Conservative Supremes.................

[Nat Algren]

We Need to Elect a Republican President So He Can Appoint Conservative Supreme Court Justices
Laurence M. Vance

Like Anthony Kennedy? He just wrote the Supreme Court decision that redefined marriage that every conservative in the country is upset about. He was appointed by President Ford (a Republican) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1975. Then he was appointed by President Reagan (a Republican) to the Supreme Court in 1988. His nomination was confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 97-0, which means that every Republican in the Senate at the time who voted voted for Kennedy.

And then there is Justice John “Obamacare” Roberts.

“We need to elect a Republican president so he can appoint conservative Supreme Court justices” is just another GOP myth to sucker conservatives into voting Republican.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blo...-appoint-conservative-supreme-court-justices/

 

[Nat Algren]

Why Wasn’t the Supreme Court Vote on Gay Marriage 4-3?
Laurence M. Vance

Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg have both performed same-sex weddings. Why didn’t they recuse themselves? By the way, Ginsburg was confirmed in the Senate in 1993 by a vote of 96-3. This means that only three Republican senators voted against her. This also means that Republican senators John McCain, Chuck Grassley, Connie Mack, Trent Lott, John Danforth, Phil Gramm, Strom Thurmond, and Bob Dole voted to confirm Ginsburg.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/why-wasnt-the-supreme-court-vote-on-gay-marriage-4-3/

 

[ottumwan in tx]

because this is truly a lawless country full of demonic freaks in government

 

[ft254]

We Need to Elect a Republican President So He Can Appoint Conservative Supreme Court Justices
Laurence M. Vance

Like Anthony Kennedy? He just wrote the Supreme Court decision that redefined marriage that every conservative in the country is upset about. He was appointed by President Ford (a Republican) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1975. Then he was appointed by President Reagan (a Republican) to the Supreme Court in 1988. His nomination was confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 97-0, which means that every Republican in the Senate at the time who voted voted for Kennedy.

And then there is Justice John “Obamacare” Roberts.

“We need to elect a Republican president so he can appoint conservative Supreme Court justices” is just another GOP myth to sucker conservatives into voting Republican.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blo...-appoint-conservative-supreme-court-justices/

 

[theIowaHawk]

Why Wasn’t the Supreme Court Vote on Gay Marriage 4-3?
Laurence M. Vance

Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg have both performed same-sex weddings. Why didn’t they recuse themselves? By the way, Ginsburg was confirmed in the Senate in 1993 by a vote of 96-3. This means that only three Republican senators voted against her. This also means that Republican senators John McCain, Chuck Grassley, Connie Mack, Trent Lott, John Danforth, Phil Gramm, Strom Thurmond, and Bob Dole voted to confirm Ginsburg.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/why-wasnt-the-supreme-court-vote-on-gay-marriage-4-3/

Why on earth would this require recusal?

Should all judges who performed any marriage recuse?

This is lacking all logic.

 

[ft254]

60% of the population is in favor of gay marriage. Doesn't sound like a winning point for a GOP candidate.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Why on earth would this require recusal?

Should all judges who performed any marriage recuse?

This is lacking all logic.

because they are cheerleaders for the cause and not uninterested bystanders who can make a judgement

 

[ottumwan in tx]

60% of the population is in favor of gay marriage. Doesn't sound like a winning point for a GOP candidate.

I dunno about that, but ok, whatever. I know one guy who isn't in favor of it, he's a big guy

 

[PhantomFlyer]

We Need to Elect a Republican President So He Can Appoint Conservative Supreme Court Justices
Laurence M. Vance

Like Anthony Kennedy? He just wrote the Supreme Court decision that redefined marriage that every conservative in the country is upset about. He was appointed by President Ford (a Republican) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1975. Then he was appointed by President Reagan (a Republican) to the Supreme Court in 1988. His nomination was confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 97-0, which means that every Republican in the Senate at the time who voted voted for Kennedy.

And then there is Justice John “Obamacare” Roberts.

“We need to elect a Republican president so he can appoint conservative Supreme Court justices” is just another GOP myth to sucker conservatives into voting Republican.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blo...-appoint-conservative-supreme-court-justices/

Kennedy was Reagan's 3rd choice. Bork was his first choice and got Borked for being too conservative. Doug Ginsburg was choice number 2 and got "Borked" for smoking pot. Kennedy was choice number 3 and selected because he was moderately conservative, would get confirmed, and didn't have the paper trail of a Bob Bork. The shame is Bork didn't make it through. An intellectual legal giant who would have made great jurist. Ginsburg would have also as he was an intellectual. Kennedy is a legal lightweight compared to those 2 and has acted more like a politician.

The Kennedy selection doesn't piss me off as much given the political realities of the time, the Bush selection of Souter does/did piss me off because this was a selection that would have made any Dem president happy. Roe could (should) have been overturned in Casey, if Bush wouldn't have nominated the liberal Souter to the court.

 

[joelbc1]

Kennedy was Reagan's 3rd choice. Bork was his first choice and got Borked for being too conservative. Doug Ginsburg was choice number 2 and got "Borked" for smoking pot. Kennedy was choice number 3 and selected because he was moderately conservative, would get confirmed, and didn't have the paper trail of a Bob Bork. The shame is Bork didn't make it through. An intellectual legal giant who would have made great jurist. Ginsburg would have also as he was an intellectual. Kennedy is a legal lightweight compared to those 2 and has acted more like a politician.

The Kennedy selection doesn't piss me off as much given the political realities of the time, the Bush selection of Souter does/did piss me off because this was a selection that would have made any Dem president happy. Roe could (should) have been overturned in Casey, if Bush wouldn't have nominated the liberal Souter to the court.

If Reagan would have been a bit smarter he'd have gotten his con judge....but NOT Bork. Bork was a "no go" from the beginning. Reagan used his nomination to push the envelope of his popularity. Bork was a sticky wicket, at best. Wiser heads prevailed. Reagan learned a lot from this experience...and #1 was not to use his political currency to push another's (Moral Majority) agenda.

 

[Arbitr8]

I like how we handled it in Iowa, we voted out those who voted the wrong way.

 

[naturalmwa]

Kennedy was Reagan's 3rd choice. Bork was his first choice and got Borked for being too conservative. Doug Ginsburg was choice number 2 and got "Borked" for smoking pot. Kennedy was choice number 3 and selected because he was moderately conservative, would get confirmed, and didn't have the paper trail of a Bob Bork. The shame is Bork didn't make it through. An intellectual legal giant who would have made great jurist. Ginsburg would have also as he was an intellectual. Kennedy is a legal lightweight compared to those 2 and has acted more like a politician.

The Kennedy selection doesn't piss me off as much given the political realities of the time, the Bush selection of Souter does/did piss me off because this was a selection that would have made any Dem president happy. Roe could (should) have been overturned in Casey, if Bush wouldn't have nominated the liberal Souter to the court.

Best thing Reagan ever did.

 

[jscott78]

Why Wasn’t the Supreme Court Vote on Gay Marriage 4-3?
Laurence M. Vance

Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg have both performed same-sex weddings. Why didn’t they recuse themselves? By the way, Ginsburg was confirmed in the Senate in 1993 by a vote of 96-3. This means that only three Republican senators voted against her. This also means that Republican senators John McCain, Chuck Grassley, Connie Mack, Trent Lott, John Danforth, Phil Gramm, Strom Thurmond, and Bob Dole voted to confirm Ginsburg.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/why-wasnt-the-supreme-court-vote-on-gay-marriage-4-3/

Scalia isn't real big on recusing himself when he faces obvious conflict of interest. More right wing whining.

 

[Lone Clone]

Kennedy was Reagan's 3rd choice. Bork was his first choice and got Borked for being too conservative. Doug Ginsburg was choice number 2 and got "Borked" for smoking pot. Kennedy was choice number 3 and selected because he was moderately conservative, would get confirmed, and didn't have the paper trail of a Bob Bork. The shame is Bork didn't make it through. An intellectual legal giant who would have made great jurist. Ginsburg would have also as he was an intellectual. Kennedy is a legal lightweight compared to those 2 and has acted more like a politician.

The Kennedy selection doesn't piss me off as much given the political realities of the time, the Bush selection of Souter does/did piss me off because this was a selection that would have made any Dem president happy. Roe could (should) have been overturned in Casey, if Bush wouldn't have nominated the liberal Souter to the court.

Bork may have been the best-qualified person ever nominated to the Supreme Court. He wasn't rejected simply because he was conservative. He was definitely a strict constructionist, but he was rejected because, as Solicitor General, he had carried out Nixon's order to fire special Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox.

The president had ordered AG Elliot Richardson to do it, and Richardson resigned instead; Assistant AG William Ruckleshaus did the same. The next in the pecking order was Bork. He was going to follow suit, but Richardson and Ruckleshaus begged him not to resign, pointing out that it was within the president's constitutional powers to remove Cox and if no one would do it, a real crisis could result. So Bork did it, and liberals never forgave him.

When he was nominated to SCOTUS, he was the victim of one of the most scurrilous campaigns of character assassination imaginable, the worst for any nominee up to that time (Clarence Thomas' ordeal would be worse). Ted Kennedy's conduct and words would have been legally actionable if he had not had senatorial immunity. Pat Leahy was despicable, as well. He nearly brought Bork to tears by lambasting him about a period of a few months when Bork made a lot of money making speeches; Bork had done it because his wife was dying of cancer and he needed money for medical bills.

Bastards.

 

[mstp1992]

I like how we handled it in Iowa, we voted out those who voted the wrong way.

Only idiots voted to oust the Iowa supreme court judges. Oh! You were one of them weren't you?

Looks like your ultra right wing social conservatism is losing traction.

 

[Lone Clone]

Only idiots voted to oust the Iowa supreme court judges.

Bullshit. I voted to retain all of them, FWIW.

But I know people whom I assume, based on reading posts here, are at least as intelligent as you, and probably better informed about Iowa issues of the time, who voted against retaining some of those judges. Their reasons had nothing to do with the issue of homosexual rights.

 

[markfromj]

"...and Flo, she don't know, 'cuz the boy she loves is a Romeo..."

 

[LuteHawk]

Sorry, I thought this thread was about Diana Ross and
the Supremes from Mo-Town.

 

[mstp1992]

Bork may have been the best-qualified person ever nominated to the Supreme Court. He wasn't rejected simply because he was conservative. He was definitely a strict constructionist, but he was rejected because, as Solicitor General, he had carried out Nixon's order to fire special Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox.

The president had ordered AG Elliot Richardson to do it, and Richardson resigned instead; Assistant AG William Ruckleshaus did the same. The next in the pecking order was Bork. He was going to follow suit, but Richardson and Ruckleshaus begged him not to resign, pointing out that it was within the president's constitutional powers to remove Cox and if no one would do it, a real crisis could result. So Bork did it, and liberals never forgave him.

When he was nominated to SCOTUS, he was the victim of one of the most scurrilous campaigns of character assassination imaginable, the worst for any nominee up to that time (Clarence Thomas' ordeal would be worse). Ted Kennedy's conduct and words would have been legally actionable if he had not had senatorial immunity. Pat Leahy was despicable, as well. He nearly brought Bork to tears by lambasting him about a period of a few months when Bork made a lot of money making speeches; Bork had done it because his wife was dying of cancer and he needed money for medical bills.

Bastards.

Bork was a big boy. After all, he got a dictionary word named after him.

The democrats warned Reagan not to nominate an ultra right wing social conservative to replace Powell, but he didn't listen. Or, more likely, Reagan's team didn't since this was in 1987 and by this time Reagan was already in the early stages of Alzheimer's.

 

[Arbitr8]

Only idiots voted to oust the Iowa supreme court judges. Oh! You were one of them weren't you?

Looks like your ultra right wing social conservatism is losing traction.

They would be gone again if the vote was taken today, fool!

 

[mstp1992]

They would be gone again if the vote was taken today, fool!

No they wouldn't.

 

[naturalmwa]

They would be gone again if the vote was taken today, fool!

Which is why States can't be trusted with civil rights.

 

[LifelongHawk]

Bullshit. I voted to retain all of them, FWIW.

But I know people whom I assume, based on reading posts here, are at least as intelligent as you, and probably better informed about Iowa issues of the time, who voted against retaining some of those judges. Their reasons had nothing to do with the issue of homosexual rights.

What were the alleged reasons?

 

[mstp1992]

Bullshit. I voted to retain all of them, FWIW.

But I know people whom I assume, based on reading posts here, are at least as intelligent as you, and probably better informed about Iowa issues of the time, who voted against retaining some of those judges. Their reasons had nothing to do with the issue of homosexual rights.

I call BS on that. You don't know any people who are at least as intelligent as me.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Bork may have been the best-qualified person ever nominated to the Supreme Court. He wasn't rejected simply because he was conservative. He was definitely a strict constructionist, but he was rejected because, as Solicitor General, he had carried out Nixon's order to fire special Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox.

The president had ordered AG Elliot Richardson to do it, and Richardson resigned instead; Assistant AG William Ruckleshaus did the same. The next in the pecking order was Bork. He was going to follow suit, but Richardson and Ruckleshaus begged him not to resign, pointing out that it was within the president's constitutional powers to remove Cox and if no one would do it, a real crisis could result. So Bork did it, and liberals never forgave him.

When he was nominated to SCOTUS, he was the victim of one of the most scurrilous campaigns of character assassination imaginable, the worst for any nominee up to that time (Clarence Thomas' ordeal would be worse). Ted Kennedy's conduct and words would have been legally actionable if he had not had senatorial immunity. Pat Leahy was despicable, as well. He nearly brought Bork to tears by lambasting him about a period of a few months when Bork made a lot of money making speeches; Bork had done it because his wife was dying of cancer and he needed money for medical bills.

Bastards.

Excellent points. I had forgot about the Nixon connection. The conduct of Kennedy and Leahy was shameful. I don't doubt Teddy spent some extra time in purgatory for his shameful conduct against Bork.

Bork was one of the greatest legal minds this country has ever seen and what happened to him during those hearings were disgraceful, but the conduct against him shouldn't have been surprising as to this is what liberals do. While conservatives basically rubber stamp any SC nominee from a Dem president, the Dems will tar, smear, character assassination, to take out conservatives. I actually agree with the GOP on this and so even though I think Ginsburg is a left wing loon, I would have supported her because she was qualified. IMO the SC nominee should be confirmed as long as they are qualified and haven't broken the law, good character, etc. I think the liberal justices are all off their rocker in their judicial philosophy (they've provided further evidence the past couple of days), but that's one of the consequences of not controlling the WH. I would be a against the GOP Borking a Dem Pres nominee to the SC solely because they disagreed with their judicial philosophy.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

While conservatives basically rubber stamp any SC nominee from a Dem president, the Dems will tar, smear, character assassination, to take out conservatives.

IMO the SC nominee should be confirmed as long as they are qualified and haven't broken the law, good character, etc.

I rarely use this, but LOL to the first part.

Fully agree to 2nd part.

If I had been a long-time Senator, the only person I don't confirm, left or right, in the last 40 years or so is Judge Bork. And it's not because of his qualifications. It's his role in the massacre (LC's highly-sanitized version notwithstanding).

(I would have voted against Harriet Miers too but thankfully, someone was able to convince her to withdraw).

 

[PhantomFlyer]

I rarely use this, but LOL to the first part.

Fully agree to 2nd part.

If I had been a long-time Senator, the only person I don't confirm, left or right, in the last 40 years or so is Judge Bork. And it's not because of his qualifications. It's his role in the massacre (LC's highly-sanitized version notwithstanding).

(I would have voted against Harriet Miers too but thankfully, someone was able to convince her to withdraw).

Conservatives would have voted against Harriet Miers. She wasn't qualified.

Name a SC nominee put up by a Dem president who's been Borked? Sotomayer received the most critique but that was because and she made some very controversial statements about race. She still was confirmed with 68 votes. Breyer received 89 votes. Ginsburg was confirmed with 96 votes. She was a far left ACLU lawyer yet was approved by Sen Orin Hatch (R) because she was well qualified and Hatch understood Clinton had the right to move the court in the direction he wanted.

There just isn't anything remotely comparable on the Republican side to what happened to Bork, Doug Ginsburg, Thomas (and others). And don't tell me Ginsburg and Kagan aren't as far left as Bork, Thomas are far right.

Now, if you want to talk about confirmation of circuit court judges. Yes, they get savaged, stonewalled, etc, by both sides, but when it comes to SC judges the Rep, with very little barking, have went along with every Dem presidential nomination in recent times.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Why on earth would this require recusal?

Should all judges who performed any marriage recuse?

This is lacking all logic.

No kidding.

Perhaps they should recuse themselves if they have ever been married, too.

 

[pablow]

No kidding.

Perhaps they should recuse themselves if they have ever been married, too.

It creates the appearance that they already made up their minds. I believe that is one of the statutory grounds for recusal.

On the other hand, a person's status as a married heterosexual does not signal an opinion on SSM one way or the other. Performing a gay marriage ceremony seems a slight tip of the hat.

IMO it's not a huge deal though.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

It creates the appearance that they already made up their minds. I believe that is one of the statutory grounds for recusal.

On the other hand, a person's status as a married heterosexual does not signal an opinion on SSM one way or the other. Performing a gay marriage ceremony seems a slight tip of the hat.

That was expressed well. Thanks.

My problem with that argument, though, is that is suggests that no justice should rule on a case if he enters the arena with an opinion about the subject matter. To take a different example, even if these justices have never had or performed an abortion, don't you think they have their own opinions? How could they NOT have opinions?

What they are being asked to do is apply the law. Whether we like it or not, their existing opinions will influence that process. At some point we enter conflict-of-interest territory, but having an opinion - and even having acted on that opinion - doesn't mean we have crossed that line.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Conservatives would have voted against Harriet Miers. She wasn't qualified.

Name a SC nominee put up by a Dem president who's been Borked? Sotomayer received the most critique but that was because and she made some very controversial statements about race. She still was confirmed with 68 votes. Breyer received 89 votes. Ginsburg was confirmed with 96 votes. She was a far left ACLU lawyer yet was approved by Sen Orin Hatch (R) because she was well qualified and Hatch understood Clinton had the right to move the court in the direction he wanted.

There just isn't anything remotely comparable on the Republican side to what happened to Bork, Doug Ginsburg, Thomas (and others). And don't tell me Ginsburg and Kagan aren't as far left as Bork, Thomas are far right.

Now, if you want to talk about confirmation of circuit court judges. Yes, they get savaged, stonewalled, etc, by both sides, but when it comes to SC judges the Rep, with very little barking, have went along with every Dem presidential nomination in recent times.

I missed your qualifier limiting this this to SC.

What republicans have done with not holding hearings, not advancing, and not voting on district and court of appeals nominees is complete b.s. and doesn't comply with the Senate's constitutional duty to advise and consent.

I'll give you republicans in the Senate have treated recent Clinton and Obama SC nominees fairly well. But as you are aware, there has been a change in how these things are handled - most of the time, the ones throwing the bombs are not the senators, but their surrogate groups and friends in the media.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

I missed your qualifier limiting this this to SC.

What republicans have done with not holding hearings, not advancing, and not voting on district and court of appeals nominees is complete b.s. and doesn't comply with the Senate's constitutional duty to advise and consent.

I'll give you republicans in the Senate have treated recent Clinton and Obama SC nominees fairly well. But as you are aware, there has been a change in how these things are handled - most of the time, the ones throwing the bombs are not the senators, but their surrogate groups and friends in the media.

Yes, but again, this started with Bork. Until then SC hearings were basically ho-hum, no drama. The left put their hate machine in full gear for Bork, and a big reason had to do with abortion. There was no precedent to what happened to Bork and what happened to Thomas. It's bad enough the surrogate groups tarred these guys, and the media willingly joined in, but leftwing groups and the media have about as much civility as a bunch of kindergarteners going after candy thrown about the room. My real disappointment was the despicable conduct of Senators Kennedy, Metzenbaum, Leahy, Biden, and a couple others. Based on their conduct these guys were just a slight level above pond scum. The irony of Kennedy (of Chappaquiddick fame) and Sen Leahy (of leaking classified CIA documents fame) sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee was so rich you'd get cavities just thinking about it.

Agree, in part, about the GOP holding up lower court nominees, but I don't blame them after the conduct displayed during the Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II, presidencies where the Dems did the same thing. The Dems started this under Reagan and the GOP decided to give them a taste of their own medicine. The Dems held up (prevented a vote) against guys like Miguel Estrada because they didn't want a Republican president being the first to nominate a Latino to the SC. There was also an black woman they refused to confirm because they didn't want her to be the first minority woman chosen to the high court.

The GOP's conduct has been far from perfect but the Dems hold nothing but the moral low ground when it comes to judicial confirmation.

 

[theIowaHawk]

It creates the appearance that they already made up their minds. I believe that is one of the statutory grounds for recusal.

On the other hand, a person's status as a married heterosexual does not signal an opinion on SSM one way or the other. Performing a gay marriage ceremony seems a slight tip of the hat.

IMO it's not a huge deal though.

Two things:

Why would this mean they "made up their minds"? I don't know, nor have I cared to look at, the specific matters they officiated over, but it only makes sense that these were valid marriages pursuant to laws in states that allowed it. That was why I questions whether ALL Justices who had performed marriages fell in to the same category, because they would have performed those marriages pursuant to valid statutes as well.

Would seem strange to say that a Judge has made up their mind by performing a marriage in a jurisdiction where it is legal (as opposed to those under appeal, where it isn't illegal). Now, if they were performing non-sanctioned marriages at the steps of the State legislature in protest, that would be a different matter.

Secondly, opinions are not recusal-mandatory, nor should they be. Sure, their minds shouldn't be "made up" until they hear/read legal argument and review the authority, but they shouldn't be opinion-less. Otherwise we would have no Justices.

 

[Lone Clone]

I missed your qualifier limiting this this to SC.

What republicans have done with not holding hearings, not advancing, and not voting on district and court of appeals nominees is complete b.s. and doesn't comply with the Senate's constitutional duty to advise and consent.

I'll give you republicans in the Senate have treated recent Clinton and Obama SC nominees fairly well. But as you are aware, there has been a change in how these things are handled - most of the time, the ones throwing the bombs are not the senators, but their surrogate groups and friends in the media.

Democrats did the same thing. When Dubya was elected, one of the things he did to attempt to reach out to Democrats in the wake of the bruising election controversy was, in his first group of 10 nominees, include three who had been nominated by Clinton and delayed or shelved by Republicans in the Senate. The Dems responded to this outstretched hand by confirming those three and rejecting the others.

 

[Arbitr8]

Which is why States can't be trusted with civil rights.

Because the nitwits in the black robes know better? Ginsberg doesn't even know what year it is.

 

[joelbc1]

Excellent points. I had forgot about the Nixon connection. The conduct of Kennedy and Leahy was shameful. I don't doubt Teddy spent some extra time in purgatory for his shameful conduct against Bork.

Bork was one of the greatest legal minds this country has ever seen and what happened to him during those hearings were disgraceful, but the conduct against him shouldn't have been surprising as to this is what liberals do. While conservatives basically rubber stamp any SC nominee from a Dem president, the Dems will tar, smear, character assassination, to take out conservatives. I actually agree with the GOP on this and so even though I think Ginsburg is a left wing loon, I would have supported her because she was qualified. IMO the SC nominee should be confirmed as long as they are qualified and haven't broken the law, good character, etc. I think the liberal justices are all off their rocker in their judicial philosophy (they've provided further evidence the past couple of days), but that's one of the consequences of not controlling the WH. I would be a against the GOP Borking a Dem Pres nominee to the SC solely because they disagreed with their judicial philosophy.

Get off your soap boxes boys. Reagan knew Bork was a "no go" from the get go and it was because of Bork's role in Watergate as Lone mentioned. Reagan is the one who embarrassed Bork....not so much Kennedy and Leahy. Reagan knew Bork wouldn't fly but at the time Reagan thought he was 10' tall and bullet proof (no pun intended). Reagan got a firsthand lesson in Washington DC politics.
The fact of the matter is that Bork probably would have gotten appointed later in Reagan's term. Was Bork qualified? Absolutely. Is it a shame he wasn't....Not really. Pols have LONG memories. Bork shouldn't have fired Cox. Kennedy and Leahy remembered.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Yes, but again, this started with Bork. Until then SC hearings were basically ho-hum, no drama. The left put their hate machine in full gear for Bork, and a big reason had to do with abortion. There was no precedent to what happened to Bork and what happened to Thomas. It's bad enough the surrogate groups tarred these guys, and the media willingly joined in, but leftwing groups and the media have about as much civility as a bunch of kindergarteners going after candy thrown about the room. My real disappointment was the despicable conduct of Senators Kennedy, Metzenbaum, Leahy, Biden, and a couple others. Based on their conduct these guys were just a slight level above pond scum. The irony of Kennedy (of Chappaquiddick fame) and Sen Leahy (of leaking classified CIA documents fame) sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee was so rich you'd get cavities just thinking about it.

Agree, in part, about the GOP holding up lower court nominees, but I don't blame them after the conduct displayed during the Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II, presidencies where the Dems did the same thing. The Dems started this under Reagan and the GOP decided to give them a taste of their own medicine. The Dems held up (prevented a vote) against guys like Miguel Estrada because they didn't want a Republican president being the first to nominate a Latino to the SC. There was also an black woman they refused to confirm because they didn't want her to be the first minority woman chosen to the high court.

The GOP's conduct has been far from perfect but the Dems hold nothing but the moral low ground when it comes to judicial confirmation.

No precedent to what happened to Judge Bork? See Fortas, Judge Abe.

It should have started with Judge Bork. His role in the Saturday night massacre disqualified him from applying the rule of law imo.

And we will just have to disagree on when it started in earnest - President Reagan had an far higher percentage of his nominees confirmed:

President Reagan - Appellate nominees confirmed - 88 %
President Clinton - Appellate nominees confirmed - 77 %

I honestly don't know what you are talking about with Judge Estrada and a minority woman nominee to the SC. Neither were nominated for the SC as far as I remember.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Democrats did the same thing. When Dubya was elected, one of the things he did to attempt to reach out to Democrats in the wake of the bruising election controversy was, in his first group of 10 nominees, include three who had been nominated by Clinton and delayed or shelved by Republicans in the Senate. The Dems responded to this outstretched hand by confirming those three and rejecting the others.

After how President Clinton's nominees were treated by the republicans, they had every right to stick it to the republicans.

 

[mstp1992]

Democrats did the same thing. When Dubya was elected, one of the things he did to attempt to reach out to Democrats in the wake of the bruising election controversy was, in his first group of 10 nominees, include three who had been nominated by Clinton and delayed or shelved by Republicans in the Senate. The Dems responded to this outstretched hand by confirming those three and rejecting the others.

The dems confirmed the correct ones. What was the problem? It's not as if Dubya was the correct president, so what goes around comes around. We had to live with the consequences of a Dubya presidency, therefore you have nothing to complain about.
At some point it might be good for you if you took off your partisan blinders. You seem to have a very specific memory system.

 

[lucas80]

Random points: On his death bed George Bush Sr. will admit that the biggest mistake of his time in office was Clarence Thomas. The least inquisitive, least productive member of the Supreme Court ever.
Robert Bork might have been a smart fellow, but his willingness to carry out the Saturday Night Massacre disqualified him from being on the Supreme Court for reasons of morality, and an understanding of the law.
Raphael Cruz wants to put Supreme Court members on a retention vote. That shows a ridiculous lack of understanding of the framers intent from someone who claims to be an expert in constitutional law. And, shows a complete lack of understanding of the politics of modern Washington, DC.