Posted on 01/12/2006 5:14:27 AM PST by OXENinFLA
Day 4: Hearing Resumes
This morning, Senators will question Judge Alito during a third round. They will then go into a closed session, to review the FBI background investigation on the Supreme Court nominee. Outside witnesses may be called to testify this afternoon, as well as the American Bar Association, to discuss its recommendations.
THURS., 9:00AM ET, C-SPAN
Live Links
My biggest fear is Senator Byrd resting up right now. And writing his filibuster novel. Perhaps he would be the catapult to Frist just pushing the button.
One thing about elephants...we have long memories!
Thank you....I saw the schedule on c-span...but forgot.
If the Dims talk that mess, call them.
He was NOT kidding...then he asked Chrissy who he thought it would be...
Chrissy said, "I have my favorites (?)...but I think McCain and or Guiliani are good bets"...
BOY OH BOY....we have got to get George Allen or someone else groomed soon!!!!
thanks
Ed Meese is on now ....and his shooting down every single arguement that Chrissy is making that Bush was breaking the law...
EVERY SINGLE ONE! DOWN GOES FATFACE, DOWN GOES FATFACE!!!
Indeed.
yes...We have GOT to keep a list...and keep it up to date on any and all references by pundits, politicians, etc...
Because people are known by the company they keep...and I think Newt, McCain...Hagel all fall under the "I was with Hillary on something" bandwagon...which disqualifies them.
Not a chance. George Allen, a number of Republican Govs, but not a chance of G-man (who I personally like) McMedia or Hagel.
Meese was great -- calm, truthful. Poor Chrissy, I thought he was gonna blow a gasget when Meese calmly told Chris that Plame was Not undercover, and no crime had been committed regarding national security. Tee Hee. I enjoyed the segment.
I was watching today's session on CSPAN. At the end of today's session Sen. Kennedy turned to Sen. Specter and said words to the effect that he'd like to have a couple of letters inserted into the record at an appropriate time. Sen. Specter basically said he would do that. One of the letters, Sen. Kennedy said, was from the National Association of Women's Lawyers.
Here is something I found on their web site that I suspect parallels what will be conveyed in that letter. National Association of Women's Lawyers
"JANUARY 8, 2006 -- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN LAWYERS ("NAWL") ISSUES EVALUATION OF JUDGE SAMUEL A. ALITO FOR THE POSITION OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Chicago, IL
The National Association of Women Lawyers ("NAWL"), Committee for the Evaluation of Supreme Court Nominees, has evaluated Judge Samuel Alito for the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Committee has determined that Judge Alito is not qualified to serve on the Court from the perspective of laws and decisions regarding women's rights or that have a special impact on women.
NAWL's rating of not qualified from a women's rights perspective is the result of its evaluation of Judge Alito's writings, including his judicial record. On those women's rights issues that he has addressed, Judge Alito has shown a disinclination to protect or advance women's rights."
What gives the National Association of Women's Lawyers the audacity to "assume" that they speak for all women, or even the majority of women, when apparently their views represent only a fringe group of radical, gender feminists who are clearly out of the mainstream?
It appears to me that rich, privileged, women in America's gender feminist fringe are a little hypocritical to be alleging (pretending) to understand the motivations of mainstream American women.
I certainly hope someone reads statements into the record, in support of Samuel Alito, from the Independent Women's Forum and Concerned Women for America.
Did a gooogle on 'too cute by half':
In Reply to: too cute by half posted by Fred on May 23, 2004
: Why 'half'? Wouldn't 'two' make more sense?
Here's some information from the archives:
"By half" is an idiom defined as "by a great deal; much, considerably, far" (Oxford English Dict.).
Example from the year 1400, approx.: "Thowe arte to hye by [the] halfe, I hete [the] in trouthe!" ("Morte Arthure"). I think this translates as "Thou art too high [proud? ambitious?] by the half, I promise thee in truth."
Example from 1777: "Pshaw! he is too moral by half" (Sheridan, "School for Scandal").
The dictionary doesn't say whether "by half" implies an exact fraction, but the phrase suggests to me "So-and-so is 50% more clever than he should be."
My impresson is that it means OVERLY cute.
***Question still - I have not seen a real genuine filibuster since the 60's over Civil Rights. ***
Hell yeah, they don't REALLY filibuster these days, at least not by the rules.
If theyre going to threaten to filibuster, lets let them, and then make sure they adhere to all the rules of the filibuster. None of these recesses and such. Teddy wouldnt last an hour standing up there without a drink. Not to mention his ankles. And Biden would talk himself to sleep. =P
"you won't need zip-lok bags"
Thanks, Howlin, but I use them for things like cereal, cookies, crackers, spaghetti sauce I want to freeze, etc. (Don't wash the spaghetti ones, tho!)
Broke for dinner just in time, as Lie--oops, mistake--maybe not!--Liu started talking and haven't turned it back on. I'M FREE!! Leaves more time for F/R :)
Great post, puroresu. Your observations are spot-on and let's hope the Dems don't see it your way. They're addicted to their own voices and images, so probably they will go right on holding hearings.
Let's hope, also, that the next nominee to the Sup Ct is Janice Rogers Brown. She has nothing to fear from these impotent Rats.
LOL...you and I are thinking alike!!!
BTW...Meese also shot Chrissy down on the Plame thing...saying that it was much ado about nothing...
NEXT...he is having on Harold Ford, Jr...GAG...to talk about the report that says that many, many more troops wouldn't have died if they had better body armor...
WHAT is news about that...my husband is a VIET VET and he said that a troop would NOT like a lot more armor...because they wouldn't be able to move quickly...and in Iraq it would be so hot they would just be SICK!!
Hell yeah, they don't REALLY filibuster these days, at least not by the rules.
The gentelman's agreement is they only have to vote to fillibuster. For something of this magnitude, I bet even Frist would make them fillibuster for real. Here is hoping anyway.
They all have to get their time in front of the TV cameras. Bunch of windbags.
Why bother, though. They -- and we -- already know how most of them are going to vote. All but one, maybe two Dems will vote nay. The "independent" will vote nay. The only mystery is if all Republicans will vote yea, or will there be a defector or two. The VP will be around in case he needs to break a tie (not likely).
After the vote, the media will strongly highlight the narrow vote margin and Dim complaints, as though it all was something astonishing, unexpected, "unprecedented" and, therefore, the close vote redounds negatively to Judge Alito. Reporters will say and/or write all of this with straight faces, proving that not all top-notch actors are in the entertainment field. After a day or two of post-mortems, the senate and the media will move on to other manufactured crises all in attempt to keep the masses distracted while they pick our pockets some more. And so it goes.
(PS: I don't believe a reporter gets out of J school these days without committing the word unprecedented to memory.)
Thanks! 50% more sounds right.
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.