She may very well turn out to be an excellent strict constitutionalist, but I am not prepared to gamble on it. I have been screwed too many times by politicians who said, "Trust me". Why make a pick that will get 85 votes that no one really knows? Why not pick someone who has an established record and will get 51 votes?
I agree on the "Trust me" part,but if Bush had said that over a spending issue then it would be "what the?"for me, seeing as his past on spending has ben non-stellar. But he has done very well on Judges so far and I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
"Why not pick someone who has an established record and will get 51 votes?"
What makes you think you'd get 51 votes?
>>>Why not pick someone who has an established record and will get 51 votes?
There is no assurance you'd get the 51...the RINOs in the gang of 14 would tip the scale...
Reason # 1: Any Conservative nominted will not be confirmed.
They would not get 51 votes.
People on Free Republic may not realize it but Bill Frist, Predisnt Bush and his advisors know that the Republicans were not only throughly humiliated by the so-called compromise regarding the Juducial nominees engineered by John Mc Cain and other Republicans. They were emascalated.
In a nose-to-nose fight, the Democrats will win. Bill Frist knew this. This was why he was so reluctant to try to change the fillibuster rule.
Personally, I would have preferred Janice Rogers Brown, but I can support The President's nominee.
You really don't have a say in it. If you write to your senator, they'll laugh at you because the hearings haven't even started. How on earth could they possibly take someone seriously who doesn't even know what the woman stands for.
Besides, we do not live in a direct democracy, we live in a constitutional republic. You had your say when you (or others) elected Dubya. At that point it was out of your hands.
The record has shown the "Cabal Of 14" won't even get you to 51.