Posted on 07/03/2005 7:36:23 AM PDT by bmweezer
Dems were in control of the Senate that year. That was the same year that Clarence Thomas was confirmed to the SCOTUS.
Ahhhh, but that's the beauty of it. No way would he be confirmed but the liberal whacko groups will spend weeks unleasing their WMDs to demonize him, Bush will leave him out to dry (as he seems to do with all his nominees), eventually the nomination gets withdrawn and when Bush follows up with somebody like Garza, the libs will have shot their load and even they will have to admit Garza seems more "reasonable" than the first selection.
But it doesn't have to be Klayman. How about Pat Buchanan? John Ashcroft? Somebody willing to be politically slain for his country.
What on earth are you talking about? The facts don't even begin to support that assertion. He's never withdrawn a nomination and only one judicial candidate out of the hundreds nominated did so on his own volition.
Bush doesn't typically withdraw the nomination but he does darn little to show support for them either after he names them. The official White House line seems to be "we won't interfere with the Senate's business". If he wanted to show more support for his nominees, he certainly could.
You should really, really put that on your homepage, so people could quickly recognize what you bring to the table...
I don't agree with everything Bush has done during his presidency, but he's not been afraid to name controversial appointees. He's not abandoned any of them.
Normal people would identify with the bereaved son over the psycho teenager. However, liberal activists and Democrat Senators rarely act like normal people.
Confirmation hearing have become street threater. Psycho killers don't play well in flyover country, especially when Luttig's sole role was as a breaved family member. If he had denied the kid's appeal or some other kid's appeal that's another thing. The Democrats would be putting themselves in the position of saying that anyone who's ever had a close family member murdered is disqualified from high office. (Ted, Ted?)
I vote for Garza. if the Dems attack him, play the anti catholic/anti hispanic card. we must make the Dems hurt when they smear our judicial appointments.
why do you say that, everything i've read says clement is solid conservative
A low reversal rate obviously demonstrates competence and intelligence. However, in my view, the real issue here is (or should be) not just Judge Clement’s high level of competence and intelligence, but also her willingness (or reluctance) to overturn precedent that she believes was wrongly decided. For example, she said at her Senate hearing that she believes Roe v. Wade is “settled” (her hearing is linked at the right side of the confirmthem page, under “SCOTUS candidates”)....Judge Clement might be more willing than Judges Owen or Jones to accept the notion of the last few decades that the Supreme Court can strike down whatever laws the justices really really don’t like.
that's not terribly convincing. saying "settled" is not that striking--it is settled, for now. i'd say the same thing. doesn't mean she's pro roe v wade or wouldn't overturn it if it came to that point. and it certainly doesn't mean she'd be another souter, for god sake. everything i hear is she's solid.
When a justice states a law is settled, he or she means that the law has been established and a precedent set.
With Hutchison deciding not to run for governor, a Cornyn appointment would again open up the Senate possibility for Senate-potential "it" guy Henry Bonilla.
but it doesn't mean it can't be changed.
Is there a Republican that could hold Bonilla's seat?
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.