Dems As Baby Killers!

1/4/5 | Tacis

[Tacis]

With the dems promising to oppose all Bush's judicial nominees for frivolous reasons and suggesting the any nominee not willing to promise that he/she would never vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, why aren't we and all other normal Americans describing the dems as baby killers at every turn?

We know the dem members of the Judiciary Committee who are up for election in 2006. Some must be especially vulnerable. Why don't we have campaigns in place to remind then that their abortion-at-any-cost position on nominees carries risks? Why aren't all vulnerable dems being reminded of the risks that obstructionist tactics will have in 2006?

Frist hasn't got any backbone and can not be relied upon to be a leader in these matters. The dems must know that a filibuster will have dire consequences for them and will brand them as representing the murder of babies and their party as the party of baby killers.

[Tacis]

Senate Republican leadership is worthless! We must take matters in our own hands and make sure that the crapweasel dems understand what they face when they obstruct and do not allow presidential nominees an up or down vote!

We have to do something here!

[superskunk]

dems promising to oppose all Bush's judicial nominees for frivolous reasons and suggesting the any nominee not willing to promise that he/she would never vote to overturn Roe v. Wade

There's no constitutional basis for that. They president is supposed to appoint judges and justices with the counsel and consent of the Senate. That doesn't mean that they can dictate terms. It just means that they can deliberate on a candidates qualifications.

That's why the nuclear option should be used to break unconstitutional filibusters. Senate Republicans should use it with complete confidence and assurance.

[infidel29]

as Quinn said, what 's to stop legislating Roe vs. Wade out of existance? If we can't get judges to do it, go the other governmental direction.

Nice tagline... what about, "If you want to know what the left is up to, look at what they accuse their opponents of doing."

[superskunk]

"If you want to know what the left is up to, look at what they accuse their opponents of doing."

Another great Quinn saying. That was my second choice for a tagline; and I've used it in conversations here. Good to meet another local!

[infidel29]

What did you think of Dimitry? I've heard his schtick before and don't care much for it. I turned him off on Tuesday and didn't go back until Quinn was back yesterday.

[superskunk]

I didn't care for him much either. He was going on about that Hanakwanzaka or whatever that fictitious holiday it called. I could only take about five minutes of it.

[grellis]

If we can't get judges to do it, go the other governmental direction.

Won't work unless there is a majority of pro-life justices sitting on the biggest bench of all. Think about it: who has the last word on whether or not a law is constitutional?

[infidel29]

It also depends if the judges want to get into the middle of it. If elected congressmen and senators legislate an overturn of Roe v. Wade, do the judges want to get back into it or will they let it stand, thinking it's no longer their problem and sigh in relief?

[grellis]

To be quite honest, SCOTUS refusing to hear the case, if such a case ever came their way, is something I have never considered happening. How do they decide which cases to hear, anyway? I seem to recall that they turned away one or two high-profile cases last year.

[infidel29]

I'm not sure either. It's got to be more than a discretionary decision, but I've never heard anything to prove otherwise.

The only thing holding Roe v. Wade in place is precedent. That's only a legal guideline, it isn't legally binding due to contradictions in precedent in other court cases. The SCOTUS never wanted the can of worms by countering the precedent IMO.