Dan Kuechenmeister

Dan Kuechenmeister 6 days ago on Steven Hofman: Fair and square in Colorado

Chris, I will preface this by saying I am sorry for the extreme partisanship this reply entails. LOL You get no argument from me. The whole process has become a mess. Too many vested interests throwing money around to try to achieve their wants and desires. As far as I am concerned both parties can be blown up and we can start over. It appears Trump is in the process of doing so to the Republicans. Whether he wins or loses, in my opinion the Republican party will not be the same. I believe that is a good thing. We shall see what the Democratic party looks like after this election cycle. I am not sure the Republicans intentions are to make sure the Judicial system doesn't function properly, I think given that Aaron Rodgers did it twice this past football season they are hoping to complete that hail mary pass and see a Republican in the white house. For what ever reason they apparently don't believe there is risk in doing so.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 6 days, 1 hour ago on Steven Hofman: Fair and square in Colorado

Scott, You said "I think it is clear that you implied Democrats started it by pointing to Democrats as being the comparable example. That implies the Democrats started it." I have a silly question. If my point was and will continue to be that both sides have plenty of blame and it is currently the Republicans that are being blamed wouldn't a reasonable person give an example of a time the Democrats did a similar thing to show that indeed both sides are to blame. How does that even come close to implying I said the Democrats started it? How does that qualify me as an extreme partisan. Had I used Republicans instead of Democrats as the "comparable example" then how could I say both sides have plenty of blame? It doesn't matter why the Democrats delayed Judge Owen's confirmation hearing. The fact of the matter is that they did so, they had the ability to do so just as it does not matter what the reason is for the Republicans to delay a hearing on Garland.

So the bottom line is you have no proof that I ever said that the Democrats started it and the reason there is no proof is because I did not say it. You can say that I implied it and you are free to have that opinion but you would be wrong and like Fonzie you find it difficult to admit you are wrong. Makes me wonder who really has the "extreme partisan viewpoint".

Scott, you offer some valuable insights in this forum from time to time but some times you are out of line and just plain wrong. This would be one of the times you are out of line and wrong. If you want to continue to defend the indefensible, have at it. If some one is trying to have a dialogue with you and is treating you with respect you might consider doing the same rather then making false statements.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 6 days, 2 hours ago on Steven Hofman: Fair and square in Colorado

Scott, The point is both sides do it. As the conversation has revolved around the current refusal of Republican held senate to hold hearings I offered the balance of an example of when a Democratic senate acted in a similar manner. Simple as that. No "extreme partisan viewpoint" that you imply I have. Why you would do so is unfortunate but if you want to make false statements about people, so be it. Again I ask for proof that I said or even implied that the Democrats started it.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 6 days, 3 hours ago on Steven Hofman: Fair and square in Colorado

Scott, Pray tell. Are you stating that I am saying the Democrats started it. If so - proof please. My point has been and will continue to be that there is plenty of blame on both sides. The fact that what either party has done concerning holding hearings and voting for judicial nominees is not, from a legal perspective, "wrong" makes me wonder why you would state "So an example of wrongs causing more wrongs justifying more wrongs."

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 6 days, 5 hours ago on Steven Hofman: Fair and square in Colorado

Chris, I would argue that congress not passing so many bills is not necessarily a bad thing. We have had bills passed into law that were not necessary and quite frankly we have too many laws. If congress were to do some thing good it would be to review and eliminate laws that are unnecessary. Also it is not just Republicans that take their time having hearing and taking votes for judicial nominees.

Take the case of Judge Priscilla Owen . Owen was a moderate and she was highly rated. She was also no Alito, Bork or Thomas. But when she was nominated for the Fifth Circuit in the spring of '01, Senate Democrats denied her a vote for four years until the spring of '05. When the vote finally came up, Obama voted against her.

That's the length of an entire presidential term. This wasn't running out the clock on a lame duck presidency. Senate Democrats refused the "up and down vote" they're demanding to a nominee for 4 years.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 week, 1 day ago on After a day looking back, Kennedy moves forward

Craig, you rock. Thanks for welcoming Pam and I into the STARS family 4 years ago. Good luck in your new ventures.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 week, 2 days ago on Steven Hofman: Fair and square in Colorado

Most Supreme Court nominees mimic the ideology of the president who nominates them. I have seen no reason to believe Garland will be any different. A "moderate" liberal is likely to vote with the liberal bloc and thus the court shifts to the left. From my perspective there is no incentive for the Republicans to do anything at this time. Should Garland be accepted prior to the election it would guarantee a 5 person liberal majority on the Supreme Court. I don't think the Republicans are willing to concede that just yet. If a Democrat wins the white house and senate they will nominate a liberal supreme court justice and when approved have the same 5 - 4 majority, albeit possibly a younger and more liberal justice, that they would have had with Garland. But 5 - 4 is still 5 - 4. at 63, Garland would be the 4th youngest justice so I don't think his age is a factor. Who ever (hey Rhys or is it whom ever) is the next president may have the opportunity to pack the Supreme Court for years to come and regardless of which party wins that will not be good for the USA, at least in my opinion. It is sad that Supreme Court justices have become political pawns. Finally, there is no reason that there need to be 9 sitting justices.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 week, 3 days ago on Steven Hofman: Fair and square in Colorado

As I have said before there is plenty of blame to go around. It isn't just Republicans that have played games with judicial nominees. We can argue until we are blue in the face as whether what the Republicans are doing is the right thing to do. Best I can tell they do have the right to do so. Scott, FYI Bush had nominated Judge Pickering in ’01 and he was blocked in committee, falsely smeared as a racist and then filibustered by Senate Democrats to deny him the “up and down vote” that they are now busy clamoring for. After three years, Pickering gave up and was replaced by Wallace, who was also blocked by Senate Democrats for a year and denied a vote. Six years later, Bush was still trying with Judge Southwick who had served in Iraq. He was also denied an “up and down” vote until the end of 2007.

When the left sputters about the importance of getting a prompt vote on an Obama nominee, let's just remind them about Judge Priscilla Owen.

Owen was a moderate and she was highly rated. She was also no Alito, Bork or Thomas. But when she was nominated for the Fifth Circuit in the spring of '01, Senate Democrats denied her a vote for four years until the spring of '05. When the vote finally came up, Obama voted against her.

That's the length of an entire presidential term. This wasn't running out the clock on a lame duck presidency. Senate Democrats refused the "up and down vote" they're demanding to a nominee for 4 years.

Also, best I can tell, the senate is under no obligation to hold hearing or hold a vote. "The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice might or might not proceed smoothly. From the appointment of the first Justices in 1789 through its consideration of nominee Elena Kagan in 2010, the Senate has confirmed 124 Supreme Court nominations out of 160 received. Of the 36 nominations which were not confirmed, 11 were rejected outright in roll-call votes by the Senate, while nearly all of the rest, in the face of substantial committee or Senate opposition to the nominee or the President, were withdrawn by the President, or were postponed, tabled, or never voted on by the Senate. Six of the unconfirmed nominations, however, involved individuals who subsequently were re-nominated and confirmed."

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 1 week, 4 days ago on Steven Hofman: Fair and square in Colorado

Regarding the supreme court. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Politics ain't bean bag toss. The USA has survived quite well in the past with less then 9 sitting Supreme Court justices. Let he who is with out sin cast the first stone

In 2005, when Alito was nominated, Obama not only supported a filibuster designed to stop it, but slimed the nominee as “somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values.”

Joe Biden 1992 "I am sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save the seat on the Court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course to choose in the Senate to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution."

0

Prev