In response to:

John Roberts' Arrogance

Kris12 Wrote: Jul 02, 2012 9:56 PM
The real problem is, even if you could convince the Senate to get off their duffs and actually impeach, you would still have to deal with the fact that Obama would simply appoint more judges along the same strip as Kagen and Sotomayor. There would be no benefit, and much harm, in impeachments given the present conditions.
TNconservative Wrote: Jul 02, 2012 10:29 PM
Kris12,

Well then you hold the senate accountable and the house. Voting yes or failing to filibuster a liberal judge should be grounds for a primary challenge and replacement for them in their next election.

Obama couldn't nominate any liberal judge then because they would all be voted down, and keep voting them down until he stops nomination liberals.

Or perhaps the judges could just come up for a vote, like many states do with their supreme courts.
Kris12 Wrote: Jul 02, 2012 9:56 PM
er, that should read stripe, not strip

WASHINGTON -- The Simpsons on unpredictable judges:

Marge: "Do you want your son to become chief justice of the Supreme Court, or a sleazy male stripper?"

Homer: "Can't he be both, like the late Earl Warren?"

Marge: "Earl Warren wasn't a stripper!"

Homer: "Now who's being nave."

Warren's actual vices tended more toward the ideological. Dwight Eisenhower came to regret the liberal activism of his choice for the Supreme Court, calling it the "biggest damned-fool mistake I ever made." Other presidents must also have been frustrated by their selections on the far side of life...