the republican party.

1. What part of "I really don't care what the democrats did back then, wrong is still wrong" did you not understand?

2. Miguel Estrada is not even a comparable example. Right or wrong, democrats expressed serious substantive objections to Estrada's nomination and felt he was unqualified for the job. That's what the Senate is supposed to do. The republicans have voiced no substantive concerns over Loretta Lynch, their position is that they will not confirm her until they are allowed to jam anti abortion language into a human trafficking bill. What the republicans are doing is not only completely different, it is a textbook example of legislative process abuse.
Lookingatissues
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 5:09:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 2:13:04 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Substantive sounds like such a dirty word. I believe that you have hit upon the truth that this type of language is used in desperation, used in an effort to deflect.
Lookingatissues
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 6:33:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 12:29:39 PM, YYW wrote:
@OP

Do you have any idea who Robert Bourke was?
Who is Robert Bork a question asked....
Former United States Solicitor General
"Robert H._Bork j25; Robert Heron Bork was an American legal scholar who advocated the judicial philosophy of originalism. Bork served as a Yale Law School professor, Solicitor General, Acting Attorney General, and a judge of the United States" Robert H. Bork has authored sever books.
wikipedia.....
"In 1987, he was nominated nominated to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan,, but the Senate rejected his nomination."
Lookingatissues
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 7:51:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You replied,"What part of "I really don't care what the democrats did back then, wrong is still wrong" did you not understand? Oh I understand where your coming from, there was never any doubt about that.
This reply above seems to be the typical attitude of democrats who's shared attitude is apparently " Don't do as we do, but do as we say."
You posted," Miguel Estrada is not even a comparable example. Right or wrong, democrats expressed serious substantive objections to Estrada's nomination and felt he was unqualified for the job."
Miguel Estrada's and Robert H. Bork's legal Qualifications were excellent and beyond a doubt, the only reason that the democrats stonewalled his appointment was done because of their political philosophies.
The democrats its apparent, only take into consideration and worry about a persons qualifications for office if the person who's a nominee for office is a republican, for example, a little known democrat Illinois Senator who now holds the office of president and his lack of qualifications.
The democrats now, in effect are telling the republicans, Loretta Lynch's legal qualifications are excellent that's all that should matter to the republicans when considering her to replace Eric Holder, if this was the only criterion for appointment to office the democrats would have approved of Miguel Estrada and Robert H. Bork and they wouldn't have been "Borked."
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 8:18:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 7:51:47 PM, Lookingatissues wrote:
You replied,"What part of "I really don't care what the democrats did back then, wrong is still wrong" did you not understand? Oh I understand where your coming from, there was never any doubt about that.
This reply above seems to be the typical attitude of democrats who's shared attitude is apparently " Don't do as we do, but do as we say."
You posted," Miguel Estrada is not even a comparable example. Right or wrong, democrats expressed serious substantive objections to Estrada's nomination and felt he was unqualified for the job."
Miguel Estrada's and Robert H. Bork's legal Qualifications were excellent and beyond a doubt, the only reason that the democrats stonewalled his appointment was done because of their political philosophies.
The democrats its apparent, only take into consideration and worry about a persons qualifications for office if the person who's a nominee for office is a republican, for example, a little known democrat Illinois Senator who now holds the office of president and his lack of qualifications.
The democrats now, in effect are telling the republicans, Loretta Lynch's legal qualifications are excellent that's all that should matter to the republicans when considering her to replace Eric Holder, if this was the only criterion for appointment to office the democrats would have approved of Miguel Estrada and Robert H. Bork and they wouldn't have been "Borked."

What language do I need to speak in order to communicate with you? Do you have any justification for the republicans actions regarding Loretta Lynch? Yes or No?
Lookingatissues
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 3:25:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Reply: You inquired,".... What language do I need to speak in order to communicate with you...." Do you have any justification for the republicans actions regarding Loretta Lynch? Yes or No..."( YES! )
Your language is a common language used by democrats so I thoroughly comprehend the rhetoric you are displaying here, It Is the language most often used when the democrats attempt to explain why the same tactics that they used against the republican nominees and standard techniques of the democrats when they didn't want to approve a republican party's nominee, these techniques are then considered by the democrats unreasonable and unjust if used against one of the democrats nominees by the republicans.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 8:21:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/27/2015 3:25:20 PM, Lookingatissues wrote:
Reply: You inquired,".... What language do I need to speak in order to communicate with you...." Do you have any justification for the republicans actions regarding Loretta Lynch? Yes or No..."( YES! )
Your language is a common language used by democrats so I thoroughly comprehend the rhetoric you are displaying here, It Is the language most often used when the democrats attempt to explain why the same tactics that they used against the republican nominees and standard techniques of the democrats when they didn't want to approve a republican party's nominee, these techniques are then considered by the democrats unreasonable and unjust if used against one of the democrats nominees by the republicans.

So that is a "NO".

Two wrongs don't make a right, so if all you care to do is sit around and pout about what democrats did in the last decade while your republicans are currently doing the same thing then an intelligent discussion with you is a pointless endeavor.