Bachnus
20-05-2005, 02:22
This wasn't even a political matter, but it was one of interpretation. This is an email I sent to POWERline:
I watched the video of the 5/17 Press Breifing with Scott McClellan,
and I think I know what the reporter was referring to when he said
"what about this equal representation idea?" I'll post the full segmet
as you placed it on your blog...
-----
Q. Well, let me ask two questions about what you just said. Where in
the Constitution are judicial nominees guaranteed an up or down vote?
And what about the impact of this whole so-called "nuclear option" on
this idea of equal representation in the Senate?
Q What about this equal representation idea?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q What about the impact of this nuclear option on the equal
representation idea? [Ed.: McClellan had no idea what the reporter was
talking about, but I think the questioner was echoing the absurd
Democratic talking point about how many people are represented by
Democratic Senators as opposed to Republican Senators.]
-----
His question is a follow up on the subject of the filibuster and
judicial nominees, and his question is asking about Bush appointing
judges with a conservative philosophy, and the general idea that the
majority is using its strength to heavily influence the court
nominations, and that it may be setting a precedent that other
majorites might follow in the future. The question is kind of vague
and random, and it is understandable that McClellan would be confused
by it, but your interpretation is a bit more off base and less likely.
I hope you post a correction to this soon.
Thanks, Abben
They respond with
"Correction"? You can't be serious. You don't even propose a
coherent alternative. What I said was obviously correct.
And I respond finally with
Well I am surprised at the out-of-blue hostility here, but whatever.
I'll clarify.
Republican appointees have a majority in 10 of 13 federal appeals
courts. By loading courts with Republican appointees like this, and
trying to overpower the objections of the minority (like using
'nuclear option' to end filibuster), they could be making the courts
lean excessively Republican. There are still 45 Democratic Senators,
and if their efforts at input are strong-armed, they are not being
represented when the Senate selects its appointees.
Why on earth would he suddenly shift from the Nuclear Option
discussion to one "about how many people are represented by Democratic
Senators as opposed to Republican Senators" as you suggest? Wouldn't
he have at least indicated that he was changing the subject?
The reporter then goes on to clarify, asking what impact the Nuclear
Option would have on equal representation. Why the hell would he ask
if the Nuclear Option had an impact on "how many people are
represented by Democratic Senators as opposed to Republican
Senators"??
Do the courts equally represent the positions of the Senate and of
Americans? That's what the reporter meant when he asked about the
"equal representation idea".
This wasn't even that major and had nothing to do with politics, but I was kind of annoyed with the response. Any thoughts?
I watched the video of the 5/17 Press Breifing with Scott McClellan,
and I think I know what the reporter was referring to when he said
"what about this equal representation idea?" I'll post the full segmet
as you placed it on your blog...
-----
Q. Well, let me ask two questions about what you just said. Where in
the Constitution are judicial nominees guaranteed an up or down vote?
And what about the impact of this whole so-called "nuclear option" on
this idea of equal representation in the Senate?
Q What about this equal representation idea?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q What about the impact of this nuclear option on the equal
representation idea? [Ed.: McClellan had no idea what the reporter was
talking about, but I think the questioner was echoing the absurd
Democratic talking point about how many people are represented by
Democratic Senators as opposed to Republican Senators.]
-----
His question is a follow up on the subject of the filibuster and
judicial nominees, and his question is asking about Bush appointing
judges with a conservative philosophy, and the general idea that the
majority is using its strength to heavily influence the court
nominations, and that it may be setting a precedent that other
majorites might follow in the future. The question is kind of vague
and random, and it is understandable that McClellan would be confused
by it, but your interpretation is a bit more off base and less likely.
I hope you post a correction to this soon.
Thanks, Abben
They respond with
"Correction"? You can't be serious. You don't even propose a
coherent alternative. What I said was obviously correct.
And I respond finally with
Well I am surprised at the out-of-blue hostility here, but whatever.
I'll clarify.
Republican appointees have a majority in 10 of 13 federal appeals
courts. By loading courts with Republican appointees like this, and
trying to overpower the objections of the minority (like using
'nuclear option' to end filibuster), they could be making the courts
lean excessively Republican. There are still 45 Democratic Senators,
and if their efforts at input are strong-armed, they are not being
represented when the Senate selects its appointees.
Why on earth would he suddenly shift from the Nuclear Option
discussion to one "about how many people are represented by Democratic
Senators as opposed to Republican Senators" as you suggest? Wouldn't
he have at least indicated that he was changing the subject?
The reporter then goes on to clarify, asking what impact the Nuclear
Option would have on equal representation. Why the hell would he ask
if the Nuclear Option had an impact on "how many people are
represented by Democratic Senators as opposed to Republican
Senators"??
Do the courts equally represent the positions of the Senate and of
Americans? That's what the reporter meant when he asked about the
"equal representation idea".
This wasn't even that major and had nothing to do with politics, but I was kind of annoyed with the response. Any thoughts?