[Paleo Conservative]

Nuke the Whales!

[Lancey Howard]

I believe that this is my first full-blown essay here at Free Republic. Any comments from anybody, including critique of my writing style (such as it is), would be greatly appreciated.

[Lancey Howard]

If anybody has a ping list for people interested in the judiciary, would you please pass this thread on? Appreciate it....

[Lancey Howard]

Ping.

[BigCinBigD]

Nuke them till they glow. Then shoot them in the dark.

[Jaysun]

But imagine that this rare situation someday comes to pass. The Supreme Court, filled with recess appointments, could then be filled with NINE fresh lifetime appointments. Now imagine that the lucky President who finds him or herself in such a position is some future version of Hillary Clinton. (Roll that one around in your head for a minute.... carefully.)

I was clipping along pretty good until I got to this bloodcurdling "what if", a thought so horrid that I'll need electroshock therapy to cleanse my brain of it.

Nuke the bastards and let them whine - anything less a crime against humanity.

[Lancey Howard]

Ping.

[nickcarraway]

BUMP

[Zeppelin]

well done! looking forward to more...would you put me on your ping list of your originals plz?

[Lancey Howard]

Ping.

[Lancey Howard]

Ping.

[mull]

I agree wholeheartedly with the objective, but I think we should be framing this as the "constitutional option" as opposed to the "nuclear option". There has always been a negative connotation associated with anything "nuclear" though I'd love to see that word associated with Fallujah and a few other terroristr hot spots. Ending the filibuster of federal judges and presidential nominees is simply an effort to uphold the powers of the President as set forth in the U.S. Constitution.

[Lancey Howard]

One area I am looking forward to seeing addressed by a new Supreme Court is the mythical "separation of church and state". It is long past due for this lie to be put to rest.

Over the past twenty-five years or so the sneaky, athiest scumbags of the ACLU and the Democrat Party have taken advantage of the ignorant rabble (with great help from their allies in the rapidly-fading "old media") by fabricating a "separation of church and state" (based on an old throwaway line from Ku Klux Klanner Hugo Black) and then trying to convince them that it's in the First Amendment somewhere. It is, of course, not in there at all.

Just for reference purposes, here's the First Amendment. It tells Congress what kind of laws it cannot make. That's all it does. There's nothing in here about "separation of church and state" (as anybody with at least the literacy and IQ of Jethro Bodine can see):

AMENDMENT I

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

[AmericaUnited]

It's time to go to the mattresses! Enough of the weak, gutless, spineless routine!

[Ready4Freddy]

Over 200 of W's nominations have been confirmed, ~10 have been blocked.

Playing fast & loose w/ the facts doesn't help your case.

Fast forward a few years and today we see that the Democrats are filibustering any Republican nominee who appears to take the United States Constitution seriously. And they are doing so routinely!

[Buckhead]

I would like to see them force the dems into a for-real, sho-nuf filibuster that dragged on for weeks or months until victory is obtained and the enemy destroyed. They have only had sissy little pretend filibusters as a sop to conservatives up to now, The dems would loose the PR war over the filibusters as it dragged on and on, and you wouldn't have all this hand wringing over whether to "go nuclear." Once we kick their ass, if we decide we don't like winning, we can always go back to losing again.

[MeekOneGOP]

If Reid and gang continue to filibuster them, I'm game!

GO NUCLEAR! (Response to NRO Editorial)

Excerpt:

On the other hand, there is the "nuclear option". Unfortunately, the "nuclear option" appears to be the only option at this point. The next four years are likely to provide an historic opportunity for a conservative President, George W. Bush, to shape a Supreme Court comprised of a few more "strict constructionists"; a Supreme Court which values the rule of law, the separation of powers, and American tradition.

This opportunity must not be squandered.

As for the soon-to-be-outraged Democrats? Well, is there really any doubt that the party that invented "Borking" and has beaten the process down to the disgraceful low-point we now have would "go nuclear" if the shoes were on the other feet? Please.... OF COURSE they would.

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest or Texas ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[Congressman Billybob]

My national column, which will go out the electronic door tomorrow, will deal with this subject. It was instigated by yesterday's thread on the NRO editorial, which also frosted your Christmas cookies.

I take the same position that you do, though with a slightly different approach. Bottom line: I agree that the nuclear option should be employed asap in January when the new Senators have been sworn in,

Cordially,

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest, "Should the Iraqi Election be Delayed?"

[Bahbah]

Pretty darn good essay, IMHO. I would fix this: "(enough votes for closure against a filibuster)" by changing "closure" to "cloture".

[NeoCaveman]

The editors at National Review Online have opined that the Republicans must resist the temptation to change the Senate rules (which Republican Senators believe they can do by a simple majority) to prevent filibusters of judicial nominees. This threat to change the rules has been referred to as the "nuclear option".

No wonder Ann Coulter calls them "girlie men"