• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

gop field

wow the OPINION of a DEM PARTY HACK who was chairman of Bill Bradley's finance committee which is what got him his seat on the federal bench. Clinton elevated him to the third circuit but he had 35 senators vote against his confirmation He was targeted by Bob Dole as being far too left to be on the bench. After he was on the bench he tried to move his chambers from NJ to california but when that was denied by a panel of the 3rd circuit, he resigned in 1996. Think he has a hard on for the GOP?

Sorry the pronouncements of ex judges which are nothing more than the opinion of a hack doesn't really prove anything to me
 
TurtleDude said:
wow the OPINION of a DEM PARTY HACK who was chairman of Bill Bradley's finance committee which is what got him his seat on the federal bench. Clinton elevated him to the third circuit but he had 35 senators vote against his confirmation He was targeted by Bob Dole as being far too left to be on the bench. After he was on the bench he tried to move his chambers from NJ to california but when that was denied by a panel of the 3rd circuit, he resigned in 1996. Think he has a hard on for the GOP?

Sorry the pronouncements of ex judges which are nothing more than the opinion of a hack doesn't really prove anything to me
Click to expand...

Wow, he had 35 Congressman vote against him?! That's bad. If it had been 50 or 60 he might have some credibility. :2rofll:
 
AdamT said:
Wow, he had 35 Congressman vote against him?! That's bad. If it had been 50 or 60 he might have some credibility. :2rofll:
Click to expand...

35 senators. that's a pretty damning argument for a 3rd Circuit judge who already was on the federal bench
 
never mind
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
35 senators. that's a pretty damning argument for a 3rd Circuit judge who already was on the federal bench
Click to expand...

No, it's not damning at all. It was pure politics.

You also misrepresented the facts about Sarokin wanting to move his chambers. He made the request when he retired and moved to senior status.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
35 senators. that's a pretty damning argument for a 3rd Circuit judge who already was on the federal bench
Click to expand...

The only way it would be damning is if he didn't get confirmed.
 
AdamT said:
No, it's not damning at all. It was pure politics.
Click to expand...

wrong you are. this was many of the same senators who affirmed Ruth Bader Ginsburg 96-3 and Stephen Breyer 87-9. The third circuit rarely got such controversy Indeed the next Clinton nominee, former PA first Lady Marjorie Rendell was confirmed on a voice vote of the senate
 
AdamT said:
No, it's not damning at all. It was pure politics.

You also misrepresented the facts about Sarokin wanting to move his chambers. He made the request when he retired and moved to senior status.
Click to expand...

as was this ex judge's partisan rant about the tax pledge.
 
TurtleDude said:
wrong you are. this was many of the same senators who affirmed Ruth Bader Ginsburg 96-3 and Stephen Breyer 87-9. The third circuit rarely got such controversy Indeed the next Clinton nominee, former PA first Lady Marjorie Rendell was confirmed on a voice vote of the senate
Click to expand...

Stop trying to rewrite history, okay?

"During President Bill Clinton's first and second terms of office, he nominated 24 people for 20 different federal appellate judgeships but the nominees were not processed by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee. Three of the nominees who were not processed (Christine Arguello, Andre M. Davis and S. Elizabeth Gibson) were nominated after July 1, 2000, the traditional start date of the unofficial Thurmond Rule during a presidential election year. The Democrats claim that Senate Republicans of the 106th Congress on purpose tried to keep open particular judgeships as a political maneuver to allow a future Republican president to fill them. Of the 20 seats in question, four were eventually filled with different Clinton nominees, fourteen were later filled with Republican nominees by President George W. Bush and two were left open during Bush's presidency. Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader of the United States Senate during the 110th Congress, and Senator Patrick Leahy, the Democratic leader of the Senate Judiciary Committee under Reid, repeatedly mentioned the controversy over President Clinton's court of appeals nominees during the following controversy involving the confirmation of any more Republican court of appeals nominees during the last two years of Bush's second term. Senate Republicans of the 110th Congress claimed that Democrats were refusing to confirm certain longstanding Bush nominees in order to allow a future Democratic president in 2009 to fill those judgeships."

Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom