Posted on 01/26/2006 6:51:27 AM PST by katieanna
LOL.
He looks like a meek old vagrant who was just caught stealing a slab of cheese and a pickle at the local grocery store.
Any update on a cloture vote scheduled?
Fox News Alert says Reid supports the filibuster!
Frist ought to say he's changed his mind and the session will be in session Saturday and Sunday. Is there a reason, he can't do that?
Still Monday afternoon last I heard.
Do you have a quote? Shocking.
I completley agree. And value Coburn for these very same reasons.
Whenever I hear DIFI and Boxer, among others, going on and on about "the importance of a woman's right to chose," I also then wonder simultaneously why they are not concerned about or considering the right of the unborn human being not to be murdered. Not like the unborn can defend themselves, especially when compared to the options available to the fully grown.
One would be available in the transcripts of the hearings. She was talking about cruel and unusual punishment in the early years of this country and, I guess, suggesting that we would go back to nails in the ears with Justice Alito. It was pretty nutty.
She's been making extremely nutty comments in these hearings, as also could be heard in the Roberts' hearings.
Thanks for further explanation since I was not able to view the live hearings and have relied on FR threads for most of what I've read about the progress.
Many a Catholic wonders why these two, particularly, and Nancy Pelosi also, can even refer to themselves as Catholics, much moreso receive Communion. I think they are "catholics" in the sense that they are culturally familiar with Catholics but they directly promote activities and actions that the Church does not support or condone. I have to think they are allowed to hang on to their "affiliation" claims due to financials and social prominence -- more than anything. But excommunication seems far more realistic to me. People such as these denigrate Christ, directly and indirectly, with their corrupt concept of usery of the association with the Church.
Actually, Inouye is as liberal as they come. No surprise that he opted a "no" on Alito, but it seems baseless voting, probably, certainly, partisan activity not intellectual activity.
GOOD. I'm glad the MoveOn bozos persuaded him to link up with Kerry and Kennedy. Bring it on. Let's let those MoveOn bozos run that whole party right into the ground.
Yeah, no representation for conservatives in D.C. from either Feinstein or Boxer. I believe they expect conservatives in CA to just "go away." They certainly never explain their inability/refusal to understand or offer representation for conservatives.
None of those Senators have ever done much to anything about the disabled. It's pretty clear that they're just grabbing at straws, using whatever issue they can to try to ramp up some violins. I was reading some of their statements about "the rights of the disabled" and wondering what, if ANYthing, any of them has ever done as to those, or even given any of their issues a second thought. My conclusion is little to nothing.
... Yet today, when we are evaluating a nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor--a pivotal Justice, a Justice who was the fifth vote in 148 out of 193 decisions--the President continues to assert that he will only nominate those who view the Constitution through a lens of strict constructionism and originalism.I think we must remember what these terms mean. I want to take a moment to do so. It is widely accepted among legal scholars that strict constructionists and originalists look to evaluate the Constitution based on what the words say as written and what the Framers intended those words to mean at the time they were written.
If we examine what these terms could mean when applied to actual constitutional questions today, it becomes clear why most legal scholars view the Constitution as a living document, able to adjust to the differences of the country today. Remember, in colonial times, there were 13 colonies and around 3 million people. Today we are close to 300 million people and we are 50 States.
Justice Brennan wrote in 1986 about this, and I quote him:
During colonial times, pillorying, flogging, branding, and cropping and nailing of the ears were practiced in this country. Thus, if we were to turn blindly to history for answers to troubling constitutional questions, we would have to conclude that these practices would withstand challenge under the cruel and unusual clause of the eighth amendment.He wrote that in the Harvard Law Review in December of 1986.
If an originalist analysis were applied to the 14th amendment, women would not be provided equal protection under the Constitution, interracial marriages could be outlawed, schools could still be segregated, and the principle of one man, one vote would not govern the way we elect our representatives.
My concerns about confirming a strict constructionist or originalist to the Court are best demonstrated by what this legal reasoning could mean in three important areas: congressional authority to enact legislation, checks on Presidential powers, and individual liberty and privacy interests. I want to talk about these for a minute in the context of Judge Alito.
What kind of filibuster is this we are seeing? It is almost amusing. Where are the Senators? I was here last night. I followed three Republicans talking. We were supposed to be in session until 8. Nobody from the other side of the aisle showed up to talk. I am not sure there are any around today to complain. They are supposed to be telling us why this man should not be on the bench. We have been here for 2 days, and fewer than 25 Democratic Senators have come to the Senate floor. It has been a pretty vacant situation. Republicans shut down the Senate each night. Nobody seems to want to come and raise the issues and debate them. If they want to filibuster, if they have serious concerns, I suggest they come down and express it. Let's talk about it.My colleague, Senator Specter, during the Judiciary Committee hearings gave the Democratic Senators every opportunity they desired to raise, for as long as they wanted to, any issues they had with Judge Alito. He allowed them to call a whole host of witnesses who would be critical. The truth is, I don't think any of them knew Judge Alito. Most of them had axes to grind one way or the other from some political agenda they had. Even out of that group, I don't think but one or two actually said they were against him. Laurence Tribe raised some concerns, but he never said he was against the nominee or that he should not be confirmed. He is a professor himself, and he knows the legal expertise Judge Alito brings to the court.
If you have something to filibuster about, come on down. Why put us through this? Senator JOHN CORNYN has called this effort needless and strange. That is a good definition. Other words come to mind: pointless, political.
The Democratic leader, Senator HARRY REID, went before the Democratic caucus, according to the New York Times, just last week and urged his colleagues to vote against this nomination. They made it a political agenda item to block this nomination. Is it Presidential politics or politics in general? I submit both. Senator Reid's spokesperson, when asked, said: Well, they want to get as many votes as they can against him to make it an issue in the election--for politics, not a question of whether the judge is ready, qualified, and able to serve.
Maybe this is some sort of theory that, We can reward our base--the National Abortion Rights Action League, the People for the American Way, the Alliance for Justice, some of those leftwing groups that have been driving the process for years. Maybe it will keep them happy. Maybe they will keep sending money. Maybe they will keep attacking George Bush and saying he is appointing extremists to the bench. Maybe that is what they are trying to do.
There is no basis to object to this nominee. There is absolutely no justification for denying him an up-or-down vote, which is what the filibuster attempts to do. We can all agree, I suppose, that it is an international filibuster because it was apparently hatched in Davos, Switzerland, where Senator Kerry now is with those masters of the universe trying to figure out the world economy. Maybe they ought to spend more time trying to get gasoline prices down than worrying about conjuring up a filibuster of a judge as able as Judge Alito. They are not here in the Chamber, and that is what we have every right to expect.
SCOTUS in Switzerland with Kerry?
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.