To: PhiKapMom
Actually, no, I'm not aware of the specific reasons why any of the Clinton nominees were blocked. I presume it's because the Republican Senate didn't approve of their politics, much as is what's going on now in the Democratic Senate. While I'm sure that one can paint some of Clinton's nominees as "very liberal, let's make the law" types, I'm sure that the current Senate can similarly paint some of Bush's nominees as being too conservative and willing to bend the law to suit.
Making recess appointments is certainly within Bush's powers, so if he's got the guts for it he should do just that. Of course, the problem is that if he does, and then the judges involved lose their seats two years later, they then also then lose their livelihoods. So they may not want recess appointments. But that's up to them.
Ask me to hold no brief for Tom Daschle. I'm not a constitiuent of his, and don't approve of a lot of things he does. I think that games were played with the Florida results, but the Supremes have spoken and that's that.
I will also say that I looked at the "butterfly ballot" and don't see any problems with it. We use a similar one in Illinois, where you have to flip through about 12 pages during Presidential years, as we also have retention ballots on state judges, plus state and local initiatives.
What's interesting is that in Illinois, they now have machines that read your ballot before it goes into the ballot box and checks to see if you failed to vote for any candidate in a given race, and if you voted for more than one candidate in a given race. It spotted me not voting for a candidate in a race (it doesn't say which one, you have to look). Picked up numerous errors statewide. I think this is going to be useful, it should cut down on the number of spoiled ballots.
14 posted on
07/01/2002 1:47:13 PM PDT by
RonF
To: RonF
While I'm sure that one can paint some of Clinton's nominees as "very liberal, let's make the law" types, I'm sure that the current Senate can similarly paint some of Bush's nominees as being too conservative and willing to bend the law to suit. Bwaaaahahaha! No, you got it wrong. It's the constructionists that think the law means what it says and therefore don't "bend" it after looking at the latest polls. That's why the looney leftists don't want them to be judges.
To: RonF
Your post #14 speaks very loudly about your leanings, stick around FR, you might learn a thing or three!
18 posted on
07/01/2002 6:20:19 PM PDT by
exnavy
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson