Posted on 05/21/2005 10:47:35 AM PDT by wagglebee
CBS News anchorman Bob Schieffer warned Saturday that if Hillary Clinton is elected president, her judicial appointees are likely to be radical extremists - and Republicans won't like it one bit.
Arguing that the Senate threshold for confirmation of Supreme Court nominees should be 60 votes, Schieffer told WABC Radio's Mark Simone:
"If Hillary Clinton is elected the next president and you have a Democratically controlled Senate, conservatives better understand that she can nominate someone who's pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gay marriage and against the death penalty."
The CBS newsman predicted that Mrs. Clinton "could nominate someone like that and be almost assured that person would be confirmed" if the approval threshold is 51 votes.
Sen. Clinton has taken great pains in recent months to paint herself as a moderate on issues like abortion, defense and immigration.
But if Schieffer's comments are any indication, the top Democrat's image makeover still needs more work.
If Hillary is elected President, then she should have any judge she nominates. As long as they pass the background check and hold up to their Senate hearing. We may not like her choices, but that's why we have to beat her in the election.
well that and he can't do simple math...
There is virtually no chance the Dems will have control of the Senate by 08 unless some major major major upsets of some Senators happen in normally extremely safe states....
Uhh, yeah. Hillary takes the White House. And the Dems recover the Senate. In the same decade. I'm shakin' in my boots.
Bob only adds to the arguments for ending the extra-constiutional filibuster of judges.
I agree. Preserving the Constitution must come first. And the remote possibility that Hitlery may someday be POTUS is all the more reasons to get Bush's nominees through, the less seats that Hitlery would have the chance to fill the better.
"If Hillary Clinton is elected the next president and you have a Democratically controlled Senate, conservatives better understand that she can nominate someone who's pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gay marriage and against the death penalty."
Just like every other nominee the democrats have put up. Its not a matter of "can". Its a matter of "will".
Hel-freaken-loooooooooooo!
He would have a point if the Dems were playing by the same rules as the Republicans (even without an outright majority, there may well be enough RINOs to give the Dems an effective majority when it comes to judicial votes if a Dem is in the White House).
But suppose the Republicans tomorrow said "okay, no nuclear option" and backed down. Then suppose there's a Dem in the White House in 2009. Does anyone seriously think that if the Republicans started filibustering nominees that the Dems wouldn't change the rules? It wouldn't matter that the Republicans chose not to change the filibuster rules in 2005, the Dems would go ahead and do so anyway.
They'd make up an excuse "well, we were blocking extremist nominees, but the Republicans are blocking mainstream nominees, that's much different". The media would jump on board in support. Then they'd repeal the filibuster for judicial nominations.
So there's nothing to be gained for the Republicans by playing nice guys and not going forward. The Dems, if in the White House, will play by different rules, invent a convenient excuse that the media will swallow, then push through their nominees. Guaranteed.
Absolutely true. And the Republican majority in the Senate is free to sink those nominations as fast as the socialists propose them. What they are NOT free to do -- or SHOULD not be free to do -- is refuse to allow the full Senate a vote on the nominees.
Republicans wouldn't filibuster any Democrat appointments who had majority support, whether or not we use the so-called "nuclear option" now. So why not use it?
Bobby let some truth about hillary slip out.
How un cBSlike of him.
This is Schieffer's wishful thinking to thwart the filibuster. In 2008 the Democrats will lose more seats.
Keeping the "BS" in CBS! Why would this be news? Maybe it's a "flash" to Schieffer---does he make a career out of restating obvious stuff? Saving "rats is indeed the only visible purpose.
This is just another ploy by the MSM to undermine support for the Constitutional Option. Scare the less informed or pessimistic lay Republicans and hope they call their Senators in a panic.
There can not be a more radical leftist than Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Her appointment was an indirect factor in the election of GW Bush.
"If Hillary is elected President. . . ."
If she is, let's not run like the Dems
say they want to do
.
Let's stay and make things as miserable
for her as we can for her.
No truer words have ever been spoken. Her record is pure communism. She is one scary old lady.
The point is that this will happen either way. IF the Dems had a majority, the Filibuster would be gone in a flash.
The only thing that not stopping the Filibuster, now, will do is keep Pres. Bush (and the voters of 2000 and 2004) from having their judges confirmed.
That is why it is so important that people CONTACT THEIR SENATORS and the SIX or so Senators who are DEALING.
Especially GRAHAM, DEWINE, and anyone else you think might
turn up in their camp. NOW and for the next week or so.
They have to realize that this is NOT just a "far right" issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.