Skip to comments.Flashback: George Will Against Nuclear Option
Posted on 10/06/2005 2:30:31 PM PDT by Mighty_Quinn
Why Filibusters Should Be Allowed
By George F. Will Sunday, March 20, 2005; Page B07
With Republicans inclined to change Senate rules to make filibusters of judicial nominees impossible, Democrats have recklessly given Republicans an additional incentive to do so. It is a redundant incentive, because Republicans think -- mistakenly -- that they have sufficient constitutional reasons for doing so.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
See the other thread on Mark Levin's article.
"How can George Will now stand against Miers?"
Because he wants a well-qualified conservative nominee for the Supreme Court???
This is a good catch to remind people that even Will can be inconsistent--and to remind them of his ongoing feud with the Bush family.
Nothing they do can be right in old George's intellectual world.
George Will lost his base a long time ago.
There's nothing inconsistent about it.
What does "well-qualified" mean in Republican Land, anyway? After all, Republicans, generally speaking, have voted for the confirmation of plenty of "well-qualifed" "interpreters" of the Constitution.
They voted, generally speaking, for the confirmation of Ginsberg, didn't they? Yet no one questioned whether or not a postmodern ACLU lawyer was "qualified" to opine about the law. Nope. But they sure are now.
It wasn't the RINOs anyway. It was so-called conservatives like Frist and Hatch who whined on and on and on for months--years even--letting Estrada and others dangle, without even trying to do something about it. They never even forced a real filibuster. But that's Will's fault, too, I guess.
Third, I agree with Will on the constitutionality and wisdom of it. He's correct. And by the way, who was it that voted FOR Bader Ginsburg and Breyer? Those same gutless republicans who now want to blame the gang of 14 for their troubles. What a bunch of BS.
Exactly. The truth of it is, when it comes to judges, the GOP are STILL getting their asses kicked by the Dems. I wish to Heaven I had someone like Schumer on my side instead of morons like Hatch and Frist. Bunch of pussies. Why did they vote for Ginsburg and breyer anyway? Because they are suckers.
We wouldn't even be discussing the nuclear option if Bush had not nominated well known conservatives only to have been assured there would be fillibusters.
Fine. We all do. But "He who says 'A' must say 'B'." You can't confirm anyone we know to be "a well-qualified conservative nominee" without having a credible threat of the constitutional option.
The bottom line is that Bush's judgement is that he has to play small ball. One thing to replace Rhenquist - but O'Connor for Luttig? No can do, with the squishy soft RINO middle of the Senate. Face it, some of our trouble in the Senate comes from Senator Reed (D) Nevada. Reelected last year in a red state. As well as RINOs in blue states. Bush doesn't want to become a lame duck by having his nominee rejected; Nixon and Reagan did lose nominees - and the results were Justices Blackmun and Kennedy.
Bush is on record that Clarence Thomas or Scalia are the gold standard. That means that when he is retired he wants more "Scalias" than P41 (or for that matter than RWR) had. And he doesn't know that he will have any more SCOTUS picks. This nomination is not a throwaway. IMHO
What??? The only reason we're discussing the nuke option is because people are searching for excuses for GW's horrible selection. And there have not been ANY filibusters. The GOP Senate LEADERS never forced a real filibuster, wussies that they are. If it hadn't been for the RINOs, we wouldn't even have the few lower court appointments we got, and that's because the GOP is ineffective. Hatch, Frist, et al are worthless. The stupid RINOs got us what little we have gotten. And that was after yeeeeeaaaars of inaction by the leadership.
Why not force a filibuster? What's so bad about standing up for what you believe in? But I guess it's easier to blame someone else.
Well, yeah. Everyone somehow agrees that lunatics like Ginsberg and Souter are "well qualified" to sit on the Supreme Court, even if it's evident that they haven't the slightest idea what the Constitution actually means. Oh, they're very *qualified*, you know, since they've spent many years deconstructing liberty in the hallowed halls of the Ivy League. But Miers? Well! The thought!
I would have preferred it but Bush has put up excellent judges only to have them shot down and that is when the term "nuclear option" was born thus we would not be discussing the "nuclear option" at all had it not been for Bush's picks in the past. Q.E.D. Bush I would have simply avoided the fight in the first place in my opinion.
I don't think so I think he just wants to stay "relevant". I don't think he's very committed to anything except himself.
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.