Obama was thinking about voting for Roberts until told of political consequences of doing so

[draft_mario_cuomo]

This is someone who voted "present" on 50% of abortion related bills in the state legislature so this makes it even worse. Votes for the Supreme Court's composition should not be made on political grounds--especially if you plan on asking voters to make you president someday. Remember how important the next president's appointments will be.

=The Outsider's Insider
After three decades in Washington, Pete Rouse is a voice of experience for Sen. Barack Obama.

By Perry Bacon Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 27, 2007; Page A01

Sen. Barack Obama had hired Pete Rouse for just such a moment.

It was the fall of 2005, and the celebrated young senator -- still new to Capitol Hill but aware of his prospects for higher office -- was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. Talking with his aides, the Illinois Democrat expressed admiration for Roberts's intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn't want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds.

And then Rouse, his chief of staff, spoke up. This was no Harvard moot-court exercise, he said. If Obama voted for Roberts, Rouse told him, people would remind him of that every time the Supreme Court issued another conservative ruling, something that could cripple a future presidential run. Obama took it in. And when the roll was called, he voted no.==

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/26/AR2007082601446.html?nav=hcmodule

[hlthe2b]

1. He sought good advise, he got it, and he took it..

so what's the scandal? :shrug:

[silverlib]

4. It was a scandalous thought

[iconocrastic]

33. So politics overrules his judgement

A double edged sword

[draft_mario_cuomo]

5. He voted based on political reasons yet claims he has the best "judgment"

Plus here is some context to Obama's record of cowardice on choice and other issues (Obama voted present on 50% of abortion related bills while in the Illinois state legislature. This is who you want to be making Supreme Court appointments?): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/the_everpresent_obama.html

==We aren't talking about a "present" vote on whether to name a state office building after a deceased state official, but rather about votes that reflect an officeholder's core values.

For example, in 1997, Obama voted "present" on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion. He also voted "present" on SB 71, which lowered the first offense of carrying a concealed weapon from a felony to a misdemeanor and raised the penalty of subsequent offenses.

In 1999, Obama voted "present" on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52-1. Also in 1999, Obama voted "present" on HB 854 that protected the privacy of sex-abuse victims by allowing petitions to have the trial records sealed. He was the only member to not support the bill.

In 2001, Obama voted "present" on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted "present" on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if it survived a failed abortion. In his book, the Audacity of Hope, on page 132, Obama explained his problems with the "born alive" bills, specifically arguing that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. But he failed to mention that he only felt strongly enough to vote "present" on the bills instead of "no."

And finally in 2001, Obama voted "present" on SB 609, a bill prohibiting strip clubs and other adult establishments from being within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, and daycares.

If Obama had taken a position for or against these bills, he would have pleased some constituents and alienated others. Instead, the Illinois legislator-turned-U.S. senator and, now, Democratic presidential hopeful essentially took a pass.==

[jefferson_dem]

10. LOL! A half year old editorial housed on a conservative website...

That's pretty convincing. :sarcasm:

[Benhurst]

13. You obviously are having trouble dealing with the "New politics."

[fed-up]

26. whoops wrong thread-delete nt

[GreenTea]

2. Obama has always been far too moderate-conserative for my taste!!

[Bitwit1234]

3. Gee if Hillary did that Obama supporters would be boucing up

and down now wouldn't they. You betcha

[jefferson_dem]

6. Smart move by Obama.

I'm glad he exercised such quality judgment, again.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

7. Judgment=voting based on political calculation? If he was told to vote for JR he would have!

You do realize if his aides told him to vote for Roberts he apparently would have done so? That is the real story out of this for Mr. "can't take a stand on chocie 50% of the time"...

[jefferson_dem]

8. Judgment = he did the right thing.

Silly.

Of course, we'll never know how you're candidate would've voted. I wonder if he would've joined up with Zell, Lieberman and others within his "Senate Centrist Coalition"

[draft_mario_cuomo]

16. He only did so for political reasons. That is political calculation, not "judgment" nt

[never cry wolf]

61. The article did not say he did it ONLY for political reasons

It said he was thinking about it, clearly he had not yet made up his mind. I am sure he also talked to other advisors as well as his colleagues and tried to fairly weigh all the factors.

Imagine, a politician actually taking a political consequence into consideration while trying to make a decision, who'd a thunk it?

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

9. The fox and the scorpion.

[Adelante]

11. Of course, John Edwards *did* vote for Roberts in 2003

But I won't hold my breath for you to mention it.

[jefferson_dem]

12. Oh, Man! Here are two Committee votes by Edwards in support of the Hon. Roberts.

2003 Judiciary Committee Vote
When the U.S. Senate was considering Judge John Roberts’ confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the Senate Judiciary Committee actually recommended his confirmation in two separate votes. Later, the Senate confirmed Roberts to his seat on the D.C. Circuit by unanimous consent. ...Zing!

Here's a breakdown of the Committee members' votes. (Note especially the Democrats backing Roberts' confirmation.)

Judiciary Committee Vote on February 27, 2003:
Democrats Voting For Roberts:
Biden
Kohl
Feinstein
Edwards

Democrats Voting Against Roberts:
Kennedy
Schumer
Durbin

Democrats Abstaining:
Leahy
Feingold

Republicans Voting for Roberts:
Hatch
Grassley
Specter
Kyl
DeWine
Sessions
Graham
Craig
Chambliss
Cornyn

Judiciary Committee Vote on May 8, 2003:
Democrats Voting For Roberts:
Leahy
Biden
Kohl
Feinstein
Feingold
Edwards

Democrats Voting Against Roberts:
Kennedy
Durbin

Democrats Not Voting:
Schumer

Republicans Voting for Roberts:
Hatch
Grassley
Specter
Kyl
DeWine
Sessions
Graham
Craig
Chambliss
Cornyn

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/supreme_court_watch/judiciary-committee-vote.htm

[draft_mario_cuomo]

15. "he Senate confirmed Roberts to his seat on the D.C. Circuit by unanimous consent"

No surprise there, given how nominations for lower courts work. How many appeals ct. judges do you think Obama, or random senator x have voted against?

So your defense for Obama voting based on political reasons on a Supreme Court appointment is that a guy who Obama, and his fans, claim he has far better judgment than voted in a 100-0 vote for Roberts for a lower court?

[jefferson_dem]

20. Obama voted NO on Roberts in his only opportunity to do so. Edwards twice voted YES on Roberts.

Anything else is your crazy desperate spin.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

23. As did 99 other senators. What changed from 2003 and 2005 on Roberts?

Hint: the Supreme Court.

How many right-wing lower court judges do you think Obama has voted for? 20? 30? 40? 50? Probably about as many as have been nominated...

[returnable]

34. Proving yet again Edwards doesn't have the courage to lead.

So what if "99 other Senators" voted for the guy? If Edwards believed he wasn't fit for the bench, he should've voted "No".

Instead, he just went with the flow. Which is what he's always done.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. The same reason Feingold did not vote against Roberts

Senators want a functioning judicial system and there are traditions of the senate...do you realize what would happen if the senate majority and prez were of different parties and the senate kept voting down anyone nominated for lower court appointments by the prez because of ideological reasons?

[returnable]

38. Oh, so if Feingold does it, it's OK?

Nice leadership there. That's what I want in President - "I'll wait until the junior Senator from Wisconsin weighs in before I make my decision." :hi:

Listen, I know how the judicial system works, and about the traditions of the Senate. I'll assume you do, too, and you probably also know that every Senator consults with advisors before such votes. The point is, it's the height of hypocrisy for you to slam Obama for NOT voting for Roberts while your boy Edwards voted to confirm him. It's that simple. You can try to spin it all you want, but it's obvious this is just another weak attempt to divide this forum. It's pretty shameful.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

40. You don't understand the difference between lower court appointments and SCOTUS appointments

Why do you think Obama voted against Roberts but voted for basically every lower court appointment * has made? Is Roberts substantively that much worse? Of course not.

Do you think Feingold is a sellout and not a leader?

The actual vote he cast is not even the real story here...Remember the bs about ":judgment"?

[returnable]

42. I understand the diffference. And I also know spin when I see it.

Please explain why Edwards voted for Roberts in committee, when several other Senators had the courage to vote "No".

[draft_mario_cuomo]

46. You don't understand the story is Obama cast his vote due to political reasons, not "judgment"?

Edwards voted incorrectly in committee, correctly on the senate floor. Kennedy voted correctly in committee, correctly on the senate floor.

How many lower ct. judges has Obama voted against? :) How many has Hatch voted against? McCain? Inhofe? Cantwell? Take your pick. You'll find their voting records are practically identical on lower court appointments. There is a reason--a very good reason--for this.

[returnable]

55. So when "Edwards voted incorrectly in committee", was it for political reasons...

...or was he just exercising his best judgment?

:hi:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

57. Who knows but we know it wasn't for political reasons because no one cared about JR in 2003

Just as Obama has not been called on his votes for dozens of right-wingers for lower courts. ;)

[robinlynne]

98. After looking all the way down this page, not interested in participating.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

14. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to mention how nominations for lower courts work

The people who are interested in the issue know exactly what the difference between a SCOTUS appointment and lower court appointment is. Roberts was confirmed unamiously for his lower court appointment. What does that tell you?

What does Edwards have to do with Obama doing what he is marketed as being above and putting politics before his magic "judgment"? If you want to discuss Edwards post a thread on it for once instead of trying to invoke Edwards to deflect attention from your candidate.

[Clintonista2]

17. Obama is supposed to be the candidate of change yet

His supporters spend most of their time defending his positions by saying "HILLARY DID IT TOO!" "EDWARDS DID IT TOO!"

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. Funny isn't it? They even do so when they have to conflate two very different votes

How many conservative lower court judges do you think Obama has voted for? How many do you think Clark would vote for if he ever gets elected to anything? And so on. The politics of dope apparently involve insulting the intelligence of voters. :)

[Adelante]

22. I don't have a candidate (I repeat) and you do

Do you think Roberts' sitting on a lower court did nothing for his resume and consideration for the higher court? Do you think if Roberts' nomination to the lower court hadn't been voted out of the Judiciary Committee in 2003, in the first place, he would have ever gotten to the lower court and then to the higher court in 2005? It's hard to tell with these things, where votes end up having future significance, but I think if you bring up a topic criticizing one candidate, you can expect (or should) to hear back about your own.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

25. What percentage of lower court nominations are opposed? What % are confirmed?

Thanks in advance, assuming you are actually interested in discussing the issue for once instead of trying to deflect attention from Obama by bringing in Edwards.

Why do you think Roberts was confirmed 100-0 in 2003 yet opposed by so many in 2005?

Using your logic we would have no new appointments unless the president's party controlled the senate. You are saying all lower court appointments should be voted down if they do not match the senate's political leanings. That has never been the case in 200+ years. Lower court judges almost always sail through, as Barack Obama himself would tell you if asked about his dozens of votes for right-wing lower court justices. They have to in order to keep the system going. The Supreme Court, for obvious reasons, is a different animal. That is why Roberts, who was not opposed in 2003, was so radioactive to progressives just 2 years later. It isn't as if he did anything from 2003-2005 to suddenly become more right-wing.

You're a de facto Obama supporter like most Clarkies. I notice you never do your "fact check" shtick when anyone else is criticized. You are so interesting in the facts that you don't provide the full story regarding Edwards, even in cases where you presumably know better.

[Adelante]

30. I'm a "de facto Obama supporter"?

BWAHAHAHHAAAHAHAHAH :rofl:

I've been called a lot of things around here, but that's a new one!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

31. Have you ever criticized his dozens of votes for right-wing justices?

You cling to a vote Edwards made for a guy who was confirmed unanimously for a lower court. Surely you have a principled position on the matter...

[Adelante]

32. Indeed I have criticized Obama on his judiciary votes

Including this very morning. Happy? :hi:

[zulchzulu]

18. Don't do that! You'll make the OP's head explode....

He was doing perfectly well trying to trash Obama when you had to go ahead and throw a bug in the ointment...

:rofl:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

19. You evidently don't know how lower court appointments work

Tell me, why do you think Roberts was confirmed 100-0 for his lower court appointment? Did he do anything from 2003 to 2005 to suddenly make himself worse? Or do lower court appointments almost always sail through Congress easily?

[zulchzulu]

24. Explain this...

Judiciary Committee Vote on February 27, 2003:
Democrats Voting For Roberts:
Biden
Kohl
Feinstein
Edwards

Democrats Voting Against Roberts:
Kennedy
Schumer
Durbin

Democrats Abstaining:
Leahy
Feingold

Republicans Voting for Roberts:
Hatch
Grassley
Specter
Kyl
DeWine
Sessions
Graham
Craig
Chambliss
Cornyn

Judiciary Committee Vote on May 8, 2003:
Democrats Voting For Roberts:
Leahy
Biden
Kohl
Feinstein
Feingold
Edwards

Democrats Voting Against Roberts:
Kennedy
Durbin

Democrats Not Voting:
Schumer

Republicans Voting for Roberts:
Hatch
Grassley
Specter
Kyl
DeWine
Sessions
Graham
Craig
Chambliss
Cornyn

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/supreme_court_watch/judiciary-committee-vote.htm

Of course, you know that Obama voted AGAINST Roberts, which is directly who Edwards voted FOR.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00245

[draft_mario_cuomo]

27. What was the final vote on him? Ask Obama, who has voted for dozens of right-wingers

Why do you think Richardson is not using the votes the senators have cast for dozens of right-wing lower court appointments against them? He knows it would be idiotic.

What happened between 2003 and 2005 that made Roberts suddenly radioactive to progressive groups? Any rulings? Statements? Or was it because he was appointed to the Supreme Court?

Why do you think right-wingers Richard Griffin and David McKeague were confirmed 95 to 0 and 96 to 0? Yes, that means Obama voted for them too. :crazy:

[zulchzulu]

28. Dude, you are exposed and OUT OF AMMO

Did Edwards support Roberts? Yes. Did Obama support Roberts? No.

Game. Match. Checkmate. Pack it in, bubba.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. Only among those ignorant on the subject

Using your own logic Obama will vote for the dozens of right-wingers he has voted for on lower courts for the SCOTUS so we should not elect him prez because he is so bad that he will vote for these people again if they are nominated to the Supreme Court if he remains in the senate... :rofl:

[zulchzulu]

36. Explain your support for Edwards despite his vote for Roberts

This..I...gotta...see...

:rofl:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

37. The same reason you support Obama despite his votes for all of these right-wingers for lower courts

This is the list from 2005-2006 alone. Obama voted for all of these right-wingers, with the possible exceptions of Brown and Owen. The next time you see Obama, a former con. law professor, ask him why these people sailed through the Senate. Or if you see Orrin Hatch ask him why 99.9999% of Clinton's lower court appointments were confirmed.

Name Date of Hearing Date Confirmed

Barrett, Michael Ryan 3/29/06 5/1/06
Batten, Sr., Timothy C. 2/7/06 3/6/06
Besosa, Francisco Augusto 8/1/06 9/25/06
Bianco, Joseph Frank 11/1/05 12/21/05
Brown, Janice R. 10/23/03 6/8/05
Bumb, Renee Marie 4/25/06 6/6/06
Burgess, Timothy 11/1/05 12/21/05
Chagares, Michael 3/14/06 4/4/06
Cogan, Brian 3/29/06 5/4/06
Conrad, Robert 3/3/05 4/28/05
Cox, Sean F. 5/2/06 6/8/06
Crotty, Paul A. 11/16/04 4/11/05
Delgado-Colon, Aida M. 2/7/06 3/6/06
Dever, James 3/3/05 4/28/05
DuBose, Kristi 11/15/05 12/21/05
Gelpi, Gustavo A. 6/15/06 7/20/06
Golden, Thomas 3/29/06 5/4/06
Gordon, Leo Maury 2/7//06 3/13/06
Gorsuch, Neil M. 6/21//06 7/20/06
Griffin, Richard A. 6/16/04 6/9/05
Griffith, Thomas B. 3/8/05 6/14/05
Guilford, Andrew J. 5/24/06 6/22/06
Hillman, Noel Lawrence 4/25/06 6/8/06
Holmes, Jerome A. 6/15/06 7/25/06
Ikuta, Sandra Segal 5/2/06 6/19/06
Johnston, Thomas E. 2/7/06 3/6/06
Jordan III, Daniel Porter 6/15/06 7/20/06
Jordan, Kent A 9/6/06 12/8/06
Kavanaugh, Brett 5/9/06 5/26/06
Kendall, Virginia Mary 11/15/05 12/21/05
Larson, Stephen G. 2/15/06 3/16/06
Ludington, Thomas L 5/2/06 6/8/06
Mattice, Jr., Harry Sandlin 9/29/05 10/24/05
McKeague, David W. 6/16/04 6/9/05
Neilson, Susan Bieke 9/8/04 10/27/05
Miller, Gray 3/14/06 4/25/06
Moore, Kimberly 6/28/06 9/5/06
Owen, Priscilla Richman 3/13/03 5/25/05
Pryor, Jr., William H. 6/11/03 6/9/05
Sandoval, Brian Edward 9/29/05 10/24/05
Schiltz, Patrick Joseph 3/1/06 4/26/06
Seabright, J. Michael 11/16/04 4/27/05
Shepherd, Bobby E. 6/28/06 7/20/06
Sheridan, Peter G. 4/25/06 6/8/06
Smoak, John Richard 9/29/05 10/27/05
Smith, Milan 4/25/06 5/16/06
*Sweeney, Margaret Mary 9/29/05 10/21/05
**Tydingco-Gatewood, Frances 7/11/06 8/3/06
VanTatenhove, Gregory F. 11/1/05 12/21/05
Vitaliano, Eric Nicholas 11/1/05 12/21/05
Watkins, W. Keith 11/15/05 12/21/05
*Wheeler, Thomas Craig 9/29/05 10/21/05
Whitney, Frank DeArmon 5/24/06 6/22/06
Wigenton, Susan Davis 4/25/06 5/26/06
Zouhary, Jack 2/15/06 3/16/06

[returnable]

41. Point is, Edwards had two opportunities to vote against Roberts IN COMMITTEE and failed to do so

Where's the leadership? Senators like Durbin, Kennedy and Schumer recognized a shitball when they saw one. Why not John?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

45. Durbin, Kennedy, and Schumer all voted for him on the Senate floor

Why? Did he morph in a few weeks?

How many lower ct. judges has Obama voted against? ;) Or take any random senator.

[zulchzulu]

43. Do you have a link for that list?

Provide it.

I'm sure they are ALL right-wing judges...

:shrug:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

47. They are all Bush appointees. Do you think Bush appointed liberals?

http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/confirmed109.htm

How many Clinton appointees to lower courts were voted down? Reagan? Johnson? McKinley? Cleveland? Van Buren? Madison?

[FrenchieCat]

62. Edwards voted for these right wing judges.......when he showed up to the committee to vote.....

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595078450,00.html

Roger L. Gregory 7/11/01 7/20/01
Richard F. Cebull 7/11/01 7/20/01
Sam E. Haddon 7/11/01 7/20/01
William J. Riley 7/24/01 8/2/01
Sharon Prost 8/27/01 9/21/01
Reggie B. Walton 8/22/01 9/21/01
Barrington Parker 9/13/01 10/11/01
Michael Mills 9/13/01 10/11/01
Karen Caldwell 10/4/01 10/23/01
Laurie Camp 10/4/01 10/23/01
James Payne 10/4/01 10/23/01
Claire Eagan 10/4/01 10/23/01
Larry Hicks 10/18/01 11/5/01
Christina Armijo 10/18/01 11/6/01
Stephen Friot 10/18/01 11/6/01
Karon Bowdre 10/18/01 11/6/01
Terry Wooten 8/27/01 11/8/01
Edith Clement 10/4/01 11/13/01
Harris Hartz 10/25/01 12/6/01
Danny Reeves 11/7/01 12/6/01
Joe Heaton 11/7/01 12/6/01
Julie Robinson 11/7/01 12/11/01
Kurt Engelhardt 10/25/01 12/11/01
John Bates 10/25/01 12/11/01
Frederick Martone 11/7/01 12/13/01
Clay Land 11/7/01 12/13/01
William Johnson 10/25/01 12/13/01
C. Ashley Royal 12/5/01 12/20/01
Marcia Krieger 12/5/01 1/25/02
James Mahan 12/5/01 1/25/02
Callie Granade 12/5/01 2/4/02
Philip Martinez 12/5/01 2/5/02
Michael Melloy 1/24/02 2/11/02
Jay Zainey 1/24/02 2/11/02
David Bunning 12/10/01 2/14/02
James Gritzner 1/24/02 2/14/02
Richard Leon 1/24/02 2/14/02
Cindy Jorgenson 1/24/02 2/26/02
Robert Blackburn 1/24/02 2/26/02
Ralph Beistline 2/26/02 3/12/02
David Bury 2/26/02 3/15/02
Randy Crane 2/26/02 3/18/02
Terrence L. O'Brien 3/19/02 4/15/02
Lance M. Africk 3/19/02 4/17/02
Legrome D. Davis 3/19/02 4/18/02
Jeffery R. Howard 4/11/02 4/23/02
Percy Anderson 4/11/02 4/25/02
John F. Walter 4/11/02 4/25/02
Joan Lancaster 4/11/02 4/25/02
William Griesbach 4/11/02 4/25/02
Michael Baylson 4/11/02 4/30/02
Cynthia Rufe 4/11/02 4/30/02
Leonard Davis 4/25/02 5/9/02
Andrew Hanen 4/25/02 5/9/02
Samuel Mays 4/25/02 5/9/02
Thomas Rose 4/25/02 5/9/02
Paul Cassell 3/19/02 5/13/02
Lavenski Smith 5/23/02 7/15/02
Richard Clifton 5/9/02 7/19/02
Christopher Conner 5/9/02 7/26/02
Julia Gibbons 4/25/02 7/29/02
Joy Conti 5/9/02 7/29/02
John Jones 5/9/02 7/29/02
D. Brooks Smith 2/26/02 7/31/02
Henry Autrey 5/23/02 8/1/02
Richard Dorr 5/23/02 8/1/02
Henry Hudson 5/23/02 8/1/02
David Godbey 4/25/02 8/1/02
Amy St. Eve 5/23/02 8/1/02
David Cercone 6/13/02 8/1/02
Morrison England 6/13/02 8/1/02
Timothy Savage 5/23/02 8/1/02
Terrence McVerry 6/27/02 9/3/02
Kenneth Marra 6/13/02 9/9/02
Timothy Corrigan 7/23/02 9/12/02
Jose Martinez 7/23/02 9/13/02
Arthur Schwab 6/27/02 9/13/02
Reena Raggi 8/1/02 9/20/02
James Gardner 8/1/02 10/2/02
Ronald Clark 8/1/02 10/2/02
Larry Block 8/1/02 10/2/02
John Rogers 6/13/02 11/14/02
Stanley Chesler 9/26/02 11/14/02
William Martini 9/18/02 11/14/02
Ronald Leighton 10/7/02 11/14/02
Daniel Hovland 9/26/02 11/14/02
Thomas Phillips 9/18/02 11/14/02
Linda Reade 9/26/02 11/14/02
Alia Ludlum 9/18/02 11/14/02
Robert Klausner 10/7/02 11/14/02
James Kinkeade 9/26/02 11/14/02
William Smith 10/7/02 11/14/02
Jeffrey White 9/18/02 11/14/02
Kent Jordan 9/18/02 11/14/02
Mark Fuller 10/7/02 11/14/02
Rosemary Collyer 10/7/02 11/14/02
Robert Kugler 10/7/02 11/14/02
Jose Linares 10/7/02 11/14/02
Freda Wolfson 9/26/02 11/14/02
Michael McConnell 9/18/02 11/15/02
Dennis Shedd 6/27/02 11/19/02
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/confirmed107.htm

and then some!

[jefferson_dem]

65. Of course he did. Remember, he was a self-described "Centrist" and chummed

around with Zell and Lieberman, etc.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

69. Ideology has little do with with the 200+ year record on confirming lower court judges

Why do you think Feingold and Hatch have voted together on 99.9999% of lower court judges?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

68. As he should have. How many of those were confirmed unamiously?

How many had only a handful of votes against them? Thanks in advance.

[FrenchieCat]

79. Your response on Edwards that he confirmed them....."as he should have".........smells......

Edwards voted for Roberts twice, and he shouldn't have!
http://thehill.com/byron-york/roberts-opposition-as-a-bloc-would-hurt-dems-credibility-2005-09-15.html

You are throwing stones at a glass house.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

82. 99.999% of lower court judges are confirmed unanimously

As they should be if we are to have a functioning federal judicial system. Roberts was confirmed by unanimous consent--meaning no one opposed him.

Can you provide a list of lower court judges that Obama has voted against? There is a good reason why he Feingold, Hatch, Bunning, Lieberman, Sanders all have the same record on voting for judges. :)

[FrenchieCat]

87. I don't really need to "provide" you with anything, considering that this is an "attack" OP,

You should have the facts on hand. After all, you are implying that Obama be accused of having done something without providing actual evidence. I think that providing this should be baseline information provided.....not by me.....but by you.

Obama shouldn't have to "prove" that he didn't beat his wife....far as I'm concerned.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

90. You apparently have no clue how lower court appointments work

99.999% of lower court judges are confirmed unanimously, which means the list of nominees anyone, even one some believe has magical qualities, vote against is very short. Have you ever heard of Obama vetoing an Illinois appointment? There is a good reason for that. When you seem him ask Obama how holds work and where the names for judicial nominees come from. The president does not give senators these privileges for fun. There is a senate tradition and it is mutually beneficial to both the president and senators. It also allows for the smooth functioning of the federal courts. I am glad Obama, Kerry, Hatch, Coburn, Dodd, Lugar, Shelby, and the other members of the 100 person body agree with these traditions. If we had the standard some Obama fans are suddenly advocating (only retroactively to 2003. Obama still is cool if he rubber stamps 99.999999% of Bush appointees) it would wreak havoc on our judicial system.

[FrenchieCat]

95. You apparently have no clue as to how an "attack" op works.......

HINT: you need to back your shit up......

[draft_mario_cuomo]

96. I don't need to teach judicial appointments 101

If you are ignorant on the subject go ask a senator the next time you see one. Or write to one (try this http://obama.senate.gov/contact/ ). Or ask Clark. He has a master's in political science so he surely is aware of this.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

106. Why do you think BO voted for the egregious Priscilla Owen?

Owen was so bad she was blocked from getting a vote by Democrats for years. She finally got a vote in 2005.

NYT editorial on her: Priscilla Owen, President Bush's latest nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, has been at times so eager to issue conservative rulings in cases before her on the Texas Supreme Court that she has ignored statutory language and substituted her own views. This criticism comes not from the "special interest groups" she has charged with misstating her record, but from Alberto Gonzales, President Bush's own White House counsel. Mr. Gonzales, who served with Justice Owen on the Texas high court, once lambasted her dissent in an abortion case for engaging in "unconscionable . . . judicial activism." Mr. Gonzales says today that he nonetheless supports the elevation of Justice Owen. We do not.

In choosing a nominee for the Fifth Circuit — the powerful federal appeals court for Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana — President Bush has looked to the extreme right wing of the legal profession. Even on Texas' conservative Supreme Court, Justice Owen has distinguished herself as one of the most conservative members. A former lawyer for the oil and gas industry, she reflexively favors manufacturers over consumers, employers over workers and insurers over sick people. In abortion cases Justice Owen has been resourceful about finding reasons that, despite United States Supreme Court holdings and Texas case law, women should be denied the right to choose.

Justice Owen's views are so far from the mainstream that, on those grounds alone, the Senate should be reluctant to confirm her. But what is particularly disturbing about her approach to judging is, as Mr. Gonzales has identified, her willingness to ignore the text and intent of laws that stand in her way. In an important age discrimination case, Justice Owen dissented to argue that the plaintiff should have to meet a higher standard than Texas law requires.

Justice Owen has also shown a disturbing lack of sensitivity to judicial ethics. She has raised large amounts of campaign contributions from corporations and law firms, and then declined to recuse herself when those contributors have had cases before her. And as a judicial candidate, she publicly endorsed a pro-business political action committee that was raising money to influence the rulings of the Texas Supreme Court.

After the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected Judge Charles Pickering, another far-right choice, for a seat on the Fifth Circuit earlier this year, the Bush administration declared that it would not be intimidated into choosing more centrist nominees. Sadly, the administration has lived up to its threat. In this dispute the Senate is right: the administration should stop trying to use the judiciary to advance a political agenda that is out of step with the views of most Americans.

Justice Owen is a choice that makes sense for Justice Department ideologues who want to turn the courts into a champion of big business, insurance companies and the religious right. But the American people deserve better. Justice Owen's nomination should be rejected.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/04/opinion/04WED1.html?ex=1188360000&en=2f3a281a36ee5661&ei=5070

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---81
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---18
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)

Not Voting - 1
Inouye (D-HI)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00127

[zulchzulu]

103. Here's the link he had in mind

http://disney.go.com/index

[returnable]

89. The vote wasn't unanimous in committee...

...when John could've really exercised some of that leadership his supporters keep talking about. But I guess he just wasn't up to the task, eh?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

91. It was unanimous when it counted on the senate floor. Why?

Did Roberts do something that changed the opinions of the few that voted against him in committee?

Here is the committee vote btw. Why do you think all these Democrats voted for Roberts?

Judiciary Committee Vote on May 8, 2003:
Democrats Voting For Roberts:
Leahy
Biden
Kohl
Feinstein
Feingold
Edwards

Democrats Voting Against Roberts:
Kennedy
Durbin

Yeah, Feingold is a big fan of right-wing judges! :crazy: Durbin and Kennedy dropped their objections once the actual vote came on the senate floor.

[returnable]

97. The question to ask is why did SOME, but not John, vote against him in committee?

We all know why the vote was unanimous once it reached the floor - cuz that's just how the game is played. But when the vote is still in committee, a Senator still has a chance to exercise some discretion.

So why didn't John exercise his right to vote "No" when he had the chance? Clearly, Kennedy, Schumer and Durbin saw something wrong with Roberts. Why did John think it was a good idea to put Roberts through?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

100. Only Kennedy and Durbin voted against him the second time

Clearly, Feingold, Schumer changed their minds. Why vote against Roberts in 2003? Tell me what was in his record that would lead one to vote against his nomination to the court of appeals? If he was blocked another right-winger would have taken his place. What would be the point of blocking Roberts? Roberts was not a nut like Pickering, Brown, or Owen.

[zulchzulu]

102. So your beef about Obama's lower court votes and how they are usually...

...voted in unanimously ANYWAY is an issue that you and the spider on your wall care about?

Ferchrissakes...you are SO out of ammo, bubba.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

85. bwahahahahha

:rofl:

an Obama hit piece comes flying back at Edwards. too funny.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

86. Not exactly. Only if you missed the real story in the OP and don't understand the Senate/courts

The next time you see Obama ask him why he, like Edwards, Kerry, Sanders, Liberman, Hatch, Coburn, Coleman, Specter, Warner, and the rest of the 100 member Senate vote basically the same way on lower court nominees. Anyone who thinks Obama would have been the only one of 100 senators to vote against Roberts for a lower court appointee is very naive as to how such nominations work; anyone who thinks Roberts did anything from 2003 to 2005 that warranted his opposition in 2005 is dead wrong. The only difference was that he was appointed for the Supreme Court.

[LittleClarkie]

88. Isn't that an apples/oranges sort of thing

voting for a circuit court judge is quite different than voting for Supreme Court Chief Justice. I should think closer scrutiny would be warranted in the latter.

I don't see Edward's vote as relevant to the current discussion of Obama.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

93. They seem to think there will never be a Democratic president

And that we should destroy what has worked for 200+ to block every nominee by a president of the opposing party who will only nominate judges he agrees with. This is idiotic and would destroy the federal courts. It is also dumb because someday we will have a Democratic president (1/20/09 if we nominate someone who can get 270 electoral votes) and he or she will benefit from the same thing presidents have benefited from for generations.

You are exactly right. That is why someone like Feingold could vote for Roberts for a lower court but oppose him for the Supreme Court. What Obama fans are doing, as usual, is placing a priority on a vote Obama never had to cast. One has to be insane to think Obama would have been the only one out of 100 senators to vote against Roberts for a lower court.

[AtomicKitten]

39. Only DMC would slam Obama for NOT voting for Roberts ---

complaining that his reasoning wasn't pure enough, when his guy, Edwards, voted yes on Roberts in 2003 when he had the chance.

Obama no on Roberts, Edwards yes on Roberts = Obama must be crushed.

Holy sh*t this place is insane.

[Cameron27]

48. I don't know AK,

but it happens all the time. Obama votes no, Edwards votes yes, and yet he opens up a thread to slam Obama.
:yoiks:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

49. Read the thread for the answer

Besides, the real issue is not Obama's vote but the fact that he voted based on political reasons. Where was his much hyped "judgment"?

I, unlike some, have been entirely consistent (you made quite a claim--back it up with evidence...). I do not worship my candidate. Edwards voted incorrectly in committee but he was correct, like every other senator, in not voting against Roberts for the court of appeals in 2003--just like Obama (or Feingold, hatch, Durbin, Snowe, Inhofe, and every other senator) was correct to vote for 99.999999% of Bush's district and appeals court nominees. The failure of some to understand the difference between lower ct. nominees and a nominee for the SCOTUS, and the history of judicial appointments, is not my fault. Ask Obama himself and he would tell you the same basic thing I am saying as to why he--correctly--voted for 99.9% of right-wingers appointed to lower courts under a right-wing prez. :)

How many of these lower ct. nominees did Bo vote against?

Name Date of Hearing Date Confirmed

Barrett, Michael Ryan 3/29/06 5/1/06
Batten, Sr., Timothy C. 2/7/06 3/6/06
Besosa, Francisco Augusto 8/1/06 9/25/06
Bianco, Joseph Frank 11/1/05 12/21/05
Brown, Janice R. 10/23/03 6/8/05
Bumb, Renee Marie 4/25/06 6/6/06
Burgess, Timothy 11/1/05 12/21/05
Chagares, Michael 3/14/06 4/4/06
Cogan, Brian 3/29/06 5/4/06
Conrad, Robert 3/3/05 4/28/05
Cox, Sean F. 5/2/06 6/8/06
Crotty, Paul A. 11/16/04 4/11/05
Delgado-Colon, Aida M. 2/7/06 3/6/06
Dever, James 3/3/05 4/28/05
DuBose, Kristi 11/15/05 12/21/05
Gelpi, Gustavo A. 6/15/06 7/20/06
Golden, Thomas 3/29/06 5/4/06
Gordon, Leo Maury 2/7//06 3/13/06
Gorsuch, Neil M. 6/21//06 7/20/06
Griffin, Richard A. 6/16/04 6/9/05
Griffith, Thomas B. 3/8/05 6/14/05
Guilford, Andrew J. 5/24/06 6/22/06
Hillman, Noel Lawrence 4/25/06 6/8/06
Holmes, Jerome A. 6/15/06 7/25/06
Ikuta, Sandra Segal 5/2/06 6/19/06
Johnston, Thomas E. 2/7/06 3/6/06
Jordan III, Daniel Porter 6/15/06 7/20/06
Jordan, Kent A 9/6/06 12/8/06
Kavanaugh, Brett 5/9/06 5/26/06
Kendall, Virginia Mary 11/15/05 12/21/05
Larson, Stephen G. 2/15/06 3/16/06
Ludington, Thomas L 5/2/06 6/8/06
Mattice, Jr., Harry Sandlin 9/29/05 10/24/05
McKeague, David W. 6/16/04 6/9/05
Neilson, Susan Bieke 9/8/04 10/27/05
Miller, Gray 3/14/06 4/25/06
Moore, Kimberly 6/28/06 9/5/06
Owen, Priscilla Richman 3/13/03 5/25/05
Pryor, Jr., William H. 6/11/03 6/9/05
Sandoval, Brian Edward 9/29/05 10/24/05
Schiltz, Patrick Joseph 3/1/06 4/26/06
Seabright, J. Michael 11/16/04 4/27/05
Shepherd, Bobby E. 6/28/06 7/20/06
Sheridan, Peter G. 4/25/06 6/8/06
Smoak, John Richard 9/29/05 10/27/05
Smith, Milan 4/25/06 5/16/06
*Sweeney, Margaret Mary 9/29/05 10/21/05
**Tydingco-Gatewood, Frances 7/11/06 8/3/06
VanTatenhove, Gregory F. 11/1/05 12/21/05
Vitaliano, Eric Nicholas 11/1/05 12/21/05
Watkins, W. Keith 11/15/05 12/21/05
*Wheeler, Thomas Craig 9/29/05 10/21/05
Whitney, Frank DeArmon 5/24/06 6/22/06
Wigenton, Susan Davis 4/25/06 5/26/06
Zouhary, Jack 2/15/06 3/16/06

[Cameron27]

51. So you're saying that Edwards voted his conscience

when he voted yes? Be careful slamming Obama when your guy has a list of bad judgment calls, not the least of which was the IWR.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

54. He voted for a lower ct. appointment for the same reasons senators have been doing so for 200+ years

How many lower court nominees are rejected? Perhaps those diverting from the real issue should know the answer before talking about a routine vote on a guy confirmed unanimously in 2003 for a lower court...Ask Obama, who has voted for 99.9999% of lower ct. appointees even though he disagreed with 99.9999% of them on jurisprudence. :)

I am free to criticize anyone. I am not a slave to a candidate. Edwards is an adult who can speak for himself. If you want a thread to discuss Edwards feel free to post one. I don't expect one because it would be idiotic for Obama supporters to attack his record on judicial nominee for lower courts because it--correctly--is identical to Obama's (so is the voting record of the other 99 senators. Wonder why? :crazy: ).

You missed the point. The point is this: Obama voted for political reasons on a vital issue, the composition of the Supreme Court. Sound familiar? He did not vote because of his magic "judgment" we hear so often about. Obama is as big a wind sock as the rest of them. It is a shame he is marketed as a unique exception.

Ask Obama himself why he has voted for 99.9999 of right-wing lower ct. appointees he disagrees with. http://obama.senate.gov/contact/

Let me ask you and the other obfusactors a question. If Bush appoints a judge from Illinois who do you think he goes to for input? Which 2 people have de facto veto power over the nominee? Judicial appointment traditions are a two-way street--which is a major reason why senators have preserved them for genrations...

Since we are playing the game of introducing unrelated individuals to the thread. How do you think Clark would have voted on Roberts, who was confirmed unanimously for the court of appeals? Judge Griffin, who Obama and 95 others voted for in a unanimous vote? And so on.

[jefferson_dem]

66. So why then did Edwards vote YES on Roberts TWICE?

Poor judgment or politics?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

72. Senate tradition. The same reason 90+ senators did and 0 voted against him

And the same reason Obama and 90+ senators voted for dozens of right-wing judges for lower courts from 2005-2007. :)

P.S. Look at that list. Do you think any of them is from Illinois, the 5th largest state? Hear of Obama vetoing (called a "hold") on any of them? There is a good reason for that...

[jefferson_dem]

75. So you stand by your criticism of Obama for voting NO on Roberts while Edwards voted YES TWICE.

Ok... Good luck with that.

[AtomicKitten]

50. I think my personal favorite was when he --

impugned Obama's reasoning for voting AGAINST the IWR, when his guy, Edwards, voted yes. Worse, Edwards was leading the pro-war parade, writing an Op-Ed rallying support for the war that was then used as propaganda by the State Department.

How f*cked up is that?

[Cameron27]

52. It's breathtaking ROFLMAO

[jefferson_dem]

67. Or his persistent baseless smears against Obama for being DLC...only that he isn't...

while Edwards is/was a card-carrying DLCer for years.

[AtomicKitten]

70. he's a sloppy provocateur --

easily exposed for his nonsensical Rovian attacks on Obama's strengths, reduced to impugning Obama's REASONING for casting the RIGHT VOTE when his candidate cast the WRONG VOTE.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

73. Giving money to 72% of the Senate DLC is not a "smear". The DLC is part of the party nt

[jefferson_dem]

60. Edwards YES twice on Roberts.

It's a shame that even needs to be pointed out. Since the poster seems intent on conjuring up trumped up smears against Obama, I guess that's what we're left with.

[robinlynne]

44. shit. How could he even consider voting for Roberts. We all knew what that

would do for our country. THAT IS THE IMPORTANT thing. We worked so hard calling them (senators) to make sure they didn't vote for him. So he does not listen to our calls?

[AtomicKitten]

53. Obama voted AGAINST Roberts.

You do understand that, right?

[robinlynne]

56. yes I do. And I understand that his inclination was to vote for him, but a poltical

advisor said not to for political reasons. That saddens me. extremely disappointing.
edited to add:

It tells me that he is not a Boxer or Conyers who votes because of strong beliefs in what is right, and what is best for us.

[AtomicKitten]

58. fwiw

It tells me that Obama deliberates over his votes.

That's a good thing.

And he voted the way we would construe as correct, and that's really the bottom line. DMC likes to impugn Obama's reasoning for voting correctly while the candidate he favors votes incorrectly. Can you explain the logic and justice in that? You can't because what he is doing is Karl Rove 101, attacking an opponent's strength. It's always good to be discerning about some of the crap posted here.

Cheers.

[William769]

59. He licks his finger to see which way the wind is blowing. NT

[AtomicKitten]

64. Obama does his homework.

And that's a good thing. I'm not fond of knee-jerk decisions. I want my representatives to mull over their decisions.

And, again, Obama has stood against much of what your candidate has supported (the war, etc.).

Impugning Obama's reasoning (as reported in the MSM so that's suspect) for the making the RIGHT decisions, especially when your candidate has consistently made some pretty egregious decisions, is the epitome of desperation. Seriously. Best stay clear of this kind of side-by-side comparison.

On edit: "Licks his finger and sticks it in the wind." Seriously? That is so freeper-esque, dude. I know you're better than that. Just because people support different Democratic candidates doesn't mean we're at war.

[wyldwolf]

71. He's a bot - needs people to tell him what to do. Think he'll hire Bob Shrum?

[AtomicKitten]

74. Lame. (nt)

[jefferson_dem]

77. LOL!

Priceless bit of projection... :rofl:

[wyldwolf]

83. Projection? When have the Clintons ever enlisted Bob Shrum?

[Adelante]

101. Wasn't Shrum Bill's speechwriter for years?

Or am I remembering wrong?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

78. WW, can you tell us whether 99.99999% of Clinton appointees to lower courts sailed through...

Do you recall a series of Clinton district court judges being voted down by Republicans, or being confirmed in close 57-43 votes? Or did they all get through as easily as nominees have for the 200+ years.

[wyldwolf]

81. I recall Al Franken repeatedly making the point the GOP held up Clinton appoitees.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

84. That is part of the story. Once a judge gets a vote he/she easily gets confirmed

What Franken was referring to was a different tactic by which every term a few of the worst judges (i.e. Pickering from a few years ago) are singled out for being denied a vote. Clinton had as many judges confirmed as Ronald Reagan, give or take one or two.

[jefferson_dem]

63. Bullshit. Obama exercised good judgment...and voted NO.

What kind of world is it where Obama get criticized for voting NO on Roberts, while the candidate supported by the one levying the criticism voted YES on the him...TWICE?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

76. He exercised political calculation--exactly what he is marketed as being above

==What kind of world is it ==

It is called the United States Senate. Where have you been on the dozens of right-wingers Obama has voted for? Using your own logic the only candidates we can trust on judicial appointments are Richardson and Kucincih, simply because they have never had to cast a vote on a judge. So will you now switch your support to Richardson?

[AtomicKitten]

80. the opposite of good judgment is Hill's & Edwards' YES votes on the IWR

I hope this helps. Clearly you are confused.

[TwilightGardener]

92. They ALL exercise political calculation, to some degree. They are POLITICIANS! In the end,

he made the right choice--THAT is what's important.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

94. Exactly--but he is falsley marketed as being above this nt

[Bodhi BloodWave]

99. I have 2 simple questions for you

1: Should a politician ask for advice from others?

2: Should the said politician if given good advice change his stance or adopt parts of the advice all depending?

This is an in general question, not about one politician specific

[zulchzulu]

105. He did vote NO, but some people live in a parallel universe...so...

...in their universe, he voted YES.

See?

:think: :think: :think: :think: :think:

[Lord Helmet]

104. I don't get your reasoning.

He voted against him so that's bad? Maybe you should lay off the bong.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

107. Lay off the bong and then I'll explain it to you

It is simple. On an issue as important as a Supreme Court nominee Obama, who touts his judgment, voted based on political calculation, not "judgement."

[rufus dog]

108. In your twisted opinion Sean!

By the way that is my new nickname for you, anyone who spins like Sean with no regard for truth or hypocracy becomes a Sean.

Hi Sean!

:hi: