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.
It doesn't matter to them. Ken Salazar did the same thing here in CO. They are in for 6 years. They say one thing during the campaign, and do another the day after they get sworn in. I don't guess it would matter if the Dem Senate make up had quite a few conservatives. Pat Leahy will be running things now.
We don't need the ability to filibuster for at least the next two years because Bush can veto. And if the GOP had shown some fortitude and used the nuclear option, they might not have had their butts handed to them.
The old law of unintended consequences.
Those who did not vote (as a protest) or voted for Dims (as a protest) were immature, selfish, short term thinking people. The unintended consequences from this election will resonate for years to come.
That being said, I personally do not expect much of a fight from President Bush or Congressional Republicans on almost anything. They just seem completely deflated, demoralized, out of sync and have yet to learn their lesson that you cannot make friends with the liberals or the media.
Plus, I have yet to hear of even one Congressional Republican opting for a spine or nad transplant.
Is Santorum a lawyer? Bush could nominate him.
Regards, ivan
It will greatly benefit Republicans if Bush sends judges for confirmation that the Dems will seek to shoot down.
Let 'em shoot the judges down, and then rub their noses in it like a puppy!
you'll know, when you see what (if) Bush is going to veto.
Right out of the box, we may need to hold 41 votes to stop amnesty.
You're very good on American politics.
Just propose judges that stay out of the issue, and want to allow the voters of each state to decide abortion laws for themselves.
It takes a spine to "take action." Puh-leeze!!
There is no "consensus" on abortion. You are either for it or against it. And any so-called "middle ground" is immediately torpedoed by the far-left as a "slippery slope". By "consenus", Leahy means "agree with me".
I wonder how long Leahy plans on keeping the court down at 8 justices while they piddle, twiddle and resolve.
Regards, Ivan
Good idea about shining a continuous light on the fakes. I hope the "Republican conservatives" are listening.
Baal will be pleased.
This is their last gasp I believe that. They are building creeky dams against a wave of Providence. It will touch one of their own and the floodgates will burst within their party and public opinion. Abortion will finally be recognized by the majority as horrific, and illegal.
For a second, I thought the "here" you were referring to was America. I was thinking, "wait one minute...".
Unfortunately, I don't think it's in Bush to "make them do it." And after the dismal presser he held the day after the election, it's clear he's going to go along to get along.
See you in '08? Maybe?
Yeah, some "lesson" huh? Stevens will probably retire the first day of the next Congress.
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.