Posted on 11/01/2005 7:37:53 AM PST by Valin
Concur..howeve.Boxer was just on FOX..she said that the Constitutional provided for a "supermajority" requirement to confirm SCOTUS nominees...I think she is trying to be the Senator from the state of Moonbat...she will try and take the high visability position at the hearings..
Is that her personal copy of the Constitution with her notes scribbled in?
Indeed. And without coming out and asserting so directly, it appeared that you supported the Miers nomination partially on the grounds that the Senate votes were not in place to confirm a traditionalist nominee.
Hmmm...What would Count McCain look like?
McCain made some statements yesterday that seemed to me to strongly indicate that he would firmly support Alito.
He can't be on the wrong side on this one and have any shot at the nomination.
Not that he has a shot at it in the first place...
Nah..Sheets loaned it to her...actually he forgot where he put it down..
I didn't care much about Miers but I will admit I didn't trust the RINOs to come through especially after "the 7" capitulated with the Democrats (I'm still stinging from the capitulation on impeachment). I also thought that by pulling her without sending her through "the process" that we lost some of the "high ground" on demanding an up or down vote for everyone. I also was extremely annoyed with foolish threats to "sit out" the next elections, never vote for Republicans again, etc, etc. To alter Paton's words, let the other poor dumb bastard die for a principle (Nadarites, Greenies, Sheehanites, etc.).
I think some of my concerns cames from the fact that I live in a state that is rapidly turning blue and I work in a state that is bluer than blue so my fear of RINOs is considerable. It's all history now. I'm ready to fight as hard as anyone.
Yup, the Rats will try every delay possible. Stevens is 85 years old - How many Senators are up for re-election in 2006? Nobody likes RINOs but for now we need them to control the committees, set the agenda, etc. And the maddening thing is, THEY KNOW IT.
I'm glad everyone is moving on.
The real problem with the last nomination came out as a side note on (if I recall) Washington Week in Review on PBS.
One of the conservative commentators made the point that of the potential nominees in the Scalia/Thomas mold who are women, they as a group are more strident, outspoken, and controversial than are the men on the list.
The commentator made the point that of the *women* with judicial experience and qualifications on his list, none could survive the confirmation process. Harriet Miers was probably the best woman he could get confirmed, whereas there are any number of men in the Scalia/Thomas mold who had extensive judicial and constitutional law experience who could get through the confirmation process.
To whatever extent that this is true (and I think that there is a lot of truth to it), it would seem that the fundamental underlying problem with the Harriet Miers fiasco was not whatever "Borking" went on (and having followed the Bork hearings extremely closely, it really doesn't even begin to rise to the Bork level), but rather the problem was the fact that the White House didn't choose the best confirmable nominee... but rather the best *female* confirmable nominee.
This kind of bowing to a quota system is not conservative, and should not be what we are about. Too much is at stake with the Supreme Court not to nominate the very best that we can hope to get through, even if it takes a fight. And fundamentally, that is that those of us who opposed Miers were ever saying.
On the WSJ television show last week, the WSJ editors made the point that it was precisely the Bork experience that led to all of this. After Bork was trashed in an unprecedented way, a movement rose up to basically create a "farm team" of conservative jurists with impeccable credentials, good judicial temperament, etc... who could, in the future, survive the process that Bork didn't survive.
By selecting Miers, the editors pointed out, W bypassed that entire body of work, and ignored the farm team where the people were to be found who both had the qualifications and philosophy as well as the ability to make it through the process.
I think that we will see Alito do just that, just as Roberts did. The Miers experience will increase Alito's chances of confirmation, since the RINO and fence-sitting Senators have seen how passionately many of us feel about the judiciary...
We already have many reasons to be grateful to Miers -- her loyalty to the President, her outstanding job in vetting judicial nominees. Those of us who just didn't think she belonged on the bench need not to forget that.
Sounds good, at least we didn't pull a Reagan and pull a guy for smoking weed...or was that HW Bush? ;-)
You are assuming that we now have 48 votes to change the rules, which I doubt very much.
When Vice President Humphrey ruled from the chair in 1968 that the Senate rules on debate could be changed by a simple majority, he had 68 Democrats and 20 RINOs to work with.
He lost.
The number of Senators who will vote to reduce their own power is almost certainly south of 40.
Yes, we need to keep control of the Senate.
I complain as much about RINO Senators as the next guy, but the fact of the matter is that Maine isn't going to elect anyone more conservative than Susan Collins, Rhode Island isn't going to elect anyone more conservative than Chafee, etc... We need to be grateful that they are part of the GOP caucus, and remember that a liberal GOP Senator has a greater chance of voting with us once in a while than does any Democrat.
The problem with RINOs lies with those who are in red states -- McCain, Graham, etc... These states can elect real conservatives, and Senators from those states should understand that we can and will launch primary campaigns against them if they don't vote conservative.
I think that's what we're seeing with Graham and DeWine and McCain so quickly saying things that indicate that they don't think a filibuster is at all reasonable in the case of Alito.
It was Reagan's nominee that got pulled for having taken a pull on a toke in college.
Seems almost quaint these days, doesn't it?
Just the beginning of that impotent "drunken sailor" spending effort known as the War on Drugs. ;-)
McCain was on Charlie Rose last night. He made sure, in his weasly way, to diss the Pres. and his handling of just about everything. He spent most of the hour patting himself on the back.
It's like the 'black line' version of the Bible that the dying mainstream protestant churches use. Just put a black line thru all the parts you don't like. Voila! The living Bible meets the Living Constitution.
Ginsburg was not pulled for smoking weed. He was pulled for lying to the FBI under oath about smoking weed. He would be on the supreme court today had he just told the truth.
No way telling the truth to the FBI would have ended the whole thing. I think you're being naive if you believe that.
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.