Who's out of step with the country...?
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 ...
Isn't there a website that talks about this sort of stuff...what's it called?
Looking at this article...
Republicans only appointed 91 of the 167 appeals court justices which is 54.49% not 60.
Democrats are not allowing any seats vacated by Democratic appointees to be filled with Bush appointees.
There is a seat on the 4th circuit of appeals previously held by a Johnson appointee that has been vacant since 1994.
Therefore, republicans are not really making that much progress making the courts more conservative.
Bush would have been happy with Aunt Harriet the Bootblack. He needs to be kept on a very short leash. And away from spending bills.
The leftists hate it when that happens.
Even my most liberal moonbat friends were embarrased by the Cape Cod Orca. Maybe the Dim idiots in Massachusetts will finally dump him. (Nah....)
I suspect that Harriet Miers may have been a dummy appointment. Bush was under pressure to appoint a woman, but, while he likes to pick qualified black and woman appointments, he doesn't like to make a token appointment, which this has become. So he picked someone who would be shot down by conservatives, so he could nominate who he wanted. Just a theory.
Either one is a loser for the Dems.
This is the part that's killing the NYTimes
"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."
Note to the Dems: DUH!
Who's out of step with the country...?
I love the smell of Schadenfreude on a snowy Sunday morning mixed in with the aromas of coffee and the fireplace...excellent!
Not to wish them ill, but they will only leave the court in a coffin while Bush is pres.
Only three were confirmed by a Republican Senate.
Your point? All seven were nominated by Republican Presidents. Maybe the Republicans didnt have Party control in all those years, however, they did have a slight conservative leaning. Remember that in many of those years Conservative Democrats were still serving in the Senate, primarily in the South. Over the years, these Dems have either changed party or been defeated. You dont really think that Liberal Democrats voted for Reagan's tax cuts and defense buildup do you?
Asked how they might stop the shift, Stephanie Cutter, a senior Democratic Senate aide, sighed and responded: "Win. Win in 2006."
Oh really?
Gee unless I'm mistake there isn't any POTUS election in 2006. So if Ruth "Buzzie" Ginsberger dies from prostate cancer, Dubya will still be the one appointing a replacement.
Whoa...... hold on!! Is Mssss Cutter intimating that the RATS would filibuster any Dubya appointee if they had the majority in the Senate.
Hmmm, maybe it's time for Frist to go 'noo-klee-ear' (sarc) now.
A dem with sense? Where the heck did he come from?
Former top Clinton administration official, head of the 2006 House Democrat Campaign Commmitee. His job is to recruit and train Dims to defeat the evil Republicans in this year's congressional elections. He's based in reality and not be one of those "San Francisco" Democrats.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg may die of cancer but it wont be prostate cancer since only men have a prostate.
Uh-oh...he gets it. Too bad.
Elections matter.
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.