A New Move on Estrada ('Tain't over yet!)

National Review Online ^ | 2/28/2003 | Byron York

[truthkeeper]

He says the offer for Estrada to answer questions is a way to call the Dems' bluff because we all know they don't really care about the questions anyway, and it's just going to make the Dems look worse.

When you get right down to it, I think that's the key strategy.
He may very well be right. Let's hope so.

[truthkeeper]

There are plenty of people around here who disagree with a lot of things Bush does, but they don't post lie after lie after lie after lie after lie about it.

Top 'o the morning to you, Howlin. ;-)

[truthkeeper]

I was commenting on another thread that Robert Klein was on a show with Pat Sajak and he said HE supports the war.

Mein Gott...you are kidding! Really??

[truthkeeper]

We just need to get the word out to that segment of the voting public (perhaps over the heads of the media -- I'm absolutely convinced the LA TIMES is trying to hide the ball from the Hispanic population of So. CA by not reporting this story) --

What a surprise from them (not). Reminds me why I dumped that rag long ago. You do read the Register, dontcha? ;-)

[NEPA]

I don't understand the Mary Landrieu either. Makes no sense! Hillary is holding on to them with a tight fist! It is like she is a dictator in the Senate!

I've been wondering about this for days now. Bill/Hill may have helped Landrieu but what exactly was the cost?

Not only did Mary say she supported Estrada pre-election, but also brought up her Armed Services committee membership as being good for LA. I believe Hillary replaced her on that committee.

FBI files aren't the explanation because Mary wasn't elected until after that scandel.

It seems to me most democrats should have more goods on the Clintons than the Clintons have on them. Money buys some loyalty but it can't be the only reason the D's follow the Clintons like they do. Especially Landreiu who doesn't need their money for 6 more years.

I guess it boils down to desparately trying to maintain control of the courts but do the D's really need the Clintons for that? I don't know.

[OldFriend]

Oh, lololol!

[TLBSHOW]

We call for the repeal of the 17th amendment, which will reverse the independence of the Senate and reestablish the Senate as a representative of the State governments, as intended by the Founding Fathers. This arrangement was intended to be a critical check against illegal federal expansion over the States, and the people residing in the various States, and will act to return the powers not granted to the federal government, as enumerated in the Constitution, to the states.


http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:Z8ONsLYxLmQC:www.freerepublic.com/about.htm+reversing+the+17th+Amendment+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[Howlin]

No, I am not. I have been told since I posted that that it is a new show on Fox this weekend. Pat Sajak is the host!

[GOPrincess]

Yes, I get the REGISTER specifically for the opinion pages! I especially enjoy the Sunday Commentary section.

[Jackie222]

Do whatever it takes. Yes, even if it means holding the Senate in session 24-7, even if it means sending the sergeant-at-arms to round up absent senators in the middle of the night.

I still like this idea better than any.

[Bush2000]

Agree.

[Dustoff45]

The majority party in the Senate needs a little time so that Voter Registration clerks from counties all over this country can report that voter registration changes are being filed from "democratic" to "republican" by people with names like Lopez, Gonzales, Torres, Rodriques etc.

What did Tip O'Neill advise - "All politics are local"

[votelife]

3 months later, the fight goes on.


Dear President Bush,
With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.

[votelife]

Dear President Bush, With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.