Appointing Justices: Why should Bush get to appoint Clinton's justices?

[ibegurpard]

I have heard this argument before but not yet during this "justice for justices" travesty currently befouling the Senate. Here it is: Stopping Bush/Republican right-wing judicial-activist appointments is NOT simply payback. The Republicans bottled up judicial appointments for the entire 8 years of Clinton's tenure. Therefore, they are suggesting that they have the right to fill some vacancies that, following the "logic" they are currently employing, should have been filled under Clinton's tenure. Why is this fair?

[Mistress Quickly]

1. but..

then you can say it goes back to Bushie I. Raygun Carter, Ford, Nixon

where's it end?

[Spazito]

2. The President doesn't get to appoint, only nominate...

Congress appoints through the "advise and consent" process. The Republicans are trying to subvert and ignore the Constitution by implying that the President has the right to appoint.

[ibegurpard]

4. You are correct

Thank you for adding that.

[leetrisck]

3. Why should anyone "selected" be able

to appoint anyone to anything?

[raysr]

5. Santorum

I tuned in to this crap out of curiosity last nite to hear Santorum going on and on about there's more people working now than ever, had some 1st grade graph. He mentioned that it wasn't fair and how he had lost sleep over the appointment of 9th circuit judges. It was a love fest with Coleman and him, Coleman reading from the Constitution and WHINING. I vomited and went to bed.