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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (307210)	5/27/2009 2:59:34 PM
From: longnshort	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793843

"I think he wants to show the Democrats a more civilized way to treat SCOTUS nominees, because what they do really sucks." except the dems don't care how the repubs do it. They laugh at the repub way and see it as a weakness

To: ManyMoose who wrote (307210)	5/27/2009 3:06:33 PM
From: mph	12 Recommendations Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793843

I don't think we're saying the same thing. As you put it, Josh "just wants to get value for effort expended." He doesn't see any value in expending effort on this nomination because she will be confirmed anyway and because he sees any push back to such a nomination as a potential wedge with Hispanic voters. My position is that you don't get value if you don't enter the fray. There is a legitimate job to be done with the appointment and value to be gained, notwithstanding the fact that she will be confirmed anyway. I also don't believe that we should be so hypervigilant about offending identity-interest groups that we don't do our job. I'm in favor of entering every fray and maintaining a principled approach. We no longer have the luxury of "choosing battles." The battle is joined.

To: ManyMoose who wrote (307210)	5/27/2009 3:11:32 PM
From: DMaA	5 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793843

You can oppose her vigorously on principle without being insulting or offensive. We don't have to be like this guy: This month marks the 20th anniversary of the borking of Judge Robert Bork, Ronald Reagan’s failed Supreme Court nominee. And it was Ted Kennedy’s bilious bugle blast that brought the man down. Almost immediately after Reagan nominated Bork, Kennedy pulled himself off his barstool and proclaimed: “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of the government ...” article.nationalreview.com?q=YjdhNDY1NmY4NmM4ODJiZDNlNDFmZDQ2ODRhZjQ3OTY= Or this absolute disgrace: When President Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, Sen. Joe Biden had this to say: I think that the only reason Clarence Thomas is on the Court is because he is black. I don't believe he could have won had he been white. And the reason is, I think it was a cynical ploy by President Bush. BTW, Kennedy never paid any political price for being an a**hole demagogue.