Got this in my inbox...

Hypocrite - noun, one who pretends to be what he is not or to have principles or beliefs that he does not have.

The Democrats' efforts to block President Bush's qualified judicial nominees are not only hypocritical but are examples of partisan politicking at its worst.

Republicans in the Senate are working to ensure that all of President Bush's judicial nominees receive a fair and final up-or-down vote. Despite Senate history and tradition, Democrats are aggressively trying to prevent qualified judges from receiving what's been afforded every judicial nominee for over 200 years.

During the Clinton Administration, Democrats demanded up-or-down majority votes on judicial nominations, but, now that they are in the minority, they have become the party of obstructionism and double standards.

The Constitution guarantees an up or down vote, but the Democrats don't want to perform their duty. You can make a difference! Call Senator Harry Reid at 202-224-3542 and tell him to give these judges an up or down vote.

On July 25, 2003, President Bush made history by nominating Janice Rogers Brown to the federal bench. Brown is the first African American elected to the California Supreme Court and was reelected by California voters with 76% of the vote.

The daughter of Alabama sharecroppers who grew up in segregated schools in the midst of Jim Crow policies in the South, Brown is a single mother who worked her way through college and law school.

Despite her sterling personal and legal credentials, during the 108th Congress, Senate Democrats used a hypocritical double standard to block her nomination. Judge Brown is not alone. Senate Democrats obstructed an up-or-down vote on 9 other well-qualified judges. Some of these judges have been waiting for a vote for four years.

It seems Democrats have changed their tune on giving all judicial nominees a fair up-or-down vote. They now claim the filibuster is a sacred tool of the Senate. But in 1995, Democrats, including nine who still serve, voted to rid the Senate of this tool.

That's right, nine current Democratic Senators voted to get rid of the filibuster. Now that it suits their needs, they praise it. What's worse than this hypocrisy is these same Senators now lead the obstruction and threaten to shut down the Senate. Their claims of loyalty to, and reverence for, Senate traditions are just another sham designed to hide their hypocrisy.

To learn more about how the Party of Nine has become the obstructionist party of no, click here! See how these members used to demand fair up-or-down votes on judicial nominees, but now want to block nominees and hold the Senate hostage.

You can make a real difference in this debate by calling the Democrats' obstructionist in chief, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Senator Reid is leading the charge in the Senate to end 200 years of legal precedent and tradition and he needs to hear from you today! Call Senator Reid at 202-224-3542 and tell him to not be an obstructionist.


Sincerely,
Ken Mehlman
Chairman, RNC

Very good, things they don't want us to know.

__________________

Yeah, it's priceless to see a bigot like Robert Byrd telling a black woman she's not qualified for the federal bench. If I were a journalist, here's the first question I'd ask Byrd:

"So Senator, in your time as a Klansman, exactly how many black families did you intimidate, endanger or even terrorize? How many crosses did you and your associates burn?"


The Constitution guarantees an up or down vote, but the Democrats don't want to perform their duty.

The Democrats pay no attention to the Constitution unless it suits their purpose.
Wait...correction...The Democrats and their minions, the activist, liberal judges pay no attention to the Constitution unless it suits their purpose.

__________________

Yoohoo, my dearest friend BooBoo! Sorry to pop in, but I couldn't resist the urge to correct this popular misconception: The Constitution makes not such guarantee. In fact, leading Constitutional scholars agree that, when it comes to judicial nominees, it's unclear what anyone is guaranteed. There's a lot more discussion here should you desire to bone up on your constitutional law.

But this, BooBoo. Really. Almost as priceless as watching bigots like John Ashcroft and Trent Lott tell a black woman that she was not qualified to head up the DOJ's Civil Rights Division.

Hmmm, why even come to this board if your not Republican. If you don't like Boo that is fine, but why come here and bother her?

__________________

Zack ignore the 6th grader…she’s a troll and this isn’t the first time she’s uncorked her unwanted opinions over here. I’m genuinely curious as to how her message board orgasm feels as she goes out of her way to prove her point. Brew, I don’t hate you for your ignorant POV, it means so little to me. Run along now…your tinfoil hat is tipping.

__________________

ZZM, BooBoo may consider my opinion unwanted, but by no means was my presence here unsolicitied. You see, BooBoo forgot to mention that the only reason I've ever posted here is because she originally called me out in this forum and even called me a "nasty *****", apparently just because I don't share her views on politics. Her animosity was actually quite bizarre, as I'd never really posted anything to her before, only knowing her in passing from our birthboard.

And seriously, BooBoo. Calling me ignorant? Am I wrong about what I posted on this thread? Instead of calling me names, why don't you point me to the language in the Consitution supporting your claim? Perhaps you might want to see to your own tinfoil hat first.

__________________