8mm
Posted on 11/13/2006 4:26:15 PM PST by wagglebee
Santorum doesn't really have the legal heft to be a Supreme Court nominee. He only practiced law for about 3 years before he was elected to Congress. I mean, it's not that I don't think he has good legal judgement, but it really helps to have a lot of experience with the specifics of the law before you get to that level.
As far as defeated Senators go, Jim Talent might be a bit more credible. He was once Richard Posner's law clerk, and taught as a Law Professor. But his resume is a little thin for the Supreme Court as well.
If he wants to pick a Senator, he should pick John Cornyn. Cornyn's got an excellent resume, long legal career, State Supreme Court, State Attorney General, and his personal relationships with so many Senators would give him a much better chance of being confirmed. It would also open up his Senate Seat, which would allow for Perry to appoint Harry Bonilla to his seat. Bonilla would not only make a good Senator, but he'd be a good messenger to win over hispanics.
Uh...I beg to differ. Schumer, Boxer, Leaky, and the Cape Cod Orca would jointly declare Cornyn to be the anti-christ if he were nominated, especially with a 4-4 SC.
But....but....but....so many Republicans are proud of themselves for staying home or voting rat!!! You mean....you mean.... you mean Bush's court nominees will never see their names moved out of committee unless they're in favor of the barbaric practice of murdering unborn babies because the rats took the Senate?
Gee, imagine that. Why, who could have predicted such a thing would actually happen?? Will wonders never cease?
Indeed, and maybe he could have some of Quix' prayer with them, before dinner! Amen.
You are probably right, it will become a hot news item. And the news will be...Bush Refuses To Nominate Consensus Judges. IOW, the MSM will spin it as being Bush's fault. He's stubborn, he's partisan, he's "extremist", he's "out of the mainstream", he won't "work with Democrats".
Remember the government shutdown back in the 90s? It took two to pull that off, Clinton and Congress (as pictured by Newt Gingrich). Two parties did it, but only one (Gingrich) got the blame. We had weekly news magazines running with the cover story "The Gingrich Who Stole Christmas", replete with heart-rending stories of "poor government workers" forced to do without (even though many, if not most, simply ended up with an unscheduled vacation with pay).
Then the 'Pubs supposedly worked out an agreement to re-open the government, and Clinton used that as an opportunity to cornhole the 'Pubs by double-crossing them and keeping the government shutdown, saying the 'Pubs broke the agreement (they didn't). The MSM parroted the lie and the sheeple bought it.
Zakly!
And what happens when the decisions are 4-4?
Then we'll just have to call upon the other one to kick the bucket. Then it can be 4-3.
No, seriously, I don't know how they would handle a 4-4. I do know the constitution never mandated the number of supremes in a sitting court. Nor do I know how it wound up settling on 9.
Might be time for a little google research.
"It would help if the priests and bishops would speak out about the politics of abortion. Most are reluctant to do so, and when they do it usually goes something like this, "Yes... the democrats are wrong in supporting abortion... but the republicans are JUST AS BAD because they oppose raising the minimum wage." "
They are cowardly Christians and are derelicting their sworn duty to uphold the principles of truth. Jesus did give lots of warnings about mis-representing the truth and false teachings.
Exactly. ANYONE who EVER thought ANY of these fools would buck their party had to be brain dead. A DeWine, bad as he was, was 100 times better than any of these dolts.
What to do, then? Well, like an earlier poster suggested, go for someone with a bit of a "stealth" record, but hopefully with private assurances that they will toe a more constructionist line once on the court. The danger there, of course, is that the 'Rats, led by UpChuckie, will insist on an abortion litmus test (funny how litmus tests are okay when imposed by 'Rats, but are the Devil's Own Work when suggested by 'Pubs) for anyone hauled up in front of the Senate. So nominees will be forced to either be evasive (in which case they'll be borked), lie, or renounce their beliefs. That is the scenario the 'Rats are framing.
I didn't see this coming! /sarc
But... isn't this a so-called dreaded "litmus test" that we've heard so much about?
Evidently it isn't a litmus test when the 'Rats propose it, it's called "consensus nominees". The first step in despotism is taking over the language, and the 'Rats are doing it. Abortion isn't abortion, it's "choice". Likewise, imposing a pro-abortion bias is not so much requiring a litmus test as appealing for "bipartisanship". Only 'Pubs impose a "litmus test" in a 'Rat-dominated world gone mad, and that of course is unacceptable.
I am praying without ceasing for exactly those things, Quix. THANKS!
AMEN, LS!!
This is payback to the feminazis who helped elect all those leftists to congress.
AMEN! Thanks tremendously.
Many Catholics in my family vote for 'Rats (especially the FDR lovers)
I heard it a million times, "Democrats aren't REALLY for abortion. Democrats are for the WORKING man".
It's sickening. Too many babies have already died because of such ignorance and apathy.
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.