Why Do Liberals Get to Block Conservative Appointees & Not the Other Way?

Judge Robert Bork for one. Borg had basically a flawless legal and judicial background for the U.S. Supreme Court but liberal Senators like Ted Kennedy basically slandered him until Democratic Senators refused to confirm him.

They even used the term "Borking" to describe what happened.

 

Before Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell's expected retirement on June 27, 1987, some Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form "a solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace him, assuming it would tilt the court rightward. [22] Democrats also warned Reagan there would be a fight if Bork were nominated.[23] Nevertheless, Reagan nominated Bork for the seat on July 1, 1987.

 

`
From what I have read, Bork would have been Scalia on steroids, even for his time. - Robert Bork Supreme Court nomination

 

So. Reagan had been elected and reelected by staggering landslides. Didn't that give him the right to put who he wanted on the Supreme Court?

That argument has been made here (minus the landslides) regarding current situation.

 

Do you know Gene Pratter is? She was nominated for the US Court of Appeals in November 2007. The Chairman of the Judicial committee was Patrick Leahy (D). He promised to block her nomination for the rest of the 110th Congress (over a year). So what was that about liberals allowing a vote?

Of course today Leahy is singing a different tune, "It would be a sheer dereliction of duty for the Senate not to have a hearing, not to have a vote." Hypocrite.

By the way Pratter was confirmed previously 98-0 for a District Court nomination.

 

Because the reporters are all George McGovern, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid liberals.

It's not new. It's been that way at least since the 1960's. I don't know how it was before that.

 

good straight thinking men, there, got a problem with such actual thinking?

 

I just hope that the GOP has the balls to fight any nominee that Obama puts forward. In other words, fight the way that the left does...viciously. No holds barred.

 

He was considered one of the best legal minds of the 20th century. But Kennedy said in "Robert Bork's world, blacks would still be picking cotton", etc.

- - - Updated - - -

They're crazy radicals, out of the political mainstream.

 

They never have before. They've always melted under the heat of the radical left wing media.

It will be very interesting to see what happens. There will be no middle ground compromise; either they confirm an Obama nominee or they don't.

 

Can you give examples of where liberals say this or is it just another conservative straw man?

 

so i dont want a judge from obama clinton rubio or bush.

i want one from sanders or trump

I want lessig

 

There's a double standard in the media. Republicans are "caught" for minor offenses and Democrat scandals are not covered at all. Everyone knows this. To deny it makes one look foolish.

 

Pay more attention to the world.

Your prediction is the one rooted in delusion

 

only to a very marginalized and fading portion of this country, hate and ignorance is unsustainable

nobody is as sick rad wrong as fox and am radio

wrong, we catch the big ones too

oh my, I am SO chastened!

 

Uh ... You realize Bork turned out to be a nut job, right?

He grew increasingly bizarre. His last book, "Slouching toward Gomorrah", was basically filled with conspiracy theories -- including the idea that evolution is a liberal plot.

Never mind things like he was promised a SCOTUS seat by Nixon because he was willing to commit the "Saturday Night Massacre" and fire the special prosecutor investigating Nixon.

History makes clear that keeping Bork off the Supreme Court was a gift to the country, for reasons having nothing to do with ideology.

 

Nope just corrected.

Sorry but Sanders is whipping hillary.

Unfortunately he has no chance in hell in the general election.

 

Typical liberal dreck. At the time of his nomination, Bork was considered one of the finest legal minds in the country.

there was no reason, as in NONE, for Bork to be rejected by the U.S. Senate.

 

except that he had that aire of... stink, to him, just a feeling, that and his record

 

Are you kidding?

Besides the excreble Nixon connection, Bork had:

-- supported the legality of Jim Crow poll taxes;
-- Argued that the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection shouldn't apply to women;
-- Condemned parts of the Civil Rights Act that banned discrimination in public accommodations;
-- Argued that free speech really only applied to political speech;
-- Did not believe in a right to privacy, beyond unreasonable search and seizure
-- Argued that the government had no more right to regulate industries that pollute the air than it does to regulate married couples' use of contraceptives

He was an extremist and provocateur his entire career. He only got more extreme as he got older. It was his temperament, not his technical legal ability, that kept him off the court.

 

`
This has nothing to do with Bork but I thank you anyways for your response.
`
`
`
`

 

Had Bork been confirmed …
*shudder* ..

 

I watched the Senate hearings …

Bork was fabulously arrogant, among his other failings …

 

Try reading things other than the daily koz.

 

Yeah, what a joke.

That guy needed a barber.