Posted on 01/11/2006 5:01:17 AM PST by OXENinFLA
Day 3: Questioning Continues
This morning, Round 1 concludes with Senators on the Judiciary Cmte. who did not question nominee Alito yesterday. During Round 2, questioning is limited to 20 minutes for each of the eight- een senators. Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) leads off, followed by the others, alternating by party in order of seniority.
WEDS., 9:30AM ET, C-SPAN
LOL
Alito will make it -- Begala and Carville both said so on the Today Show. Except for a few very blue areas of the country, opposing Alito is a losing political strategery.
So much for GWB being a "lame duck". If you ask me, the 'Rats on this Committee look pretty lame.
I wouldn't get too excited. You would think Kennedy would be gone by now too after his scuba diving excursion.
Good. If the Feinstein from yesterday, TRULY wants to know what's in his heart, Coburn is showing her that the question MUST be rephrased with no tag-ons.
It says Durbin is a Catholic. I find that hard to believe.
It's mentioned at this site also that he was election in 1982 to congress
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=D000563
I missed it, I hope Rush plays the clip.
I'm in a different one. I'm further south, about 15 feet from Cook County.
I stand corrected by A Citizen Reporter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1555919/posts?page=430#430
Coburn's point about the independence of the Judiciary needs to be stressed--not only to show how wrong the Dems are demanding that Alito be an O'Connor clone--but also to show how WRONG it is for the Dems to demand that Alito MUST agree with their views on abortion, etc. If you have to "go along to get along" with the likes of Schmuckie to get on the SC, then that is NOT independence!!!
Could you please direct me to the reply that explains Durbin's "rear end collision"?
Priceless pictures!!!!
Now there is an interesting question.
From his Senate page:
"Elected to the U.S. Senate on November 5, 1996 and re-elected in 2002, Durbin fills the seat left vacant by the retirement of his long-time friend and mentor, U.S. Senator Paul Simon."
So he switched his position while still a US Rep, before he became a Senator.
If states made the decision, people could have the option of moving to a pro-life state.
I have a feeling the pro-life states would eventually have a larger population (and more electoral votes) than the pro-abort states.
You mean the Dems bucket actually has something in it? I thought it was entirely devoid of any substance whatsoever.
There were rumors that Senator Paul Simon (D) was retiring in 1990 and to win the Democratic primary, one has to be pro-abortion.
It does have the same meaning as in "finding facts," but the purpose for the finding in a court case is used to determine liability or guilt; whereas in the lawmaking context, it has to do with the determination of whether the statute itself has Constitutional foundation.
I agree. I need to learn more about him, but I'm very impressed with him from what I've seen so far.
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.