Skip to comments.
Judge Janice In Trouble - Dems to block vote on Bush pick (Deja Vu All Over Again)
SFGate.com ^
| 11/6/03
| Carolyn Lochhead - SF Chronicle
Posted on 11/06/2003 8:18:56 PM PST by NormsRevenge
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:44:41 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
Feinstein said her decision to oppose Brown "does not come easily to me" because the judge is a member of California's highest court. But Brown's speeches and judicial opinions are too "stark and filled with hyperbole'' and reflect a world view too hostile to government for appointment to a court that decides so many matters of government policy, Feinstein said.
To: NormsRevenge
I can't wait for the Repubs to beat these Dem racists over the head with this in the 2004 elections.
2
posted on
11/06/2003 8:26:24 PM PST
by
pabianice
To: pabianice
I can't wait for some conservative nominees to be confirmed.
To: NormsRevenge
These judicial filibusters in the Senate anger me more than anything else. My anger is directed not at the dems, but at the Republican "majority" that allows them. The Republicans must elevate the priority of nominees and break the filibusters. They will lose credibility if they go on much longer.
4
posted on
11/06/2003 8:28:56 PM PST
by
Buck W.
To: NormsRevenge
It ain't Judge Janice who is in trouble. It's the pubbies. The Dems are walking all over the nomination process. You'd think they were in the majority. If the pubbies had any balls, they'd think of a way to overcome this problem. If they don't do something, we'll never see another Repub nominated Supreme.
5
posted on
11/06/2003 8:29:31 PM PST
by
umgud
(gov't has more money than it needs, but never as much as it wants)
To: umgud; Buck W.
The Republican senators are terrified of the news media. That's why they don't really control the senate.
To: umgud
what they need is a strategy. they ought to be out there scouring for conservatives who have very little public record. appoint them, and then toss up these controversial appointments as cannon fodder for the Dem attack dogs. who cares if Brown is fillibustered, if 10 Antonin Scalia clones are approved because they have no record.
7
posted on
11/06/2003 8:36:30 PM PST
by
oceanview
To: NormsRevenge
It sounds to me that, not the Republicans, but the Democrats, who are in control of the Senate.
To: The Bronze Titan
"It sounds to me that, not the Republicans, but the Democrats, who are in control of the Senate."
Don't worry.
Frist is going to take the fight to the RAT's with his fearsome new three-phase strategy. Don't ask me what that is, but I hear tell it is fearsome and the trembling RAT's will fall beneath the hard-liner strategy like wheat before the scythe.
I know this because the Republicans said so.
Really.
9
posted on
11/06/2003 8:43:00 PM PST
by
WorkingClassFilth
(DEFUND NPR & PBS - THE AMERICAN PRAVDA)
To: NormsRevenge
Quick - please tell me why Santorum or Nichols, or anyone with gonads wasn't made the majority leader of the Senate?
Frist was pushed by the White House as an appeaser to "work-with" the Democrats....there can be no compromise with those who are unreasonable!
Frist needs to make them filibuster the old fashioned way no matter what it takes...shut down the business of the Senate until there are up or down votes on the appointees...and let the American Sheeple see exactly what kind of obstructionist Daschle and company really are!
10
posted on
11/06/2003 8:55:41 PM PST
by
Froggie
To: NormsRevenge
Man, that is sad when even Al Sharpton ends up knucking under to the liberal brownshirts.
11
posted on
11/06/2003 9:01:39 PM PST
by
Dems_R_Losers
(Except for the one who married me!!!)
To: NormsRevenge
Brown's nomination brought an unusual reversal from Democratic presidential candidate and civil rights activist Al Sharpton, who said in a television interview that while he disagreed with Brown's political views, she deserves a vote in the Senate. Most civil rights groups and the Congressional Black Caucus vigorously oppose Brown's nomination. "We've got to stop this monolith in black America because it impedes the freedom of expression for all of us," Sharpton said in the interview, excerpts of which were printed Thursday in the conservative Washington Times and cited by committee Republicans. "I don't think she should be opposed because she doesn't come from some assumed club." Sharpton Thursday issued a "clarification" that said, "I am strongly opposed to the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown ... She is so far removed from the judicial mainstream that she poses a serious threat to the progress we have made in civil rights."Looks like Al Sharpton was "whooped" back in line, like any uppity black man on the plantation would.
12
posted on
11/06/2003 9:03:44 PM PST
by
ambrose
To: NormsRevenge
Don't worry...I'm sure Trent Frist has a plan. Doesn't he?
13
posted on
11/06/2003 9:07:02 PM PST
by
clintonh8r
(This isn't rocket surgery, people.)
To: NormsRevenge
In 1999, John Ashcroft stopped Ronnie White, a black judge, from being confirmed as a federal judge. As a result, the media and the RATS smeared Ashcroft as a Klansman.
Since the RATS are lynching the confirmation process of Janice Brown, does this make the RATS racist?
14
posted on
11/06/2003 9:09:57 PM PST
by
Kuksool
To: Froggie
... please tell me why Santorum or Nichols, or anyone with gonads wasn't made the majority leader of the Senate?
I have a theory about that. Let me go get my industrial strength roll of tin foil. I'll be right back. ;-)
(theme music from Final Jeopardy plays in background)
But seriously, we are prisoners of our own system, only as FRee as we wish to be.
The fight to overcome the obstinacy of the demRats would probably mean for "casualties" on both sides of the aisles and some very vicious discourse to occur. Politicos of today don't want to be seen as being mean or angry, it wouldn't be PC, yaknow. It's all about get along to get along at any cost and don't rock the boat.
President Bush is not as well-served by some of his own as he could or should be when it comes to the occupants of the Senate, sad to say.
There are quite a few Rs that are not willing to risk the fallout were they to take a stand and force a filibuster to break the reins of power the demRats effectively continue to hold onto tightly. Obviously, the leftist media is complicit in this whole sordid mess.
To the Rs , the price is too high to risk going to the floor over. Unfortunately, that robs all of us of a chance to reclaim some sanity in our government.
To say we can do it if we reach the magic 60 number is a bit disingenuous as well, imo. If a thing is worth fighting for , it is worth fighting for today. 3 Phases. Ha!
To: NormsRevenge
Feinstein called Brown's views "out of the mainstream" and her lifetime appointment to the D.C. appellate court would "create a fertile field for these views to be transposed into law, and I for one cannot do this, so I will vote no on the nomination.''Feinstein is a hag! Why should one prefer a judge who is "in the mainstream?" Isn't it preferable that a judge pledge fealty to the Constitution rather than popular whim?
What if the "mainstream" decided that Senators should be limited to two terms in one lifetime, and Representatives should be limited to five terms in one lifetime. What would Hagstein think then? We already know. She would suddenly concern herself with her oath to the Constitution and would fight any such "mainstream" power.
To: NormsRevenge
***Feinstein called Brown's views "out of the mainstream"***
To Feinstein and Boxer, anything to the Right of San Francisco is an extreme right-wing agenda.
17
posted on
11/06/2003 9:21:00 PM PST
by
Kuksool
To: NormsRevenge
The efforts include Thursday's vote that couldn't end the filibuster on the nomination of Alabama Attorney General William Pryor...to me this is more outrageous than the Brown blockade - Pryor is being held up because he opposes abortion, which the 'rats attribute to his "deeply held beliefs" as a Catholic. In 1960 when 'rat John F. Kennedy ran as the potential first Catholic president there were charges throughout the country that he would be "controlled by the Vatican" and unable to follow the laws of the land where there were conflicts with his religious values. His supporters branded those making such charges as "bigots" and maybe even convinced enough of the voters that he could act independently that he was arguably elected president. Now the 'rats are using identical tactics and arguments to exclude a man whose Catholic values they disagree with...someone should ask Schumer, who seems to be leading the charge against Pryor, if he would have voted for Nixon over Kennedy because of his concerns...they really are shameless......
To: umgud
Of course this obstinance on the Dems side creates a very distinct probablity that if they ever DO recapture the Senate,the GOP is going to give then a serious taste of their own filibustering medicine.
To: NormsRevenge
We haven't seen a Black lynched in America since The Honorable Clarence Thomas. The Dems must be so proud, break out the White Sheets and Hoods!!!!
Pray for GW and The Truth
20
posted on
11/06/2003 9:50:36 PM PST
by
bray
(The Wicked Witch of NY is dooming the Dems!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson