Re: #40, if we take your claim as fact. Then, this congress is just about
on track to confirm 16 nominations over a two year period.

You see, we’re not even 6 months (1/4) of the way in to the 2 year period, and as per your claim the Dems have confirmed 3. It is not unreasonable to extrapolate that to close to 16 at that rate over the next 1 1/2 years.

Oh yeah, and the DOJ from ‘99-’00 wasn’t a dysfunctional, incompetent, likely criminal enterprise that was under intense scrutiny involving illegal behavior by MANY of the top people from within.

It is not possible to fairly compare the two (16 vs. 3) using ANY objective standard. I hope that the Senate confirms ZERO nominees until the DOJ and Executive Branch begin to act like the co-equal branch of government that they are under the Constitution.

The GOP Senate was much more favorable to President Clinton than the Dem Senate is now.

In 1999-2000, the GOP Senate confirmed 16 circuit nominations in the last 2 years of Clinton’s term. The current Senate is at 3.

Comment by m12 — June 15, 2007 @ 5:57 pm

Well then you just contradicted yourself. Your original premise was that he was delaying for more discussion, but now you state it’s a tit-for-tat. Again I wonder where you’ve obtained information of his rationale from that article (or any article for that matter), but your idle speculation doesn’t cut the mustard.

Besides, wanna take a wild stab at how many judges your GOP boys delayed and blocked for Clinton, compared to how many judges the Democrats have blocked for Bush? I’ll give you a wee little hint, it’s not even comparable…….

Comment by Justice — June 15, 2007 @ 2:21 pm

——-

We can only hope that his mailbox is full of complaints. However, I wouldn’t put it past him to program his answering system to appear full when it isn’t.

The technology is there; years ago when I worked tech support for an Internet company, when too many calls started coming in and the queue was full, the administrators would “throttle” the calls. End result: the system would just hang up on people when they called. No “all lines are busy. Please call back at a later time.”

Addressing privacy concerns prompted by the program, [Gen.] Hayden said, “We know we can only do our job if we have the trust of the American people.”

Bush: “We know that a two-minute phone conversation between somebody linked to al Qaeda here and an operative overseas could lead directly to the loss of thousands of lives,” Bush said. “To save American lives, we must be able to act fast and to detect these conversations so we can prevent new attacks.”

1. If the program targets a specific group of individuals (known or suspected terrorists), then Bush should have no problem with oversight.

2. If we have one terrorist operative in Los Angeles calling another one in Dallas to give the go-ahead for an attack…I believe this qualifies as a domestic call since it originates and ends in the U.S….Bush runs to the FISA court to get a warrant. He’s not concerned about acting fast and preventing attacks in this situation. But he is when the conversation involves an international aspect.

Comment by DutchHenry — June 15, 2007 @ 3:43 pm

————-

Guaranteed. That’s why Bush personally blocked an investigation into warrantless wiretapping:

In July 2006 it was revealed that the Office of Professional Responsibility in the Justice Department — the office “responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct involving Department attorneys” — repeatedly attempted to investigate whether DOJ lawyers acted improperly concerning their role in the President’s warrantless eavesdropping program, but finally stopped their investigation because the President refused to give them the security clearances they needed to conduct the investigation.

Yet the President had no problem giving clearance to individuals, some who where civilians, when he wanted to find out who had leaked information regarding the warrantless wiretapping program to the public.

It says right in the article that he is blocking the vote for a week’s time. Democrats on the same committee have been “delaying” the vote on the President’s judicial nominations several times as of late, and my guess is Kyl is following suit.

You are acting like a scared child in doing BushCo’s bidding by blocking subpoenas in the NSA case. What do they have on you, that you are really a closeted homosexual, or a sadist, or just plain corrupt?!

You should move toward the light because BushCo is going down. Join the other rats that have jumped ship.

Styve

IGNORE THE TROLLS – Debate good, m12 bad

Use Phoenix as the city and 85003 as the zip. It works like a charm!

http://kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm

and fill out the form. Make up an address and leave the state as Arizona, otherwise the system will probably reject your e-mail.

Let’s let this jerk know what the nation thinks about him!

You know, Mr. Kyl, the American public is smart enough to figure out that if your party is so determined not to allow the committees to get what they ask for, then they know that you are hiding something really bad. I guess that the Republics think that the bad publicity they get from obstructing the investigations is not as bad as the publicity they will get when Pandora’s box is opened.

Yeah, it sure makes you wonder what NSA found on him, eh?