Seems you are on bob shrum's side.
Not likely to find enough people that care one way or the other to make a difference.
What is your problem? Do you really know that this is a bad pick? NO, you do not. This is just a disgraceful post.
Maybe the point is to allow her to be defeated by Democrats so the next pick they can say "Look, the Democrats are obstructing everything, even Miers, etc"
What's this "we" stuff?
What's wrong with finding out about her before throwing out panic attacks?.
Sorry but I tend to like her more and more as the day progresses.
Honestly, I was disapointed at first and would still have preferred the fight of a Brown or Luttig but RINOs made that impossible. The NE RINOs came out publically and said they would not support a proven pro-life conservative. A block of RINO's together with a unite Democrat party would be impossible to win.
What's the President to do? The only way it seems to get a pro-life conservative on the Bench is to nominate a stealth candidate. I trust the President knows her and knows what kind of Justice she will be. Bush 41 was screwed over by Sununu who vouched for Souters conservative credentials. Bush 43 personally knows Miers.
Besides being Pro-life she is for an individuals right to bear arms.
"While I don't actually think sitting out an election and letting liberals win is ever a good idea, it is our only option here."
If you don't think it's a good idea, then why are you suggesting it?
Short of getting a filibuster or her having something "unacceptable" in her past, she will fly through. The RINOs, the BushBots and the Dems will see to it she is installed.
Bush knew what conservatives wanted. We know that because he used "Thomas" and "Scalia" in his campaigns. After the elections were over, he didn't care.
We can *TRY* to derail her nomination but I would not expect results. If anything that would make her even more palatable to the Dems. Shumer said as much in his comments today.
"Can we beat this pick?"
Maybe you can just beat oh never mind.
Um...who the hell are you?
Can we beat this pick? I don't think so, but we can try.
Why bother? Mediocre is good, not interested in a flaming firebrand.
A dull, to the letter of the Constitution, strict constructionist is fine by me.
Cronyism + unqualified + 60 years old + unknown judicial philosophy = BAD PICK!!!!!
Agree with this equation 100%.
What a disappointment for backing this President.
Even if she was super conservative, I would have had a problem with her age (60 years??????).
What is an originalist, and why should we support one?
Great, you have a plan of opposition based on what facts? Supersecret sources that remain unshared? Think I will give more than 12 hours for information to be forthcoming before I push the hysterical button.
You flatter yourself, sir. Why don't you just vote for "None of the Above". That'll show 'em.
What a pathetic waste of band width.
Maybe everyone should post a stupid vanity instead of posting their ideas on any of the several related threads.
I'm 99.9% positive you know nothing about her.
She can and will be portrayed as a lightweight on Constitutional law. That's where she'll twist in the wind. I really don't think it's going to take much activism. Just wait and see, there will be plenty of Senators who will want to disassociate themselves with the idea of confirming her, both pubbies and rats.
I'm not saying that she won't be confirmed. I am saying that her confirmation is far from a sure thing and that she may in fact get voted down or withdrawn.
For the record, the day Roberts was nominated I predicted he'd get at least 70 votes in the Senate. He ended up with 78.
I like this guy's take on her (and the selection process in general):
http://frum.nationalreview.com/archives/09292005.asp