John Roberts Too Extreme For The U.S Supreme Court (Bill Press MEGA-BARF Alert)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 07/22/05 | Bill Press

[Huck]

but the senate has no right to reject one if a president chose him or her. Look at Ginsberg and Breyer. It's not about whether you or I like their philosophy; it's about the president, winning an election, exercising his choice, which is his to make as the winner of the election.

Says who? Where does it say the Senate has no right to reject a nominee? Show me that one.

[Huck]

Did you find that rule you were talking about?

[Dr.Hilarious]

Says who? Where does it say the Senate has no right to reject a nominee? Show me that one.

Show me where I said the Senate has no right to reject a nominee.

[Dr.Hilarious]

You took my comment out of context to make it seem like something it's not. I was responding to a question about rejecting a non-originalist. I should have reworded that to exclude "no right" and merely said it was my preference, but I was not saying the senate has no right to reject a nominee; they have the right to reject anyone for any reason.

[Huck]

You said "the senate has no right to reject one if a president chose him or her."

[Dr.Hilarious]

You said "the senate has no right to reject one if a president chose him or her."

Please see post #58; I was refering to the selection of non-originalist nominees NOT "a nominee". Granted I should have reworded that, but what I was trying to say was that being a "non-originalist" was not in itself grounds for rejection, as I saw it. I never, ever said the senate had no right to reject nominees, even in the incorrectly worded answer.

[Huck]

I saw that post after posting my response. I think we're all clear now :-P

[Dr.Hilarious]

Yes, my fingers just have to learn that just because I believe it that doesn't mean it's the rule of law!