Posted on 10/31/2005 8:15:27 AM PST by neverdem
President Bush nominated Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., who currently serves on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, to the Supreme Court today, four days after his previous choice withdrew her nomination.
The nomination is likely to please Mr. Bush's conservative allies, whose sharp attacks on Harriet E. Miers were instrumental in prompting her to withdraw last week. But the president is more likely to get a battle from Democrats and liberals who may believe Judge Alito's views are too extreme.
Over the weekend, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, warned President Bush not to pick Judge Alito, 55. "I think it would create a lot of problems," Mr. Reid said on "Late Edition" on CNN.
--snip--
But Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, fired back Sunday, saying that if the Democrats staged a filibuster against Judge Alito or Judge Luttig because of their conservatism, "the filibuster will not stand."
--snip--
On Sunday, Mr. Graham made clear that he would oppose filibusters of Judge Alito. The president campaigned on a promise to appoint conservatives to the court, and "you're going to get a strong conservative," Mr. Graham said in an interview on the CBS program "Face the Nation."
The Republicans have a majority of 55 senators. If three or more Democrats break from the group to support a filibuster, Mr. Graham and Mr. DeWine could give the Republicans enough votes to force the rule change.
Christine Hauser reported from New York for this article and David D. Kirkpatrick from Washington.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Thanks for your kind reply, but it appears that you have a "glass half empty" attitude about the deal whereas I have a "glass half full" attitude. What I do know for sure is that Brown, Owen, and Prior were confirmed without a fuss, and Frist can still go nuclear anytime he wants, only now with a more reliable vote-count thanks to the deal. So help me out here - - what did the rats get out of this again?
Thanks so much for this perceptive and helpful interpretation.
Frist blows Graham's and DeWine's cover on judicial nominations deal
Regards,
LH
"Nomination Likely to Please G.O.P., but Not Some Democrats"
I don't want it to please any Demonrats, not one! I want our collective enemy to be universally suicidal over this nomination
Happy Scalitoween! Hear we picked up De Wine and Graham for the Constitutional Option today?
1. President Bush got his #1 man in, but was promised trouble on anyone else.
2. Trying to be a nice guy, he threw the Dems a bone with the Miers nomination.
You see, she could have easily been approved had the democrats been willing to negotiate and avoid a huge partisan debate.
While there were not major portions of the republicans on board for Miers, there theoretically could have been enough votes (had the democrats tried to get what they say they wanted--IE an middle of the road nominee)
BUT, the democrats decided to play @__hole so hence we now have the current nominee.
Basically President Bush gave them a 'peace offering' in Miers but they slapped it down, despite what they say they want.
Thus President Bush says, "OK, lets then try it another way...."
In any case I think this guy will be a better merely because all the previous gridlock needs to stop.
The text doesn't define it for anyone, true. Don't be so naive, though. We all know that, to an unfortunately high percentage of Americans, the liberal media will define "extraordinary circumstances."
Thanks for your kind reply, but it appears that you have a "glass half empty" attitude about the deal whereas I have a "glass half full" attitude.
I do not have a glass-half-empty, glass-half-full, glass submerged in water, glass struck by lightning or glass anything else point of view. I have simply analyzed the situation and given my predictions. Now I will grant that having Brown, Owen, and Prior confirmed (wasn't it too late to say "without any fuss"?) was nice. However, that does not have anything to do with the problems that could arise.
So help me out here - - what did the rats get out of this again?
The Democrats got an "agreement" from the Republicans that they can twist into a promise not to use the "Constitutional Option." Furthermore, they have not restricted themselves with the "extraordiinary circumstances" clause as any filibuster at all implies "extraordinary circumstances."
I guess I fail to see how the "rats were trapped."
DeWine Says He'll Back Ban On Filibusters In US Senate
Of course he will - - this was the genius of the "Gang of 14" deal. Seven Republicans, including DeWine, promised not to "go nuclear" in exchange for seven Democrats' promise not to filibuster. If some or all of those seven Democrats break their promise and support a filibuster (which would have to happen in order for a filibuster to succeed) then the seven Republicans have all the cover they need to get righteous and vote to "go nuclear". They will clearly be left no choice if the Democrats break their promise.
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.