Posted on 10/11/2005 9:08:44 PM PDT by freedom4me
It did not have to be a woman. Ok. Let's see. Lets put up 4 men, 4 woman, and a half-and-half. Make you feel better?
No. but any recess appointment made this year expires in January 2007. I wouldn't put it past the 'Rats to block a vote until then and effectively make the President's SCOTUS Appointments expire with his administration in January 2009 at the latest. That does us no good at all, IMHO. We have to win confirmation.
It was pretty entertaining. He entertwined it with a story about his dog, his father (who stuffed sausages for a living), Moses, and the Constitution. During a 3 hour floor speech! I kid you not! LOL!
Each house can set procedural rules affecting only it. To change the hurdel from simple majority to "whatver the Senate says it will be" for confirming nominations is a substantive change that alters the balance of power.
We can see the alteration of balance of power unfolding right before our eyes, this week, but it (perversion of the Constitution) ain't being discussed much. This hits the Office of the President right in the shorts. Frist and the GOP Senators were all hot on this in May. Now the whol lot of them is cowering in the corner.
Sissy boys. Worthless crap.
the 60-vote supermajority is so outrageous that it would justify the President vetoing every appoipriations bill until there were up-or-down votes on nominees -- including Bolton. Unfortunately, the President might lose doing that as well.
Those founders were clever. They devised various ways for the branches to play "scissors/paper/rock" with each other. The president can nominate who he wants, and if the Senate doesn't act by recess, he goes around them with a recess appointment. He did it with Bolton.
Bean-bag politics champions - GOP.
In your eyes .. she is guilty before she is allowed to present her case
I wouldn't. Then again, I'm not on any such list either.
---
But you're the Hitman! Every time I see your tag, I think of the PS2 game. Do you wear a dark suit and glasses? :D
"Bitter Buchananites, moronic third party voters, and trolls, oh my! Run, Toto, run! Auntie Em, Auntie Em, it's a twister, it's a twister! There's no place like home! There's no place like home!"
I gather that the President can count better than you.
Yes
What Pat crowd. I do not see too many people named Pat around here.
Abe Fortas. Robert Kennedy. Maybe "Brownie." Miers will have the face the charge of "crony," even if it's deemed to not stick.
Agree.
Examine the link to the SF Chronicle op-ed I posted.
Bolton is done as UN Ambassador in January 2007 unless he gets confirmed before then. That's OK for a UN Ambassador (like I care much about that position!), but GWB's SCOTUS appointments can't expire with his Presidency -- or sooner. We don't want Hillary or some other 'Rat filling the O'Connor seat in January 2009!
Screw the list.
If Bush couldn't get anyone on it (which I find HIGHLY doubtful) then he should have drawn up another list.
Rick Santorum or John Cornyn would have been shoe-ins.
The Senate would have never rejected one of their own, and you certainly can't say there is any doubt over their qualifications of conservative credentials. Santorum would certainly fit "the mold of Scalia" that Bush promised us.
Paraphrasing Leno on Harriet Miers
So we're watching a little bit of the Jay Leno show tonight, and SCOTUS came up. Here, roughly, is one of the jokes:
So the rumor is that Bush is going to withdraw Harriet Miers's nomination, and put somebody in her place with more real courtroom experience. Her replacement will be Courtney Love.
Imagine the howls if he recess appointed Janice Rogers Brown.
Better it come from the left than from the right.
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.