Posted on 11/07/2004 3:42:35 PM PST by RWR8189
Edited on 11/07/2004 4:25:22 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
We could counter a fillibuster if the republicans wouldmake them stick to a true fillibuster. No going home to comfy beds, etc. You can't get anywhere with the current "girlie man" fillibusters!
I like Scalia but I think I read somewhere that he favored Stare Decisis whereas Thomas is unafraid to try to rectify a bad decision.
"...will be obstructed by the Dems..."
The Constitution give the Senate the responsibility of ratifying the President's choices for the Supreme Court or for any Federal Judicial appointment by a majority vote (it takes no more than 51 votes to ratify). The ploy of being able to filibuster any choice and require 60 votes for closure in order to allow a vote in effect violates the Constitutional process by requiring a Super Majority for ratification. It is time for this new Republican Senate leadership, to fix this problem once and for all. We must allow the President to select, and the Senate to vote on the nominees. Anything else is as unconstitutional as gun control or gun confiscation.
As if my spirits couldn't get any higher this week...:)
I certainly don't like the O'Conner theory being bantered about. I don't trust people anymore, even ones that are supposed to be on the "right" side. Just about the time Bush would elevate O'Conner for the aforementioned reasons, she would make some ruling to stab him in the back. We can't take the chances.
This is the best shot the Reps have had to put some actual conservatives on the Supreme Court and whatever the tactic, it must not fail and/or come back and bite conservatives in the butt.
Rehnquist's form of thyroid cancer turns out to be the worst kind - His time on the court is very limited, I'm afraid. I suspect he will either step down (he was holding on for a Bush reelection and now knows he can let go)- or, sadly, will be gone.
CWO.
yes you are right..........Thomas is the only one on the court under 65 years old..........this would be great cause he would be chief justice for 20+ years or so.......that would stick it to 'em
What's the number?......
Something like only three of the sixteen CJ have been elevated from their position on the court..... Historically they come from off the Supreme Court....
Anita still struggles with the reality of last Tuesday. Come to think of it, she has trouble with reality period!
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/11/06/questionable_tactics_by_gop/
but I'll have to see it to believe it.
It doesn't disqualify him. Neither Earl Warren nor Thurgood Marshall were judges.
When they hold the confirmation hearings they should have the phone numbers for Canada, New Zealand and Australia immigration offices running on a banner at the bottom of the TV screens.
And considering some of the public comments Scalia has made, Thomas exhibits more of the "judicial temperament".
Both would be wonderful...but Thomas would be a brilliant choice!
Seems to me that the Pubbies might decide that the only way out is for a RAT to retire, and Bush strikes a deal to appoint another RAT for that slot in return for a vote on his nominees.
to Drudge......I doubt it....
I don't think so, however, he schedules the cases and could schedule what he didn't agree with WAY down the agenda.
Don't get your knickers in a twist - S. Day O'c is not that well -and has been holding on only in hopes of Bush being reelected - now, I imagine, it wont be long before she retires...wait for the feathers to settle re Rehnquist
But what's good about Thomas being Chief Justice, besides being a great jurist, is that he could possibly be there for thirty years!
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.