Posted on 10/27/2005 5:54:48 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
just breaking!!!!!!!!
Stevens will die before he quits as long as a Republican is President. You sir, will probably live forever.
AmishDude, this is high-stakes poker! I just look at it this way: The Constitution does not require a supermajority to confirm judges. All it requires is a straight up-or-down vote decided by a simple majority. The fillibuster is designed to trump this constitutional requirement by means of simple senatorial rule-making. But there is absolutely "no-cost" to the "gentleman's agreement" of a fillibuster that the Dems are prosecuting against the President's judicial and executive nominees. We need to see the cost go up, maybe even to levels that hurt.
If someone were truly grievously ill, the Senate rules could be fashioned to exempt that person if his doctor recommends it. But all healthy people would have to show up. :^)
But I have to wonder: if someone were that grievously ill, what is he/she doing in the Senate?
Why do Burkean conservatives strike fear in the hearts of Miers supporters?
Oh, I know, because the 'gang colors' are more important than the ideology that was SUPPOSED To form the heart of the Party.
Don't get all snippy with me about "technically" qualified, you're the one being pedantic.
What is "qualified?" How about a dazzling grasp of constitutional law, for one thing?
I define that as Nino Scalia or John Roberts.
Beyond being qualified, they should also btw be politically conservative (at least conservative enough to be pro-life) and jurisprudentially originalist.
I don't READ Kristol....but I listen to his smarmy "commentary" on Fox....and he has critisized Bush's war quite a bit....He is a McCainiac...
He would LOVE to see Bush's presidency be a failure...I am convinced of it...
If you think GWB is iether stupid enough or stubborn enough to nominate gonzales after this experience, then you have a very low opinion of the type of person he is.
The thing about it is, that if this had been handled civilly, it would have been different. But it's been ruthless, and that is where I have the problem.
The leftist stereotype of the right has turned out to be true in too many cases.
Oh, you're right. It is such a shame when your own written and spoken words come back to bite you.
Your statement: "What I want in a nominee is a conservative intellectual force that leads the court (and the legal system) to a more sane understanding of the proper role of the courts in our society."
They mean the same thing.
You went on to say: "As I've said before on other threads, I'd rather have a brilliant jurist who gives me 70% of the votes I want than a mediocrity who votes "correctly" all the time."
Although I have to take your word for your own position, I guarantee you that the first time some brilliant jurist casts one of those 30% votes, the caterwauling from the uber right would be just as loud as it has been these last few weeks.
Please let it be so.
When the alleged far right attacks weeks before any evidence can possibly be presented, using exactly the same tactics as the left....the left claiming the "far right" destroyed this candidate is simple misdirection.
Actually, her nomination was killed by the poor quality of her own work. As they say, it was in "black and white".
Is that what happened? What really happened is that the person's family and friends convinced them that applying for the loan was a bad idea and should be withdrawn.
Apparently her credit score was lacking.
Yes they do
And why do you think the Dems sat back and didn't say anything about Meirs ??
It was to make our party look like a bunch of nasty far righters
Which will only turn off the moderate voters
Again .. Our side handled this argument/disagreement poorly
Just curious, what state are you from? It's not on your about page.
I believe Scalia and Thomas are both Fed Society members. At the very least they support it. There is a difference between worshipping at the alter of liberal precedent, on the one hand, and having a penetrating grasp of the founders, the Constitution and the founders' Constitutional debates, on the other. Are you really going to argue that Meirs had the latter?
It's a difference without a distinction. Her Christianity was used to bolster her fitness for the court.
In any event, her Christianity wasn't mocked - it being used to build up her qualifications was. Her being a good bowler was mocked in the same way. It was totally irrelevant but her handlers tried to use these things to paint her as a nice little grandma with a gun figure.
Oh really, last time I checked, Spector, Brownback, and Graham were on the Committee, not friends or family.
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.