We might have to just agree to disagree. But I think your argument would have more weight if the Rs didn't respond the exact same way when the next D came into office.
They behave the same way with Obama because the entire tone shifted with Clinton. Now it is politics as usual to behave this way, and frankly, Ds contributed to the poisoned atmosphere with how they handled Bork. We see this all the time - politicians lower the bar for what constitutes acceptable behavior, and everyone sinks to this level going forward. The tone of collegiality that existed under Tip O'Neill died when he left, and there really was a sea change with Clinton. The phrase "the politics of personal destruction" found life during this era.
I wasn't politically aware for Bork so my first person knowledge is very much nil. But if this wiki entry is accurate, I can see why the Dems fought hard:
"President Reagan nominated Bork for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on July 1, 1987 to replace Lewis Powell. A hotly contested United States Senate debate over Bork's nomination ensued. Opposition was partly fueled by civil rights and women's rights groups concerned with Bork's opposition to the authority claimed by the federal government to impose standards of voting fairness upon the states (at his confirmation hearings for the position of Solicitor General, he supported the rights of Southern states to impose a poll tax),[19] and his stated desire to roll back civil rights decisions of the Warren and Burger courts. Bork was one of only three Supreme Court nominees, along with William Rehnquist and Samuel Alito, to ever be opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union.[20] Bork was also criticized for being an "advocate of disproportionate powers for the executive branch of Government, almost executive supremacy",[15] most notably, according to critics, for his role in the Saturday Night Massacre."
All I know is I have been alive through two democratic presidencies and in each one the Rs have behaved abysmally.
Post by jillboston on Jul 26, 2014 11:25:03 GMT -5
I was in college during the Bork nomination. I think Reagan overreached with that appointment attempt. Bork was a very controversial figure. The Saturday Night Massacre occurred when Nixon wanted Archibald Cox fired as the Watergate special prosecutor and his A.G. Richardson and the Deputy A.G. Ruckelshaus both resigned rather than fire Cox. Nixon then turned to Bork (the Solicitor General) who fired Cox.
Do you not remember the visceral hatred of Clinton at the time? People talk about how much folks hate Obama now, but Clinton had it just as bad, albeit for different reasons. He is the reason the entire Republican war machine is what it is today. They *despised* him, and on a personal level. Republican politics under Newt Gingrich was pure blood sport.
yeah, and I never really got that.
as a progressive D, I always thought that Clinton was closer to the R's than they liked to admit... and I didn't really get the personal animosity.
Unless it all related back to class. This upstart from rural Arkansas, who had the audacity to get himself edumucated and was trying to break into the marble halls???
I'm skeptical of the hatred of Clinton pertaining to class. Isn't Clinton's life story pretty bootstrappy?
They behave the same way with Obama because the entire tone shifted with Clinton. Now it is politics as usual to behave this way, and frankly, Ds contributed to the poisoned atmosphere with how they handled Bork. We see this all the time - politicians lower the bar for what constitutes acceptable behavior, and everyone sinks to this level going forward. The tone of collegiality that existed under Tip O'Neill died when he left, and there really was a sea change with Clinton. The phrase "the politics of personal destruction" found life during this era.
I wasn't politically aware for Bork so my first person knowledge is very much nil. But if this wiki entry is accurate, I can see why the Dems fought hard:
"President Reagan nominated Bork for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on July 1, 1987 to replace Lewis Powell. A hotly contested United States Senate debate over Bork's nomination ensued. Opposition was partly fueled by civil rights and women's rights groups concerned with Bork's opposition to the authority claimed by the federal government to impose standards of voting fairness upon the states (at his confirmation hearings for the position of Solicitor General, he supported the rights of Southern states to impose a poll tax),[19] and his stated desire to roll back civil rights decisions of the Warren and Burger courts. Bork was one of only three Supreme Court nominees, along with William Rehnquist and Samuel Alito, to ever be opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union.[20] Bork was also criticized for being an "advocate of disproportionate powers for the executive branch of Government, almost executive supremacy",[15] most notably, according to critics, for his role in the Saturday Night Massacre."
All I know is I have been alive through two democratic presidencies and in each one the Rs have behaved abysmally.
Regardless of how you feel about Bork, and I agree with jill that his nomination was probably intentionally provocative, the fact is that he was the first SCOTUS nominee to be treated like this, and it kick-started the entire contentious, ugly SCOTUS nomination process we have today.
as a progressive D, I always thought that Clinton was closer to the R's than they liked to admit... and I didn't really get the personal animosity.
Unless it all related back to class. This upstart from rural Arkansas, who had the audacity to get himself edumucated and was trying to break into the marble halls???
I'm skeptical of the hatred of Clinton pertaining to class. Isn't Clinton's life story pretty bootstrappy?
Yes, but remember that these were your father's Republicans, not the Pat Buchanan/Tea Party/populist Republicans. Plus, he was a dirty, lying philanderer who wasn't a good Christian.
It's just Republican chatter among the angrier folks. I really don't think it's worthy of attention at this point.
lg28 The movement towards it at this point is on executive order changes to Obamacare (employer mandates). The House recently voted on Boehner's suit against the President based on this issue. Passed on party lines. IIOY - I have to respectfully disagree. CNN polled it last week - 57% of Republicans are for impeachment. If the GOP wins the Senate in November it will happen IMHO.
Can someone explain to me like I'm five why the GOP is wild about Obama postponing the employer mandate portion of the law? I mean, I get that they don't like his use of executive orders, and that's a fair conversation to have because modern presidents on both sides abuse them, but why is this particular executive order the one they are using for that stupid lawsuit, and now to rumble about impeachment?
It seems like it favors many of their constituents. I don't get the strategy here.
lg28 The movement towards it at this point is on executive order changes to Obamacare (employer mandates). The House recently voted on Boehner's suit against the President based on this issue. Passed on party lines. IIOY - I have to respectfully disagree. CNN polled it last week - 57% of Republicans are for impeachment. If the GOP wins the Senate in November it will happen IMHO.
Can someone explain to me like I'm five why the GOP is wild about Obama postponing the employer mandate portion of the law? I mean, I get that they don't like his use of executive orders, and that's a fair conversation to have because modern presidents on both sides abuse them, but why is this particular executive order the one they are using for that stupid lawsuit, and now to rumble about impeachment?
It seems like it favors many of their constituents. I don't get the strategy here.
Appeasement of the base is the only thing I can think of. They needed something and anything to do with Obamacare is a bonus.
Can someone explain to me like I'm five why the GOP is wild about Obama postponing the employer mandate portion of the law? I mean, I get that they don't like his use of executive orders, and that's a fair conversation to have because modern presidents on both sides abuse them, but why is this particular executive order the one they are using for that stupid lawsuit, and now to rumble about impeachment?
It seems like it favors many of their constituents. I don't get the strategy here.
Appeasement of the base is the only thing I can think of. They needed something and anything to do with Obamacare is a bonus.
Talk about biting off your nose to spite your face.
I think this is why the move looks so desperate. I cannot figure out what they "win" by pushing this particular issue.
Post by redheadbaker on Jul 26, 2014 12:15:58 GMT -5
I'm only on page 1 but how can anyone believe healthcare is a privilege and not a right (the government doesn't owe us healthcare)
How can you look another human being on the eye and say, well, you got cancer, but you happen to work in a job without health care benefits, so sucks to be you?
I wasn't politically aware for Bork so my first person knowledge is very much nil. But if this wiki entry is accurate, I can see why the Dems fought hard:
"President Reagan nominated Bork for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on July 1, 1987 to replace Lewis Powell. A hotly contested United States Senate debate over Bork's nomination ensued. Opposition was partly fueled by civil rights and women's rights groups concerned with Bork's opposition to the authority claimed by the federal government to impose standards of voting fairness upon the states (at his confirmation hearings for the position of Solicitor General, he supported the rights of Southern states to impose a poll tax),[19] and his stated desire to roll back civil rights decisions of the Warren and Burger courts. Bork was one of only three Supreme Court nominees, along with William Rehnquist and Samuel Alito, to ever be opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union.[20] Bork was also criticized for being an "advocate of disproportionate powers for the executive branch of Government, almost executive supremacy",[15] most notably, according to critics, for his role in the Saturday Night Massacre."
All I know is I have been alive through two democratic presidencies and in each one the Rs have behaved abysmally.
Regardless of how you feel about Bork, and I agree with jill that his nomination was probably intentionally provocative, the fact is that he was the first SCOTUS nominee to be treated like this, and it kick-started the entire contentious, ugly SCOTUS nomination process we have today.
This seems to be a matter of spin. Because you could also say it's the first time a president nominated someone intentionally provocative.
For me, the dislike of Clinton didn't have anything to do with his rural upbringing.
Are you going to tell us?
Sorry for the delay. There may or may not have been a snake in my yard and I was freaking the hell out.
I really don't get into political arguments, but I wanted to stand up for my side. Just as anything a Republican says is like nails on a chalkboard to a Democrat, I feel the same about the other side. I found Clinton to be smug and starstruck. The people I know who have met him say he is charming as hell and has an incredible charisma about him.
I find very little common ground with Democrats, and I get easily annoyed when blanketed statements are made by both sides.
Re: the original post....I hope the Rs don't go forward with an impeachment and it's all just talk. No one wins.
I'm only on page 1 but how can anyone believe healthcare is a privilege and not a right (the government doesn't owe us healthcare)
How can you look another human being on the eye and say, well, you got cancer, but you happen to work in a job without health care benefits, so sucks to be you?
I believe that us where private charities come in.
Except private charities are not obligated to help everyone. So if you are gay and have cancer and the only private charity is run by Christians, they can deny you help.
Regardless of how you feel about Bork, and I agree with jill that his nomination was probably intentionally provocative, the fact is that he was the first SCOTUS nominee to be treated like this, and it kick-started the entire contentious, ugly SCOTUS nomination process we have today.
This seems to be a matter of spin. Because you could also say it's the first time a president nominated someone intentionally provocative.
LOL, no. This was not the first controversial SCOTUS nominee. He was just the first of the modern era to be, well, Borked.
sorry I forgot to the connect the thoughts. Because she "shouldn't" want Al Gore in office as president to run as an incumbent in 2000. Her thinking was that was part of the reason the Rs couldnt "pull it off" - because there was a divide in the R party and a lot didnt actually want Clinton removed - the impeachment was all fine and dandy, but actual removal would not have been in the interests of the republicans.
of course a lot has changed since then
He was impeached. She wanted him impeached. And if he had truly done someone wrong I'm guessing she would have wanted him removed. Ergo, he didn't actually do something wrong. So why did she want him impeached?
She's speaking out of both sides of her mouth. And her thinking is strange.
No, she's not. The teacher said she wanted him to be impeached, BUT if she were a "true" Republican - which she evidently didn't regard herself as - she probably shouldn't want to see him impeached because it would only benefit the Democrats.
So, how is she speaking out both sides of her mouth? She gave her own opinion on the impeachment and an analysis of the outcome for Republicans if he were impeached.
It was a political discussion we had outside of class. It was by far the least controversial thing said by a teacher at my small catholic high school.
I'm glad she didn't say it in class. I just can't believe she thought that a lie in a trumped up private lawsuit about sex should remove a sitting President. of any party.
Your viewpoint is marvelously inconsistent.
You are horrified that a teacher would teach her students that some feel that applying the rules matter only if they benefit your side.
But you are equally horrified that anyone, you know, expected the president to follow the law regarding perjury.
Which is it?
On second thought, maybe your viewpoint is perfectly consistent: everything about politics horrifies you.
Post by lasagnasshole on Jul 26, 2014 13:25:04 GMT -5
Also, I'm LOLing that some in the GOP are losing their shit over the use of executive orders. Because if IIOY's theory is correct, the current political climate traces back to the rejection of Bork, who believed in expansive executive power.
Post by mominatrix on Jul 26, 2014 13:55:42 GMT -5
...Bork was dead in the water because of his role in the Saturday Night Massacre. There were too many people who remembered Watergate to let that go. The rest of it was icing on the cake.
LOL, no. This was not the first controversial SCOTUS nominee. He was just the first of the modern era to be, well, Borked.
Who else was picked to be not just controversial but intentionally provocative?
There are a number of individuals nominated by Presidents who were known to the Presidents of being controversial. My knowledge of pre-20th Century nominees is poor, although I'm sure there are several, but in the 20th, I can think of Louis Brandeis, Abe Fortas, and Harold Carswell.
I actually don't think Reagan picked Bork *only* to be provocative. I think Reagan picked Bork because he believed in his positions. The difference with Bork was that a mass media effort was launched against him by liberals to sink his nomination. We can agree that he was probably a terrible nominee, especially for women, and still acknowledge that there was a massive campaign against him like no other that is now replicated with each nominee. There is no need to take my word for this, though; Bork is used by most scholars as a dividing line in how SCOTUS nominees are treated. ETA: or just read the NPR article Momi posted.
I don't think Harriet Miers was known or even suspected to be controversial prior to her pick, or at least I don't recall anything particularly controversial about her positions. If anything, she was selected because of her sex in the hope of *not* being controversial because she was replacing O'Connor. Unfortunately her qualifications were questionable at best. Womp womp.
Also, I'm LOLing that some in the GOP are losing their shit over the use of executive orders. Because if IIOY's theory is correct, the current political climate traces back to the rejection of Bork, who believed in expansive executive power.
Didn't he also believe in legalized pot? I seem to recall thinking that at least he had that going for him.
Who else was picked to be not just controversial but intentionally provocative?
There are a number of individuals nominated by Presidents who were known to the Presidents of being controversial. My knowledge of pre-20th Century nominees is poor, although I'm sure there are several, but in the 20th, I can think of Louis Brandeis, Abe Fortas, and Harold Carswell.
I actually don't think Reagan picked Bork *only* to be provocative. I think Reagan picked Bork because he believed in his positions. The difference with Bork was that a mass media effort was launched against him by liberals to sink his nomination. We can agree that he was probably a terrible nominee, especially for women, and still acknowledge that there was a massive campaign against him like no other that is now replicated with each nominee. There is no need to take my word for this, though; Bork is used by most scholars as a dividing line in how SCOTUS nominees are treated. ETA: or just read the NPR article Momi posted.
I don't think Harriet Miers was known or even suspected to be controversial prior to her pick, or at least I don't recall anything particularly controversial about her positions. If anything, she was selected because of her sex in the hope of *not* being controversial because she was replacing O'Connor. Unfortunately her qualifications were questionable at best. Womp womp.
Yes.
And she turned out to be far, far more controversial to the right than the left. I had a friend that did communications for a prominent national left-leaning organization that regularly speaks out on judicial nominations, and their strategy was radio silence and to let the right eat their own on that one. Which they did.
Who else was picked to be not just controversial but intentionally provocative?
There are a number of individuals nominated by Presidents who were known to the Presidents of being controversial. My knowledge of pre-20th Century nominees is poor, although I'm sure there are several, but in the 20th, I can think of Louis Brandeis, Abe Fortas, and Harold Carswell.
I actually don't think Reagan picked Bork *only* to be provocative. I think Reagan picked Bork because he believed in his positions. The difference with Bork was that a mass media effort was launched against him by liberals to sink his nomination. We can agree that he was probably a terrible nominee, especially for women, and still acknowledge that there was a massive campaign against him like no other that is now replicated with each nominee. There is no need to take my word for this, though; Bork is used by most scholars as a dividing line in how SCOTUS nominees are treated. ETA: or just read the NPR article Momi posted.
I don't think Harriet Miers was known or even suspected to be controversial prior to her pick, or at least I don't recall anything particularly controversial about her positions. If anything, she was selected because of her sex in the hope of *not* being controversial because she was replacing O'Connor. Unfortunately her qualifications were questionable at best. Womp womp.
I thought her lack of qualifications were the controversy?
Who else was picked to be not just controversial but intentionally provocative?
harriet miers?
Bush did quite a few dumbass things when he was president but this right here was the most dumbassy of all. It was the conservative R's who killed that - the Dems couldn't stop laughing long enough to object.
...Bork was dead in the water because of his role in the Saturday Night Massacre. There were too many people who remembered Watergate to let that go. The rest of it was icing on the cake.
As he should have been IMHO. You don't pull illegal power grabs like that and then want to be on the SCOTUS - nope, sorry.
There are a number of individuals nominated by Presidents who were known to the Presidents of being controversial. My knowledge of pre-20th Century nominees is poor, although I'm sure there are several, but in the 20th, I can think of Louis Brandeis, Abe Fortas, and Harold Carswell.
I actually don't think Reagan picked Bork *only* to be provocative. I think Reagan picked Bork because he believed in his positions. The difference with Bork was that a mass media effort was launched against him by liberals to sink his nomination. We can agree that he was probably a terrible nominee, especially for women, and still acknowledge that there was a massive campaign against him like no other that is now replicated with each nominee. There is no need to take my word for this, though; Bork is used by most scholars as a dividing line in how SCOTUS nominees are treated. ETA: or just read the NPR article Momi posted.
I don't think Harriet Miers was known or even suspected to be controversial prior to her pick, or at least I don't recall anything particularly controversial about her positions. If anything, she was selected because of her sex in the hope of *not* being controversial because she was replacing O'Connor. Unfortunately her qualifications were questionable at best. Womp womp.
I thought her lack of qualifications were the controversy?
But Bush didn't nominate her because he wanted a controversy about her qualifications in the way, say, Reagan nominated Bork because he wanted a controversy over his positions on abortion and other issues.
If anything, Harriet Miers was probably one of the only nominees whose nomination was driven first and foremost by good will, not by politics or a desire to be controversial.