Posted on 05/18/2005 5:48:45 AM PDT by ken5050
Welcome, all you Freepers, to the continuing C-span soap operas about judicial nominations. "The Guiding SEARCHLIGHT, " "As the SENATE Turns, "One NOMINATION to Live" "GERIATRIC Hospital" (for all you Byrd and Lautenberg fans out there). Follow along with us, as the Dems raise the level of histrionics, bloviation, pontification, and all around bad acting to new highs, er, lows...
Bump!
NO deals!
Back in the day( 80's) I saw my Representative at the time, a lefty named Barca at a Marine Corp reunion( I was not a Marine just happened to be at the same place) at a local watering hole. I debated him for about fifteen minutes after the meeting. He quickly left and his manager stayed to talk with me and asked me if I worked for Newman, The Republican that was running against him then. They must think that we are all idiots who have no idea what goes on with OUR government. Barca lost and the seat has been held by a Republican ever since.
Levin on Hannity: "I've never heard more lies since the Clinton administration".
Perfect analogy! LOL!
******
On February 24, 1997, then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch-a Federalist Society member whose son, Brent, is now the Society's treasurer110 -announced in a letter that he would "no longer consider the ABA as enjoying an official Senate role in the confirmation process" for federal judges. (The ABA continued to work with the White House in its pre-nomination review of nominees until the 2001 action by President Bush, however.)111 Several days before sending his letter, Hatch gave a speech to one of the Society's law school chapters. A copy of the text of Hatch's speech, which attacked the ABA's "political" nature, specifically cited the Society's ABA Watch publication as a source.112 Moreover, one of the key people to testify at 1996 Senate hearings that questioned the ABA's role was Edwin Meese, the Society leader who served as President Reagan's attorney general.113
Long after Hatch's 1997 announcement, the Federalist Society stayed on the attack, constantly raising concerns about the ABA-frequently voicing allegations ("Critics have charged that the ABA's recent…") as if the Society were simply a neutral observer.114 In January 2000, the Society began its ABA "voter guide" project, reporting on the issue positions of candidates for ABA's top offices.115 The unceasing attacks and pressure that Society and other right-wing groups used to sully the ABA's image were instrumental in encouraging and providing "cover" for President Bush's decision to end the ABA's pre-nomination review. In fact, the recommendation to eliminate the ABA role came directly from the White House counsel's office, which is heavily staffed by Federalist Society members.
I went one further than that; I told him that I wouldn't vote for ANYBODY who has stabbed Bush in the back -- regardless.
As I said, I believe the vast majority of us are Bush Republicans and they need to be worried about what WE think if they want to get our votes.
My list is very, very short.
Thank you!
yep.... Hatch played the race card!!
Thanks; so far today, I've sent almost everything you've posted.......LOL.
NO DEALS! Up and down Votes! No compromise with Dems at the sacrifice of these Judges. Understand republicans? Understand RINO cowards? WE work your campaigns. We give you money. We VOTE YOU INTO OFFICE!
We will unleash vengenace as you have never felt and these Dems will NOT save you. They don't vote for you. You lose us, you LOSE. Get it? Understand? CONFIRM THESE JUSTICES!!!
Levin: "since when is believing in the Constitution and the founding fathers become extreme"?
"This is an assault (by the Dems) on representative government"
Well, I think it makes sense. If you heard or read any of his remarks today, it was an almost schizophrenic speech. He started off basically talking about how the Constitutional option would destroy the traditions of the Senate (and if you look at the remarks on this thread during the early part of his speech, you saw that most people were infuriated with him). However, in mid-stream he switches to saying that triggering the Constitutional option would be ok. And so, knowing the way he tends to see his role, and how hard he fought for Judiciary chair, coupled with his remarks on Bush's appointees, it makes sense that he would see himself as the guardian at the entry to the Federal judiciary. He will be the one to safeguard us from these exremists who think the Constitution means what it says and that it should be interpreted in an originalist context.
Levin says that the grassroots is educated like never be for. We will take names. If there's a pubbie that pander to the left, they will be defeated. I agree with Mark. He sounds like a Freeper (Holdonnow, I know).
They seem absolutely stunned when somebody actually KNOWS what they're talking about and refuses to be bowled over by that pandering they do.
There can be no deals. It would be like "two wrongs make a right".
Levin said the grassroots people know about this. He said if any repubs cross the line and help dems they will be defeated in the next election.
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.