Posted on 11/09/2006 5:41:37 PM PST by paudio
In sum, a high-quality conservative nominee with a good public presence — and with the support of the broader conservative coalition that coalesced around Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito — should be able to hold all, or virtually all, the 49 Republicans and to pick off the one or more Democrats needed for confirmation. Vice President Cheney’s tiebreaking vote shouldn’t even be needed.
This prospect may well incite Democrats to prevent a straight up-or-down floor vote, by bottling the nomination up in committee or by filibustering it. But either approach is a high-risk tactic that could fuel a powerful backlash as it exposes the extremism of the Democrats. In any event, it would make no sense for President Bush to aim for a nominee who would draw support from the highly partisan Democrats on the Judiciary Committee or attract the 60 votes needed to defeat a filibuster. That path would lead to another Justice Souter. Far better to fight the fight, with a real prospect of victory, than to surrender abjectly.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
Clarence Thomas made it 52-48
I bet Bob casey, who aside from being a liberal is also pro-life like his dad, could be counted on to vote for a pro-life judge
although I am not sure he would like a very conservative justice like Scalia or Thomas on other issues
I agree that it will be better to put up good judicial candidates and fight the fight, but I don't believe that there will be any "real prospect of victory." We will simply be blocked, and have to have a reduced size court.
That by itself will serve us well if two of the most leftwing of the justices are considering retirement, as the rumors have it. We would then have a majority of good judges sitting on that smaller court.
It is a different time than during the Thomas confirmation. Since then, we had in office man who, more than anyone before him, polarized the country. To protect his own lying, corrupt, rapist butt, he had to make sure his side dug in their heals against the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. The country changed right after OKC and he used it to save his horrific presidency. We will never get a decent conservative out of committee.
"Far better to fight the fight, with a real prospect of victory, than to surrender abjectly."
Sorry, who are they talking about? These are not the same republicans that had a majority and let the democrats make up new rules to prevent judges from going through? If you dont have balls when you are leading you wont have them when you are following.
The committee should be 9-9 right? If the vote is even does it get on the floor?
Before the full Senate we can pick up a few Rats here and there. Alito did.
(Hugh Hewitt)
On April 15, 2005 --less than three months after President
Bush had begun a second term won in part because of his pledge to fight for sound judges-- Senator McCain appeared on Hardball and announced he would not support the "constitutional option" to end Democratic filibusters. Then, stunned by the furious reaction, the senator from Arizona cobbled together the Gang of 14 "compromise" that in fact destroyed the ability of the Republican Party to campaign on Democratic obstructionism while throwing many fine nominees under the bus. Now in the ruins of Tuesday there is an almost certain end to the slow but steady restoration of originalism to the bench. Had McCain not abandoned his party and then sabotaged its plans, there would have been an important debate and a crucial decision taken on how the Constitution operates. The result was the complete opposite. Yes, President Bush got his two nominees to SCOTUS through a 55-45 Senate, but the door is now closed, and the court still tilted left. A once-in-a-generation opportunity was lost.
I agree. There's no way a Dem Senate is going to let a nominee out of Committee they even think might be conservative. They don't have to rely on the filibuster like they did before.
The majority party always has a majority in every committee. There will be no Dems that jump to ship to let a good nominee out of committee. He should recess appoint Robert Bork for a year. That would show guts. Call it a reverse Bork.
I'm not sure if it will be 9-9. When the senate was 50-50, it was. But now we don't have that luxury.
The dems will set up the committee so that they have a deciding majority. Even if it was a tie vote in committee, they would filibuster the motion to vote a nominee out of committee. Nothing short of invoking the constitutional option will stop this.
Of course W could recess appoint a SCOTUS nominee if the dems refuse to allow a vote.
Bush should just spend the next two years sending every well qualified minority nominee up to the Sentate, Miguel Estrada, Janice Rogers Brown, Alberto Gonzales (from what I hear of his time in Texas). Just see how long they can reject them. Bush has got to settle in for some hardball, and remember that he is the man....
If the person is qualified, our side maintains that the president deserves his nominee. We let them have crazy Ruth Bader Ginzburg without a fight.
The political situation will be entirely different now, and the Democrats will feel a lot less pressure to act.
I think, however, that there is one absolutely sterling candidate who might make it: Janice Rogers Brown.
Put her forward, and let the Democrats be seen trying to shoot down a highly qualified, articulate, personable black woman. Hah.
No to Alberto Gonzalez. He is not a real conservative, I'm sorry to say.
""He should recess appoint Robert Bork for a year. That would show guts.""
Now you're talking!!! IMy depressed mood might end sooner than I thought.
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.