Replies

Well, I don't want to carry the football analogy too far.

You are correct in that at this moment the judges are the issue. But, the principle of the duly elected majority asserting their power is not crap. Negotiating with a sure loser is laying the foundation for more trouble at a later time.

The confirmation of 3 judges after 5 years in the majority is hardly anything to crow about. In truth, it says a great deal more about republicans than it does dimocrats.

The real issue is will the majority continue to [unnecessarily] allow the minority to dictate terms on every executive appointment, judicial or otherwise. At the current pace it will take 30 years in the majority for an appreciable dent to be put in the liberal activisim of the federal judiciary via conservative replacements/appointments.

I submit that we don't have that much time [if we seriously want to change the direction of this country], and it is wishful thinking to believe that we will maintain a majority position for that long, anyway.

But it's not "three judges out of five." It's dozens (hundreds?) of judges who have already (quietly) been confirmed, and only these few were in doubt. Is a higher percentage than Clinton? Barely. Is it common to have some justices held up? Yeah---perhaps not this many, but some. It is all irrelevant. "principles" fade with the next election. I agree we have a limited time to do this, but I think that period goes up to the first few months of 2007. By then, I think we'll have two new USSC justices, all 10 of the nominees, and virtually everything else Bush wants.

Failing to effect the change they were elected to effect will in and of itself prevent the pubs from retaining the majority.

I'm reminded of something Donald Rumsfeld said, "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you'd like to have, or the army you hope to have a future date." He got ragged for that comment, but there was a lot of wisdom in it.