Democrat says Alito hearings may be pointless

well the people in charge are ****, so they are putting a **** yes man on the court to make sure they can do all the **** they want without having to explain **** to anyone.

That's the technical explanation.

No ****!

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

well the people in charge are ****, so they are putting a **** yes man on the court to make sure they can do all the **** they want without having to explain **** to anyone.

That's the technical explanation.

Does that same sentiment hold true when a Dem President nominates someone to the bench,or just when repubs do it?

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/01/how-clinton-treated-hatch/

How Clinton Treated Hatch

When President Clinton made his two judicial nominations to the Supreme Court, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) was the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The following is an excerpt from Hatch's autobiography:

[It] was not a surprise when the President called to talk about the appointment and what he was thinking of doing.

President Clinton indicated he was leaning toward nominating Bruce Babbitt, his Secretary of the Interior, ... Clinton asked for my reaction. ... I told him that confirmation would not be easy.

Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer's name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg.

Ralph Neas: What "Borking Really Means"


"When we go back to the 1987 ?- and we hear about that all the time ?- the Judge Bork proceedings, the interest groups did not defeat Judge Bork ?- just didn't happen. It was his judicial philosophy."

?-Republican Senator Arlen Specter speaking July 12 at the White House
after meeting with the President and Senators Frist, Reid and Leahy


Senator Specter said it well ?- and we couldn't agree more. Yet, for the past 18 years, many on the right have tried to rewrite the history of the Bork nomination. They've told anyone who would listen that when right-wing ideologue Robert Bork was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1987, interest groups "on the left" hijacked the confirmation process and used Senate hearings to launch personal attacks and "tar and feather" Bork. The truth is just the opposite.

http://www.savethecourt.org/site/c.mwK0JbNTJrF/b.886561/k.6DB0/What_Borking_Really_Means.htm