Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TimF who wrote (159097)	1/28/2003 11:17:34 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) of 1583680

but not agree with the idea that Bork's opinion is so extreme that it disqualifies him from serving on the SC. How extreme is TOO extreme? The committee Democrats' position at this point is that any nominee who is pro-life is too extreme. This [recent] idea that a nominee can be vetoed on the basis of idealogy alone seems to me to be a problem, and does not appear to be congruent with the Constitutional concept of "advise and consent". If a nominee is pro-life yet is also a strict constructionist (as Bork was), the committee should not be able to deny him an up-or-down vote on that basis. And, in years gone by, they wouldn't have. Schumer's remarks at the close of the Pickering hearing were, to me, shocking -- in that he announced that the committee intended to set a new standard under which candidates would be overtly rejected on the basis of ideology. For example, a pro-life personal belief. I don't believe the Founding Fathers intended that a Senate committee have veto power over the president's nominations for simple political differences.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next