[Miss Marple]

Sowell is spot on. I hope when this nomination is made, that people on FR will pay attention to the Senate, and place pressure on those weaklings who are afraid of a fight.

President Bush has a majority only on paper. The Gang of 14 have effectively taken control of the nomination process. I don't have the answer to this, but surely we can help move some of the cowards into action.

[ComputerGuy]

His last sentence really got to me.
Politically, these can be "times that try men's souls" -- for those who still have souls and haven't sold them
I'd like to see him on SCOTUS

[rawhide]

Sowell is right again. This man has the abiltiy to cut to the chase and tell you like it is. Brilliant thinking man!

[nmh]

"What is the point of electing a President pledged to appoint judges who are like Justices Scalia and Thomas, if the weakness of his own party's Senators leads him to appoint judges who are like Justices O'Connor and Kennedy or -- heaven help us -- David Souter?"

I was wondering that. He OWES his core base a conservative candidate.

[goldstategop]

Simple - if Republican Senators refuse to vote for the President's nominee, punish the party next year by stripping it of its Senate majority. If these Senators do not want to please their President and the voters who elected them, perhaps being in the minority will help to concentrate their minds.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

[G.Mason]

" ... But does the Republican "majority" in the Senate have the guts for the battle that such a nomination would surely set off? Are they prepared to put up a fight and be satisfied with a victory on a close vote, with perhaps Vice President Cheney breaking a tie?"

With all due respect to Dr. Sowell, the question isn't "does the Republican "majority" in the Senate have the guts". (we all know the answer to that one)

The question should be why doesn't this President have the "guts" to shove an Atilla the Hun like Conservative nominee down the Republicans throats and hold their feet to the fire?

I, for one, am sick and tired of this "Compassionate Conservatism". With a scant three years left, and little on the horizon indicating a Republican successor, there is precious little time to be dallying about in this confused state.

"Damn the torpedos ... full speed ahead"!

[Dustbunny]

Sowell, nailing it as usual.

[patj]

As ususal, Sowell is spot on. Speaking only for myself, I am sick and tired of voting for a R just because he isn't a D. I want a Statesman not a politician. When politics became a career we all lost. I want term limits on everyone in Congress. I want people who have the courage of their convictions. I want to be proud of my vote, I like the way I felt when I voted for Bush in 2000.

[dawn53]

Good piece, and there's one point worth noting.

He said, "Democrats understand that they were elected to do what those who elected them wanted."

He praises Dems for doing what "those who elected them wanted." However, we've seen Senators like Daschle go down during election, and supposedly they were "doing what the Dems wanted by obstructing."

But he (Daschle) was more or less not doing what "his constituency" wanted, but what the vocal wing of the party wanted.

For that reason, I think the Republicans in the Senate are weak. The liberal republicans from the northeast are elected by liberal republicans, and therefore, I think that's why they don't always vote on the "party line." They're playing to their constituency.

McCain, well McCain, has no excuse, other than he knows that the Republicans in Arizona keep electing him no matter how he acts...I still can't figure that out, LOL.

[Born Conservative]

What is the point of electing a President pledged to appoint judges who are like Justices Scalia and Thomas, if the weakness of his own party's Senators leads him to appoint judges who are like Justices O'Connor and Kennedy or -- heaven help us -- David Souter?

Did you hear that, Senator Santorum?

[Cboldt]

While it would have been wrong to obstruct the Senate from voting on Judge Ginsburg, there was no need for the Republicans to vote for her themselves.

It was outrageous when the GOP nearly unanimously supported Ginsberg.

But some people assert that the fact that the GOP supported a moonbat liberal Justice means the GOP was obliged to also support the Miers nomination. That the GOP needs to be consistent, so that the matter of where the nominee falls on the "traditionalist -> living constitution" ideology spectrum is not to be a disqualifying consideration. That any nominee should be confirmed by the GOP out of deference to the President.

It's encouraging that Sowell is not in that "follow bad precedent" camp.

Revisiting the Ginsberg nomination reminds me how useless the GOP is at advancing traditional Constitutional practice. "Talk is cheap."

[jocon307]

"Democrats understand that they were elected to do what those who elected them wanted. But Republicans seem to think they were elected to make deals with Democrats and gain media applause for doing so."

BINGO!

[muir_redwoods]

Moderation is not always a good thing. One must be moderately moderate. For example, who wants a moderately good doctor or a moderately faithful spouse? Do you want your children to grow up to be moderately honest? Or how about a moderately long life?

Moderation in all things, Including moderation.

[Alia]

From Article: But does the Republican "majority" in the Senate have the guts for the battle that such a nomination would surely set off?

Yes. They do. But if they are thinking the Fitzpatrick/Cheney "Damocles Sword" is something to worry over, they lose. No split attention in re nomination, is necessary and required.

[NittanyLion]

All we need to do is convince 2 of the 7 RINOs to vote for the nuclear option in the event of a potential filibuster. If we can do that, a vote will be allowed and even an "extremist" nominee will be confirmed.

Given the political aspirations of some of those 7, I strongly suspect at least two will defect from their "Gang of 14".

[monocle]

I would suggest that were not for the 17th Amendment there would be greater party unity. Republicans like Collins, Snowe, Chafee and Specter would be more party oriented if they owed their seats to state legislatures rather than worrying about the next election. As matters now stand, senators are most concerned with their own self interest rather than what is in the best interest of the nation.

[ovrtaxt]

If the Republican majority in the Senate cannot bring themselves to act like a majority, they may no longer be a majority if their base of support stops supporting them at the ballot box.

That's absolutely correct. The liberal Republicans cannot win without us. They had beter wake up.

[Hardastarboard]

caution is sometimes the most dangerous policy

Reminds me of the old military doctrine "Anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing".

[Sam Cree]

*

[TADSLOS]

Senate Democrats are a united minority, while Senate Republicans are a divided majority, with prima donnas and opportunists ready to leave their fellow Republicans in the lurch when a showdown comes...

On any given day, I'm not sure who I despise more.