What was good for W is good for O. So says the Democrat who was chairman of the judiciary committee when Democrats ran the senate at the time. In typical hypocrite fashion, Leahy is currently calling for the senate to confirm anyone Obama might nominate.
You're always against everything Leahy (Vermont senator) says or does, and now suddenly you quote him as your authority. So you'll be voting for any Vermont senator this Fall?
After Nixon secretly blackmailed Fortas to quit, Nixon nominated the unqualified Haynsworth (secretly knowing he was gay and could be blackmailed). Perplexed (there were many articles questioning why for months), Congress said, this guy is unqualified, and voted it down after a big well-publicized fight. Nixon then nominated Carswell (secretly knowing he was gay and could be blackmailed). Perplexed, Congress said, this guy is unqualified, and voted it down after a big well-publicized fight. Surrendering, Nixon nominated Blackmun, who was qualified. Reading the trivia news many years later, I noticed that Carswell and Haynsworth were later busted in toilet stalls. The media still hasn't made the connection to Nixon's seemingly perplexing motive. You're hearing it here first.
I'm against him being a hypocrite. Anyhow, the risk for republicans is that they lose the presidential election and the senate. Then the democratic president can get pretty much anyone he/she wants through. The risk for democrats is that they lose the presidential election and don't take the senate. The republican president will nominate as young and as right wing a justice as they can find. Then sometime before this president's second term, the 90+ year old Ginsburg retires and the republican gets to nominate and pass a second young right wing justice. If the democrat wins the presidential election and the republicans retain the senate, no liberal will be approved. That's how I see it.
After a quick search, I found gay stuff for Carswell, but not Haynsworth. Both were segregationists. Haynsworth had a couple of questionable blackmailable financial dealings I found. Even Republicans say that Nixon was the most crooked president ever. http://articles.latimes.com/1992-08-01/news/mn-4281_1_g-harrold-carswell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Harrold_Carswell#Later_years Even the sources I found have not connected this to the mystery of why Nixon nominated Carswell. It was considered a big mystery at the time, like the later, why is Bush starting this Iraq War? Why does the Bush family hate Saddam so much?
Didn't Tricky Dick fail with 2 nominations for the court and only get his 3rd nomination through the Senate? Seems like the seat was empty for a couple of years of rejected candidates
Yes, they were 2 famous issues of his presidency. Everyone thought Nixon must be stupid to nominate such unqualified nominees. We Democrats laughed at him, but I later figured out that he had his devious reasons.
Fortas resigned rather than accept removal by impeachment. The congress was Democratic Party controlled as was the presidency in LBJ. LBJ personally stood on the grassy knoll and pulled the trigger to kill JFK. He lied us into a war 10x or more the size of Iraq. But he wasn't corrupt. LOL.
It's not spin, it's a fact. There is no possible interpretation where February is the latter part of the election year. Unless you don't understand the meaning of latter, of course. barfo
And my reaction is. Go spend many minutes in a search like I did. You talk like Trump. You need more discipline in your communication style. Copying and pasting long articles doesn't cut it. (Catch the pun?)
Depends on what the meaning of "is" is. I see. There is no possible interpretation other than Obama isn't getting a nominee approved.
Bernie will choose someone to the left of Obama's nominee. You know, I almost feel sorry for Republicans...
Actually, I was thinking Hillary will nominate a transgender individual of color. That would certainly tie up congress for her entire 8 year tenure and make the Republicans even more ineffective than usual....
