Yes, it's WAY PAST time to do so!
Posted on 10/31/2005 3:12:28 AM PST by kcvl
Per Fox News...
You are simply, unequivocally wrong. As another poster pointed out, Alito even said at his nomination that he was succeeding O'Connor. I won't bother pressing this, since if Alito's not good enough for you obviously nothing is.
Edith Jones and Precilla Owens would have been great nominees and are believed to be very conservative constructionist Judges. They may still be, if, God willing, stevens or ginsburg or souter step down because of healh like I've heard mentioned now and then the past few months. This Alito pick, from what I've gleened the past few minutes, will undoubtedly swing the court to the right. He seems clearly more conservative than sandra "mid-afternoon moderate" o'conner. THIS will p.o. the libs for a long time, and THAT is a good thing. An angry liberal, is a beatable liberal, on election day. 8)
That's also very possible. That'd really push the Dummies off the deep end. Not that they're not there all ready.
Unfortunately, many of the Bush-bashers have made it clear that Bush-bashing is more important than fighting for this nominee right on this thread.
Also he was excellent on the case against the terrorist in Jersey... Yep, nothing to see here dems... move along... mainstream... no need to filibuster... keep walking.
Yep.. if the talking right will now just hold McCain etal to the same standard... I mean if they'll shoot at them like the did our President.... this nominee will eventually make it through.
Yes, it's WAY PAST time to do so!
Michelle approves.....
"Sounds like Bush hit a home run with this one after an infield fly with Miers."
I like that imagery (infield fly with Miers). Very nice.
President Bush has hit a home run with this one! The Democrats are wrong -- our party is now united again and willing to go to the mat on this. We have the votes in the Senate, so let's use them! BRING IT ON!!!!!!!
I for one said that the WAY Miers was sunk guaranteed that Gonzolez could not be chosen, because the detail that allowed conservatives to ditch her was the issue of internal WH papers. So Gonzolez was in worse shape than Miers in being able to defend a record . . . of any sort.
Cry Me a River, Hugh
Posted by: Dale Franks on Thursday, October 27, 2005As far as the up-or-down vote thing goes, one notes that the problem conservatives had with the up-or-down vote requirement was that the Democrats were denying Senate votes on judicial nominees who had already been vetted, and reported out of the Judiciary Committee. At no point in time has the issue been that every presidential nominee, no matter how unqualified, must be accepted without dissent from the moment of nomination. Nor has the issue ever been that the president's supporters must remain silent to allow any nominee, regardless of qualifications, to complete the nomination process. The whole point of the argument was that qualified nominees, whose nominations were before the Senate, were refused a vote by senators of the opposing party. Conflating that with pundits who have nothing whatsoever to do with the nomination of confirmation process, and who merely express their opinions about the quality of a nominee, is either intentionally intellectually dishonest, or a sign of an sad inability to reason properly.
Miers would have received an up or down vote if she had not withdrawn her own nomination. I don't see any logical inconsistency. I do notice that this seems to be the Dems talking point though.
Excellent! I suspected that the President was doing his usual 'Rope-a-Dope' with Meirs.
Senators Gregg and Sununu are on board.
Live Free or Die.
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.