If it weren't for the threat of the Constitutional option, a whole lot more Democrats would be voting for a filibuster.
Posted on 01/29/2006 2:58:46 PM PST by NapkinUser
Lurch knows that it was his candidacy that brought this on.
If the Dems had run Zell Miller it might be a different story now. ;-)
bttt
Kerry's proposal is looking like Davos cheese these days.
If it weren't for the threat of the Constitutional option, a whole lot more Democrats would be voting for a filibuster.
Not only is Reid "conceding" things the whole Democrat party is stepping back. All but a few are remaining silent on Iraq. No one of prominence has said much about Iran. Democrat after Democrat is backing off of the abortion question. More and more Democrats are speaing out with the administration about the Mexican invasion and some are even voting for Judge Alito.
Unfortunately we know that this is merely a tactic to try and stop the Democrat decline. It's too late. The Democrat party as we know it is finsihed.
“To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, to hear the lamentations of their women, and the ululations of their girly-men”
There fixed it...
It's all over but the counting. And that'll be over Tuesday morning.
And it's beginning to look more and more like Reid's days as minority leader are numbered.
As far as I know, I don't even think Ted Stevens has ever voted against a republican judicial nominee.
He may support abortion, but he has never, ever been vocal about it, or opposed any judge over the issue.
All that's needed are at least one more Supreme Court vacancy before Bush leaves office. Preferably more, given his stellar record in judicial nominations.
I'm one of few here who believe it, but I think that Anthony Kennedy will show himself to be more conservative with four conservatives on the Court.
I've been hearing that David Souter is growing tired of life in D.C. and may want the slower pace & higher pay of some kind of foundation chrairmanship or figurehead position at a blue chip law firm, or perhaps teaching law at an Ivy League campus. That would give Bush the ideal chance to correct one of his father's bigger mistakes.
Souter is very wealthy (he's worth between $5 million and $25 million), so whatever he does is probably not motivated by money. Plus, I thought someone who had been a federal judge was barred from returning to the practice of law, although I may very well be wrong on this.
I see the most likely retirees as being Stevens or Ginsburg due to health reasons. I was very surprised that Stevens didn't retire in 1999 or early 2000.
I agree. And I think the conservative firestorm over Harriet Meiers sent a clear message to senators of both parties. The first message, to the GOP pansies, that they better cut the crap and take this seriously. And the second message, to the 'rats, that the GOP got the first message.
John Paul Stevens is determined to not have his successor named by George W. Bush. He'll wait until 2009, if he lives that long. But you may be right about Ruth Ginsburg if her health continues to decline.
Which is why I don't understand why he didn't retire when Clinton was in office, although, he probably assumed Gore would win the election.
DC must be terribly stressful for David Souter. All those human beings everywhere that you have to relate to...anyway, from your lips to God's ear.
A keen, albeit rare, grasp of the obvious from Harry. You gotta luv these incompetent loser-Dems. Hee Hee He
Let's face it, Bush struck out with Miers. But, in the bottom of the ninth with the bases loaded and down by 3 runs, Mr. Bush came in with his autographed Alito bat and hammered that baby out of the friggin ballpark. Thank you, George W. Bush!
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.