From
betsyspage
Quote:
Diane Feinstein really needs to review her history. This is what she said about why Alito's nomination differed from Breyer and Ginsburg.
Quote:
|
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said things are different from when the Senate considered Breyer and Ginsburg, who were confirmed 87-9 and 96-3 respectively. "There was not the polarization within America that is there today, and not the defined move to take this court in a singular direction," she said.
|
Gimme a break! As if Clinton wasn't trying to move the court in "a singular direction." Of course he was, but Feinstein just liked that direction so she didn't mind. And tell me that America wasn't polarized during the Clinton presidency. Does she have a total blank about the those years? And is her argument that, if the country is polarized politicially, the president can't nominate someone of his or her own ideology? Would she make those same arguments if Hillary were president? She better watch out. It's quite possible that a Democrat could be elected president and face a Senate that still has a majority of Republicans. Does she expect the GOP to suddenly become saints and roll over for the Democrats after their display on the Alito nomination? More disappointing things have happened with the GOP, but she shouldn't count on it.
|
If the dems think that the republicans will EVER let another liberal judge go through they are out of their minds. The dems again show that for them, it's all about power, to hell with the country.
It is going to be such a shame to see a democrat president have to recess appoint all judges. Since they will obviously be on the wrong side of the republicans politics, they can't possibly confirm them. Now that the democrats have declared that it's all about politics and not competence.