Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
The GOP didn't in any way think that Ginsberg was 'moderate', but they still honored the idea that the President has the right to choose whom he wants to sit on the bench. In short, the GOP acted like statesmen, and not fanatical, partisan hacks as the Dems have become. The Senate is charged w/ the duty of 'advice and consent 'when the President nominates an executive or judicial post, and that's what the they did. Even though the GOP could have tried to play Quid Pro Quo for the the Bork lynching, they felt the interest of the country was best served to simply take the vote and move on.

The Dems werent' so compelled to do the same.

---

Quote:

---

excerpted from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/14/AR2005
111401021.html
In fact, then-Judge Ginsburg was a consensus choice, pushed by Republicans and accepted by the president in large part because he didn't want to take on a big fight. Far from being a crazed radical, Ginsburg had staked out a centrist role on a closely divided appeals court. Don't take it from me -- take it from Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). In his autobiography, the Utah Republican describes how he suggested Ginsburg -- along with Clinton's second pick, Stephen G. Breyer -- to the president. "From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democratic administration," Hatch writes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
AURaptor,

You're missing the significance of the quote from Orrin Hatch's autobiography. Hatch suggested Ginsburg to Clinton as a nominee that the Republicans would confirm (and later suggested Breyer). Ginsburg was Hatch's choice. Whether or not she is a liberal justice (and I agree, she is *eta: although, as was pointed out by Righteous9, not as liberal as the right wing likes to portray her) she was pre-selected by the Republican leadership as a nominee they could live with. The same with Breyer.

The revisionism I spoke of, which surfaced around the time of Alito's confirmation, that you used was that the Republicans didn't fight against Ginsburg because they believed in the President's right to nominate whoever he wants. The implication was that the Republicans didn't like her liberal views but swallowed their opinion because this was the President's choice. The reality was that Clinton accepted the suggestion of Orrin Hatch because he would've been in for a dogfight if he nominated someone the Republicans hadn't given the greenlight to. Ginsburg was a Republican selection.

So my objection to your statement wasn't that you said Ginsburg was liberal, it was in your parroting of the rewriting of history, with respect to the Ginsburg nomination, that appeared and was popularized throughout the GOP apparatus at the time of the Alito confirmation.

* edited to add: Hey Signym! Looks like we were posting at around the same time. Yup, I'm still here. Lurking for the most part. But around.

---

Quote:

---

from http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/01/how-clinton-treated-hatch/
[It] was not a surprise when the President called to talk about the appointment and what he was thinking of doing.

President Clinton indicated he was leaning toward nominating Bruce Babbitt, his Secretary of the Interior, a name that had been bouncing around in the press. Bruce, a well-known western Democrat, had been the governor of Arizona and a candidate for president in 1988. Although he had been a state attorney general back during the 1970s, he was known far more for his activities as a politician than as a jurist. Clinton asked for my reaction.

I told him that confirmation would not be easy. At least one Democrat would probably vote against Bruce, and there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side. I explained to the President that although he might prevail in the end, he should consider whether he wanted a tough, political battle over his first appointment to the Court.

Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer’s name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg.

I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.

In the end, the President did not select Secretary Babbitt. Instead, he nominated Judge Ginsburg and Judge Breyer a year later, when Harry Blackmun retired from the Court. Both were confirmed with relative ease.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
... I was unaware that Orin Hatch spoke for all Republicans. Since that must have been the case, I stand correcttd.

Ginsberg was a Clinton seleciton, through and through.

---

Quote:

---

..far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.

---

Quote:

---

...which surfaced around the time of Alito's confirmation, that you used was that the Republicans didn't fight against Ginsburg because they believed in the President's right to nominate whoever he wants. The implication was that the Republicans didn't like her liberal views but swallowed their opinion because this was the President's choice...

---

Quote:

---

...I(Sen. Hatch) indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President.

---

Quote:

---

The GOP didn't in any way think that Ginsberg was 'moderate',

---

Quote:

---

but they still honored the idea that the President has the right to choose whom he wants to sit on the bench.

---

Quote:

---

In short, the GOP acted like statesmen, and not fanatical, partisan hacks as the Dems have become.

---

Quote:

---

The Senate is charged w/ the duty of 'advice and consent 'when the President nominates an executive or judicial post, and that's what the they did.

---

Quote:

---

Even though the GOP could have tried to play Quid Pro Quo for the the Bork lynching, they felt the interest of the country was best served to simply take the vote and move on.

---

Quote:

---

The Dems werent' so compelled to do the same.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Razza:
Soupcatcher:

You make an interesting point about the Ginsberg nomination, but I think your arguement may be a little deceptive. Not that I want to defend Aruptor, but I believe the premise of your arguement is that because Sen. Hatch mentioned Judge Ginsberg as on of the nominees that he and his fellow Republicans saw as

Quote:

---

..far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.

---

that she is somehow transformed into the Republican Selected Nominee?

---

Quote:

---

That seems a bit of a stretch since they had no power to actually make the selection in the first place.

---

Quote:

---

This is easily verified by that fact that the Republicans first choice wasn't even under consideration by the Clinton administration. The selection was purely Clinton's.

---

Quote:

---

You also asserted that there was revisionism

Quote:

---

...which surfaced around the time of Alito's confirmation, that you used was that the Republicans didn't fight against Ginsburg because they believed in the President's right to nominate whoever he wants. The implication was that the Republicans didn't like her liberal views but swallowed their opinion because this was the President's choice...

---

You seem to take the position that this is not the case at all since Hatch actually selected Ginsberg. Actually I think one of your own quotes from Sen. Hatch's autobiography contradicts your assertion,

Quote:

---

...I(Sen. Hatch) indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President.

---

I think the operative words here are "while liberal". The fact that he was willing to vote for Judge Ginsberg was a reflection of his respect for the President's choice (granted at his own suggestion) even though he disagreed with her philosophies in general.

---

Quote:

---

In conclusion, I respectfully disagree with your assertion. I don't believe there was any revisionism at all. It's clear to me from Sen. Hatch's autobiography that while he disagreed with her liberal philosophy he did not obstruct Judge Ginsberg's nomination because he knew she was honest and capable. That is essentially the arguement many Republicans made in rebuttal to Democratic opposition to Alito.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
AURaptor,

.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Longevity in the Senate does not always equate to 'speaking for the party.'.

---

Quote:

---

The politics of personal desturction is alive and well in the DNC. Witness is clearly shown by the Left's mindless, factless and vitriol filled attacks on Roberts and Alito. ( even making Alito's wife cry and leave the hearings )

---

Quote:

---

Shame on the petty, hate filled and obscenely partisan Democrats.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Shame on Partisan Racists who think all Muslims are evil and should be exterminated on mass. Shame on petty minded little fools who can't see past their own bullshit. Shame on people who spread government sponsored hate because they really lack the mental abillity to think for themselves, and require some fool to tell them what to think.

Shame on the kind of moron who'll forgive their side for lying and cheating because it really didn't happen because they're the good guys.

Shame on the kind of person who is a fascist's wet dream, that's what I say.

What have you been told to think about it AU?

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

---

Quote:

---

You are aware of the role that the Senate Judiciary Committee plays in the nomination process, aren't you? In two years, Hatch would become chairman of that committee. In this instance I'd put money on his claims over yours.

---

Quote:

---

I see we're moving to a different field now. Okay. Because of your track record, forgive me if I'm wary of the accuracy of your claims. How about going through the transcript of that particular day of the Alito confirmation hearings and pulling out "factless" or "vitriol filled attacks"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
My track record on accuracy is pretty damn good, thank you very much

---

Quote:

---

You want to go back and rehash over what's been documented? Why ? What purpose would it serve ?

---

Quote:

---

Why don't you go read it for yourself, and maybe you'll read some of what I'm talking about for the 1st time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
And I'm still waiting for that point by point with Aurpator about how GWB is a such a success and the economy (waves a careless hand) is doing great!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
And I'm still waiting for that point by point with Aurpator about how GWB is a such a success and the economy (waves a careless hand) is doing great! But it seems he's abandoned ship on that one!

They don't like it when you hold them to their words. I worked that out myself.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

---

Quote:

---

What's to respond to ? It's a moot point, Sig. Despite 15(?)million illegal aliens, hurricanes and disasters along the Gulf states,(along w/ knocked out oil drilling platforms and refineries) and military conflict in 2 different counries things are going damn well. Consumer confidence is up, the rate of growth is high ( 4.8 % ) and the unemployment is down.

---

Quote:

---

” Well, Clinton had not even thought about Ginsburg before speaking with Hatch. Hatch is a Republican. Sounds like a Republican selected nominee to me.”

---

Quote:

---

” According to Hatch, "there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side," to Bruce Babbitt”

---

Quote:

---

” I told him that confirmation would not be easy. At least one Democrat would probably vote against Bruce, and there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side. I explained to the President that although he might prevail in the end, he should consider whether he wanted a tough, political battle over his first appointment to the Court.”

---

Quote:

---

” The revisionism changes the story from an example of the party in the majority asking for advice from the party in the minority to a case of the party in the minority having to bend over and take whatever the party in the majority decides.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen,
you sure do like to toss around the 'racist' charge a lot.

---

Quote:

---

But you need something to attack me with, since facts are so far gone from your reach.

---

Quote:

---

Islam is not a race. It's a religion. Of sorts. Those who murder in the name of Islam ( teorrorist ) aren't genetically inferior to anyone, just brain washed.

---

Quote:

---

Nothing I've said or posted in any way suggests I'm a 'racist'. Why ? Because I'm not a racist. It's that simple. But you're so unhinged and bent out of shape that I'd have a differnt view from you that you feel the need to strike out.

---

Quote:

---

Too bad you're not unhinged and bent out of shape at what the Islamic terrorist are doing. Even after the London tube bombings, you ignore the real threat. I am at a loss as to how to discuss much of anything with you.

---

Quote:

---

Oh and so you know a believing one group to be genetically superior to another is only one form of racism. Another would be to judge an entire group on the actions of a small minority, like calling all African-Americans violent gang members because a small minority are involved in gangs, or calling all Catholics terrorists because of the IRA...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

What's to respond to ? It's a moot point, Sig. Despite 15(?)million illegal aliens, hurricanes and disasters along the Gulf states,(along w/ knocked out oil drilling platforms and refineries) and military conflict in 2 different counries things are going damn well. Consumer confidence is up, the rate of growth is high ( 4.8 % ) and the unemployment is down.

---

Well, I wanted to make sure that these were the criteria you were using, not, say the Federal budget, balance of trade, manufacturing capacity, median wages, or total savings or any number of possible economic indicators. Because I was under the impression that when challenged to provide statistics you picked out positive indicators ... Which BTW were NOT the same as the ones you just cited earlier. Previously it was consumer confidence, consumer spending, and home sales ... just because they happened to be positive in the article that your eyes lit upon. Because when I lead you over a cliff in this dicussion you're not going to weasel out and decide that other indicators are more robust or meaningful. That's why!

So my first question is: which indicators do you REALLY want to discuss? The first set, or the second set?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

---

Quote:

---

I’m afraid this argument still doesn’t hold any water in my opinion. Are you saying that given other more conservative choices, Sen. Hatch and other Republicans would still have chosen Ginsberg? If the answer is no, then I think it cannot be argued that she was their selection. What does it matter where Pres. Clinton heard of Judge Ginsberg from? The President made the selection bearing in mind the advice he received from all those he consulted. I agree that he made a very shrewd choice (what do you expect from one of the shrewdest politicians of all time?) and give credit where credit is due, but the choice or selection was his in the end, not Hatch’s or his fellow republicans. Pres. Clinton was acting in a statesmanlike manner by taking Sen. Hatch’s advice to heart and I think it was statesmanlike of Sen. Hatch to offer the advice in a constructive way. Cheers all around for statesmanship! (And there was much rejoicing...yeaaa!)

---

Quote:

---

In your post addressing Aruptor you stated,

Quote:
” According to Hatch, "there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side," to Bruce Babbitt”

You use this quote to support your contention that there were potential nominees that the GOP senators were prepared to fight tooth and nail over and damn the political consequences.

I notice that you left out the an important piece of Hatch’s statement which was in total,

Quote:
” I told him that confirmation would not be easy. At least one Democrat would probably vote against Bruce, and there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side. I explained to the President that although he might prevail in the end, he should consider whether he wanted a tough, political battle over his first appointment to the Court.”



I think that fact that the Babbit would have had members of the President’s own party opposing him speaks volumes about how controversial a nominee he would have been. Sen. Hatch was giving the President good advice when he suggested staying away from this nominee. You later said when addressing my arguments, {quote]” A few names were tossed out. The judges were liberal, the Republicans were the minority party after all and this was a Democratic administration so they couldn't ask for a conservative judge and expect to be taken seriously, but not as liberal as judges that Clinton could've nominated. Rather than risking an ugly confirmation battle, Clinton accepted their suggestion. The Senate confirmed Ginsburg easily.”

I don’t think it is so cut and dry. Clearly, if members of the President’s own party would be opposed to a nominee the ugly confirmation battle would have been more ugly for the President not the GOP. If Sen. Hatch and the GOP senators wanted such a fight, they could’ve just kept their mouths shut and let the President choose a nominee they knew would cause a split in the President’s own party.
Sidenote: Hmmm! Didn’t a few GOP senators oppose Alito? Seems like that was a pretty ugly confirmation battle, very interesting.

---

Quote:

---

You conclude by saying,

Quote:
” The revisionism changes the story from an example of the party in the majority asking for advice from the party in the minority to a case of the party in the minority having to bend over and take whatever the party in the majority decides.”

I think this is what happened in both cases actually. The GOP senators clearly would have preferred a different nominee than Ginsberg, but obviously did not have any choice in the matter, just as Democratic senators did not have any choice with Alito. There may be some validity to your point about asking for advice, but lets face it, the party in power doesn’t always have to seek and take to heart advice from those in opposition. Besides, do you really think that Sen. Schumer, Sen. Durbin, and Sen. Leahy really would offer Pres. Bush advice in a way that he would actually be inclined to heed? They have been more than just critical of his policies. In some cases, they have been rabidly hyperbolic in their rhetoric, hardly the approach to take if you wish someone to take your advice to heart.

Righteous9 mentioned that it is difficult to draw comparisons between the two situations, and to a certain extent I have to agree with him. The political atmosphere is much different today than it was when Judge Ginsberg was nominated. There are two diversely different Presidents in the two situations and each handled their nominations differently as befits their individual styles, but the fact is that GOP senators gave Judge Ginsburg a pass despite her liberal views out of respect for the President’s prerogative to choose a nominee whose legal philosophy was closest to his own and an argument to the contrary is just. . .well . . .revisionism for lack of a better word.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

You are aware of the role that the Senate Judiciary Committee plays in the nomination process, aren't you? In two years, Hatch would become chairman of that committee. In this instance I'd put money on his claims over yours.

---

None of that in any way changes the substance of my post.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I see we're moving to a different field now. Okay. Because of your track record, forgive me if I'm wary of the accuracy of your claims. How about going through the transcript of that particular day of the Alito confirmation hearings and pulling out "factless" or "vitriol filled attacks"

---

My track record on accuracy is pretty damn good, thank you very much You not liking what I say doesn't discredit my record one bit. You want to go back and rehash over what's been documented? Why ? What purpose would it serve ? Why don't you go read it for yourself, and maybe you'll read some of what I'm talking about for the 1st time. I know what I heard and read during the process. Graham was HIGHLIGHTING what it was the Democrats had done. ( I knew you'd try to spin it that way, though. ) But the record is clear. Look at how the Left treated the likes of Alito, Roberts and all the way back to Thomas and even Bork. I challenge any one to find similar treatment in the interview portion of the vote by the GOP on a Democrat nominee.

You can't, because it simply hasn't happened. Not nearly to the same level of vitriol demonstrated by the Dems.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen - you're so full of your self worth and politically correct crap that you can't stand to be shown where you're wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Instead of backing up your claim, you only make more absurd replies and hope everyone else forgets the oh so important point that you have no basis for your charges.

---

Quote:

---

I'm not a racist now, but I'm a Nazi? Boy, that's a good one. Too bad it's been used to death for the past 50 years by the Left wing nuts who whine like spoiled brats when they've beaten in any discussion.

---

Quote:

---

Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing, you keep talkin! Amazing.

---

Quote:

---

There are not 'forms of racism', you dink.

---

Quote:

---

I'm not one of them, but you keep on throwing names out like 'racist, nazi' if it makes you feel any better. Lord knows, it's all you have.

---

Quote:

---

I also find it funny that you consider the idea of not hating and discriminating against an entire people based on religion is PC crap

---

Quote:

---

Oh I'm sorry sweet heart, did you miss it? You say all Muslims are evil terrorists, based on the actions of a very small minority. That's basically what bigotry and religiousism is, honey.

---

Quote:

---

Indignant attempts to gain moral supiriority they aren't entitled too, the stock reserve of the far right when they're inevitably beaten in an argument

---

Quote:

---

So, you sound like a racist (except you discriminate on religion rather than race) so what is the logical conclusion to take from this?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
First of all, I never said that.

---

Quote:

---

Well, it is P.C. crap. Thinking that every one is equally wonderful, and that not one group is any less than all the rest. Sorry pal, but terrorist are less than human. End of discussion.

---

Quote:

---

Now, the rest of us, Non muslims and *some* muslims alike, aren't too keen on the idea of seeing our neighbors, friends and family blown up in a subway station, seeing their heads sawed off by masked thugs as the video tape rolls, or watch as airliners are flown into sky scrapers.

---

Quote:

---

Second of all, remember that thinly veiled reference I made about you being gay? Your choice of wrods like 'sweet heart, honey' might have been where I got that from.

---

Quote:

---

*** This marks the point where citizen will call me homophobic, or some such nonsense ***

---

Quote:

---

Moral superiority was gained long ago, and it had nothing to do w/ any 'entitlement'. You support terrorist's rights, I don't.

---

Quote:

---

Conclusion? citizen is a pin head who doesn't know the difference between racism and religiousism ( new word of the day ), and simply makes up what ever charge makes him feel good at the time to 'win' his argument.

---

Quote:

---

Most of your post was nothing more than repeating of your old post, petty ad hominems,and a lie or two added for effect.

---

Quote:

---

Time to move on.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen,
I finally see your problem. You see only what you want, and then make up what ever the hell you feel like to fill in the rest. That explains it all. I've been wasting time dealing w/ an imbecile.

G'day.

---