Don’t have a link to the periodic GOP contentions that the Federal bench is dangerously understaffed, and the Dems are blocking efforts to fill those seats. But you’ve all seen them.
At any rate, according to Time:
And this is despite the large-scale blocking of Clinton’s nominations during the late 1990s. Looks to me like the Dems are being more than kind to Bush’s nominees, by recent standards.
Dunno that there’s really a debate here, but since this contrary-to-the-conventional-wisdom factoid relates to politically contentious issues, this seemed to me like the right choice of forum.
RTFirefly, at the very least you could have ended your OP with a december-like taunt: “Are there any honorable Republicans out there who will denounce these distorted statements and manipulative tactics coming from their representatives?”, or somesuch.
Damn, you’re right, rjung! I knew I forgot something. Consider my OP appropriately amended.
Yes, Virginia, there are some honorable Republicans. They are the ones who recognize the need for change, but urge caution and care. They are embarassed to see their party stand for schoolrooms that only pause in the study of Creationism for hourly displays of rote patriotism.
Is it so very, very difficult to advance moderate conservatives for positions on the bench? Is the field of qualified candidates people entirely by reactionaries of the Rehnquist/Scalia stripe?
If the Bush Admin. wants to fill the judiciary slots, they could do it tomorrow. All GeeDubya need do is behave like the centrist he claimed to be when he pandered for our vote.
(Does Bob Jones U. have a law school?)
Remember how Dubya ran against the intense partisanship of the Clinton era? “I’m a uniter, not a divider.” Ha. Ha.
He hasn’t vetoed any bills yet, and he’s gotten almost everything he wants. That’s a uniter. You may not like him, but being liked isn’t all that necessary.
Let’s see: if you get everything you want, even by 51-49 margins, that makes you a ‘uniter’? What a fetid, steaming, miserable pile of crap! When one party holds a razor-thin majority in both houses of Congress, and uses it to shove its agenda down the throats of the other half of the country, that’s not ‘uniting’ in any sense that doesn’t come with jackboots.
The veto argument is equally ridiculous: if the President’s party controls even one house of Congress, he shouldn’t need to veto any bills.