Posted on 11/13/2006 4:26:15 PM PST by wagglebee
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Now that the elections have given them control of the Senate, leading Democrats on judicial issues have a message for President Bush. They don't want him to send up for confirmation any judges who would be hostile to legalized abortion or they plan vote down or filibuster them.
Democrats now have 51 votes in the Senate and will likely have a slim one vote majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee when Congress starts its new session in January.
Though they technically have enough votes on the panel and in the Senate to defeat any Bush judicial pick, they may still have a tough time keeping their caucus together as some moderate Democrats joined a group of Republicans in making sure filibusters weren't used to hold up nominees.
But leading pro-abortion Democrats tell Bush he needs to pick someone without a record opposed to abortion in order to get judges -- especially for the Supreme Court -- confirmed in their Senate.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, told Newsday that Bush should nominate only "consensus" nominees.
Sen. Charles Schumer, of New York, was more strident and vowed to block any nominee he feels is too extreme on abortion.
"We will do everything in our power to see that that happens," he told Newsday, saying filibusters should be expected. He added that Bush "will have to negotiate with us, because we'll have the majority."
There are no current Supreme Court openings, but pro-abortion Justice John Paul Stevens, who was the subject of retirement speculations shortly before the elections, is 86 years-old and battling significant health problems.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg, another abortion advocate is 73 years-old and has her own health concerns.
Had the GOP kept control of the Senate, the liberal judges may have waited to retire, but they could step down feeling that the chances they would be replaced by a less conservative judge are higher with Democrats heading up the chamber.
How Bush reacts to Democratic control may be seen in whether he chooses to re-nominate six conservative appeals court judges who have yet to be confirmed.
Should a Supreme Court opening develop closer to the 2008 presidential elections, that may put more pressure on Senate Democrats to hold off on confirming a replacement until afterwards.
I don't know to whom you are referring with your statements about "gutless Republicans" but the Republicans had 48 votes for it. Thanks in part to the unappeasable caucus we now have fewer and do not have the majority either.
Catholics need not apply.
Any pro-life conservative who stayed home to 'punish' the GOP, IMO, will be held accountable for what they have done.
They are not going to allow anyone to get out of committee who is pro life. That protects all the democrates who were running this year who claimed to be pro-life. Casey is not going to be tested.
We got ourselves a great shaking coming across the country. God is going to discipline parts of the nation to make them an example and protect those faithful to Him. I know you are faithful and be comforted you and yours will be protected by your faith. See Psalm 91.
The stubborn, wayward and lost are in for a shellacking. Read Jeremiah 18:1-17 and Jeremiah 2 (check out verse 37) Read it in context. Subsitute US christendom for Israel.
"Any pro-life conservative who stayed home to 'punish' the GOP, IMO, will be held accountable for what they have done."
I confirm that for you with a high degree of certainty.
W will not take orders from the rat crowd.
Check your Freepmail!
"It's more likely the GOP who will be filibustering."
Do you really think they will have the guts to do that?
In reality the rats have had control since the 2000 election.
We have a remnant here in America that has not stopped praying, and we must continue with even greater fervency. God is faithful!
The smart process (particularly if it is a SCOTUS judgeship) is to nominate somebody you expect NOT to be confirmed - somebody so reprehensible to the libs that they will waste a lot of money opposing him/her. Then nominate a replacement that is even worse to the libs. Make them spend even more money opposing this guy.
Then, on the third try, you nominate the guy you wanted all along and the Dems will be more inclined to let him through rather than appear unappeasable. The Dems will, by then, have the political cover with their interest groups to let the nominee pass with stern warnings rather than an outright rejection.
Plus, putting up a trojan nominee will force the new "pro-life" Democrat senators to have to declare whether they've changed their minds once arriving in Washington or if they will stay true to the principles they claimed to run on.
Those of us who pray are going to be protected from what is about to come.
He oughta nominate Ann Coulter just to watch their heads spin! She wouldn't get the votes, but the questioning by the Dem controlled Senate Committee would be a JOY to watch!
I'm guessing that the pro-life Senators will not be allowed anywhere NEAR the Judiciary Committee, so they won't get the chance to vote at ALL, if the committee doesn't approve of a nominee, because the full vote will never happen.
You sure can be a Catholic, but that does NOT mean that you necessary are a Christian, right???
The President is the person who will determine the agenda. I'm hoping that President Bush will not give in on this issue.
I think if he puts up Janice Rogers Brown and goes at it hammer & tongs, the Democrats will find it harder than they expect to defend the position that they are pro-black and pro-woman. And they will also find it hard to defend the position that legalized abortion for convenience is a "consensus" position.
Anyone who is a real, faithful Catholic is also a real Christian. I once taught a student who did his undergraduate work at Oral Roberts University. He was very knowledgeable about the middle ages, and when I asked him about it he explained that his tutor was Catholic. I asked how that could be, and he told me that the tutor converted while teaching at Oral Roberts. They let him stay on, with the sole proviso that he must solemnly declare that "Jesus Christ is my personal Savior." He had no trouble doing that. Neither would any real Catholic that I can think of.
You mean the "self-serving", "self-rightiousness" "cut-N-run" "GOP-punisher", "narrow-minded", that suddenly woke up last Wednesday and realized that they got a govern leadership in Congress THEY deserve!!!
But NOT realizing the damage for decades they have DONE to the United States???
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Anyone who is a real, faithful Catholic is also a real Christian. I once taught a student who did his undergraduate work at Oral Roberts University. He was very knowledgeable about the middle ages, and when I asked him about it he explained that his tutor was Catholic. I asked how that could be, and he told me that the tutor converted while teaching at Oral Roberts. They let him stay on, with the sole proviso that he must solemnly declare that "Jesus Christ is my personal Savior." He had no trouble doing that. Neither would any real Catholic that I can think of.
If that is true and they vote democRATic?
My wife and I always asks: How can you be a democrat and a true Christian at the same time??
How are you able to reconcile the Scripture's teaching, in example - The Ten Commandments - vs. the way democrats are voting on these issues???
Hmmmm!!!
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.