Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (158853)	1/24/2003 6:29:48 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580148

It seems you refuse to come to a conclusion that runs counter to your party even when there are questionable circumstances. I honestly don't see anything very wrong or any solid questions that really make it "questionable". Also memories of what happened to Bork probably help encourage conservatives to more strongly defend their judical appointments. I wouldn't support him if I thought he was a racist but the evidence that he is is next to 0. Tim

To: tejek who wrote (158853)	1/24/2003 6:50:48 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580148

But most importantly, I am amazed that you are so willing to buy into his nomination hook, line and sinker. It seems you refuse to come to a conclusion that runs counter to your party even when there are questionable circumstances. Where are your high standards now? To be honest, I am less concerned about the specifics of this one particular judge and more concerned about the trend amongst Democrats to change the role of the Senate in the process. We have seen a steady push on the parts of Democrats to try and create a veto power on the basis of judicial ideology. This is NOT what the Constitution contemplated. This began with the appointment of John Tower (not a judge, but it is part of the same problem), in which he was smeared by the Democrats in a (successful) effort to block his confirmation. Then we had Bork, who was obviously immensely qualified, but rejected on the basis of his ideology (which agreed with that of the president). There was Thomas, in which a man was literally slaughtered in the media on the word of a woman who was dragged in at the last moment, in a last ditch effort to block his confirmation. Luckily, they didn't get away with it that time. It has become a big game with the Democrats. The current incident is significant, however, in that Chuck Schumer clearly stated that the "advice and consent" role was no longer just that, but was now an idealogy litmus test. No longer are they hiding behind these artificial issues such as Pickering's supposed "racisim" (honestly, I think anyone looking objectively at the facts the way Byron York did would have to conclude there was no racist intent). Instead, they have now "come out" with the true intent, which is to have self-appointed veto power, a role beyond that envisioned by the Founding Fathers. So, my complaint is really about the ever expanding role of the Senate Democrats in obstructing presidential appointments. The fact that Pickering has been smeared in the process is just one more incident in a string of incidents in which the Democrats have attempted, sometimes successfully, in diminishing the power of the president to run the nation as he determines is appropriate. The real problem, of course, is that this results in a persistent erosion of presidential power that can never be corrected. While the Republicans COULD pull the same tricks when a Democrat president is in office, they don't -- realizing, of course, that doing so, while perhaps providing some temporary satisfaction, would harm the democracy further. So, they let it go (Orin Hatch was overheard, however, telling Leahy if they kept this "crap" up they were going to regret it <g>)... So that's where I'm coming from. Pickering is getting screwed and clearly is not a racist, but that's the small picture in my opinion.