Senate confirms Griffin to 6th Circuit Court of Appeals

As I recall, didn't Clinton name a couple of other people before Ginsberg, but they backed out early?

Asking me to make your argument? It's pointless regardless. Let's assume there were a couple. So what? Why do you think Bush nominees have not "backed out"? Why do you think those Bush nominees who "backed out" were not SCOTUS level?

I have the lists which compare Clinton and W side by side, who waited, who left, who was flushed... Why do you continue to ask these questions? Why don't you respond to previous questions? What's the point of all of this if you are fixated on ideas such as flexible/living government? This has absolutely nothing to do with slowing welcoming ourselves back into the club. Liberals/minority are imposing their desires through activist judges who strike down laws and impose new ones. If people have no say over the control of their government the term is tyranny. The Constitution defines the powers of both Congress and the judiciary, educate yourself. The courts are changing the Constitution without consideration of the amendment process and Congress is defying the Constitution. If you learned how the rules worked you would not support a liberal position, unless you supported liberal values.

NO, you educate YOURSELF. You are the one making ridiculous arguments like this is something unusual. It's POLITICS. Politics constantly change; power relationships constantly change; and it's the shrewd politician who understands what those relationships are. My point always has been that there are no "fixed" and "immutable" rules of the Senate or anything else--it all comes down to the votes of the day.

The fact is, some judges are always washed out; some are always denied (very few); and most are confirmed. To act like because we haven't gotten 100% of all judges at all times is unusal is just silly, and I think you know it.

I repeat what I keep trying to tell you and everyone else about this "deal": it's irrelevant what the Dems do. We got our judges confirmed; we'll get the next batch confirmed; and when they finally filibuster, or attempt to, we'll defeat that BECAUSE the "moderates" have been given their cover.

How did Dallas end up doing overall that year when Barry Switzer was the coach and they couldn't score a touchdown for anything and they kept kicking 5, 6, 7 field goals a game? Not too good if I remember correctly. I don't think they made the playoffs.

Well, I do see your point when we're this close to a filibuster proof majority and people want to blow off the pubs because the rinos won't get in line, like they ever do. First we should get the numbers, and all the while pick off the rinos as we get the opportunities.

However, I admit I've gotten mad and made threats. That's what non-election years are for.

Failing to effect the change they were elected to effect will in and of itself prevent the pubs from retaining the majority.

I'm reminded of something Donald Rumsfeld said, "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you'd like to have, or the army you hope to have a future date." He got ragged for that comment, but there was a lot of wisdom in it.

Dallas went through a period where they had ZERO draft picks. Larry Allen was the only consistent starter from their drafts for about five years. Their promising TE, LaFleur, was out of football with a back injury after 3-4 years, and they NEVER replaced Charles Haley.

I know I say this a lot, but THIS may be their year, to at least challenge the Iggles for the NFC championship.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.