Posted on 07/03/2005 8:31:55 PM PDT by 2dogjoe
Democrats' hopes of blocking a staunchly conservative Supreme Court nominee on ideological grounds could be seriously undermined by the six-week-old bipartisan deal on judicial nominees, key senators said yesterday.
With President Bush expected to name a successor to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor next week, liberals are laying the groundwork to challenge the nominee if he or she leans solidly to the right on affirmative action, abortion and other contentious issues. But even if they can show that the nominee has sharply held views on matters that divide many Americans, some of the 14 senators who crafted the May 23 compromise appear poised to prevent that strategy from blocking confirmation to the high court, according to numerous interviews.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Welcome to Free Republic!!
Thanks. I'm glad to be here.
Let's hope he nominates an anti-marxist such as her, and not Alberto Gonzalez.
I noticed that the WaPo conveniently left off the next line of Biden's when he said the Supreme Court is a "whole new ball game".
That is how this article ended, but Biden went on to say that the reason it is a "whole new ballgame", is because the Supreme Court MAKES LAWS, and the appellate courts don't ....
Good going Biden, you just lost the nomination for POTUS!
It is eminently predictable that they will go down in flames over this nomination, losing not only the nomination fight itself, but also the much-abused filibuster, AND many seats in the 2006 election.
It is not implausible at all to suggest that the very fact of a Supreme Court opening is an "extraordinary circumstance" to the hate-America wing of the Democrat party.
That is how this article ended, but Biden went on to say that the reason it is a "whole new ballgame", is because the Supreme Court MAKES LAWS, and the appellate courts don't ....Biden just proved that either (a) he doesn't have a clue how the judicial system in the United Sttes is supposed to work or (b) he slipped up and admitted that the judiciary all too often is no longer interpreting the law. They are legislating, which isn't supposed to be in their job description..
He supposedly TEACHES constitutional law at a law school, so you would think that he SHOULD know how it works, so...
that means he "stepped in it" big time! LOLOLOLOL
The more some of these guys talk, the better off WE are!!
YAY..
I hope you are correct. I wouldn't count them out yet. They've got too much support in entertainment and the media, and they put up a fairly solid united front, which is something the Republicans don't do very well.
Have you seen CNN's ratings? If the Dems are hanging their hat on the media, they'll drop like a stone... like they are already, actually.
I believe the attitude will be "we know nothing about any deal".
This could be the only American Dream worth anything these days.
45 million dead and a slightly lower number injured psychologically and in some cases physically consitutes "extraordinary circumstances."
The Democrats were NEVER in a bind. The oral agreement with the Democrats is not worth the paper it is written upon.
They followed the first rule of french diplomacy, always leave an out clause. EVERYONE here on FR saw this, the democrats would just say a USSC justice is a "extraordinary" circumstance.
The democrats are not and were not ever in a bind. They will do whatever they want. The msm will help them. Both assume the public is stupid enough to let them.
Forget about the Democrats' "pulling a Bolton." Ohio's illustrious Senators can't wait to sabotage another part of the President's agenda to suck up to the liberal press.
I seriously don't think that the a filibuster buster will hurt the Republicans in '06. It might, in fact, save Santorum's butt. The purely smart political move, pollwise, for the Democrats would be to allow the Republicans their man for the USSC. But the Democrats are not interested in the trappings of office, but power itself. And Soros, et al have their sabers to the Democrats' backs.
Prediction (if Specter plays along with Bush): The Democrats will see that Graham and even their own Nelson do not share the ideology of Chafee and Snowe. They know that 50 votes would mean success for the GOP and they try to cover their asses by not filibustering.
If Specter refuses to support Bush's pick: The nomination proceeds from the Judiciary Committee without a recommendation, and the Democrats try to play the John Bolton strategy. Believing that the Bolton strategy buys them some political cover, they attempt a filibuster, which is ultimately defeated.
That is why any red state dem up for reelection in 2006 should fully understand what this vote will mean to his/her chances for another term. But, don't expect integrity, honor or constitutional responsibility from a dem, they live in the sewer and will act accordingly.
Nudge nudge wink wink Mr Bush...Janice Rogers Brown, say no more.
I hope POTUS shove JRB right down Bidens throat.
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.