Posted on 11/02/2005 2:40:45 AM PST by fifthvirginia
Senate Democrats pushed on Tuesday for a 2006 date for hearings on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, challenging President Bush's call for confirmation by year's end.
True. And my prediction is that the right will hold on, if not even increase.
But I don't see that as being a result of Bush, or a support of his economic or international policies, I see it as a reflection of what is happening at home.
Of course Bush could kamikazi all of it by throwing some sort of fit, but I give him the benefit of the doubt.
The longer they delay the longer they have O'Conner on the court to consider important cases coming up.
You are so right. I seemed to have forgotten that Day O is sticking around until the new #9 is confirmed.
In my zeal, I forgot good common sense. :)
It only takes a short reading of the decisions to see that O'Conner has been one of the most conservative justices, ever.
There is no one on the court except perhaps Thomas who understands Federalism and State's rights as much as she.
So we ought not believe what we hear from Reid.....
Just kidding, I always assume Reid is lying thru his teeth.
It is an interesting question. How is a nomination justified if there is no vacancy? What would happen if the President's will (recess appointment) butted heads with Judicial prerogative (timing of own retirement)? Would O'Connor step aside if a replacement was named through Constitutional means?
The plain language of Article II does seem to clearly express the conclusion that you reach ...
Article II
Section. 2.
Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Not to say there is not 'crappola' on both sides. . .but Washington would be far less a joke; if there were fewer Libs.
If the Republicans had any spinal fortitude, they would have made the Democrats pay for yesterday's stunt. The GOP should have agreed to continuing the investigation into pre-war intelligence only if the Alito hearings start by day X with a final Senate vote by day Y. For every day those deadlines are violated, the investigation would be put on hold for a month.
I have never really understood the basis in law for O'Connor's retirement in full.
Bush has nominated O'Connor's replacement, but there is no vacancy to fill, she is still a member of the Court.
If Alito was confirmed and O'Connor did not retire, Alito obviously could not be sworn in because federal law currently limits the number of justices to 9.
Does that mean a President could name 50 justices and the Senate could confirm them all, but they could not be sworn in until a vacancy occurs?
I mean how is that any different than naming one justice and having him confirmed to a vacancy that doesn't exist?
Maybe someone could straighten it out...
Too bad Senator Frist just realized yesterday that Reid is less than trustworthy.
That said. . .can the Repubs NOT allow a delay and make this nomination go forward?
Or, beyond that. . .will they just make it easy for these rats. . .by offering a 'hand of friendship' or some other token of bi-partisanship to these political infidels and agree to a 'delay' -
She announced her intention to resign, but said she woud stay seated until a replacement was confirmed.
Right, they screwed the Pooch bigtime with that little stunt. Frisk needed a good slap to wake him up and make him realize he's dealing with the 'Evil Party', and not a more 'liberal' wing of the Boy Scouts.
I know that.
But how can the Senate confirm a justice when there is no vacancy?
I'm speaking theoretically. Just because she said she will resign doesn't mean she's bound to do so.
I think it's nothing but an interesting academic exercize. "The system" is content to operate on the word of Justice O'Connor that she will not provoke a Constitutional crisis by holding her seat past the time a replacement is confirmed.
But the scenario SHE chose to set has the potential to result in a butting of heads between the President, Senate and Court. I wonder if US history has any other examples of Justices giving retirement dates that are contingent on confirmation of their replacement.
There is only the appearance of weakness thanks to MSM.
War opposition and ratings skewed by skewed polls; Iraq will be turning the corner after Dec. parliamentary elections; US economy grew by 3.8 % last quarter in spite of "energy crisis" (not a peep from MSM); fuel prices going down; Plame affair was a mole hill from a mountain; DeLay already seen as victim: Dims unraveling.
W's true transient weakness was due to Miers, and he corrected that; his ongoing vulnerabilities are spending and the border. By next summer W will be riding high.
We better hurry and get him on the court........something tells me a big case may be moving down the pike, which is the reason for the delay.......
The political reality is that moderates are in control of the Senate, not conservatives or Republicans.
The House is certainly in the control of the Republicans, due to the differing rules for legislation.
Anyone who doesn't comprehend this in their bones has no business discussing politics until they study up.
I agree with you. It has always seemed to me that there is no vacancy to fill, too.
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.