Skip to comments.
KEN STARR'S REAL VIEWS
NRO Corner ^
| 05/12/05
| Ramesh Ponnuru
Posted on 05/12/2005 10:45:25 AM PDT by Pikamax
KEN STARR'S REAL VIEWS [Ramesh Ponnuru]
CBS, AP, and other outlets reported earlier this week that Starr had said that getting rid of the judicial filibuster would be a "radical, radical departure from our history and our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government."
This seemed like a very odd thing for Starr to say, so I contacted him.
He forwarded to me an email he had sent to someone else who had asked about this matter:
"In the piece that I have now seen, and which I gather is being lavishly quoted, CBS employed two snippets. The 'radical departure' snippet was specifically addressed -- although this is not evidenced whatever from the clip -- to the practice of invoking judicial philosopy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience. I said in sharp language that that practice was wrong. I contrasted the current practice . . . with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg's nomination process, as numerous Republicans voted (rightly) to confirm a former ACLU staff lawyer. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer, but they voted (again, rightly) to confirm her. Why? Because elections, like ideas, have consequences. . . . In the interview, I did indeed suggest, and have suggested elsewhere, that caution and prudence be exercised (Burkean that I am) in shifting/modifying rules (that's the second snippet), but I likewise made clear that the 'filibuster' represents an entirely new use (and misuse) of a venerable tradition. . . .
"[O]ur friends are way off base in assuming that the CBS snippets, as used, represent (a) my views, or (b) what I in fact said."
TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: ap; assininepress; cary; chinesemoneystarr; danrather; fatslutnottreason; filibuster; judiciary; kenstarr; mediabias; medialies; ponnuru; pornostarr; rather; ratherized; ussenate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 241-253 next last
To: Bella_Bru
Sort of off topic, but why would anyone want to get rid of the filibuster? That just means when the Dems are in charge of juducial nominees, we can't filibuster either.
Republicans have NEVER filibustered judicial nominees, ever. If they were ever to try it, Democrats would invoke the "nuclear option" in a heartbeat.
121
posted on
05/12/2005 11:41:15 AM PDT
by
advance_copy
(Stand for life, or nothing at all)
To: Paradox; Phantom Lord
I had heard it was done in 1968 and there were threats in Clinton's time.
I still think it's dangerous to go with the nuclear option as we will NOT always be in charge.
122
posted on
05/12/2005 11:41:24 AM PDT
by
Bella_Bru
(www.JewsforJudaism.org)
To: advance_copy
The nuclear option just seems ugly no matter who is doing it.
123
posted on
05/12/2005 11:42:18 AM PDT
by
Bella_Bru
(www.JewsforJudaism.org)
To: RexBeach
Why does CBS continue to do such things? because they are true Communist, American hating, scum. If something was edited to make the Right look good, the ACLU, leftist professors and the MSM would be screaming to shut them down. It is astounding the utter "lies" of CBS. They edited the Ken Star interview in order to "create" a lie. I just wish once the FCC would pull their license with the caveat, CBS would have to change the name or the news to "CBS Evening smears of the right."
To: advance_copy
Thanks,I was looking for that,how long before they pull it?
125
posted on
05/12/2005 11:44:46 AM PDT
by
mdittmar
(May God watch over those who serve,and have served, to keep us free.)
To: wolf24
Rush: CBS refusing to release the transcripts to Starr sets up a 'his word vs ours' scenario. Unbelievable.
Transcripts are released to prove that the party in question was forthright and correct... That being the case, why would CBS ever release a transcript?
126
posted on
05/12/2005 11:46:53 AM PDT
by
cbkaty
(I may not always post...but I am always here......)
To: Bella_Bru
I had heard it was done in 1968 and there were threats in Clinton's time. I still think it's dangerous to go with the nuclear option as we will NOT always be in charge.
The ONE filibuster in history of a judicial nominee was against Abe Fortas, nominated for Chief Justice by LBJ in 1967. That was done only for four days while Fortas was withdrawn. Fortas had been involved in some crooked deals and almost no Senator's supported his nomination. The whole thing simply avoided an embarrassing vote for JBJ. Once again, the GOP could never get by with filibustering nominations as the minority party against the majority party's President. If they ever tried it, the RATS would invoke the "nuclear option" in blatant hypocrisy.
127
posted on
05/12/2005 11:47:09 AM PDT
by
advance_copy
(Stand for life, or nothing at all)
To: Pikamax
When it came from SEE BS we should of known it was B*ll Sh*t
128
posted on
05/12/2005 11:47:12 AM PDT
by
Spunky
("Everyone has a freedom of choice, but not of consequences.")
To: Bella_Bru
The nuclear option just seems ugly no matter who is doing it.
What seems ugly is a minority of Senators using the filibuster to exercise a veto over nominations by the President of the United States. It is flatly against the design for judicial nominations laid out in the Constitution.
129
posted on
05/12/2005 11:49:54 AM PDT
by
advance_copy
(Stand for life, or nothing at all)
To: ozzymandus
Disagree with you. Fox will pick this up, if they have a free enterprise bone in their entire body.
We'll see.
130
posted on
05/12/2005 11:50:28 AM PDT
by
RinaseaofDs
(The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.)
To: Soul Seeker
Won't it be really cool if the Senate bans the judicial filibuster, Bush's nominees are confirmed, AND CBS takes a big fall one more time.
131
posted on
05/12/2005 11:52:39 AM PDT
by
advance_copy
(Stand for life, or nothing at all)
To: Pikamax
Why anyone in their right mind would do an interview with anyone from CBS anymore puzzles me. Let them go ahead and have all the liberals they want.
Anyone with a rational, reasonable, conservative, Republican viewpoint should just stay away and never appear on that network or talk to any of their reporters.
They snip and cut the interviews to suit their on agenda anyway, so why bother?
132
posted on
05/12/2005 11:55:30 AM PDT
by
CitizenM
("An excuse is worse than an lie, because an excuse is a lie hidden." Pope John Paul, II)
To: Bella_Bru
The dems unconstitutional filibuster of a Presidents judicial nominees is the "ugly" part,the "nuclear option" would restore things to what the Constitution allows,
"Advice and Consent of the Senate",(Article 2,section 2),an up or down vote!
133
posted on
05/12/2005 11:58:02 AM PDT
by
mdittmar
(May God watch over those who serve,and have served, to keep us free.)
To: advance_copy
Wow, wouldn't that be having our cake and eating it, too!
To: CitizenM
If for some reason they want to do an interview, when will they learn to have their own camera, tape recorder or stenographer there so they can put the transcript out to show the editing that was done.
135
posted on
05/12/2005 12:02:10 PM PDT
by
doubled
("If it weren't for luck, I would have won every hand.")
To: NonValueAdded
< sarc> Come on now, it was a simple editing mistake, give 'em a break. < /sarc>
136
posted on
05/12/2005 12:02:32 PM PDT
by
LayoutGuru2
(Know the difference between honoring diversity and honoring perversity? No? You must be a liberal!)
To: texas_mrs
LOL - Yes it would. Remember, George W. Bush defeated John Kerry AND CBS took a big fall. So it's been done before.
137
posted on
05/12/2005 12:03:22 PM PDT
by
advance_copy
(Stand for life, or nothing at all)
To: Pikamax
This needs to be told far and wide...How dare they misquote (on purpose?) Judge Starr!
138
posted on
05/12/2005 12:04:53 PM PDT
by
woofie
(Ok, you try doing driving without any wheels)
To: Zechariah11
Zechariah11 said:
"I was furious at Ken Starr after the initial reports." Sounds like CBS's report had a negative impact on your opinion of Ken Starr and damaged his reputation with you.
Let's see:
1) False or misleading statements.
2) Knowingly published to a national audience.
3) Intended to affect people's opinions regarding issues and persons.
Perhaps a good time to sell CBS stock.
To: Howlin
"[O]ur friends are way off base in assuming that the CBS snippets, as used, represent (a) my views, or (b) what I in fact said." Ha. That figures.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 241-253 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson