Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 05/28/2005 7:36:15 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Once the Constitutional option is exercised don't be surprised to see Democrats assassinating some of "W"'s nominees for the courts.


2 posted on 05/28/2005 7:39:13 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

So how is Ginsberg's health anyway?


3 posted on 05/28/2005 7:42:14 PM PDT by Archon of the East ("universal executive power of the law of nature")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

John Paul Stevens (age 85, a moderate).



LOL, these guys are nuts. Stevens...a moderate.


4 posted on 05/28/2005 7:48:18 PM PDT by Tarkin (St. Maximilian Kolbe (1894-1941))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

I agree, McCain's in trouble.


6 posted on 05/28/2005 7:51:42 PM PDT by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

"Yet, amidst all the three-dimensional chess, the irony is that nobody knows how justices will perform until they don the robes. Republican President Dwight Eisenhower named Earl Warren and William Brennan, who helped tilt the court leftward for a generation".

Yeah well nobody knew how Warren would do on the court as he never served as a judge before (he was a three-time California governor, and republican candidate for vice-president in 1948). As to Brennan, Ike asked for it, as he wanted to nominate "a Catholic, Democrat from North-East" to increase his chances during re-election. Now what could you possibly expect from a democratic judge from New England????
For me much more shocking were people like Harry Blackmun (who was proposed to president Nixon by Chief Justice Burger) and David Souter (who was proposed by Sununu). Now THEY (unlike Brennan for example) were supposed to be conservatists...


7 posted on 05/28/2005 7:53:59 PM PDT by Tarkin (St. Maximilian Kolbe (1894-1941))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

I still think that since the dems have agreed to letting a vote take place on Janice Rogers Brown, and she is likely to get approved, SHE should be put up---

How in the heck could the dems use the "extraordinary circumstances" excuse on her anymore? Besides, everything that I have read that she stands for, sounds really good to me...

I also wish he would think about Miguel Estrada...

These dems that came away from that little "compromise" charade thinking that President Bush is going to "ask the dems" who he should nominate, are really stupid!


11 posted on 05/28/2005 7:59:27 PM PDT by Txsleuth (Mark Levin for Supreme Court Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Whether the 'Rats fight Bush's nominee aggressively depends on which judge retires. If William Rehnquest retires, the 'Rats won't try too hard to stop the nominee because there will be no ideological change on the court. A Rehnquest retirement is the most likely in the near future. Look for Bush to nominate Antonin Scalia as Chief Justice & Michael Luttig to succeed Scalia as Associate Justice, with both being confirmed with only token opposition.

Now if Sandra Day O'Conner or John Paul Stevens retire, that's when you'll see the fireworks.


13 posted on 05/28/2005 8:04:28 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

The White House , if not already done so (through intermediaries), should keep it simple and do the following >>>

- inform Scalia that he will be nominated for Chief Justice

- have Scalia draw up a list of top choices for the Supreme Court to join him on the bench.


15 posted on 05/28/2005 8:19:13 PM PDT by LibFreeUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Fine, but he overlooks one thing. The Senate can rule against 60 votes to end debate ONLY IF THE TURNCOAT REPUBLICANS vote with the good guys! McVain could say, "I gave my word," and vote "present." The Republicans would need 50 of the 55 Republican Senators to end debate.

If McVain has set up his own shop, it may not float. McVain is pushing his own agenda and does not give a big rat's patoot about the country or Bush's agenda. McVain is working for McVain!! And, whether the six other idiots, including Graham, follow him is in qquestion.

16 posted on 05/28/2005 8:19:40 PM PDT by Tacis ( SEAL THE FRIGGEN BORDER!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Nope, no way, the "compromise" is gone forgotten in the blink of an eye. Watch, if I'm right. The RATS are but a hairs breadth above communists.


24 posted on 05/28/2005 8:42:53 PM PDT by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt; Pikamax; Mo1; mewzilla; ken5050; onyx

More on the Filibuster ....and MOU.


32 posted on 05/28/2005 9:20:28 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (This tagline no longer operative....floated away in the flood of 2005 ,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

John Paul Stevens a moderate? LOL.


36 posted on 05/28/2005 9:31:30 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
But these Bush allies - who fervently seek a high court that will end legal abortion and lower the wall between church and state...

WRONG! I get so tired of these "objective" media members! No Christian conservative wants to bring the church into the government. We want Christian ethics in government. How often does it need to be said that there is a difference? Are these reporters ignorant, or is this done on purpose?

37 posted on 05/28/2005 9:46:18 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
It would appear that the Democrats, by lifting blockades against Brown and Pryor, can no longer reasonably cite a nominee's conservative ideology as grounds for a filibuster.

How convenient periodic memory loss is to the Old Media. Only a few short years ago the Democratic mantra was "no political litmus test" for judges. I guess that stance is "no longer operative."

39 posted on 05/28/2005 9:56:14 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Damned right, "some of the anger is genuine."

NOT ONE PENNY!!!

I'm angry enough to pledge money to real conservatives who will run against these RINO's and replace them. How about $100.00 a head?

I encourage everyone to attack!


40 posted on 05/28/2005 10:00:28 PM PDT by Yosemitest (It's simple, fight or die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All

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.


43 posted on 05/29/2005 12:04:14 AM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
. . . John Paul Stevens (age 85, a moderate) . . .

Surprised they didn't label him a conservative. If you're going to lie, lie big.

49 posted on 05/29/2005 5:28:43 AM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
How will the Dims reject President Bush's nomination of Owen, Pryor, and/or Brown to the Supreme Court having just witnessed their approval without invoking the "extroardinary circumstances" option of their own agreement?

Note to Dims: don't play poker with Dubya.

52 posted on 05/29/2005 6:00:12 AM PDT by Thom Pain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I think he would actually enjoy a big fight with the Democrats

All Real Americans Love to Fight, said another George (Patton). That most certainly includes President George Walker Bush.

65 posted on 05/31/2005 4:17:59 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Many analysts are asking: How can Democrats credibly invoke "extraordinary circumstances" against a conservative nominee for the Supreme Court

What a joke. You have to laugh when you see credibility and Democrat in the same sentence. The Dems wouldn't hesitate to declare "extraordinary circumstances" for any reason at all. They will not be constrained by this clause in the least.

67 posted on 05/31/2005 4:35:44 PM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson