Posted on 07/01/2005 8:04:23 AM PDT by CWW
Will the Gang of 14's judicial filibuster compromise old?
Don't bet on it.
This is the Democrat party's worst nightmare. The moderate Justice O'Connor, rather than the conservative, retires. Justice O'Connor has personally been responsible for more 5-4 decisions on hot-button social issues than any sitting Justice (although Justice Kennedy is starting to giver her a run for her money). Examples -- Lawrence case (Sodomy); Kuhl Case (Eminent Domain); Webster (abortion), Ten Commandments, and the list goes on.
Now the democrats have a serious problem -- they have 7 party members who promised not to filibuster absent "extraordinary circumstances."
It is a near certainty that President Bush will nominate a candidate more conservative that Justice O'Connor. So, will the nomination of any pro-life nominee by definition constitute an "extraordinary circmstnace"? Clearly, the answer is "YES"!
Just wait -- the refrain from here on out is going to be that the President should appoint a moderate to replace a moderate to maintain "balance" on the Court. It's so predictable.
And the 7 Dems who agreed to the Filibuster compromise will be under unbelievable, tremendous pressure to break the deal if the President nominates a pro-life candidate. If the "Groups" (e.g., NARAL, Planned Parenthhod, PAW, ACLU, etc.) don't back you as a democrat, your political career is toast.
My prediction -- It is going to get ugly fast! For dems, too much of their liberal orthodoxy is tied up in the Court.
But she is the swing vote on Roe V Wade. Replace her with a pro lifer and abortion falls on the federal level. Then it goes to the states.
if bush nominated slick willie or his esteemed spouse the RATS will fillibuster them because their political philosophy revolves just around doing and saying the opposite of W
it is so obvious and the RATS think the people of this country are too stupid to see through this but they are the real dummies
Good-bye... you fu_ked-up far too long here for any good you have done!
Everyone is guessing Gonzales as the nominee. I'd guess that would upset the conservative base and not really aid in the confirmation process in the Senate.
I think Bush will nominate John Cornyn, a sitting Senator from Texas, he has been a Circuit Judge and a Supreme Court Judge in Texas. Has an excellent reputation as a jurist, good conservative creditials and I'd guess Senate Dems would have a tough time ranting that one of their own is "an extremist", though I'd think that Reid, the Turbine, Kennedy and that ol "Shu" from NY would embarrasing themselves trying.
tuck
Do I believe the dems? Their lips moved,didn't they. We will see sound and fury, and if the republicans remain calm, relolved, determined,steady.....they will win the day. If they only consider the New York Times, Washington Post, NBC,CBC, ABC,CNN.....and all of the trash which will be hurled they will fold like a deck of cards. No, the republicans must keep their eye on the ball. Otherwise we might get lannie Gwaneer (-2sp). STEADY as she goes. Bush must not make a mistake here. If he nominates someone who is a closet Harrry Blackmun, we are screwed.
Brown would be a brillant choice; but it might be better to save her for Rhinquest's chair.
Just another of John McCains failures. He may be a good and decent man but his attempts at compromise with the dems have resulted in nothing but failure. He's just gets outsmarted.
No more unauthorized negotiating with the Democrats.
Senator Frist must assert his authority, or resign.
This current crop of Democrats are a lot like early `60s Soviets: "What is ours is ours, but what you have is negotiable."
(And no more "moderates"! Revelations 3: 15, 16)
The bad news is that there are 435 members.
I like Cornyn; Sessions too.
Abortion is the only right that the left holds as absolute and is why the 'Rats will pull out all the stops to bork the next nominee if there is even a hint that they would overturn Roe v. Wade.
The RINOcrats do not have a spine. Never had a spine. Do not expect them to grow one now. This will end in defeat for conservatives. There will be no conservative judge chosen. It will be either a "moderate" or a liberal. No conservatives. I'd bet the farm on it because the RINOcrats WILL CAVE! THAT you can count on. Why should now or this issue be any different from any of the other caves?
2006 is very very close.. Who knows what Durbin, Gore, Dean might say and/or do to ruin the 2006 elections for the demos.. Filibuster Smilibuster.. I say push them over the edge.. FORCE them into a corner.. and then taunt them.. They are their own worst enemy anyways.. I say propose G. Gordon Liddy as a Supreme.. or maybe Bork.. same thing..
Yeah, I agree. It will be fun to watch.
There are lots of young conservatives on the various Federal Courts of Appeals that would be terrific nominees -- e.g., Edith Jones (5th Circuit), Michael Luttig (4th Circuit), John Roberts (D.C. Circuit); Emilio Garza (Fifth Circuit).
My money is on Emilio Garza -- strong conservative & Hispanic. This former marine captain has clear conservative stands on all the important issues (like Roe v. Wade). Appointed by President Bush in 1991 after three years as a U.S. district court judge and another three as a state trial judge, Garza was also a finalist for the High Court seat that went to Clarence Thomas. His Hispanic background is a big asset: Both presidential candidates would love to appoint the first Hispanic to the Court.
"A nice dream....but Ann has never been a judge."
Not a requirement! She is a constitutional lawyer.
And, there is no requirement for even a lawyer to be a Supreme Court Judge. Early constitutional discussion including have Historians on the court to keep the lawyers honest.
You know, there is a strategy here to be used. Put out the name of someone whom the 'Rats positively HATE and would go into convulsions over and after they have gone nuts all over the place, withdraw that name and substitute a good solid conservative with a less recognizeable name, making it harder to bork them.
Of course, it will hold if Bush nominates the second coming of David Souter, Alberto Gonzales. I'd encourage the Democrats to filibuster him.
Good strategy! Maybe that's why Gonzalez's name was floated -- so that conservatives could immediately kill it!
You are killing me. I'm thinking of saving you post and using it somewhere else and taking credit.
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.