Hey Leaky, here's a quarter. Call someone who cares.
Posted on 01/13/2006 5:38:54 AM PST by OXENinFLA
5th & Final Day of Hearings
This morning, the Senate Judiciary Cmte. convenes for a final session in the nomination hearings of Judge Samuel Alito. Outside witnesses who did not testify at yes- terday's hearings are given an opportunity to offer their opinions on the nominee. The Cmte. meets again to vote, either to approve or reject, on Tues., Jan. 17
FRI., 9:00AM ET, C-SPAN
Live Links
Evidently, losing one's mind and rambling on is contagious.
I think that he supports the nomination - the hearings being over and all. He is on a fairly long litany to justify his (Specter's) position with regard to the nominee in the final vote. He noted that some nominees he voted out of Committee and voted against on the floor. His talk now is not in that vein, it is supporting the judge, PERIOD.
That is what he said...the BUT is that this will require Leahy and the rest of the Dimwits to uphold their end of what was essentially a "gentleman's agreement"
Hey Leaky, here's a quarter. Call someone who cares.
Let's call her Stinky
Yes .. I read that also .. I'm thinking on NRO
:-) Thanks.
Some of us are eating lunch. We really didn't need to see that!
Specter says it was already used when the hearings were rescheduled from January 2nd to January 9th.
No, Specter agreed that they would begin a week later than's he'd intended (naively thinking that the democrats would be honest and concliliatory to him).
It is and has been obvious what the democrats were going to do. They're going to claim that Alito's answers have been "troubling" and that they need more time to read over the record further.
Translation: We want to get our game plan together to defeat this guy on the floor.
I do not think Leaky speaks like Elmer Fudd. harummph
lol
Holding my breath on this one.It is all local for me-PA,NJ.I know some of the players.
The best we can hope for is that the democrats realise that the announcement in November really binds them to some degree, that there really isn't anything extraordinary here, and that Leahy/Specter will work it out so the committee will vote on thursday instead of tuesday. Specter would agree with that because that's the way he is.
Then the democrats will hope that something, ANYTHING, comes up before thursday, so they can show up and apologetically announce that, because of the NEW information, they are holding for a week, which will push it out to the next THURSDAY instead of the next TUESDAY.
At some point Specter will get tired of being treated like trash, but I can't say when that will be.
When it is all over, the dems will then filibuster.
The only thing that can stop this is if the main stream media says that they are wrong to do so. Otherwise, there is no risk to the democrats. We all have the internet, but the average person still gets a sense of what is right and wrong from the big media, and it's only when the media tells the truth about democrats that the democrats become reasonable.
Like with Roberts, the media said he was great, so the democrats had to give in.
He is putting pressure on the DEMs to vote the nomination out of Committee. By taking a position on the floor vote, he moves the reader forward in time, past the Committee vote.
Thanks, Cb. I was running around and didn't hear him clearly.
Prayers up
Swing (= unpredictable) votes:
Justice Anthony KennedyJustice Sandra Day O'Connor
Reliably liberal:
Justice Stephen Breyer
Justice John Paul Stevens
Justice David Souter
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Too soon to tell:
Chief Justice John Roberts (replaced Rehnquist)
Soon-to-be Justice Samuel Alito (will replace O'Connor)
As the above shows, if Roberts and Alito prove to be reliable conservative votes, we have a 4-4 court with one swing vote, an improvement on the 3-4 Rehnquist court with two swing votes, but not a slam dunk for conservative issues.
For those who view the court not in terms of liberal vs. conservative, but in terms of small vs. big government tendencies, nothing in the new court makeup suggests it will begin to roll back the excesses of federal growth and misuse of the Commerce clause we've seen since at least the 1930's.
AAAAGGGGHHHH!!!
Specter checks his watch.
Ha-ha-ha!!
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.