Republicans started the war over confirmations to Federal Courts

[TJ8869]

Oh cmon! Estrada was the first one that "worked", not the first one that was tried. Judicial filibuster was recognized as a legitimate tactic by both parties.

BTW--And Fortas wasn't selling "votes", in the Wolfson case he had recused himself.

He was getting regular payments from Wolfson and was not only advising him on his troubles with the Securities and Exchange Commission but also offered to intervene on his behalf.

As a close friend of LBJ he also regularly attended White House staff meetings and briefed Johnson on private SCOTUS deliberations. That's pretty troublesome, yes?

He was corrupt. And it was for very good reason that he not only was blocked from becoming Chief Justice but also later forced to resign altogether.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...etailed/0b15ab1b-ca34-4a99-be65-51967ea123a6/

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/cautionary-tale-abe-fortas

 

[Hawk and Awe]

This “United” states thing has probably gone far enough. This is more like enemies in combat than competing ideals engaging in debate.

 

[RileyHawk]

Are you on drugs? Seriously. Are you on drugs? "Falsely" saying you refuse to acknowledge? It's absolutely true. You have not once acknowledged that Fortas' corruption was the reason his promotion to Chief Justice was blocked by members of both parties. You have been given multiple opportunities to do so and have stubbornly refused.

But the real issue here is you making a demonstrably false accusation that I'm desperately trying to defend McConnell's and the GOP's hypocrisy. That is absolutely not true. I have very explicitly denounced their tactics and you damn well know it.

But you made the accusation anyway because you're a blatant liar. A worthless, cowardly, goddamn liar.

You're a GD idiot. I've never refused to acknowledge that. I simply ignored it because it was a childish request on your part that had nothing to do with the point at hand. It was simply another deflection attempt on your part. You're too stupid to recognize the difference.

And I never made any claims about Abe Fortas - that's just you making more shit up.

And you are desperately trying to defend the hypocrisy as "it happens on both sides". I'm not sure if you're too dumb to recognize it or if it's just another lie.

You're very predictable. Say something dumb or demonstrably wrong, try to spin it with long winded, impertinent drivel over many, many posts, make some things up if necessary. But never, ever say "I was wrong. My bad." Again, GFY.

 

[TJ8869]

And I never made any claims about Abe Fortas - that's just you making more shit up.

And. you. continue. to. lie.

I never said you made any claims about Fortas. I said that you refuse to acknowledge that his elevation to Chief Justice was blocked by members of both parties in large part because of his corruption which later resulted in his forced resignation.

And those circumstances are vastly different than a purely partisan political filibuster.

As for your "both sides" bullshit, the only "both sides" claim I've made is that both sides have been engaging in an escalating tit-for-tat for decades. I have not defended their hypocrisy as it pertains to Garland and Ginsburg and I do not defend it. I have specifically denounced it.

So stop lying, you fvcking liar.

 

[Jan Itor]

He gets to make a pick because he is President.

Was that your opinion in 2016?

 

[Nipigu]

Was that your opinion in 2016?

There was a pick.

 

[RileyHawk]

And. you. continue. to. lie.

I never said you made any claims about Fortas. I said that you refuse to acknowledge that his elevation to Chief Justice was blocked by members of both parties in large part because of his corruption which later resulted in his forced resignation.

And those circumstances are vastly different than a purely partisan political filibuster.

As for your "both sides" bullshit, the only "both sides" claim I've made is that both sides have been engaging in an escalating tit-for-tat for decades. I have not defended their hypocrisy as it pertains to Garland and Ginsburg and I do not defend it. I have specifically denounced it.

So stop lying, you fvcking liar.

You're wrong and are too insecure to admit it. Much like Trump.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

All of that dovetails splendidly with my statement that each party has ratcheted up the rancor with each successive administration. And the point of it all remains that, contrary to PJ's thread title, the tomfoolery regarding federal judicial nominees did not start when Barack Obama took the oath of office. We had already experienced tit-for-tat escalations by both parties for several administrations.

As for Merrick Garland, I'm on record numerous times throughout 2016 and since then stating that the Senate should have held hearings and a vote. But you being you, that documented fact will most likely never reach the inside of your skull.

The op specifically pointed to the ends of the various tenures. You seemed to miss that. I was just pointing out that you did so. But you being you, you'll likely now go on a ten page rant about how you did no such thing. Take your meds.

 

[TJ8869]

The op specifically pointed to the ends of the various tenures. You seemed to miss that. I was just pointing out that you did so. But you being you, you'll likely now go on a ten page rant about how you did no such thing. Take your meds.

Fair enough. I thought he was asking for total numbers confirmed.

But as I pointed out earlier, the Republican-controlled Senate confirmed 8 appellate judges and 31 district judges during Clinton’s final year. And that still aligns with my point that this has been a steady regression of tit-for-tat politics that started long before 2009.

Obama was treated worse than Bush43, who was treated worse than Clinton, who was treated worse than Bush41, who was treated worse than Carter.

Democrats who were weary of 12 years of Reagan/Bush started holding seats open during the final two years of GHWB. Republicans retaliated by blocking many of Clinton’s nominees.

And Democrats retaliated for that by blocking many of GWB’s nominees when they controlled the Senate in 2001 and 2002. When they lost control of the Senate in the 2002 midterms and could no longer kill the nominations in committee they decided to escalate things by filibustering nominations once they reached the floor for no real reason other than they didn’t like the nominee.

And then of course Republicans took things to new levels with Obama.

The point of all this continues to be that history didn’t start in 2009.

 

[soybean]

Democrats started this in the 1980's

How?