To: PhiKapMom
Actually, that was more coherent an argument than I was expecting. But it is an argument to vote AGAINST the nominee, not to prevent a vote.
19 posted on
02/26/2003 8:42:32 AM PST by
Sloth
(I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!)
To: Sloth
They have to prevent the vote. They'd lose a vote on the floor and she knows it. Gutless wench.
23 posted on
02/26/2003 8:44:10 AM PST by
mewzilla
To: Sloth
I agree-- that was more thoughtful than I expected; during HER administration the Republicans engaged in judicial nomination gamesmanship, and now she turns about using their lawsuit and Scalia's opinion as a sword. Interesting. But why devolve into the irrelevant "foster child" theme? Is she still babbling on about "the children"?
RD
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson