• 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!

Controversial DOJ nominee fails to clear test vote

Navy Pride said:
Obama the socialist is shot down with when trying to appoint a nominee who defended a cop killer.....Even a few Democrats were wise enough to vote no.
Click to expand...

your "thread" is as clear as mud
 
Its amazing you left wing socialists have no comment on this.
 
Not that I care a feather or fig about this nominee but isn't it an old american custom to provide defense for the accused? Lawyers are usually defending criminals so should they become ineligible for doing so?

My response has ZERO to do with my political views.
 
MaggieD said:
What's the purpose of a test vote? Sounds a lot like Card Check.
Click to expand...

instead of going through the entire procedure of a real vote they do a test vote to see if they can overcome the filibuster.
in this case they couldn't. so there is no need to proceed further.

plus there is about 2 or 3 days of interviews and questions by the senate. so they save a bunch of time by doing a test vote.
 
MaggieD said:
What's the purpose of a test vote? Sounds a lot like Card Check.
Click to expand...

Maggie if you ccan't pass a test vote then I believe the bill will never get to the floor of the Senate.
 
specklebang said:
Not that I care a feather or fig about this nominee but isn't it an old american custom to provide defense for the accused? Lawyers are usually defending criminals so should they become ineligible for doing so?

My response has ZERO to do with my political views.
Click to expand...

This guy is being pushed for being nominated by Obama.
 
specklebang said:
Not that I care a feather or fig about this nominee but isn't it an old american custom to provide defense for the accused? Lawyers are usually defending criminals so should they become ineligible for doing so?

My response has ZERO to do with my political views.
Click to expand...

You're right. If attorneys refused to provide a vigorous defense for the guilty, our justice system would grind to a halt, as they say.
 
MaggieD said:
You're right. If attorneys refused to provide a vigorous defense for the guilty, our justice system would grind to a halt, as they say.
Click to expand...

Even our most dastardly criminals, those who seem obviously guilty and whose crimes are heinous and unspeakable, get attorneys and those attorneys are obligated to try to defend their client and mitigate their punishments using every possible strategy and technique. That is their obligation. They should not be penalized for doing their jobs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom