Posted on 07/03/2005 8:31:55 PM PDT by 2dogjoe
Figure Frist to be a weak leader again. Also look for
McCain grab the banner and charge to the left again.
Let's see if I have this straight. Brown and others were just appointed to the appeals court. Naming any of them to the Supreme Court will leave an Appeals Court vacancy. Dem rats is in de box if they use "Extreme circumstances" against any of those folks after just approving them.
When Renquisth seat open up, Bush could pick a real conservative as Chief Justice. The Dem rats are going to
fight like hell no matter who is picked.
Moving a proven conservative up, say Thomas or Scalia, would
open another seat for another conservative. Maybe another
of the newly approved Appeals Court members. Then Bush gets
another appeals court opening. It boggles my mind. I must
have missed a turn somewhere in this mess. I just sounds
so good. Imagine the Senate, MSM, union bosses, NEA, NOW
and other liberals confusion.
I think Bork is too old but it would drive them over the cliff...
I just saw Specter on TV. He suddenly has no hair!
Has he been wearing a wig all these years or is he
in chemo? Maybe we will be losing another RINHO.
He's going through chemo.
Exactly. I've said all along, in other threads since the O'Connor announcement, that since the Dems will filibuster anyone to the right of Leon Trotsky, including anyone like Justice O'Connor herself, there is nothing gained by trying to pick someone O'Connor-ish.
Go with a solid conservative, wait for the filibuster, then invoke the nuclear option. Gets us a good SCOTUS justice now, and establishes precedent for future SCOTUS vacancies and for other federal courts.
The Democrats already have the excuses for not honoring their "no filibuster" rule prepared, and anyone who thinks they don't is too naive to live. For example, if the President fails to "consult" with the Dems prior to the nomination, that will trigger "extraordinary circumstances". If the President consults with the Dems, but fails to change his mind when they "reject" his nominee, that will trigger extraordinary circumstances (after all, the Democrats have already twisted the phrase, "advise and consent" into "filibuster and reject").
Good going Biden, you just lost the nomination for POTUS!
oh it won't be his propensity to plagiarize?
Yes, he is in chemo. And that damned sonofabitch is using it as a political tool! THere was a USA Today article conrasting him (the goody guy) with that nasty ol' Sen. Santorum, who wants to take away his hope in finding a cure through stem-cell research. (That's the implication you'd get from the headline and images; that's not the content of the article.) AS IF STEM CELLS HAVE A FIRKIN THING TO DO WITH CANCER!
Anyway, that evil bastard is really starting to look like a demon from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, isn't he?
Lindsay Graham says he has the votes, I hope so!
"Washington Post Headlines My May 24th Article This Morning
"On May 24th, I wrote “We “Nuked” Them “. This morning’s Washington Post headline for their lead article announces “Filibuster Deal Puts the Democrats in a Bind”. They are almost identical articles except when I went to my blog I couldn’t find that I published the article I wrote.
"I can only guess I flinched when everyone jumped on the gang of 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats so hard that all reason left the argument and I decided to abandon my take. In retrospect we deride the 14 Senators for trying to avoid the nuclear option when replacing the 1 person who has been legislating from the bench with her 5 in the 5-4 decisions for over a decade. On May 24th., I applauded the 14 for many reasons. Apparently more than a month later, the Washington Post figured it out for themselves.
We "Nuked" Them
Dick McDonald
5/24/05
"Democrats just fell on their sword. They just let the three most likely judges to overturn Roe V. Wade be elected to the bench. Republicans and Democrats are both complaining about a sell-out. Republican complainers just don't know what a seminal event this is. For 214 years, the Senate never filibustered a judicial nominee, thus conferring on the President a power he really never had.
"Although just a Senate rule, the filibuster enables a minority party to overcome "majority rule". It has seldom been used, but its threat has been a recurring event in the Senate. Then Democrats, broke with tradition, and used it last session.
"For those 214 years, democracy ruled. A mere majority of the Senators could affirm a nominee. A definite power vested in the executive branch. But we are NOT a democracy, we are a republic and our founders created the Senate to insure that difference was permanent. Following that reasoning, Democrats tried to filibuster, and require a 60-vote margin.
"They lost. And democracy won.
"But the fact remains we aren't a democracy and both the filibuster and the nuclear option remain intact. The Democrats merely decided to give it up, rather than fight a battle they would lose. The nuclear option still trumps the filibuster as the Constitution only calls for "advise and consent" not the imposition of a rule to protect the republic.
"This agreement is the KY Jelly for nominees that are conservative. Being conservative is no longer a reason for rejection (thanks Lindsay Graham). The balance of power still rests with the President, a power Republicans have always honored. Although Bill Frist is being pummeled, I congratulate his timing and resolve to be brave and bring this issue to a conclusion. He forced a vote, the Dems threw up on the floor, and we won the war.
"This is a win-win for him and the Republicans and a muzzle on the screeching from the left. I have grown exceedingly tired of listening to Kennedy and Biden and their delusional, irrational, unfounded, leftist ravings.
"As the old TV show hero intoned, "I just love it when a plan comes together". The public relations nightmare Democrats face in opposing Bush's "conservative” nominee is just delicious. They can't win. They're trapped. Enjoy their pain, it should be entertaining.The Post article is just the first of their epiphanies."
On the basis of exactly what evidence do you make your post#3 comment? So far as I can determine, the "agreement" has been faithfully followed, and it appears it will continue to be followed by the 14.
On the basis of what evidence are you making your statements?
So far as I can see, the "Agreement" has been faithfully followed by both sides, and I see no indication it won't continue to be followed, and passage of "super-extremists Brown, Pryor, and Owen" provide a benchmark for acceptable "ideology" so that issue has been taken off the table by their confirmation.
If they abuse the "extraordinary circumstances" line, the nuke will be supported by the 14. Again, all indications are that will come to pass if needed now.
With about 70% of Americans opposing a filibuster of judges, they'll bluster, but then pass President Bush's choice.
Watch and learn my young padawan.
The only reason the "Agreement" has been followed is due to the fact that no other important judicial nominations have come up in the interim. Yet even before the ink was dry on that agreement, Democrats were already filibustering Bolton. This indicates absolutely no compunction whatsoever to discard the Agreement on any pretext. Bolton wasn't a judicial nominee, but the filibuster itself shows the Democrats - including the seven - still intend to use the filibuster anytime they can. Democrats (e.g. Joe Biden) are already beginning to equivocate, calling the Supreme Court "a whole different ballgame", and more than one liberal Senator has used the word filibuster. Those are HUGE indications the "Agreement" isn't worth a plug nickel.
[P]assage of "super-extremists Brown, Pryor, and Owen" provide a benchmark for acceptable "ideology" so that issue has been taken off the table by their confirmation.
Hardly. Democrats will merely claim their ideology is "acceptable" enough for a lower court, but not for the Supreme Court.
If they abuse the "extraordinary circumstances" line, the nuke will be supported by the 14.
The seven Democrats will simply claim the Supreme Court nomination itself presents an "extraordinary circumstance" (or if that doesn't work, they'll dredge up some other excuse) and go right along with their party. The McCain RINOs are the problem. If they really supported the Constitutional Option, they would not have broken ranks in the first place, so there's no reason they should do so now. McCain wants to present himself as a moderate to get Democrat support for his Presidential bid (the only way he could win, frankly) and sees no problem with acting as Trent Lott's instrument of revenge on the President and Republicans who ousted him from his leadership role.
No, the "Agreement" by the Gang of Fourteen isn't going to inhibit liberals and Democrats one lousy bit.
I'd think a deal with the Dems is no better than a deal with communists.....not worth the paper it's written on.
Oh, just a few decades of watching the Dims lie, cheat, steal, do anything to keep their power.
provide a benchmark for acceptable "ideology"
You must be naive. Let's say President Bush nominates Brown, Pryor or Owen. Because they were just confirmed you believe the Dims will confirm because they have acceptable ideology? There will be a fight, a downright in the gutter nasty war the likes of which have not been seen in years, if ever. And yes, the Dims will pull out the filibuster.
If they abuse the "extraordinary circumstances" line,
If?? IF??? Wait and see!
With about 70% of Americans opposing a filibuster of judges, they'll bluster, but then pass President Bush's choice.
Whatever your smokin, it's working! So now the Dims are going to listen to polls?? 80%+ of Americans oppose partial birth abortion, but you do not see the Dims clamoring to pass a law against that.
You may be the only person on this board that actually believes the Dims will keep their word.
The Dims will do whatever it takes to stop any nominee that is not of their choosing, which means anyone that THEY do not pick.
Their only power is in the courts. They are not going to 'allow' Bush to put any true conservative on the SCOTUS.
Now, the only question is will Bush back down and name another O'Connor type?
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.