Posted on 05/28/2005 7:36:14 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Here's a funny link in that regard:
http://www.texastravesty.com/content.php?issueNumber=2004_10&story=ginsberg
Funny Link Bump
Also, the Democrats may have boxed themselves in. Last week, in exchange for agreeing to stop filibustering three lower-court Bush nominees whom they had tagged as extremists, Democrats promised they'd use the tactic only in "extraordinary circumstances." That phrase could haunt them down the road, because it arguably sets the bar higher than it was before.
Many analysts are asking: How can Democrats credibly invoke "extraordinary circumstances" against a conservative nominee for the Supreme Court - after having just agreed to stop filibustering an appeals-court nominee (Janice Rogers Brown) who once assailed FDR's New Deal as a "socialist revolution," and after having agreed to stop blocking another nominee (William Pryor) who believes that the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion ruling was an "abomination"?
What an interesting idea. It certainly makes sense. Bush just better not make the mistake of his father or Eisenhower.
I am hoping and praying we get one moderate or liberal to retire this year in addition to Rehnquist.
good grief that is good thinking.
TX has a brilliant idea of actually putting up one of the judges they let through this time for the SCOTUS.
The dems do not feel the need to be "credible", or consistent, or rational. No one who watched them lie over and over again and trash the reputations of Brown and Owens could think that "credibility" or any sense of decency will stop them.
Is it just me, or does Lindsey Graham really look like a pre-operative transexual?
Graham has said he and DeWine will change.
Surprised they didn't label him a conservative. If you're going to lie, lie big.
You're right. Also if you compare four Truman nominees - Vinson, Clark, Burton and Minton to five Ike's nominees - Warren, Harlan, Brennan, Whittaker and Stewart you'll see that Truman's nominees were probably more conservative than Ike's (espacially Vinson and Clark). None of Ike's five was a conservatist, even Harlan (who was very often labeled as one) was simply a moderate who refused to accept the "incorporation doctrine" (although compared to an average Warren court justice he was probably like Clarence Thomas).
Brilliant :-).
Note to Dims: don't play poker with Dubya.
Because, as true Marxists, they deploy language as a weapon.
Every single one of their supporters will back their upcoming filibusters, because they know full well that they made the "deal" with their fingers crossed, which is how they all go through life.
And when the Republicans whine about the Democrats "breaking their word", it will only make them look weak and stupid.
The type of politics going on in the Senate is winner-take-all, loser pays.
The Democrats are winning.
And the Republicans, as usual, are going to pay.
I am more thsan just a bit tired of the lunatic Far Right's whining about fairness' requiring an up-or-down, Senate-floor vote on judicial nominees. All that fairness requires is playing by the existing rules. The existing rules allow use of a fillibuster on judicial nominations.
Neither your highly vaunted "fairness" nor the United States Constitution requires an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor on these nominees.
Additionally, conservatives are the last people with a right to be whining about fairness on judicial nominees as a result of their using the then-existing rules to deny up-or-down, Senate-floor votes for dozens of Clinton Administration judicial nominees then changing the rules they had used once a Republican had been elected pResident.
Finally, let me point out that exercising the Nuclear Option to change the senate rules will require an "unfair" breaking of the Senate rules on rules changes.
Look, the Liberals are desperate. They want to keep the holocaust rolling so we must be prepared for them to stop at nothing.
Bye
You're sure not going to see any Democrats taking issue with the Democrats are you?
Rule changes be damned ~ simply expel people who won't go along from the Senate.
Now there's a rule ~ that the Senate is in charge of who can or cannot attend and vote.
Do you think the Ginsberg article deserves a thread of its own?
Most definitely!!!
MikalD1313 seems to be an interesting poster....seems to need some examination....
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.