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: SilentZ who wrote (206643)	10/15/2004 12:04:02 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572918

Face it. Democrats are trying to ensure that Bush cannot make Appellate Court appointments. Didn't the Democrats approve all but four of Bush's appointments? They have a better record on that than the Republicans did under Clinton, AFAIK. They slow rolled every judicial appointment. Democrats did not approve for the appointment for the Circuit Court covering Michigan (11th?) until after the U Michigan discrimination (against white folks) case was ruled upon. One of the most talented appointees walked away from it after they delayed his hears over a year. Bush and his cronies selected the most conservative minorities they could find specifically so people like you could make bogus charges of racist and anti-Catholicism. Bush selected the most qualified. Are you saying that the deal with Hillary to allow her to select the Attorney General appointment (and her selecting based on sex)was good, and Bush appointing excellent jurists who happen to be racially divers is bad. Your hypocracy add great humor value to the discussion. >Judges who legislate from the branch are not reinterpreting the Constitution, they are violating it. Yes. I get it. When a conservative judge interprets the Constitution, they're making a sound judgement. When a liberal judge does the same, they're "legislating from the bench." Such crap. The difference is that Constructionists interpret based on what it says, not based on a newly found loophole. Activists have no respect for the Constitution. They invent new rights, and then claim they discovered them by reading the Constitution backwards under black light... Z, you are often reasonable. This is not one of those times. Democrats have abridged the Constitution. Senators have an advise and consent role. A minority of elected Senators are attempting to veto the will of the majority. This violates the Constitution and over 200 years of precedents.