Democrat Feinstein is the crucial vote for Bush judicial nominees (Rat Alert)

ap ^ | May 28, 2003 | DAVID ESPO

[TLBSHOW]

Moments after voting against committee approval of Los Angeles judge Carolyn Kuhl for a federal appeals court, Sen. Dianne Feinstein signaled that that didn't mean she would automatically support an effort to talk the nomination to death in the Republican-controlled Senate.

[nygoose]

You vote for our Judge and we'll get your assault weapons legislation passed.

[spokeshave]

Nice to come home to find the rats eating each other

[South40]

My...but you're looking good today, Ms. Feinstein.

[TLBSHOW]

I was thinking that too! What are the chances of that happening?

[lilylangtree]

Considering both she and her husband are sucking up on the public trough to the tune of hundreds of millions of bucks, her vote can be bought.

[votelife]

"We have two filibusters going," the California Democrat said, referring to attempts to block votes of Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen to appellate court vacancies. "Maybe that's enough."

not often that I agree with Feinstein.
Of course, might as well count Pickering as number 3.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

[VRWC_minion]

The fillibuster cracks are beginning to show. I predict an interesting show down this July-August for Bush vs. Rats.

[votelife]

Here is an email I sent to W:


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.

[Dan from Michigan]

That's what I'm thinking.

[Ancesthntr]

My thought, and fear, is also that the Bush Administration will think that the judicial nominees (esp. for the USSC) are more important than sunsetting the AWB. Both are important, and President Bush has more than enough political "juice" to win on both issues. However...

Let me assure anyone employed by the Republican Party or the White House who is lurking - If the Assault Weapon Ban is renewed, in any form or for any period of time, then I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANY REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE - EVER!

[Dan from Michigan]

My problem with that is that is punishes the good GOP'ers there as well. If Mike Rogers votes against the ban, he shouldn't be punished for what others do.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

She's so independent and reasonable. All she wants is to have the Whitehouse let her chair a committee that would pass along all the nominee names to the Senate for a rubber stamp approval. /sputum hurling

Really I can't see any reason for Feinstein to put this story out (make no mistake about it, her camp put this out) other than she is trying to make herself into a moderate so she can be tapped for a VP run with the eventual nominee for the Rats.