use Perl

• You're right, but ... (Score:1)

  by vsergu (505)

  It's hard for me to feel a lot of sympathy considering the way the Republicans similarly unfairly blamed Clinton for the attacks earlier. It'll blow over soon enough, and the Republicans can get back to hilariously hypocritical complaints about the treatment of Bush's judicial nominees.
  
  People reap what they sow.
  • Re:You're right, but ... (Score:1)

    by pudge (1)

    Well, Clinton was partially to blame. Just as Bush, Sr. was, of course.
    
    And I don't see how you can call the nomination complaints hypocritical. Sure, Clinton claimed there was a "vacancy crisis" when there were 64 vacancies on the federal bench, but while the Democrats controlled the Senate in 1992, there were 63 vacancies -- only one fewer -- and Clinton said that was equivalent to "full employment in the federal judiciary".
    
    The fact is that recent new Presidents have had 90 percent or better confirmati
    • Re:You're right, but ... (Score:1)

      by jmm (276)

      The fact is that recent new Presidents have had 90 percent or better confirmation rates. Carter had 93, Reagan had 97, Bush had 93, Clinton had 90. I don't know the count thus far for Bush, but it is far less, probably still under 50 percent. I don't see how complaining about this obvious disparity in treatment is hypocritical in any way.
      
      (I am totally ignorant of the issues here, but who lets a little thing like that stop them? :-)
      
      How do you determine that this is "disparity in treatment" (i.e. laying th
      • Re:You're right, but ... (Score:1)

        by pudge (1) on 2002.05.17 9:16 (#8518) Homepage Journal

        I'll just say that certainly isn't the case. It's not even really being alleged by the Democrats that this isn't the case. They might say that of one or two candidates, but they don't say it of the slate as a whole, lest their previous nominees get looked at too closely.
        

        Reply to This

        Parent