Posted on 01/14/2006 9:39:47 PM PST by LdSentinal
WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 - Disheartened by the administration's success with the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., Democratic leaders say that President Bush is putting an enduring conservative ideological imprint on the nation's judiciary, and that they see little hope of holding off the tide without winning back control of the Senate or the White House.
In interviews, Democrats said the lesson of the Alito hearings was that this White House could put on the bench almost any qualified candidate, even one whom Democrats consider to be ideologically out of step with the country.
That conclusion amounts to a repudiation of a central part of a strategy Senate Democrats settled on years ago in a private retreat where they discussed how to fight a Bush White House effort to recast the judiciary: to argue against otherwise qualified candidates by saying they would take the courts too far to the right.
Even though Democrats thought from the beginning that they had little hope of defeating the nomination, they were dismayed that a nominee with such clear conservative views - in particular a written record of opposition to abortion rights - appeared to be stirring little opposition.
Republicans say that Mr. Bush, in making conservative judicial choices, has been doing precisely what he said he would do in both of his presidential campaigns. Indeed, they say, his re-election, and the election of a Republican Congress, meant that the choices reflected the views of much of the American public.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
John Paul Stevens won't retire while Bush is in office. However, Anthony Kennedy may decide to step down.
Let's hope they quickly move on to suicidal, which seems likely. I want to know if the Times can garner enough support for a government bailout.
Now look at them. About all they can hope for is Abramoff to soil more Republicans than Demmocrats.
...and they see little hope of winning back control of the Senate or the White House.
.....just cracks me up
Thats in the NYT Stylebook for anybody. Always was, always will be. After identifying a person by their full position (see the first paragraph: President Bush), the Times will always use the moniker "Mr" or "Mrs" or "Ms" upon further reference to the person. Nothing nefarious about this, its just the Times long time style.
I hope George Bush gets to make one more appointment to the bench from one of two liberal judges that have been ill.
I wish no one harm or anything, but for the sake of others if one or both were gone when Bush can do the appointing, that would be good for America IMO.
"The Democratic push began in earnest on the last weekend of April 2001, when 42 of the 50 Democratic senators attended a retreat in Farmington, Pa., to hear from experts and discuss ways they could fight a Bush effort to remake the judiciary.
"There were very few principles on which we could all agree," said Mr. Daschle, who was Senate minority leader at the time of the meeting. "But one was that we anticipated that the administration would test the envelope. They were going to go as far as the envelope would allow in appointing conservative judges."
At the retreat, Democrats listened to a panel composed of Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard Law School, Cass R. Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School and Marcia D. Greenberger, the co-president of the National Women's Law Center. The panelists told them that the court was at a historic juncture and that the Bush White House was prepared to fill the courts with conservatives who deserved particularly strong scrutiny, participants said.
The panel also advised them, participants said, that Democratic senators could oppose even nominees with strong credentials on the grounds that the White House was trying to push the courts in a conservative direction, a strategy that now seems to have failed the party."
It did more than fail the party, it blew up in their faces.
What's the likelyhood of that? Who's next to croak?
The Dc rumor is that Stevens is done after this term so it will be a big campaign item this year !
Considering all the heat that both she and Bush got over it the last time, I doubt they'll come back for a repeat.
I'd prefer to see Janice Rogers Brown in there, but it would be fun to see Ken Starr nominated. That would put the Dems on suicide watch.
I goes even deeper than that. By stating "Democrats said the lesson of the Alito hearings ..." shows that Dems don't even understand the basic principles of the Constitution, since they needed this lesson
Given the voting records of some it may be little comfort to us but it is true. Only the two Clinton appointed justices are Dems. Shows what happens when Dems hold the Presidency only 12 years out of the past 37.
The dems know they can't get their agendas passed any other way so their only hope is to load the judicial with leftist judges who legislate from the bench.
Just because an idea is popular doesn't make it constitutional and that is where good judges come into the picture.
He could retire to his grave, though the odds of that happening is slim since of course it would actually be something that would lead to a conservative shift on the court.
We all know how horribly hard it is to actually get a conservative majority on the court...it has taken 50 years to get to the point where we can even fathom the possibility and taste it for crying out loud.
It may take another 30 for it to happen.
And yet again, it may slip out of our fingers.
We may have no more retirements under Bush and no deaths of the liberal justices. And we may lose the WH in 2008 and gain a huge number of new liberal justices.
Who knows....I would not be surprised to see us fail again.
Conservatives just do not have any luck.
Where do you get that idea about Justice Kennedy? I've heard nothing about him thinking about retiring. I really doubt Stevens or Ginsburg would step down voluntarily while Bush is President. It's quite possible one or both might not survive through the end if W's second term.
I've read that Anthony Kennedy had hopes of becoming Chief Justice. Clearly, that's not going to happen, and he's pushing 70 y/o. And, like O'Conner, I don't think he wants a Democrat President naming his replacement.
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.