Replies

That's where I voted too.

But since I don't think there's going to be any real information coming during the dog 'n pony show they call a confirmation hearing, ultimately she's probably going to have to be put in the "no" column.

The worst thing though is all the rationalization going on. It's classic republican party politics: Declare defeat before the real fight even starts.

As long as I can remember, it's "we need control of the whitehouse and congress to make changes and pack the Courts"

Now, there's a republican president and 56 republicans (55+cheney) in the senate, and it's still not enough.

We'll be told that we need even more republicans elected. We'll get to 60. And then we'll hear we need more. We'll get to a 2/3 majority, and we still need more.

Eventually we'll get to 100 senators and then be told we still can't do what has been promised for decades.

The important number is 50 pro-life senators. Until we have 50 senators on our side who really want roe-v-wade reversed, we will have to play this kabuki dance.

Maybe Harriet will just go right up there and say "Roe-V-Wade" was bad constitutional law.

I hope she does. It's accurate, shows a good understanding of the constitution, and yet would not reveal how she would vote (after all, there is always super-stare-decisis).

Although I imagine once she said that, she would end up filibuster-bait. And no way the republicans would invoke the nuclear option on her, not with all the evidence from conservatives that she is an obviously unqualified nominee.