Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
- To: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Subject: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] "they all deserve up or down votes"
- From: Jonathan King <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 00:03:21 -0500
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=g3OS7nLDQexjSw0KTtB1LEA3IEVKbVBTW2ayr6uGzosBpDJ3Ds0gPcHf75mX6lhR20UI85mkqUZ5mgtMbdnlampMuJlhxYso9881Jq4v0k6jtGlwRffmpIMNu7RIUefzjaCDv8MIP9AlsJkDkQNC/C55Vd0V5IAEdgOFzQtDWiU=
- Reply-to: Jonathan King <EMAIL:PROTECTED>, MLUG Off-Topic Discussion <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Sender: EMAIL:PROTECTED
Here is an interesting table on Clinton judicial nominations and what
happened to them. Suffice it to say, I find the current suggestion by
some Republicans that it is unconstitutional not to have votes on
nominees to be pretty strange. This has never been the case, and
certainly wasn't the policy they followed between 1995 and 2001.
http://uggabugga.blogspot.com/2005/06/feinstein-in-tabular-form-apparently.html
Again, maybe you think some of these judges should have been blocked,
but few of them ever got a vote in committee, much less in the senate.
jking
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Home | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | Contact