Posted on 10/11/2005 9:08:44 PM PDT by freedom4me
During the 11:00 p.m. (CST) newsbreak, Donna Fuducia reported that Karl Rove told James Dobson that 80% of the potential SCOTUS nominees on the President's list declined his offer because of they didn't want to undergo the grueling confirmation process. Perhaps this sheds new light on the reason why W chose Miers.
No. Do you?
I like the way it's face kinda squooshes in each time it smacks the wall. Could that be what happened to Justice Ginsburg?
Hello .. you REALLY think he could get away with a recess appointment on the United States Supreme Court??
I was thinking more of a recess appointment along the lines of a Robert Bork. Let the Dems and RINOs filibuster til the end of the session, then Bork'em. That'd be justice.
Actually, Justice Brennan was recess-appointed by Ike. He was later confirmed, though, so he remained on the Court for a long time (way too long if you ask me). But a confirmation vote is needed before the NEXT Congressional session expires or the appointment ends.
Once seated and performing competently, the confrimation vote takes on a new character. And can you imagine the GOP turnout and energy in 2006? Wonder how many RATs would be left in all of Congress =:-O
..fest.
It doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to think that individuals from both the Federalist and anti-Federalist camps, such as Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, among others, would not have looked too favorably upon either the process that led to the Miers nomination, or the nominee herself.
"You know nothing about this women[sic]"
That's the problem. No?
Yes, it is out of the question. That appointment STILL would have to confront the Senate at some point in the future, and you know darn well, a staunchily Conservative nominee don't stand a chance in front of that many RINO's and Democrats.
Sure it does -- women didn;t have the right to vote in their day -- slavery was in force. I could go on, but why bother?
There have been several Justices who made it to the SC that way. Washington was the first to use it to put John Rutledge on the Court.
I'ts manure stench any way you look at it.
Even if true, then W has to face the fact that all he could find were a few morally bankrupt cowards who didn't deserve to be Supreme Court justices anyway. This doesn't say much for his ability to locate solid people for the job, so I think Rove blew this one.
If his personal nominees would run from facing Teddy Kennedy and Joe Biden, they would have found it difficult to face any highly charged, controversial political case that landed in their laps and required a decisive, fearless ruling.
It most assuredly is sexist if you only agree to consider one gender for an appointment.
Why not let her speak and present her case
Or are you afraid of her?
The Dirty 'Rats and their unindicted co-conspirators in the Gang of 14 who are Republicans have no more respect for the Constitution than they do the Founding Fathers or Senate Precedent. It's all about power over principle -- in that respect, they are no better than the Commies!
It IS his fault for putting forward a stealth nobody with no track record. That strategy has repeatedly failed and there is no excuse for not nominating a known originalist.
As far as this BS that 80% of all candidates on the list declined, that doesn't fly. We're supposed to believe there are known originalist that have waited years waging a battle to be confirmed for the circuit court, but wouldn't go through the same thing to get a job on the Supreme Court. It's a lie being told to justify Bush selling out his base.
Here is the question you need to ask yourself.....
If you were up for confirmation, what areas of your life or your families life/ business associates, room mates, high school girl friend, etc do you think the democrats would not use because of their principles? You saw them do it with Cheneys daughter, and anything else they can scrape a headline out of.....
Now knowing that, and knowing that data mining is the new weapon of choice, would you be willing to put not only you but any friend or family member you have ever had in front of a camera with a democrat willing to destroy your reputation by the actions of someone you know, or something from the past?
Think about that.....
Huh? I'd like him to draw the damn filibuster so it can be exposed for what it is - an unconstitutional attempt to turn Advise and Consent into something other than an up or down vote on the person he nominates, all while Sandra Day O'Connor directs her anger at those behind the filibuster for standing in the way of her retirement.
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.