Posted on 06/03/2009 4:09:27 AM PDT by Scanian
Opponents of the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor can take heart. Conservative leaders have found a constructive way to talk about a potential filibuster that's fully in accordance with Senate tradition. It's an approach worth considering if Senate Democrats try to ram through the nomination without adequate debate.
More than 120 conservative leaders outlined their idea in a letter to be delivered today to all Republican senators. The effort was organized by Manuel Miranda of the Third Branch Conference, an umbrella group concerned about judicial nominations. The high-toned letter, obtained in advance by The Washington Times, calls for a "great debate" on the nomination -- not just within the Senate Judiciary Committee, but by the full Senate -- for the public's benefit.
The point, the letter says in so many words, is not personal destruction, but edification. The goal is to explain "the consequences of the two distinct judicial approaches to the Constitution, to our national character and to the lives of our children." It is an "extraordinary educable moment that a Supreme Court confirmation process represents." The public should beware "judicial nominees who will allow personal feeling and personal background to color their judgment with empathy for particular classes of litigants."
The key, and welcome, contribution of the letter is to distinguish between a "Democratic filibuster" and a "traditional filibuster." The former, a derailment of American tradition, uses a minority of the Senate to kill a federal court nomination. Mr. Miranda explains that the latter, with a rich and honorable history, is "intended to allow Senators sufficient time to inform themselves and to debate a matter before bringing something to a final vote."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I fear it will be more like “let’s get this embarrassment out of our faces and kick her upstairs, she can’t be any worse than Souter was.”
A good start would be to point out that the position that Sotomayor would fill is not Social Worker General.
I really don’t care that she is a good listener.
Social Worker General. Now that would be an intriguing post.
I think that Sonia has already proved the Peter Principle. It would be a shame to let her rise even further. I hope against hope that there is something in her background that is really damning which will cause her to quit.
They know that they have to put up some token opposition, because it's the Conservatives and Christians who'll crawl over broken glass to get them re-elected, not Muffy and Biff from the Country Club. Yet they're even more terrified of not being invited to all those cool brie-and-vin parties in Georgetown, getting a nod from Ben Bradlee and Sally Quinn.
I miss the days of Jesse Helms, who never appeared on the Sunday talk shows because he was teaching Sunday School, who always presented principled opposition to wackadoodle Quota Queen Supreme Court nominees, and who did more for Human Rights than anything Amnesty International ever dreamed.
My theory as to why GOP politicians are such pu$$ies is that they're our second-teamers. Most lefties grow up wanting to be in "public service". The best of the best run for political office. On the other hand, Conservatives grow up wanting to run businesses or serve in the military. The best Conservatives do that, while the second-and-third teamers go into politics. Since they're second-rate, they want some sort of validation to know they're loved and accepted...They only get grief from their voting base because they're not competent enough to work their way around the political aisles, so the only love and validation they get is from their Dem opponents.
It may also explain why so many Republicans have been outed or are rumored to be fairies (Larry Craig, Jon Hinson, Trent Lott, that sissy in Florida). They like the natural Beta position, and/or they've always been effeminate fairies in their personal lives but know they live in Conservative States so they have to pretend they're Conservatives (I'm convinced that if Trent Lott grew up in San Francisco instead of Pascagoula, MS, he'd have had hair halfway down his a$$, a "special friend" name Raoul, and been to the left of Ron Dellums).
Wow! ...a civilized, educational, rational, and informative approach to vetting a controversial candidate!
The Socialist Democratic Party will never allow this to happen. These are people with disordered minds who cannot see the relationship between lower taxes, increased revenues, and prosperity. They do not want to connect the dots.
It would be a big surprise to me if the mealy mouthed Democrats would allow this to happen. Get ready for the fork tongued Dems to justify their negative positions, especially Pelosi. My head is still spinning after her explanations, excuses, and contradictions in connection with waterboarding, because it is hard to connect moving dots.
I think they see the relationship just fine...but, prosperity is not their objective.
Not hardly, all the secrecy surrounding the Third Branch makes them appear like a cabal.
I happen to have watched Miranda and Shelton on Matthews last night and their refusal to answer the questions made them look guilty of something. It didn't help that Buchanan appeared in subsequent segment and answered the questions, for which Matthews pointedly thanked him.
They understand the relationship just fine—they just don’t wish to have any part of it because it interferes with their master plan to grow government and control the people’s lives.
They understand the relationship just fine—they just don’t wish to have any part of it because it interferes with their master plan to grow government and control the people’s lives.
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.