Posted on 10/27/2005 10:56:34 AM PDT by Checkers
Because the assault from the left on the next nominee is going to be so intense, it makes sense to nominate a judge who has recently been vetted and FBI-checked. Fairly recent Senate hearings are also a plus, as they will demonstrate the necessary ability to handle the heat that is on the way.
Because cases coming before the SCOTUS in the near future include some crucial decisions --including an abortion rights blockbuster that will be argued in late November-- it is very important to get a nominee for whom hearings can be scheduled immediately.
The Gang of 14 must be denied an "extraordinary circumstancs" argument, so a recent nominee that was given a hearing and a vote without a filibuster is to be preferred.
A nominee who has fairly recently filled out all the forms and who has some decisions on record but not too many is to be preferred.
And the nominee should be a "base uniter."
I think this gets us to Judge McConnell in a hurry.
If, after conversations with Senators Specter and Kyl, there appear to be no way to rush a nomnation in time for the crucial cases, then Judge Luttig r Judge Jones are the other obvious choices, but there will be a lot of vetting time necessary for such a detailed review as both have long records of decisions to review, and my guess is as well that each has given many speeches, which is where the left will be expected to look for their ammunition.
Let me be the first to say that whomever the president nominates, he or she deserves an up-or-down vote in the Senate.
Hugh remains one of the few conservative commentators that can say that without exhibiting rank hypocrisy.
I think we just proved this isn't the case.
LOL
The Miers nomination has never been about an up or down vote in the senate.
Complaints from the base that she was unqualified and unsuitable are in no conceivable sense equivalent to the minority party blocking a candidate in the Judiciary Committee. It is a prevarication to suggest that it is.
In a way, the Miers nomination was a defeatist move, because it suggested that only a candidate approved by Harry Reid could get out of the committee.
We will see whether or not a candidate is entitled to a floor vote if and when the President nominates a solid candidate and presents him or her to the Senate for confirmation.
Only the Judiciary committee, and the Democrats on that committee, can demonstrate whether or not they are prepared to stonewall again or to allow the full senate to vote. The Miers nomination, fortunately, never got that far and was a poor test case in any event.
["Let me be the first to say that whomever the president nominates, he or she deserves an up-or-down vote in the Senate."]
"Hugh remains one of the few conservative commentators that can say that without exhibiting rank hypocrisy."
On that, there can be no debate,
Do we now turn to Janice Rogers Brown?
And get ready for battle
"The Miers nomination has never been about an up or down vote in the senate."
No backtracking now. Colors have been shown.
Rare however, this is only the 3rd time in 216 years it ever happened. Both president Johnson's (1866-1968) withdrew theirs.
20 years of experience on the Federal Appleant Bench.
In her mid 50s now, easily able to serve another 20.
Kennedy would choke to death with outrage.
I like Hewitt but I tune him out when he gives advice on SCOTUS/Fed Judges.
He was against the Nuclear Option and for Miers.
He's a weak sister in this fight.
1. The Republican fund-raising effort depends on small donations from lots of contributors, many of whom were offended by the borking of a presidential nomination by East-Coast elites.
2. The Democrats will now be able to claim that the GOP in general, and the Bush administration in particular, is in thrall to the most reactionary ideologues of the conservative movement.
3. The Reagan vision of the GOP as a big-tent party has been completely demolished.
Ideologically-pure movement politics are just so much mental and verbal masturbation without the ability to put them into practice, and the only way to accomplish that is through governance.
Politics is the art of the possible and the way to advance an agenda is by incrementalism, which is achieved only through compromise.
Bush has been rock-solid in his judicial picks and there was really no good reason to believe that Ms Miers was unqualified.
Mark my words, this whole sorry episode has been nothing but a power grab by the East-Coast elitists, and no good will come of it for anyone but the Democrats — and by extension, the liberals.
well said Cicero.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Bring on the conservative originalist.
Democrats I know actually like Janice Rogers Brown.
This is a silly assertion. Yes, some "elite" (hah) conservative pundits are against the candidate, but if you have read FR at all you know that a whole lot of other folks had heartburn with the pick.
spin it any way you wish though.
Exactly.
It was his support of NOT BREAKING THE FILIBUSTER
that got us into this fix to start with. Now he
supports breaking the filibuster. He changes his mind
more often than Moderate RINOs.
"He was against the Nuclear Option"
BVllsh!t!
You don't know what the heck you talking about!
"Exactly.
It was his support of NOT BREAKING THE FILIBUSTER
that got us into this fix to start with. Now he
supports breaking the filibuster. He changes his mind
more often than Moderate RINOs."
Hugh has always been for the nuke option.
Do you have the character to admit you got that one wrong?
ping for the Great One
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.