My response to Kyl's bullshit about "the nuke-u-lar" option
Kyl's weekly letter
Dear Mr. Kyl,
I don't recieve your newsletter, but it was forwarded to me by a fellow Arizonan. First, it was the republicans that coined the term "nuclear option." Tom DeLay, in fact. (Update: unlike the republicans, I can admit when I'm wrong. I sent a letter to Kyl today - 6/9 - stating the obvious...that i should have referred to Frist, not DeLay)
You wrote:For more than two hundred years, even the most controversial of presidential judicial nominees had been accorded the courtesy of an up-or-down vote when they reach the floor of the Senate.
Quite franky, that's crap
The Repulicans were the first to use the fillibuster on a Judicial nominee. Remember President Johnson's 1968 nomination of Abe Fortas as chief justice??
You wrote:As a result, President Bush had fewer circuit court nominees confirmed in his first term than any president in modern times.
Again, sir, with all due respect -- crap.
Very few of Bush's nominations were blocked. In fact, the republicans were willing to throw away 200 years of tradition for 5 judges. FIVE.
And I remember that the republicans wouldn't let fully 60 -- THAT'S SIXTY -- of Clinton's nominees **out of committee**
You wrote:I would support restoring the 200-year-plus precedent in the Senate that allows up-or-down votes on judicial nominees who have majority support.
What??? The 200 year tradition is to allow the MINORITY a voice. Don't forget, republicans were in the miniority for nearly fourty years. You will be again soon. I predict as soon as, oh, January 2007
I am sure you gladly cast your vote today for Janice Brown. I will be *more* than happy to let my friends know that you support "spic" and "wetback" and various other slurs as "Freedom of Speech." Our huge hispanic population will be so proud.
Dear Mr. Kyl,
I don't recieve your newsletter, but it was forwarded to me by a fellow Arizonan. First, it was the republicans that coined the term "nuclear option." Tom DeLay, in fact. (Update: unlike the republicans, I can admit when I'm wrong. I sent a letter to Kyl today - 6/9 - stating the obvious...that i should have referred to Frist, not DeLay)
You wrote:For more than two hundred years, even the most controversial of presidential judicial nominees had been accorded the courtesy of an up-or-down vote when they reach the floor of the Senate.
Quite franky, that's crap
The Repulicans were the first to use the fillibuster on a Judicial nominee. Remember President Johnson's 1968 nomination of Abe Fortas as chief justice??
You wrote:As a result, President Bush had fewer circuit court nominees confirmed in his first term than any president in modern times.
Again, sir, with all due respect -- crap.
Very few of Bush's nominations were blocked. In fact, the republicans were willing to throw away 200 years of tradition for 5 judges. FIVE.
And I remember that the republicans wouldn't let fully 60 -- THAT'S SIXTY -- of Clinton's nominees **out of committee**
You wrote:I would support restoring the 200-year-plus precedent in the Senate that allows up-or-down votes on judicial nominees who have majority support.
What??? The 200 year tradition is to allow the MINORITY a voice. Don't forget, republicans were in the miniority for nearly fourty years. You will be again soon. I predict as soon as, oh, January 2007
I am sure you gladly cast your vote today for Janice Brown. I will be *more* than happy to let my friends know that you support "spic" and "wetback" and various other slurs as "Freedom of Speech." Our huge hispanic population will be so proud.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home