Bush installs far-right ideologue to Court of Appeals

"In another late Friday announcement timed to avoid public attention, President Bush today installed Alabama Attorney General William Pryor on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit without Senate approval. It is the second time in five weeks that Bush has used a recess appointment to place a widely opposed, far-right ideologue on our federal courts.

"Apparently Bush is betting that contempt for Americans' fundamental rights and liberties, and for the checks and balances that ensure fair and independent courts, will rally his political base but not turn off more moderate voters or get much public criticism. Our action today can help make sure that strategy doesn't work.

"Write your local newspaper, t.v. and radio editors to cast a spotlight on Bush's contempt for the public and their elected representatives in the Senate - Click here.

"Then, give Bush and Karl Rove a message: "We will not forget this blatant abuse of power."

White House Comments Line: (202) 456-1111

White House Switchboard: (202) 456-1414

TTY/TDD Comments Line: (202) 456-6213

[email protected]

Web form: https://sawho14.eop.gov/PERSdata/intro.htm

"Like Judge Charles Pickering, who Bush recess appointed in January, Pryor has amassed a troubling civil rights record and has used the power of his office to advance his extreme right-wing views.

[ul][li]Pryor has called Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history."

[li]Pryor urged the Supreme Court to hold that, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, state employees cannot sue for damages to protect their rights against discrimination.

[li]Pryor urged the Supreme Court to uphold laws that would imprison gay men and lesbians for having sex in the privacy of their own homes.

[li]Pryor has defended a state judge who has officially sponsored sectarian prayers in the courtroom before juries and who has installed unconstitutional religious displays of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom and in the state judicial building.[/ul]

"President Bush's actions to pack our courts with right-wing judges and to politicize the judicial confirmation process should be on every citizen's mind. Help make that the case by telling those in your community that it's on your mind right now.

"Write a letter to the editor, and contact the White House to let them know you're working this weekend to ensure that all Americans remember this blatant abuse of power."

-People for the American Way, Feb. 20, 2004

Clinton used recess appointments too. Not a good line of attack. x(

>Clinton used recess appointments too. Not a good line of

>attack. x(

Clinton is not the president right now; Bush is. I don't worship Clinton. I'm talking about what's happening right now.

Bush is apparently trying to appease his right-wing supporters who are furious (see the previous post, "Evangelic Political Purity, 2004) for his lack of action on the gay marriage issue.

...Hoover

I don't often post in the Politics section but I have said long ago that the potential Judgeship appointments are what I most fear from Bush. What Bush has done with recess appointments is very legal, regardlees of the Senate's approval or not. This will probably help to solidify this southern base for November. Remember that Extreme Right wing conservatives have put Judgeships at the top of their want list. Even though these appointments expire at the end of the year, it is very fearful what lasting effect they can have upon our lifes with any ruling within the next few short months.

.......and what about the Supreme Court? There are several jurists anxious to retire and the balance is already tedious. Another reason why it is so important this November to, as they say in Chicago, "vote and vote often". }(

< "vote and vote often" >

Actually, it's "vote early and vote often." }(

Right on, KYT! The federal judiciary literally hangs in the balance in this tug of war between sanity and right wing fanaticism. With any luck, those among us who are mad as hell and aren't going to take it any more will prevail in November.

>With any luck, those among us who are mad as hell

>and aren't going to take it any more will prevail in November.

Oh really? I thought Howard Dean's problem was that he was too "angry."

It is best seen as a struggle for democracy. The Republicans want judges who will apply the Constitution and Laws enacted by the people through their legislators. The Dems want "activist" judges who will ignore the Constitution and Laws and apply the liberal agenda. The purpose of the Constitutional Amendment against gay marriages is to prevent the courts from striking down the statutes which retain the universal definition of marriage as a man and a woman. If that is to be changed, it should be the people through the legislature doing it. Liberals don't care about democracy. They want the courts to force the liberal agenda upon the people, whether they like it or not. Before you bring up the Bush/Gore litigation, remember that, first the all Democrat Supreme Court of Florida, (from which Republicans have systematically excluded) by ruling that in certain Democrat counties only (not Republican counties) the election boards could ignore the law and guess what the voters meant even though they did not punch the holes as the law required. The Supreme Court of the US ruled that procedure to be a denial of equal protection, to have one law for Democrat counties and one for Republican. Now the dems in the Senate are refusing to do what the Constitution requires them to do, to vote on judicial nominees. And they are doing so in complete bad faith. We now know they refused to vote on one judge because he was "latino", and another because one of the Dems special interest groups demanded they hold him up because he might influence one of their cases in the court.

I don't normally respond to ideological rants. But this is such a load of crap that I can't let it go by.

>It is best seen as a struggle for democracy. The Republicans

>want judges who will apply the Constitution and Laws enacted

>by the people through their legislators. The Dems want

>"activist" judges who will ignore the Constitution and Laws

>and apply the liberal agenda.

There are so many problems with what you have written that it's hard to know where to begin.

(1) The Republicans have no lock on democracy or a desire for it. Democrats are, on average, at least as passionate about democracy as Republicans. To try to cast half of all Americans as being not "for democracy" is ludicrous.

(2) By using the code phrase "liberal agenda", you imply that there's something evil or wrong with what liberals hope to achieve. But there's a "conservative agenda" just as strong and biased and passionately projected by its advocates as any liberal agenda. And Republicans are quite happy enough to accept court decisions when they fall their way. They only decry "activist" judges when the decisions go against them and start crying about the "liberal agenda" again.

(3) Judges have a constitutional responsibility to apply the constitution in all of their decisions. One of duties of certain courts is to test the constitutional fitness of laws that have been challenged through lawsuits. Judges decide whether a law is constitutional or not by applying the constitution as they see it. This is true for liberal and conservative judges. Conservatives like to accuse liberal judges of ignoring the constitution because they don't like the results. But liberal judges have every bit as much right to their interpretation of the constitution as conservative judges do theirs. Conservatives and Republicans have no lock on the truth.

(4) Conservatives seem to conveniently forget that one of the primary reasons why the judicial branch was given the powers that it was given by the Founders was precisely to protect the rights of the minority against the majority. They like to decry "liberal courts" that make decisions based on the rights of people vs. the government. But they forget that our bedrock freedoms -- the ones we go to sleep depending on, the ones that are embedded in the Bill of Rights -- have come under attack in any number of ways over the past 200 years and it's been the courts that have been there to stop the other branches of government from riding rough-shod over the rights of the people. It should be a conservative goal to maximize the rights of the individual over the rights of the government, but many so-called conservatives today have gotten so bound up in hatred that they've forgotten the true roots and philosophy underlying conservatism.

>The purpose of the

>Constitutional Amendment against gay marriages is to prevent

>the courts from striking down the statutes which retain the

>universal definition of marriage as a man and a woman. If that

>is to be changed, it should be the people through the

>legislature doing it.

Why? Do you really mean to say that you think that civil rights should only come from laws passed by legislatures? If you do believe that, perhaps you haven't spent much time studying the history of the evolution of civil rights in this country. Or perhaps you haven't really considered what rights a popularly-elected legislature, full of politicians thinking only of their next election, really is likely to grant any given minority group. Or perhaps you feel comfortably part of some majority group and don't believe the "others" should have equal rights.

>Liberals don't care about democracy.

Again, a conservative rant. If you really believe this to be true, you (1) don't understand how our democratic system is supposed to work; (2) haven't really thought about what you are writing; (3) are full of hatred and anger; or (4) all of the above.

>They want the courts to force the liberal agenda upon the

>people, whether they like it or not.

The last time I checked, it was the right of any American to work for political change through the various mechanisms provided by the US system of government. And just who are you referring to when you say "whether the like it or not"? Republicans? Conservatives? The country is evenly divided right now. So don't try to imply that some small radical group of lefties is trying to change the whole country and make things terrible for "the people".

>Before you bring up the

>Bush/Gore litigation, remember that, first the all Democrat

>Supreme Court of Florida, (from which Republicans have

>systematically excluded) by ruling that in certain Democrat

>counties only (not Republican counties) the election boards

>could ignore the law and guess what the voters meant even

>though they did not punch the holes as the law required. The

>Supreme Court of the US ruled that procedure to be a denial of

>equal protection, to have one law for Democrat counties and

>one for Republican.

Ancient history... move on.

>Now the dems in the Senate are refusing to

>do what the Constitution requires them to do, to vote on

>judicial nominees.

Really? Show me where in the constitution it says that they are required to vote on nominees.

>And they are doing so in complete bad

>faith. We now know they refused to vote on one judge because

>he was "latino", and another because one of the Dems special

>interest groups demanded they hold him up because he might

>influence one of their cases in the court.

Oh, right. It's only the Republicans in the Senate who act in good faith. The Republicans in Congress have used every device they could to advance the conservative agenda. Their history of stalling and obstructing judicial appointments during the Clinton years is what started the whole appointments mess. They just don't like getting a taste of their own medicine, now that they have a Republican president. It's their own damn fault and they should have seen it coming.

It happens to be the right of each Senator to vote on each prospective judge as he or she sees fit. Accusing Senators of not voting for a "latino" judge on that basis alone is as ludicrous as many of your other statements above: Democrats have long counted Latinos as part of their constituencies and Democratic Senators haven't gotten to where they are by being stupid when it comes to politics.

If you'd check your facts, you'd find that the candidate in question was held up for very different reasons.

Finally, if you really are a gay man who is buying into half of the things you've said above, I feel sorry for you. You've obviously forgotten, overlooked or never thought about the history of gay rights in this nation, what party has been supportive of them, or what it's like for gay people in other countries that don't have a protective judiciary like the American one.

BG

>I thought Howard Dean's problem was that he was too "angry."

I don't think it was Dean's anger that got him into trouble but the way he looked and acted when he was angry.

I believe he would have fared better if he had maintained a calm but resolute appearance even while being very, very, angry; something few people can pull off.

...Hoover

>We now know they refused to vote on one judge because

>he was "latino"

Boston Guy already gave you the excellent answer your post deserves, but I thought I'd add something. You're referring here to Miguel Estrada (who was nominated to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia) and the "anti-latino" bias is not only untrue, it's laughable, especially when you consider that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund are/were opposed to Estrada’s confirmation!! :o

Estrada's former supervisor in the Justice Department concluded that Estrada “lacks the judgment” and is “too much of an ideologue to be an appeals court judge.”

Estrada’s record:

"Estrada has expressed the disturbing view that Americans should not be permitted to turn to the judicial branch when legislative decisions harm fundamental constitutional freedoms. In fact, it is precisely when a legislature has used its power to violate the freedoms of the less powerful that judicial review becomes crucial. Estrada’s argument would mean that religious and racial minorities and others whose constitutional rights are threatened would have no recourse but to submit to the will of the majority.

"As a lawyer in private practice, Estrada has sought to defend so-called anti-loitering statutes and ordinances, which have been demonstrated to disproportionately harm African-Americans and Latinos in much the same manner as racial profiling. Federal and state courts, including the Supreme Court, have invalidated a number of these provisions as violating the First Amendment freedom to assembly and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Estrada has even tried to argue that the NAACP should not be allowed to challenge such ordinances.

"Estrada has sought to use the First Amendment as a shield for a large company that had been found guilty of deceptive advertising by the Federal Trade Commission. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, including several judges appointed by Republican presidents, unanimously rejected his line of reasoning.

"Despite his troubling record, Estrada refused to answer key questions at his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about his judicial philosophy, such as his views about important Supreme Court decisions. For example, he refused to name a single Supreme Court decision in the last 50 years that he thought was wrong. In light of the Senate’s co-equal role in judicial appointments, the Senate should not confirm a nominee who refuses even to answer such critical questions." (-People for the American Way)

You are missing the point. The Dems are blocking the Senate from exercising their co-equal role in the appointment of judges. They are refusing to allow the Senate to give its "advice and consent". And they are doing so because they want judges who will not enforce the Constitution as written and intended, but who will lie about the Constitution to achieve liberal ends. If you don't believe it, read the Constitution some time and tell me where it says that the States may not prohibit abortion. Don't waste too much time. I ain't there.This is not a discussion about abortion, it is about judicial activism.

>You are missing the point. The Dems are blocking the Senate

>from exercising their co-equal role in the appointment of

>judges. They are refusing to allow the Senate to give its

>"advice and consent".

Dude,

Don't you know that "advise and consent" means 51 votes when the Democrats control the Senate and a fillabuster-proof 61 votes if Hillary and Two-buck-Chuck can't chair subcommittees. Rumor has it, though, that Priscilla and Janice will be recess appointments shortly. And Nader just joined the race. Yipee, go team!

Later.

You're referring

>here to Miguel Estrada (who was nominated to the Circuit Court

>of Appeals for the District of Columbia) and the "anti-latino"

>bias is not only untrue, it's laughable,. . . .

Memos which have been leaked from the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee expressly stated that there was a particularly urgent need to stop the Estrada nomination BECAUSE HE'S LATINO. They believed that the real intent was the put Estrada on the U.S. Supreme Court, and the fact that he's Latino, and would be the first Latino appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court, would have made it impossible to stop.

There's no need to speculate about whether his Latino status played a role in the Democrats' blockading of his nomination. They admitted it did in Senate Judiciary Committee documents which were released to the public.

Democrats get petrified whenever it's going to be revealed that not all minorities have to be liberal. It's why they hate Clarence Thomas with a unique passion; it's why any gay person who isn't a liberal is viewed as a self-hating traitor; and it's why, as the Democrats in the Senate admitted, it was particularly crucial to stop the Estrada nomination.

especially when you

>consider that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the

>Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund are/were opposed

>to Estrada’s confirmation!! :o

These are liberal groups. Obviously they opposed the nomination of a conservative - EVEN THOUGH he was Latino and would be the highest-ranking Latino Judge in U.S. History. The fact that these groups opposed his confirmation shows that these groups care about liberalism, not about Latinos.

Latino CONSERAVTIVE groups supported Estrada's nomination vigorously and complained that the extraordinary efforts to prevent his confirmation were due to the fact that he's Latino, and the Democrats can't stomach the idea of a Latino judge who doesn't fall into line with the "Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund's" liberal judicial agenda.

Bigotry is alive and well in the Democratic Party. So many of them believe that if you belong to Minority Group X, then you are, for that reason alone, obligated to be a Democrat. That's why black conservatives, or gay conservatives, or Latino conservatives, or female conservatives, are the target of so much more hostilty and anger than plain old conservatives.

What a disgusting, patronizing, bigoted way to think - and yet it's exactly that view, as those Democratic memos make clear, that prevented the confirmation of Miguel Estrada -- an amazingly high achiever and extraordinary human being -- to this court.

RE: Democrats don't want Latino judges

>Boston Guy already gave you the excellent answer your post

>deserves, but I thought I'd add something. You're referring

>here to Miguel Estrada (who was nominated to the Circuit Court

>of Appeals for the District of Columbia) and the "anti-latino"

>bias is not only untrue, it's laughable,

Here's the quote from the staffer of Sen. Richard Durbin (D), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, summarizing the meeting between Democrats on the Committee and "civil rights" (read: Liberal) special interests groups, meeting over how to stop the Estrada nomiation:

<< In the Nov. 7, 2001, memo, the Durbin staffer was recounting a meeting his boss had missed with Mr. Kennedy and "representatives of various civil rights groups."

"Yesterday's meeting focused on identifying the most controversial and/or vulnerable judicial nominees, and a strategy for targeting them," the staffer wrote about the groups present. "They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.">>

Yeah, Rick - the accusation that the Democrats opposed Estrada at least in part because he's Latino is real "laughable". It only says that they did exactly that right in a Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee memorandum. Gosh, how could anyone accuse the Democrats of such a thing?

Full article: http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031115-121140-2918r.htm

Or perhaps, they think a Supreme Court appointment should be based on qualifications, not a "quota". You know, like those Republicans did with the Sandy "got to be a female there" or Clarence "someone's got to replace the only Black". Should Estrada have been appointed just because he is Latino? What would that accomplish except to put another idiotic, clueless, unqualified judge like Clarence on the Supreme Court bench?

As far as your critique of a minority being a Republican, imo, they are the RICH people that just happen to belong to a minority group, so of course they share the same values as the rich, majorly white, Republican party. IMO, they should be castigated and criticized for aligning themselves with a party that preaches intolerance of minorities and enacts laws to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor/middle class that comprises most of the minority population and a majority of the "white" population.

not sure when it became a requirement to be a judge to be a supreme court nominee. if you look at the supreme court 50 years ago, i do not think any of the supreme court judges had been judges on a lower court. frankly, a return to nominating people from all walks of life would tone down the fights on lower court nominees as they would not be seen as a path to the supreme court.

past judges had been former presidents(taft), governors(warren), lawyers(goldberg, fortus), agency heads(douglas), scholars(brandis), etc. i suggest a return to this practice.

>Or perhaps, they think a Supreme Court appointment should be

>based on qualifications, not a "quota".

HAWK - I can't even believe that you said this. Miguel Estrada has one of the most impressive and powerful records of achievement a lawyer can possibly have. He has reached the highest echelons of academia and the legal profession - something which is all the more remarkable considering that he emigrated to this country from Hondurus speaking barely any English and having literally no money in his pocket when he arrived.

As one commentator summarized:

<<Miguel Estrada, nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, is a proud example of the American dream. He came here as a high-school student speaking little English. Before ascending to his current position at a leading Washington law firm, he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, clerked for both a Supreme Court justice and a Court of Appeals justice, argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court, and served as assistant to the solicitor general under presidents Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush.

Estrada's impressive resume includes more experience than those of many past nominees. Indeed, five of the eight judges currently on the D.C. Circuit had had no prior judicial experience. And the American Bar Association, which routinely rates judicial picks, gave Estrada their highest rating.>>

So he had the highest rating possible from the American Bar Association. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School and clerked for a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, and then became a partner in a leading Washington, D.C. law firm. If he weren't a conservative, he would be celebrated by every liberal on the planet - he's an immigrant who has amassed achievements which would be remarkable even if they were attained by some blue-blooded rich white kid. You can't have more impressive qualifications as a lawyer than he has.

And yet you have the fucking audacity to say that he was rejected because he was unqualified and that he would be "another idiotic, clueless, unqualified judge"?? Are you fucking insane? You can't find a more qualified, high-achieving lawyer anywhere for this position. Other than the fact that he's Latino, what possible basis do you and your Democratic friens who blocked his nomiation have for calling him "idiotic" "clueless" and "unqualified"?

You know, like those

>Republicans did with the Sandy "got to be a female there" or

>Clarence "someone's got to replace the only Black". Should

>Estrada have been appointed just because he is Latino? What

>would that accomplish except to put another idiotic, clueless,

>unqualified judge like Clarence on the Supreme Court bench?

Right. He graduated Harvard Law School, magna cum laude. He clerked for a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. He became partner at one of the most preeminent law firms in Washington, D.C. And yet, you look at him and all you can see is LATINO - and so you claim that he's only being appointed because of his race. That is exactly what the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee did, and it is just truly despicable.

>You are missing the point. The Dems are blocking the Senate

>from exercising their co-equal role in the appointment of

>judges. They are refusing to allow the Senate to give its

>"advice and consent".

I simply can't let Merlin's blatant hypocrisy in this post go unchallenged. Especially when it's so easy to expose. I can do it in one sentence: Merlin, where were you and the other Repubs with your complaints about interfering with the role of the Senate during the Clinton administration when Orrin Hatch and his minions prevented a number of Clinton's judicial appointees from even getting a vote in the Judiciary Committee? Well?

> And they are doing so because they want

>judges who will not enforce the Constitution as written and

>intended, but who will lie about the Constitution to achieve

>liberal ends. If you don't believe it, read the Constitution

>some time and tell me where it says that the States may not

>prohibit abortion. Don't waste too much time. I ain't

>there.This is not a discussion about abortion, it is about

>judicial activism.

This hypocrisy becomes more and more sickening. Merlin, where in the Constitution is Congress given authority to pass legislation on the subject of education? Is the word "education" even in the Constitution? If Congress has no power to legislate in that area, where did Bush's "No Child Left Behind" law come from? You were about to say something about the phrase "general welfare," weren't you? Well, if two other branches of government, the Congress and the Executive, are allowed to use some vague phrase in the Constitution to justify their assertion of power over how public schools are run, where do you get off saying the judiciary can't do something similar?

Boston Guy is quite right -- the definition of "judicial activism" is "any judicial decision the Right doesn't like."

You didn't by any chance catch Limbaugh's rant a few weeks ago to the effect that by seizing his medical records with a search warrant, the Florida authorities were violating his "Constitutional right to privacy"? This from someone who has been railing at "activist judges" for years. And now that his big behind is caught in the wringer he's appealing for exactly the sort of "right" that he's been complaining about all his career. Are all Republicans hypocrites? Or is it only the prominent ones?

>I simply can't let Merlin's blatant hypocrisy in this post go

>unchallenged. Especially when it's so easy to expose. I can

>do it in one sentence: Merlin, where were you and the other

>Repubs with your complaints about interfering with the role of

>the Senate during the Clinton administration when Orrin Hatch

>and his minions prevented a number of Clinton's judicial

>appointees from even getting a vote in the Judiciary

>Committee? Well?

Hey, wait a minute: I thought we weren't supposed to talk about what happened under Clinton. How come every time someone says Bush is doing X wrong, and I say, "well, Clinton did X also," all of you Liberals say how it's wrong and bad to mention what happened under Clinton, since that's in the past, and yet . . .

Here Woodlawn is, defending the Democrats' blockading of all of these judicial nominations by saying: "Well, under Clinton, the GOP did that, too."

So can one of you liberal screetchers clarify this, please: Is it OK to talk about what happened under Clinton and compare it to what is happening under Bush (as Woodlawn just did), or is that not OK? Thanks in advance for clearing that up.

>>I simply can't let Merlin's blatant hypocrisy in this post

>go

>>unchallenged. Especially when it's so easy to expose. I

>can

>>do it in one sentence: Merlin, where were you and the other

>>Repubs with your complaints about interfering with the role

>of

>>the Senate during the Clinton administration when Orrin

>Hatch

>>and his minions prevented a number of Clinton's judicial

>>appointees from even getting a vote in the Judiciary

>>Committee? Well?

>

>Hey, wait a minute: I thought we weren't supposed to talk

>about what happened under Clinton. How come every time

>someone says Bush is doing X wrong, and I say, "well, Clinton

>did X also," all of you Liberals say how it's wrong and bad to

>mention what happened under Clinton, since that's in the past,

>and yet . . .

Note to Right-wing idiots: Bill Clinton isn't president any longer. That doesn't stop Repubs from blaming everything that goes wrong on him even though we are now in the fourth year of the Bush presidency. But guess what? The Republican who headed the Senate Judiciary Committee in Clinton's day is the SAME guy who heads it today -- Orrin Hatch. During Clinton's terms Hatch prevented a vote on numerous Clinton judicial appointees. And now Hatch and his fellow Repubs are screaming their outrage at the fact that Democrats are using the filibuster to do the SAME thing they did. Does Washington get any more hypocritical than that?

>Note to Right-wing idiots: Bill Clinton isn't president any

>longer.

Then why are you blathering on about how his nominees were treated three years ago?

That doesn't stop Repubs from blaming everything that

>goes wrong on him even though we are now in the fourth year of

>the Bush presidency.

No, nobody is blaming Clinton for anything. The issue is that liberal hyprocrites like you were defending the Clinton Administration from all sorts of behavior for which you are now criticizing the Bush Administration. And you want everyone to forget about your double standards by demanding that everyone just forget about your behavior during the Clinton Administration, on the ground that it's "in the past," because you think that this will enable you to get away with your hypocrisy. It won't work. Nobody is willing to adhere to your wimpy, effete, irrelevant demands that people forget about what you were shrieking about 3 years ago.

The Republican who

>headed the Senate Judiciary Committee in Clinton's day is the

>SAME guy who heads it today -- Orrin Hatch.

And the Democrats who are now blocking Bush's nominees were the same ones who were whining about how anti-democratic it was when the GOP was blocking Clinton's nominees.

Now both sides have reversed themselves and are taking the exact opposite position. That's why partisian droolers like you make everyone so sick.

> Does Washington get

>any more hypocritical than that?

Let' see . . .

Liberals saying that no-bid contracts to Halliburton are the root of all evil, even though they thought it was fine when Clinton did it?

Liberals saying that it didn't matter what anyone did during Vietnam or what military service candidates had when draft-dodger Clinton ran against war heroes Bush and Dole, but now they're saying it's a critical reflection of character?

Liberals saying that recess appointments of blocked judges are anti-democratic, but saying it was heroic when Clinton did it?

Liberals claiming that Ann Coulter is the root of all evil for calling all liberals traitors, while liberals call all Republicans criminals and liars?

Liberals saying that Bush lied when he said Iraq had WMDs, but that Democrats who said the same thing were merely mistaken?

Libearls pretending to think that the defecit is a bad thing, even while they object to every cut in every government spending program other than the military?

Libearls blaming George Bush for 9/11 even though Bill Clinton allowed Al Qaeda to sit in Afghanistan for years and years and did nothing?

Liberals pretending to be against "killing" when it comes to wars against Americans enemies but being in favor of starving a woman to death whose husband wants her dead so he can re-marry or smashing a baby's skull in as it's being born?

Liberals thinking it's awful to go to war without UN authorization even though they supported Clinton's war in Kosovo which was fought without UN authorization?

How about that for hyocrisy in Washington?

"HAWK - I can't even believe that you said this"

Why can't you believe it? I am a die-hard, liberal, party line Democrat and you and I have never agreed on politics, but believe me, that does not diminish in any way my utmost respect for you and your positions. I admire you and wish I had your knowledge and passion about things that, in reality, have little meaning to me personally. :o