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.
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.