I truly believe Brown and Owens and Jones would have been filibustered. Does that mean don't try. I don't know. I also don't know what Bush heard back from the GOP Senators when these names were brought up. Bush can nominate, but he needs the Senators support (at least 50 of them).
Let em filibluster... the agreement breaks down.. the nuclear option is applied and a qualified canidate makes the bench... and the END of minority threats of filiblustering court nominations.... which should not be able to filibuster in the first place.
Let em filibluster... the agreement breaks down.. the nuclear option is applied and a qualified canidate makes the bench... and the END of minority threats of filiblustering court nominations.... which should not be able to filibuster in the first place.
So what makes Brown, Owens, and Jones so great? Lets have some reasons not like a Democrat talking point. This is what it is beginning to sound like. Personally, I'll reserve my comments until I watch the hearings. Fair enough? You may look foolish in the long run.
He really needs 60 votes to knock down a Dim filibuster, unless the Pubbies were to go "nucular". So, he was clearly trying to avoid that fight. His pick of Miers will be viewed as brilliant "strategery" if she is easily confirmed and subsequently lines up philosophically and by vote with Scalia and Thomas. Time will tell, as this is a matter of faith at this point.
Worse, it would drain a full year out of any other issues or agendas. Coulter is wrong. She needs to read about George Washington and his strategy for beating the British . . . and his own back-biting generals.
Well I'll answer the question. He should have tried even if he had only 47 or 48 votes.
What better time than to truly "out" the RINOs in the Senate and force them to vote with Bush or give up any hopes they might have of being a Republican President. I think you know who I'm talking about.
The fact that Bush failed to do so and instead accepted the Harry Reid recommendation tells you all you will ever have to know about the decision making process in the White House. This was a gutless Can't-we-all-just-get-along Rodney King decision. Washington is a club and Bush is a member. The disease that has infected his Presidency with it's massive spending and do-good social programs is the same one that will infect Miers. You will see it over time when she starts making decisions based on what her five star social circle wants to see rather than what the law says in plain English.
"I truly believe Brown and Owens and Jones would have been filibustered."
I agree. Bush knows these ladies are the best of the best. However, he still has to deal with the RINOs in the Senate. The likes of Hagel, Voinovich, Snowe, Chafee, Collins, et. al. would surely have voted against an "out of the mainstream" nominee. That leaves 50 Repubs. One more defection and Bush's nominee goes down. I agree with what Rush said yesterday, "If you went to war, would you want the Republicans in the Senate to be your army?" In a word, no.
His own party betrayed him.
The Republicans have have 55 votes in the Senate. That means the every Democrat and 5 Republicans could vote against a nominee and that nominee could still get through. The GOP may never be this strong in the Senate again.
Clarence Thomas was a known conservative and was slimed with the Anita Hill lies, and he still got confirmed at a time when the Dems controlled the Senate.
Don't excuse Bush's wimpiness by saying that a real conservative (Brown, Owen, Luttig, etc.) couldn't get confirmed.
If FR was around during the Souter nomination, I'm sure that many on this thread would have quoted John Sunnunu calling him a "Home Run" for conservatives (compare that to the spin we are getting from the GOP establishment about Miers now) and saying we should blindly trust Bush's judgement.
I agree, 100%. It's easy to find fault, to be disappointed with this choice and suggest that it "shoulda" been Brown or Owens or Jones - but if your own team is telling you "Don't try it," you have to be practical (a dirty word to arch-conservatives, I know) and work with 'em. The sad truth is that the Republican party is not all that conservative, as a whole, regardless how the Luney Left howls.
It's easier to be confrontational regarding legislation, which undergoes many adjustements and permutations, anyway. But your SCOTUS nominees are either "up" or "down". That's it.
WTF, liberals get what they want. Why do Pubes go down so quickly? How do they get rid of that lingering taste and continue to do the same over and over again? Are they trying another method of birth control and not even getting dinner?
Unbelievable man!
And the nuclear option might have failed, seriously weakening conservative strength. I wonder if Bush knew something about the vote count.