Posted on 01/08/2006 7:01:54 AM PST by AliVeritas
My doctor said he would put me on a program starting two weeks before I actually quit. He will help not only with the nicotine but also with the psychological part of quitting. I have an appt. this week.
I have a lot of friends sick.
Is this guy on crack? So no holidays or weekends off.
I'll bypass the whooping cough. I have quit before cold turkey but never did lose the urge. Good luck.
Up from Newsmax on Frankenfeinstein's Sunday Talk Show Appearance:
Dianne Feinstein Urges Alito Filibuster
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1554131/posts
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Sunday that she will support a Democratic filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito if it becomes clear he'll vote to overturn Roe vs Wade.
Asked if she would consider it "filibuster material" if she finds out that Alito intends to vote against Roe, Feinstein told "Fox News Sunday": "If I believe that he was going to go in there and overthrow Roe, the question is, most likely, yes."
The California Democrat, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that any High Court nominee who thought Roe had been "improperly decided" was outside the judicial mainstream.
"Precedent has been established," Feinstein insisted. "Women all over America have come to depend on it. Because of the lapse of time, more than 30 years, because of the precedential values attached to it, I think it would be, for many of us, a very difficult thing to see somebody who you knew was going to overthrow Roe [added to the Court]."
Asked if opposition to Roe qualified as an "extraordinary circumstance" that would warrant a filibuster, the Judiciary Committee Democrat said tersely, "Yes."
Appearing on the same program, Sen. Lindsey Graham blasted Feinstein for her comments.
"That's a very dangerous thing to say," Graham complained. "If you have to come to the [Judiciary] Committee and say that under no circumstances will I entertain to look at Roe v Wade anew, I think that's very unfair."
Speaking s a member of the gang of 14, which was formed last year in a bid to avert judicial filibusters, Graham said he would vote in invoke to so-called nuclear option.
"I would consider [opposition to Roe] not only not an extraordinary circumstance, [it's] a threat to the independence of the judiciary," he told Fox. "And I would stop it in its tracks with my vote."
Thanks for the heads up earlier, I'll have to listen next week.
He did well on Levin's, and the Sunday shows have been unwatchable lately.
Take care.
Darn, Andrew was counting on you. See ya later.
Also up:
Alito must avoid being 'Borked'
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1554094/posts
The lesson of Reagan's nominee is: Say just as little as you possibly can
Media critic Danny Schechter was referring to television when he titled one of his books "The More You Watch, the Less You Know.'' But he just as well might have been describing the trend in Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
Consider Robert Bork, President Ronald Reagan's nominee for a seat on the court in 1987, and the last nominee to be defeated on the Senate floor.
There's still bitterness among Bork's supporters -- who coined the term "Borking'' for the destruction of a Supreme Court candidacy -- but the fact is that the Senate and the American people learned much more about Bork than about the nominees who followed him, including new Chief Justice John Roberts.
The candidates, and the presidents who chose them, learned something from Bork's hearings, too.
"One thing the administration learned is not to nominate anybody who has a track record, like me,'' Bork, now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C., said in a recent interview with The Chronicle.
Another lesson: "The Bork episode drove home how wise it is to keep your mouth shut if you can get away with it,'' said Vikram Amar, professor of constitutional law at UC Hastings in San Francisco. "That doesn't mean that it's in the Senate's or the country's best interests.''
The Bork hearings are a useful measuring stick as the Senate Judiciary Committee prepares to hold confirmation hearings, starting Monday, for Samuel Alito, President Bush's nominee to succeed the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Like Alito, Bork was picked to fill a crucial swing seat on a closely divided court, replacing Justice Lewis Powell. As with Alito, a critical issue was whether Bork would...
I have tried to quit a hundred times. Good luck to you also.
Keep us posted on your progress.
Best of luck!
In case you missed it via Wash. Times:
Democrats drop Alito witness (Pajamahadeen mentioned)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1553969/posts
A freelance writer who compared the Holocaust to eating meat in a 2003 column was pulled yesterday from Senate Democrats' list of witnesses.... The move came just a day after Stephen R. Dujack was announced as a witness and hours after Senate Republicans and conservative bloggers attacked his credibility for writing that the way people treat animals was akin to Nazis' treatment of Jews. .... "If this is the type of witness they plan to have at this hearing, it shows there's an utter dearth of serious objections to Judge Alito's record." .... She said in addition to removing Mr. Dujack, Democrats were adding two new witnesses: Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Florida Democrat, and Theodore M. Shaw, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
More at http://washtimes.com/national/20060106-115355-7360r.htm
Will do and thanks. I'm going to need all the luck (and DRUGS) I can get! LOL!
I have been yelling.
In case you missed it, keep in mind for the hearings:
Washington calling: Two sides stacking Alito ammunition
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1553959/posts
Advocacy groups are turning up the volume on their lavishly funded campaigns in the home states of wavering senators over Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.
Expect a very nasty - but quick - fight that will end in February. Liberal organizations such as People for the American Way say they already know enough about Alito from his writings to oppose his nomination without listening to what the nominee says in his confirmation hearings. On the other side, Progress for America is launching a three-day pro-Alito blitz in 19 states to persuade senators to block any filibuster on the Senate floor.
Targets of the campaigns are wavering GOP senators Mike DeWine of Ohio, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. Pro-Alito forces also are concentrating on persuading Democrats like Bill Nelson of Florida and Ken Salazar of Colorado to shirk the filibuster and allow a straight vote on the nomination.
More at http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/perspectives/article/0,1406,KNS_2797_4366468,00.html
Now how did I get that huge space in my post? (I always learn things by accident)
We're making pro-Alito signs for the March for Life in D.C. on the 23rd. My buddy's doing a MOAB (for Andrew, thats the mother of all banners). I want to go to D.C. early, but my daughter has zillions of doctor's appts.
The party of open-mindedness speaks!
see my home page!
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.