Posted on 11/01/2005 12:30:51 AM PST by Crackingham
Why do they persist in giving power-ousted DEMS appellations that imply some sort of AUTHORITY; quite simply, they have NONE.....
Now there, your argument falls apart. To liberal Democrats, simply being a conservative meets the criteria of criminality.
" I only have one word to say about this. Ginsburg..."Ya hit the nail on the head. There's no way the pubbies who voted for RBG (Ginsburg) having the audacity to claim this is the "special circumstances". It's just absurd and they know it.
This is going to be tons of fun! Great pick Mr President, now I am happy I voted for ya.
Dems won't filibuster, period.
Democrats....promised. Why does that not make me feel good.
Then Repubs should be planning the "nuclear option".
This is really a good thing. If they act out, we should be able to win. Also, it will set a precedent for the Repubs to act out - if they can ever locate their testacles - if the Dems try to install another freak like Bader-Ginsberg.
Before we all get a little too cocky here, let us not forget that the Dems/MSM are notorious for employing the same tactics again and again to achieve what they want.
In other words, when it all looks hopeless for them on this nomination, look for the "Clarence Thomas bomb."
What political hack will they find in Philadelphia or Fresno to come forward claiming Alito a. fondled them, b. took bribes from them, c. was drunk and disorderly at a private, heretofore unreported toga party, or d. all of the above?
Never underestimate the depths to which the left will sink.
I think the conservative uproar over the Miers nomination is enough to give even McCain second thoughts about supporting a Democrat filibuster, and he's not up for re-election until 2010. His RINO "Gang of Fourteen" buddies all have to face voters either next year or in '08, which is certainly weighing on their minds. DeWine, Chaffee and Snowe are all up in '06. Voters in Ohio have already shown DeWine what they thought of him in the original deal by defeating his son's attempt to gain office. I think that and Graham's earlier declaration of support for Alito is sufficient to call the filibuster dead. Add in that there are some Democrat rumblings about not supporting a filibuster and I think it is looking pretty good.
Besides, I think the Dems are going to try and hold onto the filibuster in case Ginsberg or Stevens retire.
If your analysis is correct then you have to consider that the Miers nomination was designed to take a pro-life Christian woman, say she has no experience and with the RATS not hammering her, replace her with a pro-life Christian who has experience.
Takes the pro-life debate away from the RATS.
I submit that Bush is holding 4 of a kind.
The Dems vote unanimously to put Alito on the bench in exchange for his promise to consider RvW settled law and will not address it.
That is all the RATS have left to fight with. Question is will the Republicans go for it?
Promise them anything. Give them nothing.
"If Alito is Filibustered and the Nuclear Option fails what should Bush do then."
Nominate Janice Rogers brown.
McCain's hope for a nomination in 2008 is to go along with this. It is his only chance for redemption in a party where the primaries usually are won by the base candidate.
"The Hill" obviously sides with democrats.
I can't believe they still say this after Miers was on Reid's list and they did criticize her (Schumer certainly did).
I agree.
In fact, the more cynical among us might suspect that Miers was a pre-determined mulligan which was taken in order to get rid of the presumed "must nominate a woman" stipulation. He tried, didn't he?
They can lose more seats in the House and Senate. That means it will take longer for them to recover the majority positions. It also means that they may face a day when they cannot even reliably filibuster their way out of a problem.
They can also continue to let Americans see that they are not qualified for imparital, reasoned discourse, and are therefore not ready for the White House either. (Losing Hillary's last best shot in '08 would be a huge loss in their eyes. They can't let the mushy middle see them for the shrill hacks they truly are until after that, at the very least.)
In politics, there's rarely "nothing to lose", since everything is based on image and perception.
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.