tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post8375474915098139052..comments2024-03-02T02:26:00.928-05:00Comments on bleakonomy: He was wrongtetracontadigonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04604381739383227553noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-75573227390433960022009-08-07T10:51:19.693-04:002009-08-07T10:51:19.693-04:00Ralph Reed? Is this the same Ralph Reed who while ...Ralph Reed? Is this the same Ralph Reed who while on a flight from Tampa to DC, kept staring at my friend and then followed him to the men's room, sliding up beside him? Naa that cant be good ol' Ralphie.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-87209300823505539032009-08-07T08:51:23.350-04:002009-08-07T08:51:23.350-04:00Well, fair point as far as it goes with regard to ...Well, fair point as far as it goes with regard to votes on Senators. However, I simply disagree that the role of the Senate is to ensure an ideological bend or balance on the SCOTUS. Barring some kind of Harriet Miers-level incompetent being nominated (and boy, what a disaster that was), I don't think Senators should vote against nominees because of political leaning.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11213051268392108382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-70427389032663468432009-08-06T23:39:46.017-04:002009-08-06T23:39:46.017-04:00sorry Dan, but it is advise and consent, not rubbe...sorry Dan, but it is advise and consent, not rubber and stamp. I have zero problem with Republicans not consenting. You say elections have consequences, but so do elections for the Senate. Now we can decry the process becoming overly political, from the right or left, but since most Senators know they simply can not vote no on every nomination (especially lower courts) without the judicial system going into gridlock, I am nowhere near concerned as you seem to be as to the consequences of negative votes for the highest court. <br /><br />charoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com