- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Greenwald: "Moreover, Bush's appointments of judges were barely ever impeded, resulting in a radical transformation of the federal courts. Other than John Bolton and Steven Bradbury, not a single significant Bush nominee was blocked. Those who implemented Bush's NSA program (Michael Hayden) and authorized his torture program (Alberto Gonzales) were confirmed for promotions."
Greenwald:
Do you even know what bipartisan means? Bipartisans COOPERATE. On nominations, it means that Democrats and Republicans get together and work toward naming people both sides can agree on.
It has NOTHING to do with whether or not partisan Democrats succeeded or failed in blocking the "appointment" (they're nominations actually) of partisan Republicans.
On NUMEROUS, probably HUNDREDS, of occasions Democrats VOTED BY AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY to REJECT Bush nominations. More than 80 percent voted against Judge Samuel Alito. More than half voted against John Roberts. There were innumerable judges that Democrats opposed by landslide majorities. Off the top of my head, I believe that the overwhelming majority of Dems DID vote against Gonzales.
The fact that Bush pushed through extreme conservatives proves the OPPOSITE of your argument. There was NO BIPARTISANSHIP. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch.
On the flip side, Clinton DID consult Republicans before he nominated Ginsburg and Breyer to the Supreme Court. Bush did NOT consult Democrats.
Do you see the difference? On judges, there was bipartisanship in the Clinton administration, NOT the Bush administration -- contrary to your ludicrous claims.
In summation, TOO LITTLE BIPARTISANSHIP led to extreme appointments. The nominations succeeded because the GOP had a MAJORITY, not because Democrats and the GOP cooperated.
Again, the OVERWHELMING evidence is that there was NO BIPARTISANSHIP during the Bush years.
Shalom,
ZWrite
