# The Latest Republican huff over a recess appointment. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 15, 2010, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-latest-republican-huff-over-a-recess-appointment/546748 "2010-07-15T04:33:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-latest-republican-huff-over-a-recess-appointment/546748/21 "2010-07-15T22:20:07Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I’m looking for the list and note you are restricting this to the Appeals court (why I do not know). > [@Jas09](#): > > It seems likely you already know the answer, since you are limiting it to appellate court nominations. Um… I limited it to appellate court nominations because of this line: > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > \*President Bush has had 57 nominees for the **U.S. Court of Appeals**. Five never received hearings. Of the 52 who did, 42 have been confirmed, but 10 were blocked by Democrats’ use of the filibuster to prevent a floor vote. Three of these nominees subsequently withdrew from consideration, but seven others have returned for renomination in the current Congress. So what’s the new claim? All judicial nominees? Before I spend another hour on that list, let’s lock it down. Is the claim that of all judicial nominations made during their respective years in office, Clinton had more blocked than Bush? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-latest-republican-huff-over-a-recess-appointment/546748/22 "2010-07-15T22:32:51Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I’m looking for the list and note you are restricting this to the Appeals court (why I do not know). Why not all judicial nominations? > > As backup in the meantime perhaps you will accept a cite with multiple cites in it: My problem with this is that without names to count up, we’re left with multiple sources that don’t explain their numbers, leading me to suspect that they all derive from the same suspect quote somewhere. We saw a similar phenomenon a while back with a claim that a conviction for public urination can lead to registration as a sex offender. There were dozens of cites that repeated this claim. But apparently all of them were quoting a single report, from Human Rights Watch. And when the footnotes supporting that claim in that report were examined, it became apparent that HRW had overstated their case considerably. So with all due respect to [democrats.senate.gov](http://democrats.senate.gov) and [mediamatters.org](http://mediamatters.org), I have to say that if there are really 60 rejected nominees, it shouldn’t be too hard to put names to them. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-latest-republican-huff-over-a-recess-appointment/546748/23 "2010-07-15T22:42:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So with all due respect to [democrats.senate.gov](http://democrats.senate.gov) and [mediamatters.org](http://mediamatters.org), I have to say that if there are really 60 rejected nominees, it shouldn’t be too hard to put names to them. OK, I named the 23 appeals court ones. Here are 45 district court nominees: > [@wikipedia](#): > > ``` > * United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico > o Anabelle Rodriguez (judgeship later filled by Clinton nominee Jay A. Garcia-Gregory)[3] > > * United States District Court for the Northern District of New York > o Clarence J. Sundram (judgeship later filled by Clinton nominee David N. Hurd) > > * United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania > o Frederica Massiah-Jackson, followed by Robert A. Freedberg (judgeship later filled by Clinton nominee Petrese B. Tucker) > o Legrome D. Davis (judgeship later filled by Davis himself, when he was renominated by George W. Bush in 2002) > o S. David Fineman (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Cynthia M. Rufe) > o Stephen B. Lieberman (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Timothy J. Savage) > > * United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania > o Patrick J. Toole (judgeship later filled by Clinton nominee A. Richard Caputo) > > * United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania > o John H. Bingler, Jr., followed by Lynette Norton (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Arthur J. Schwab) > o David S. Cercone (judgeship was to become vacant when Judge Robert J. Cindrich was elevated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit but Cindrich never was confirmed to that post before Clinton's presidency ended; Cercone later was nominated to a different seat in the Western District by Bush) > o Harry P. Litman (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Joy Flowers Conti) > > * United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina > o J. Rich Leonard (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee James C. Dever III) > > * United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas > o Cheryl B. Wattley (judgeship later filled by Clinton nominee Sam A. Lindsay) > o Michael D. Schattman (judgeship later filled by Clinton nominee Barbara M. Lynn) > > * United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas > o Ricardo Morado (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Andrew S. Hanen) > > * United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio > o Steven D. Bell (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee John R. Adams) > > * United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois > o Sue E. Myerscough (judgeship later filled by Clinton nominee Michael P. McCuskey) (Myerscough later renominated by President Obama to a different seat on the same court) > > * United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois > o Jeffrey D. Colman (judgeship later filled by Clinton nominee Ronald A. Guzman) > > * United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois > o Wenona Y. Whitfield (judgeship later filled by Clinton nominee David R. Herndon) > > * United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri > o Ronnie L. White (Nomination rejected by the Senate) (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Henry Edward Autrey) > > * United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri > o Leland M. Shurin (judgeship later filled by Clinton nominee Gary A. Fenner) > > * United States District Court for the District of Nebraska > o Steven E. Achelpohl (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Laurie Smith Camp) > > * United States District Court for the Central District of California > o R. Samuel Paz (judgeship later filled by Clinton nominee George H. King > o Dolly M. Gee (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee John F. Walter; Gee later was nominated and confirmed to a different seat on the Central District by Obama) > o Fredric D. Woocher (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Percy Anderson) > > * United States District Court for the Eastern District of California > o Marian M. Johnston (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Morrison C. England Jr.) > > * United States District Court for the Southern District of California > o Judith D. McConnell (judgeship later filled by Clinton nominee Barry Ted Moskowitz > o Lynne R. Lasry (judgeship later filled by Clinton nominee Thomas J. Whelan) > > * United States District Court for the District of Hawaii > o John S. W. Lim (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee John Michael Seabright) > > * United States District Court for the District of Idaho > o John R. Tait (judgeship later filled by Clinton nominee Lynn Winmill) > > * United States District Court for the District of Montana > o Richard W. Anderson (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Sam E. Haddon) > > * United States District Court for the District of Nevada > o Linda B. Riegle (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Larry R. Hicks) > > * United States District Court for the District of Colorado > o Patricia A. Coan (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Robert E. Blackburn) > > * United States District Court for the District of Kansas > o K. Gary Sebelius (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Julie A. Robinson) > > * United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma > o Frank H. McCarthy (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Claire Eagan) > > * United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma > o Valerie K. Couch (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Stephen P. Friot) > o Melvin C. Hall (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Joe L. Heaton) > > * United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama > o John D. Snodgrass (judgeship later filled by Clinton nominee Charles Lynwood Smith, Jr. > o Kenneth O. Simon (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Karon O. Bowdre) > > * United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida > o Theodore Klein, followed by Bruce W. Greer (judgeship later filled by Clinton nominee Donald M. Middlebrooks) > > * United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia > o Gail S. Tusan (judgeship later filled by Clinton nominee Beverly B. Martin) > > * United States District Court for the District of Columbia > o James W. Klein (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee John D. Bates) > o Rhonda C. Fields (judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Reggie Walton) > > ``` Same cite as above. As far as claims, I’m not making any. Both parties have been blocking judges since Bush I at least. Both will continue to do so until the voters punish them for it (read: not in my lifetime). Both parties will use recess appointments to get around this where it is considered politically viable. As far as the OP: It was a purely political calculation. The determination was made that it was better to avoid televised grandstanding on the health-care issue just prior to the fall elections. Whether this offends you or not is likely almost 100% correlated with your opinion of the health-care reform act, so it was probably a sound political calculation. EDIT: Missed that a few lines actually had multiple rejected nominees. I believe the actual count on that list is 45 people for 42 positions. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-latest-republican-huff-over-a-recess-appointment/546748/24 "2010-07-15T22:49:59Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > Whichever party isn’t in power always bitches about it, [to wit:](http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3823) > > Looks like Bush did it 171 times, Obama’s up to number 15. BFD. Yup, what you said. When Bush did it, the Dems bitched. When Clinton did it, the Reps bitched. When Bush Sr. did it, the Dems bitched. I’m not old enough to remember Reagan doing it, so I can’t say any further. Of course the Reps are going to do it when Obama does it. That’s the nature of party politics in this country. Why complain when it happens and your guy is in. It’ll happen when the other guy is in too. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-latest-republican-huff-over-a-recess-appointment/546748/25 "2010-07-15T22:55:22Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Sure both sides of the aisle have done and will continue to do this. Seems to me republicans do it considerably more however. No, it’s just the tit-for-tat ratcheting up that has been going on for as long as I can remember. Dem congressclowns filibuster/obstruct during a Rep presidency. Rep congresscritters then filibuster/obstruct more when the next Dem gets in. Dem congressclowns then… I’m sure you are beginning to see the pattern? Been going on since about Reagan, and getting steadily worse. I blame global warming. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2010, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-latest-republican-huff-over-a-recess-appointment/546748/26 "2010-07-16T00:19:16Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > This one happened because the opposition in congress was too eager to have hearings and the nominee would have had to answer **some inconvenient questions**. What questions would those be? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2010, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-latest-republican-huff-over-a-recess-appointment/546748/27 "2010-07-16T15:34:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My problem with this is that without names to count up, we’re left with multiple sources that don’t explain their numbers, leading me to suspect that they all derive from the same suspect quote somewhere. > > We saw a similar phenomenon a while back with a claim that a conviction for public urination can lead to registration as a sex offender. There were dozens of cites that repeated this claim. > > But apparently all of them were quoting a single report, from Human Rights Watch. And when the footnotes supporting that claim in that report were examined, it became apparent that HRW had overstated their case considerably. > > So with all due respect to [democrats.senate.gov](http://democrats.senate.gov) and [mediamatters.org](http://mediamatters.org), I have to say that if there are really 60 rejected nominees, it shouldn’t be too hard to put names to them. Thankfully others have provided your names. And seems to me, when provided numbers from generally reliable sources, it is up to you to debunk them. Of course they can be wrong but appealing to it having happened somewhere else for an entirely unrelated issue does not mean you get to toss any info inconvenient to you from then-on. If they are wrong show they are wrong. To ask every poster here to prove the numbers in their cites, going back all the way to original data, is absurd. We accept cites and it is up to others to debunk them if they can. Willing to bet if I tried what you just said in court you’d waste me on cross examination. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2010, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-latest-republican-huff-over-a-recess-appointment/546748/28 "2010-07-16T16:27:51Z")
> [@sleeping](#): > > What questions would those be? Umm…maybe his views on rationing health care. Oh, maybe his statement that healthcare MUST redistribute wealth. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2010, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-latest-republican-huff-over-a-recess-appointment/546748/29 "2010-07-16T17:16:38Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Thankfully others have provided your names. > > And seems to me, when provided numbers from generally reliable sources, it is up to you to debunk them. Of course they can be wrong but appealing to it having happened somewhere else for an entirely unrelated issue does not mean you get to toss any info inconvenient to you from then-on. If they are wrong show they are wrong. To ask every poster here to prove the numbers in their cites, going back all the way to original data, is absurd. We accept cites and it is up to others to debunk them if they can. > > Willing to bet if I tried what you just said in court you’d waste me on cross examination. Not quite. If I said, “106 people have been killed by the Obama administration’s secret police,” how can you possibly debunk that? It’s in the category of proving a negative. It’s up to me to prove my claim by identifying the 106 people killed. Obviously I must know their names; I came up with the count. If you deny they exist, how can you possibly refute that claim unless I identify the specifics? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2010, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-latest-republican-huff-over-a-recess-appointment/546748/30 "2010-07-16T17:23:48Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > That is 23 people blocked for 20 posts. There were an additional 45 blocked for 42 district courts. The corresponding count for Bush Jr. was 23 judges blocked for 23 district court seats. to go along with the 31/37 you mentioned for appeals courts. Ok, so it seems we have: Clinton=23 appeals court blocked, 45 district court blocked, total = 68. W Bush=37 appeals court, 23 district court, total 60. Assuming I accept that number… is the argument that 60 vs. 68 shows the Republicans’ greater obsteperousness in this area? The Democrats wisely and in a spirit of cooperation limited themselves to blocking 60 judicial nominees, a reasonable number, but the Republicans, intent on intransigence, showed their uncooperative spirit by blocking an unreasonable 68? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2010, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-latest-republican-huff-over-a-recess-appointment/546748/31 "2010-07-16T18:41:23Z")
Did we ever have threads about Bush43’s recess appointments and the contemporary congress’s reaction? I guess that would be the most useful tool if one wants to point out hyprocrisy and such among the SDMB membership. I don’t see what the big deal is about recess appointments, anyway, or why anyone should be surprised at the practice. It’s like many Americans are assuming Congress is a full-time 9-to-5 year-round job. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2010, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-latest-republican-huff-over-a-recess-appointment/546748/32 "2010-07-16T19:35:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Ok … is the argument that 60 vs. 68 shows the Republicans’ greater obsteperousness in this area? Too bad there’s no objective measure of judicial competence or morality. My (prejudiced) impression is that Republicans object to the appointment of moderate judges, while Demos object to right-wing extremists. That the Republican swerve to the hard right is relatively recent may be demonstrated by the composition of the Supreme Court when Obama took office: The 4 “rightists” were appointed by Reagan, Bush-1, Bush-2, Bush-2. The “centrist” was appointed by Reagan. The 4 “leftists” were appointed by Ford, Bush-1, Clinton, Clinton. Given that half the SCOTUS “leftists” were appointed by Republican Presidents, perhaps you can see why I consider those judges centrist, and view the so-called “rightists” as extremist jokes. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2010, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-latest-republican-huff-over-a-recess-appointment/546748/33 "2010-07-16T19:47:24Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Too bad there’s no objective measure of judicial competence or morality. My (prejudiced) impression is that Republicans object to the appointment of moderate judges, while Demos object to right-wing extremists. > > That the Republican swerve to the hard right is relatively recent may be demonstrated by the composition of the Supreme Court when Obama took office: > The 4 “rightists” were appointed by Reagan, Bush-1, Bush-2, Bush-2. > The “centrist” was appointed by Reagan. > The 4 “leftists” were appointed by Ford, Bush-1, Clinton, Clinton. > > Given that half the SCOTUS “leftists” were appointed by Republican Presidents, perhaps you can see why I consider those judges centrist, and view the so-called “rightists” as extremist jokes. But there’s more to the story. The Ford appointee, for example, was appointed in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, Nixon resignation, and Ford pardon of Nixon. It’s fair to say that Ford did not have much in the way of political capital to use to advance a more right-leaning choice. The Bush-41 appointee is widely regarded as someone who changed after his appointment to the bench. Nor does this simplistic analysis account for the crossover patterns. In my view, Scalia demonstrates the most profound commitment to the quality we should be looking for: fidelity to the written law. And this is backed up, objectively, by pointing out where he has crossed to vote with the liberal bloc. You can’t find similar variances for, say, Ginsburg; she votes with the other liberals the vast majority of the time, which raises the inference that her decision-making is outcome-based. Of course, you may argue that we do NOT want fidelity to the law so much as we want judges (at the Supreme Court, anyway) to serve as a combination of wise philosopher kings and super-legislators, implementing the policy that we SHOULD have when politics forces the actual legislature away from the “correct” path. That’s a perfectly defensible view, but it’s not one I share, and I don’t think most of the country would go along with it either. But then again: that’s the point of that view: the idea that most of the country is too backward to be trusted with the really important decisions, and when they fail to elect legislators that will do the right thing, it’s time for the courts to fix it. Obviously, I reject that premise completely. ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2010, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-latest-republican-huff-over-a-recess-appointment/546748/34 "2010-07-16T20:34:59Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Umm…maybe his views on rationing health care. Healthcare is always rationed; the only question is on what basis. Berwick supports an ethical approach to this rationing. > [@](#): > > Oh, maybe his statement that healthcare MUST redistribute wealth. Since socioeconomic inequality is the major factor in public health, an effective healthcare system must do just that. And here I thought this about his financial dealings. Nope, just the usual right-wing hysterical nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2010, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-latest-republican-huff-over-a-recess-appointment/546748/35 "2010-07-16T20:44:15Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > Whichever party isn’t in power always bitches about it, [to wit:](http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3823) > > Looks like Bush did it 171 times, Obama’s up to number 15. BFD. Yeah but why is there all this talk of “retailiation?” Why is retaliation jsutified in this case but not in others? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2010, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-latest-republican-huff-over-a-recess-appointment/546748/36 "2010-07-16T20:47:50Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > An honest question here: > > I know that you are using this as a vehicle to take a shot at the GOP, SOP, but is there actual evidence that the Republicans have somehow obstructed this nomination? If so, how, specifically? Have they filibustered it? If not, since there are more Dems in both the Senate and on that committee, what have the Republicans done? > > [This](http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2010/07/07/donald-berwick/) blog entry speaks to “Republican obstruction bypassed”, but then just goes into why an honest discussion of his candidacy would have been used to whip up fervor against ObamaCare. To me, this obviously isn’t obstruction - it’s debate over the role of CMS, and the biggest program to be passed in the last 20 years. OK so is that the distinction, Obama never gave the Republicans a chance to say no (while grandstanding on the health care issue)? THAT is what deserves “retaliation”? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2010, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-latest-republican-huff-over-a-recess-appointment/546748/37 "2010-07-16T20:55:54Z")
> [@sleeping](#): > > What questions would those be? They are going to deliver speeches on health care so those questions are msot likely going to be rhetorical. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2010, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-latest-republican-huff-over-a-recess-appointment/546748/38 "2010-07-16T20:58:51Z")
> [@sleeping](#): > > Healthcare is always rationed; the only question is on what basis. Berwick supports an ethical approach to this rationing. So rationing health care based on ability to pay is NOT the most effective means of distributing limited health care resources? You sound like a communist. > [@](#): > > Since socioeconomic inequality is the major factor in public health, an effective healthcare system must do just that. Well they shouldn’t be poor, problem solved. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2010, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-latest-republican-huff-over-a-recess-appointment/546748/39 "2010-07-16T21:09:41Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Given that half the SCOTUS “leftists” were appointed by Republican Presidents, perhaps you can see why I consider those judges centrist, and view the so-called “rightists” as extremist jokes. This seems like circular logic to me. The most logical and straightforward conclusion from the idea that the Republican presidents have nominated a broader spectrum of judges while the Democrats have nominated straight liberals is to say the Repubs are less ideological and the Democrats more. You’re saying the opposite. I understand where you’re coming from, but it’s solely driven by your preconceptions. ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2010, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-latest-republican-huff-over-a-recess-appointment/546748/40 "2010-07-16T21:44:19Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So rationing health care based on ability to pay is NOT the most effective means of distributing limited health care resources? You sound like a communist. > … > Well they shouldn’t be poor, problem solved. Um, before I respond to this, are you serious? Because you’ve seemed to be a pretty reasonable poster, so I just want to know if I’m being whooshed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-latest-republican-huff-over-a-recess-appointment/546748.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-latest-republican-huff-over-a-recess-appointment/546748.md?page=3)