Posted on 10/20/2003 9:36:25 PM PDT by nickcarraway
So that's the issue. I thought it might be something like that. Progressive rage against "counterrevolutionaries" who threaten what they consider won ground borders on the insane.
Sowell BTT.
None other then Arlen Specter.!!
Hmmmmm. JAN 20, 2001 - OCT 21, 2003. One, two, (almost) three, .........
What do you think the chances are of her even making it to the full senate for a vote? Like another poster stated, NONE of "W's" appointees at(?) or above the appellate level have even been voted on. They are all held up by genteel senate rules. Stinks!
FGS
The Republicans didn't have the majority in the Senate when Bush first took office. They couldn't even get a nominee out of committee. I suppose, since they have had the majority, they could have filibustered. They could have brought the Senate to a stop, while Bush was trying to gather support for Iraq and the country was trying to recover from September 11 and a recession. Personally, I don't think the public would have seen that as a worthy priority.
Let the Dems win their little battles. Come election time, the party of diversity will have to defend their treatment of a Hispanic, black, woman and Christians. I am betting the public won't be with them and they will be made to pay. A longer process to be sure, but in the end far more successful.
I'll wager on twisting in the wind for $500, Alex.
The public won't even know the battles existed if we don't put up some kind of stink.
Come election time, the party of diversity will have to defend their treatment of a Hispanic, black, woman and Christians. I am betting the public won't be with them and they will be made to pay.
I wouldn't call that a safe bet at all. They will be distracted by whatever interests them at the time. Court appointments aren't high on the list compared to the economy or the WOT, and the Republicans will have to pay cash for the people to even know who those nominees were.
A longer process to be sure, but in the end far more successful.
If Hillary becomes President, you'll rue the day you folded so easily.
They will come campaign time.
I wouldn't call that a safe bet at all. They will be distracted by whatever interests them at the time.
They will be no more distracted then they were when you suggest the Republicans should have filibustered. It's my opinion holding up 4 or 5 of these nominees, who would have been otherwise confirmed if not for the minority, is more likely to make a point than fighting it out one by one. I just don't think the public would have seen that as a priority worthy of the times.
If Hillary becomes President, you'll rue the day you folded so easily.
This is exactly why I don't want the Republicans to changes the rules. The Republicans must save that strategy in the event of a Hillary or a Dean.
Don't misunderstand, I happen to find the judiciary a critical issue and have nothing but bitter contempt for the way Democrats have treated Estrada, Pickering and others. I take the long view only because I don't think the general public understands nominee by nominee. I have greater hope that they will understand when the whole of the Democrats "obstructionism" is presented. I could well be wrong though.
That's not the least bit true. Bush has nominated about 45 CCA judges, and 29 or 30 have been confirmed so far, a dozen this year alone.
That's hard to assert given the repeated opportunity to show how far the Slave Party will go on a repeated basis.
I take the long view only because I don't think the general public understands nominee by nominee. I have greater hope that they will understand when the whole of the Democrats "obstructionism" is presented. I could well be wrong though.
It just seems to me cynical game playing. If the Democrats were willing to hold up the war and let our soldiers die over Owen or Pickering, Bush could have made a hell of a scene out of that. He could have the opt out of appearing totally unprepared for such viciousness. As it is now, the Slave Party will dismiss his nominations en masse as a claque of extremists and turn it against Bush as a move to deflect criticism over the war. It seems to me your long view is fraught with unnecessary peril and that the best stragegy was to play it straight by calling the Democrats' bluff when they chose to filibuster.
Leading the charge against Justice Brown, as it did against Judge Bork 16 years ago, is the grossly misnamed organization "People for the American Way." This is a far-left group with only contempt for American traditions and culture. They want judges who will dismantle the Constitution of the United States........Guys, As another writer wrote, "Diversity for groups like 'People for the American Way.' is only 'skin deep'." I would add, "If that!"........More than 4.5 million Californians voted for Proposition 209, which outlawed group preferences and quotas. But liberals wanted the state Supreme Court to overrule the voters. Janice Rogers Brown refused and instead wrote the majority opinion upholding the voters' right to make the laws under which they live.The real question is whether the administration that nominated Justice Brown will mount a serious counterattack or leave her out there, twisting in the wind..........
===============================
This would be a good time for the Bush administration to stand up. This woman believes in property rights and limited government. Peace and love, George.
So effortlessly did she dispense with her critics that I was almost embarrassed for them. Her intelligence and thoughtfulness made her opponents look dumb, her empathy and equity made them look harsh, her strength and no-nonsense analysis made them look weak and feckless.
Not even the lunch break strategy session could save the dems. It is no wonder Schumer's rush to the camera was done at schumerdoubletime...
The Ds are understandably terrified. Justice Janice Rogers Brown is a natural for the U.S. Supreme Court.
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.