Reid Not Looking For a Fight to Replace O'Connor [Suggests Republican Senator's]

KLAS ^ | July 2, 2005 | Brian Allen

[johnny7]

As the minority leader of the U.S. Senate, Harry Reid will be power broker of sorts. Friday, Reid went on the record saying he wants the confirmation process to be as free of political warfare as possible.

[MikefromOhio]

you know that, and I know that, but a Democrat's entire REASON FOR BEING is to NOT be seen as WHAT they TRULY are.....

If W nominates Brown, that is EXACTLY what Reid will look like if he says she can't handle the USSC....

[InterceptPoint]

“This is no small test,” Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said. “The president has the power to unite the country with a nominee who puts the Constitution first, or divide the country and reshape the court with a nominee outside the ideological mainstream.”

How true. Strange to hear words like this coming from Kerry. OTOH, he probably wasn't thinking "someone like Scalia" when he was quoted. If Bush wants to divide the country all he has to do is nominate someone who the Dems won't filibuster. That is the acid test of his Presidency. Now is not the time to go wobbly. We want another Scalia or two or three. Nothing else will do.

[F.J. Mitchell]

I like Brown's credentials. I hope the President does nominate her.

[MikefromOhio]

me too actually...

She is political dynamite too. And she seems to be a solid Conservative.

[F.J. Mitchell]

It would be interesting to see a written definition of what Kerry and his fellow Dims mean by "putting the Constitution first".

We all know that the liberal's "ideological mainstream" defies every law of nature by having only a left bank and all the fish are either red herrings or blow fish.

[F.J. Mitchell]

BUMP!

[kittymyrib]

Which senators would Dingy Harry suggest...Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Dewine, McCain? Yes, I'm sure they would do a great job of keeping the SCOTUS is liberal hands.

[RobbyS]

All Brown would have to do is to change her business mailing address.

[Gunrunner2]

I'm hoping the President will nominate someone strongly conservative in their judicial views; i.e., original intent.

If he does nominate someone conservative then the fight is on and nuke opinion again becomes a player.

If President Bush nominates someone that plays well (sorts) on both sides of the aisle, then when the next nomination comes around he has to nominate another liberal or someone even less conservative than the previous one. Why? Simple: The Rats will fight tooth and nail any nomination and they will buttress their argument by saying, "Hey, we were the nice guys, see, we even approved the last nomination and now the President wants to nominate someone that is 'out of the mainstream' and needs to be stopped."

Just the way I see it happening.

[Junior_G]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg remains on the court, and the Bush administration may be looking to make history with this latest opening -- perhaps selecting a Latino or Asian for the job.

Well, at least they're being up-front with the fact that we're no longer appointing the most qualified person for the job. Now we're either filling pre-existing racial and gender quotas, or creating new ones. Welcome to Diversi-Court.

[ozzymandus]

Reid is lying.

[johnny7]

Barney Frank and his 'cohorts' would argue... “To hell with Hispanics or Asians... we have penty of flaming, cross-dressing, pedophiles just dying for the opportunity!”

[SpinyNorman]

"Reid knows he is in a horrible position. The only way it can get worse for Reid is if W nominates someone that the Senate has already confirmed, like Janice Brown. Then he would, in effect, either vote her in or look like an obstructionist moron."


We are waaaay past that point, don't you think? ;-)

[MikefromOhio]

Reid doesn't think so....that's what matters :)

[Mark in the Old South]

History is against you. Both Bush's history as well as the history of GOP nominees, which has been spotty at best. Right now there is only 3 good SC Judges and one has cancer.

But Bush said it so it must be Gospel, right.

More Kool-aide?

[Deo et Patria]

"History is against you. Both Bush's history as well as the history of GOP nominees, which has been spotty at best. Right now there is [sic] only 3 good SC Judges and one has cancer.

But Bush said it so it must be Gospel, right.

More Kool-aide?"

In all fairness, Bush ought not to be held responsible for the "history of GOP nominees" to the Supreme Court. He has shown himself, thus far, to have much more of a backbone than his dad did when it came to being president. He has prided himself on standing by his words. All along, he has said that he wanted strict constructionists on the court, and I believe that that's exactly the kind of judge that he will nominate.

We've got a big fight ahead of us. Hopefully, when push comes to shove, you will choose to support the President and his nominee rather than carping at him and weakening his position in the eyes of the Hillary Clintons and Teddy Kennedys of the world.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "We've got a big fight ahead of us. Hopefully, when push comes to shove, you will choose to support the President and his nominee rather than carping at him and weakening his position in the eyes of the Hillary Clintons and Teddy Kennedys of the world."

No I will not support him nor his party because I have come to believe they are part of the problem. And the argument the Dims are worst is wearing thin. It is like this we are on the road to hell, 45 million dead at the hands of the SC. People such as yourself point out the dims want to drive there 10 miles an hour over the speed limit while the Repugnats want to go 10 miles and hour under the speed limit. Some how you think that makes a difference after all it is slower and within the law. People like me are screaming to stop the car, turn around or get off this road we are still going to hell as long as we are on this road and heading in this direction. To which the only response is "yes but the dims are worst"

If you want me to change my tune then the GOP needs to get hopping. I do not take their word for credit anymore. They can buy my vote with real action. Words are worthless to me at this point. I am getting to the point I will vote democrat just to get a reckless driver at the wheel in hopes they run us off the road.

[zbigreddogz]

Because Moore is a grandstanding lunatic who'd be not only the only chance of losing the Governorship, but worse, that he might win and be the dems new scare tactic.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

"Although I actually wouldn't mind Sessions running for Reily's job. He'd be a good Governor, and he'd be able to stop Roy Moore."
< snip >
"Because Moore is a grandstanding lunatic who'd be not only the only chance of losing the Governorship, but worse, that he might win and be the dems new scare tactic."


Whaaaaat?!? By your criteria, Patrick Henry should not have said "Give Me Liberty, Or Give Me Death" because he publicly stood for a heartfelt principle--and Karl Rove should resign because he is the Dem boogeyman. I emphatically disagree with you.