Comments on: Southwick Confirmed! http://www.frcblog.com/2007/10/southwick-confirmed/ The Blog of Family Research Council Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:28:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Suricou Raven http://www.frcblog.com/2007/10/southwick-confirmed/comment-page-1/#comment-762 Suricou Raven Thu, 01 Nov 2007 11:48:34 +0000 http://new.frcblog.agathongroup.com/?p=359#comment-762 *blinks* Leslie is a man? Hmm... I assumed female from the name. My mistake. *blinks*

Leslie is a man? Hmm… I assumed female from the name. My mistake.

]]> By: Suricou Raven http://www.frcblog.com/2007/10/southwick-confirmed/comment-page-1/#comment-761 Suricou Raven Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:41:32 +0000 http://new.frcblog.agathongroup.com/?p=359#comment-761 Southwick's delay was due to democrat objections to an earlier decision of hers in a custody case. She ruled that a women in a lesbian relationship could not be considered a fit parent because she was in said relationship, and as such not morally fit to have children (Her child was from a previous relationship). There were other, more valid, reasons for ruling against the women, so few object to her ruling - just to the reasoning that lead her there. Its the nature of political games now: Whichever party has the presidental position appoints judges who will further its own ideologies, and the other declares them unfit to judge and tries to block. When the presidental position changes hands, the situation reverses. It doesn't matter if its democrats or republicans who are doing the appointing, they will still pick judges based on their alignment with the party line on key issues. Southwick’s delay was due to democrat objections to an earlier decision of hers in a custody case. She ruled that a women in a lesbian relationship could not be considered a fit parent because she was in said relationship, and as such not morally fit to have children (Her child was from a previous relationship).

There were other, more valid, reasons for ruling against the women, so few object to her ruling – just to the reasoning that lead her there.

Its the nature of political games now: Whichever party has the presidental position appoints judges who will further its own ideologies, and the other declares them unfit to judge and tries to block. When the presidental position changes hands, the situation reverses. It doesn’t matter if its democrats or republicans who are doing the appointing, they will still pick judges based on their alignment with the party line on key issues.

]]> By: nigel http://www.frcblog.com/2007/10/southwick-confirmed/comment-page-1/#comment-760 nigel Thu, 25 Oct 2007 06:17:27 +0000 http://new.frcblog.agathongroup.com/?p=359#comment-760 I think all nominees should get an up or down vote. I do however remember the republicans holding up many of Clinton's nominees in committee preventing that from happening. It would be nice if there was more acknowledgment from conservatives of how wrong it was for the republicans to do that when complaining about the democrats. Sometimes my eyes roll back so far I can see the ground behind me listening to republicans complaining that democrats are behaving............well the same as the republicans did. Bet they are glad they didn't do the "nuclear option" now. I think all nominees should get an up or down vote. I do however remember the republicans holding up many of Clinton’s nominees in committee preventing that from happening.

It would be nice if there was more acknowledgment from conservatives of how wrong it was for the republicans to do that when complaining about the democrats.

Sometimes my eyes roll back so far I can see the ground behind me listening to republicans complaining that democrats are behaving…………well the same as the republicans did.

Bet they are glad they didn’t do the “nuclear option” now.

]]>