I'm hearing this more and more about Bush appontees.

Yeah, I actually don’t debate your first two assertions, but your unspoken premise is that Bush is spinning things more than previous administrations. As quick examples so early in the morning, I can think of how we’re supposed to be in an environmental wasteland, overpopulated and starving, and completely out of oil today according the Carter administration. Also, most people feel that the Waco incident had overly contrived justifications for the destruction of that ultra-rightwing compound full of kooks.

I’m fairly certain if you only read left-wing newspapers, you’ll get an impression that Bush is worse.

As to the first two assertions leading to the conclusion that his appointees will allow him to do whatever he wants, that’s a stretch. Unless, of course, GW wants to do only conservative things and a conservative judge will rule in a conservative way… allowing conservatives to have in their own conservative way.:wink: I know liberals react with horror to something like that… but it’s all within the rules, something liberals don’t like either.


I don’t recall such a prediction- do you have a cite?

Again, how do you know how “most people” felt?

It is quite possible to discuss matters rationally without resorting to smearing those with opposing viewpoints. You may wish to try it sometime.

I need no left-wing media to draw this conclusion. Reality is sufficient.

This is going to surprise you but there aren’t any such rules. Neither conservatives or liberals or Republicans or Democrats get to “own” the legal system. Judges are supposed to obey the law not advance the political agenda of the politicians that appointed them.

Evidence that R.B.G. is “far left”?

Well, you seem to be proving that point that listening to right-leaning sources…or even the mainstream media…leaves one lacking in basic facts. You seem to be bothered by the fact that Democrats have used the filibuster against a few of Bush’s most extreme nominees, thus allowing 41 votes to block confirmation. However, I guess you are blissfully unaware of how the “blue slip” process operated during the Clinton Administration during the time when the Republicans controlled the Senate. Basically, they gave home-state Senators a veto over having Clinton appointees ever getting a vote. Blocking a nomination with 41 votes is a lot fairer than blocking a nomination because one extremist Senator like Jesse Helms is single-handedly vetoing the President’s nominees. (In the circuit that included North Carolina, Helms blocked several nominees…essentially holding vacancies on that circuit hostage.)

Here and here are some discussions of how judicial nominees were treated in the Clinton era: