You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #36: And for the record Bush got way more nominees appointed than did Clinton. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-30-06 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #32
36. And for the record Bush got way more nominees appointed than did Clinton.
But we should be noble and allow the judiciary to be effected for generations to come?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Someone please give me a coherent argument WHY filibuster was saracat  Jan-30-06 10:17 PM   #0 
  - Haven't heard a feasible argument yet from  mmonk   Jan-30-06 10:20 PM   #1 
  - All I hear is that they would "lose their seats", and I say why? The polls  saracat   Jan-30-06 10:25 PM   #4 
     - And I say who cares?  lastliberalintexas   Jan-30-06 10:50 PM   #28 
  - I'll let ya know what Cant - do -well says  oldtime dfl_er   Jan-30-06 10:23 PM   #2 
  - Well, three said they were voting for the douche  GRLMGC   Jan-30-06 10:25 PM   #3 
  - Because 19 Dem Senators sold out to the Republicans.  FormerRepublican   Jan-30-06 10:27 PM   #5 
  - His/Her constituents  Taoschick   Jan-30-06 10:28 PM   #6 
  - Whaat? Whose constituants wanted this?  saracat   Jan-30-06 10:32 PM   #7 
  - Wrong. Except for four Democrats, the others are voting against Alito. n/t  ProSense   Jan-30-06 10:33 PM   #9 
  - Civil rights, environmental law, labor law,  gumby   Jan-30-06 10:34 PM   #10 
  - How do you know they voted for their constituents  lyonn   Jan-30-06 10:36 PM   #11 
  - Whose constituents would not have wanted to continue the debate?  leftstreet   Jan-30-06 10:37 PM   #15 
  - and whose fault is that?  Taoschick   Jan-30-06 10:47 PM   #25 
     - Now that's a damn fine point!  leftstreet   Jan-30-06 11:59 PM   #42 
  - The constitution and people's rights  mmonk   Jan-30-06 10:41 PM   #20 
  - Except that there are some things which are national issues  lastliberalintexas   Jan-30-06 10:48 PM   #26 
  - Whew. I'm with ya  RazzleDazzle   Jan-30-06 10:33 PM   #8 
  - no ONE would be able to give you a coherent reason  seabeyond   Jan-30-06 10:37 PM   #12 
  - On my C-Span TV screen...  Wheezy   Jan-30-06 10:37 PM   #13 
  - because they thought that public support for a filibuster was not there  orangepeel68   Jan-30-06 10:37 PM   #14 
  - There IS no coherent argument!  stillrockin   Jan-30-06 10:38 PM   #16 
  - Not so much unattainable, but unmaintainable.  Daftly   Jan-30-06 10:38 PM   #17 
  - The nuclear option was not popular with people either  lyonn   Jan-30-06 10:44 PM   #23 
  - error in your assumption  leftofthedial   Jan-30-06 10:39 PM   #18 
  - corporate interests like Alito and they count more than us  yurbud   Jan-30-06 10:40 PM   #19 
  - Can't give you one -- I see no logic in it  Armstead   Jan-30-06 10:41 PM   #21 
  - Reid didn't want it and didn't push it. n/t  wisteria   Jan-30-06 10:42 PM   #22 
  - Its my belief that elections have consequences.  tritsofme   Jan-30-06 10:46 PM   #24 
  - If you don't think a filibuster is justified,  mmonk   Jan-30-06 10:50 PM   #27 
  - Wow! This is what you think?????  saracat   Jan-30-06 10:53 PM   #29 
  - This is what I have always thought.  tritsofme   Jan-30-06 11:00 PM   #32 
  - And for the record Bush got way more nominees appointed than did Clinton.  saracat   Jan-30-06 11:11 PM   #36 
  - They also had the luxury of being the majority  tritsofme   Jan-30-06 11:14 PM   #40 
  - I suspect Senator Byrd voted the way did because of similar reasoning.  Tatiana   Jan-31-06 12:02 AM   #43 
  - That's not fair  sandnsea   Jan-30-06 11:01 PM   #33 
  - I agree  Dagaz   Jan-30-06 10:55 PM   #30 
  - Wow - you just repeated the GOP's line word for word  WildEyedLiberal   Jan-30-06 10:57 PM   #31 
     - Its the truth.  tritsofme   Jan-30-06 11:02 PM   #34 
        - So if an election is stolen you have no problem with the illegal selection  saracat   Jan-30-06 11:10 PM   #35 
           - I dont ascribe to the theory  tritsofme   Jan-30-06 11:12 PM   #37 
              - Of you don't but what if any election were?  saracat   Jan-30-06 11:14 PM   #38 
                 - I think that Gore would have been president after 2000.  tritsofme   Jan-30-06 11:17 PM   #41 
  - I got a "classic" response from Hilary, telling me to address my future  zann725   Jan-30-06 11:14 PM   #39 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC