but then I'm not John Kerry.
Posted on 01/31/2006 1:34:03 PM PST by pookie18
Pyrrhus Takes a Victory Lap "Today's 58-42 vote to confirm Samuel Alito represents the second-highest number of votes against a confirmed Supreme Court nominee in the nation's history," boasts Ralph Neas, head of the extremist group that styles itself the People for the American Way. Remember how down in the dumps Neas and his crowd were back in 1987, when by an identical margin the Senate rejected the nomination of Robert Bork?
Ha ha, neither do we! That's because you don't get down in the dumps when you win, and only losers boast about how close it was.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
New tagline!
This time Senate Dems have changed the rules. That idiot Ginsburg was confirmed under Clinton with only three dissenting votes and one of those was Jesse Helms. In the opinion of many her record is further left than Alito's is right. Yet the GOP passed on making her confirmation a fight.
That won't happen again. If there's a President Hillary and she has an opening on the court to fill it's gonna be a great fight. Next time we might get to filibuster.
Here's how Benedick Durbin spun it on FoxNews/Cavuto about 1/2 an hour ago...Ginsberg sailed through because Orrin Hatch conferred with Clinton & said they wouldn't opposed her...but, did Pres. Bush consult with us? Noooooo!
"The Boston Globe notes that the Davos-Chappaquiddick filibuster effort"
Will only go down in history as second to the Boston tea party.
LOL. I saw that, pookie. I guess they voted against Alito because they got their feelings hurt. (Durbin is such a liar.)
"President Bush hurt my widdle feelings! Oh, and our troops are Nazis."
I hope that we win in 2008, but if we don't I hope that the Republicans do not politicize the process. Our party, warts and all, is fighting for good. Let's not stoop to their level.
Turbsn Durbin himself in person!
Turban, not Tursban.
Danged fingers!
Nope, they changed the rules not us. If Hillary gets in I say filibuster away.
If the future holds a Dem president and a Rep controlled Senate, I want to see the Reps refuse to confirm ANY nominee that president ever needs to send before the Senate. Don't fillibuster, simply vote down EVERY Dem nomine! We could/ should/ would NEED to simply halt the system in its tracks, right then and there. But what of vacancies on the Court going unfilled? Unfilled with what we know would be socialists. Fine with me.
If this were to develop and the Reps AGAIN took a spineless give 'em what they want approach - after this - they would forever lose my vote, and tesn of thousands of others. They would deserve it. This is not boys at the club exchanging logrolling promises any more. The Dems have made this bed, so let them suffocate in it!
If they consider the Alito vote a victory, they can have those all day long!
Today was a great victory but we still need one more conservative on the court to make it a 5-4 majority.
...but, of course, I support them!!
Kyl did issue the comment they couldn't expect the same civility as shown before, we'll see.
Anyway, I'd agree in general. I'm not an advocate of doing something in retaliation just for the sake of it. These are real people, even if Liberals, before the Senate. It bothers me to some extent they should pay the price for polarization, just as Thomas...Alito....Bork.
But, Dems put them in that position.
It is political suicide to vote 98-0 for theirs and have ours in jeopardy each time. So long as they believe they'll be no practical consequence, they'll never change.
So, yeah, I'm with you. No filibuster. Vote no on concepts of a living Constitution. Vote no pro R v W. Vote no on privacy in the constitution. Treat the nominee with respect, unlike the smears of the left on our own, but if they work for the ACLU it is fair to make what they support in the ACLU an issue.
Specter did make a comment I found myself in agreement with.
He stated the positive in having a more "conservative", I hate using that term because we aren't speaking of political conservatism which is suited to elective branches, Justice was that it would probably lead to more unanimous narrowly defined 9-0 Decisions. I think that could be true if we look at the 9-0 narrow decisions sent back to the Appellate courts recently. Though part of that has to do with showing deference to the new Justice anticipating changes. And he stated it would be better for the nation to have a unanimous court. I also agree on that, and would prefer this to be the case.
The main goal of conservatives has been to eliminate the courts as a tool for legislation. IMO, once we get a 5-4 Majority, preferably 6-3 since it'll still be too close for them to give up hope, we'll see a return to limited court decisions with near unity as the Court will be removed from their influence. This will revert major change back to the legislatures where the people can vote them in and out at will.
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.