O'Connor? Please, not O'Connor!

[chm2023]

I will admit up front that I am not sure, but wasn't Justice O'Connor nominated by President Ronald Reagan?

With Chief Justice Rehnquist also set to retire, the make-up of the Supreme Court could change dramatically. By way of calming things down a bit, I would note that nominating a justice has always proved a bit tricky for executive branch ideologues. Supposedly "conservative" justices have turned out to be quite liberal, and vice versa.

Regardless, I don't foresee Roe v. Wade (that most cherished of decisions for many Americans) ever being overturned. Even if the right to terminate the life of an unborn was basically "invented," it has now become ingrained in our society.

Anyway, I look for the Democrats to pull another pout "we'll have ourselves a fillibuster" fest (which will be given plenty of airtime), and I would hope the President would just nominate someone neither side can complain about too much (if such a person exists). Yes, I for one am ready to give in to the steady, annoying, counter-productive moaning and groaning from the Congressional minority (which means they are doing their ordained task as a minority- so kudos to them). Besides, the lunacy fringe of the GOP's left (aka, McCain) will doubtless just grab any opportunity to set himself up as a dealmaker (in a barely hidden warmup for a presidential run in '08).

Let's just focus back on fixing the most ill-conceived fiscal program in the history of our country (aka Social Security, for those of you still in denial).

Pete, I am aware of justices who were appointed by Republicans ( appointers tending to conservative ) who steadily drifted more to the center or left. Warren, Brennan, Sueter (Seuter?), O'Connor, Kennedy. I am not aware of the opposite dynamic--examples?

I believe Bush has more to worry about with the hard core religious right--the ones who have already stated that Gonzales would not be acceptable as his views on reproduction are "suspect". I think Republican moderates would be wise not to align themselves with 2 justices (assuming R gives it up) who are likely to overturn Roe v Wade. While the right to life activists are a real power, the fact remains that most people favor keeping this decision intact--up to now this majority has not voted based on this issue. This could change and oh boy would this be a boon for Hillary!!!

I cannot tell you how many moderate Republicans (mostly women) I know who voted for Bush and are just now seeing that he could re-align the court to overturn Roe. This makes them very, very unhappy.

[chip anderson]

Even Roe wants this overturned now.

[shanbaum]

Even Roe wants this overturned now.

You're right, Chip, and she's joined by something like 30% of Americans.

Don't you understand that the argument is about whether or not the gubmint has the power to tell a woman what to do with her own body?

I remind you of that, because I know you generally believe that the power of the gubmint should be limited.

[Pete Hanlin]

Don't you understand that the argument is about whether or not the gubmint has the power to tell a woman what to do with her own body?
Well now, Robert, I would call this a Darrisesque statement (by your own definition), because I consider it misinformed. I would say the argument is about whether a woman has the right to do something with her child's body (namely terminate it and discard it). The fact is, the Supreme Court decided to invent a woman's right to terminate the life of their child- the argument being the child is somehow part of her own body (although the child carries a unique genetic code, is not an "organ" of any kind, and- left to due course- will develop and leave the body within 9 months). To be fair, this is probably less of a misinformed statement on your part and more just one that I personally disagree with because it comes from a point of view that differs from my own- so its not so Darrisesque by your definition, but I just wanted to apply that term to you (sort of like me being called a liberal ;^).

Enough of that, however- I agree with chm that Republicans would be wise not to insist on any particular nomination. I would follow that up by stating that the Democrats would also be wise to shut the heck up and let the President make his nomination. First, it is the President's perogative to call upon any Senator whom he would like to consult- there is nothing to suggest that any Senator (from either party) has any official right to "demand" consideration during the nomination process. Second, bombastic idiots like Sen. Kennedy energize somewhat moderate conservatives like me who were perfectly willing to let the President compromise on a nomination. In short, sit down and shut the heck up, let W make his nomination, do all your petty in-fighting, then either pull the trigger on your filibuster or vote the nominee up or down! I'm sorry, but I think Sen. Kennedy is reaching the end of his political career and just wants to make as much noise as he can in his declining years.

I know a LOT of women who voted for W, and I have to say I don't know of one of them (or many men, for that matter) who have even given much thought to the nomination (or to what a filibuster is, or to whether McCain will try to grab some attention again, etc.). This "concern of the moderates" crap is a load of tripe served up by the media who themselves are more interested in this process than the average public.

As for the precious Roe v. Wade, it won't- and at this point, probably shouldn't- be overturned. There's a thing called precedence, and this "right" has been on the books for decades now. In general, I believe the majority of people do want the ability to kill a child that is inconvenient to their lifestyle- if they call it "exercising rights over my own body" to soothe themselves and the morality of the country, so be it. I also seriously doubt there are two SC justice nominees out there who would overturn the decision (I think you could even see one of the "conservatives" on the current bench become a swing vote to retain it if the overturning of Roe v. Wade seemed imminent).

I didn't vote for W because I hoped he would appoint a "Roe Killer," and I don't believe most conservatives- even from the religious right- did (I do think most "religious conservatives" would like to see Roe overturned, but that isn't the primary reason for voting W in). We do not want another Justice Ginsberg in the court, and there is no reason for the Democrats to expect W to nominate anyone other than someone who reflects his own constitutional views (he won the election, remember- that means more Americans trusted him with the ability to perform things like nominations than trusted Kerry).

I just hope we can avoid the embarrassment of the Bork hearings (not embarrassment to Bork, but to a party that would behave so childishly as the Democrats did in smearing the guy throughout the hearing process). Personally, if a filibuster occurs, I hope McCain can keep his own ego in his pants long enough for the GOP to discard the filibuster and ram someone through. Now, if the Dems can play nicely and figure out they are a minority party, then I would hope the President would compromise and appoint a slightly right of moderate nominee to the bench.

[chip anderson]

Flash! Sandra O'Connor's resignation is only effective as of the appointment and approval of a successor. Come November she will still be on the bench in black robes. With the libs objecting to everyone as being too conservative and the conservatives objecting to everyone as being too liberal or not conservative enough, it ain't gonna happen soon.

[chm2023]

I think it would be nice if the process only considered judicial eminence. While I disagree intensely with Scalia, I agree he is a brilliant jurist. Thomas on the other hand was a nominee of markedly mediocre ability. (The irony of his opposite to affirmative action is lost on him I guess!)

What is interesting is how the term "judicial activism" is tossed about. It appears to mean anything that is not in line with the views of the person making the accusation.

Anyway, for O'Connor's sake I hope someone is appointed soon. Apparently her motive for resigning is her husband's poor health, the woman has done her duty in public service, time to take care of her family.

[shanbaum]

Well now, Robert, I would call this a Darrisesque statement (by your own definition), because I consider it misinformed. I would say the argument is about whether a woman has the right to do something with her child's body (namely terminate it and discard it).

To be fair, this is probably less of a misinformed statement on your part and more just one that I personally disagree with because it comes from a point of view that differs from my own- so its not so Darrisesque by your definition, but I just wanted to apply that term to you (sort of like me being called a liberal ;^).

Make up your mind!

The fact is, the Supreme Court decided to invent a woman's right to terminate the life of their child - the argument being the child is somehow part of her own body (although the child carries a unique genetic code, is not an "organ" of any kind, and- left to due course- will develop and leave the body within 9 months).

No, that's not the argument at all. The right that was "invented" in Roe was really developed over a series of cases which recognized that individual liberty rights had implications that simply hadn't been recognized up to that point in time - in Loving v. Virginia, which recognized that governments could not impede racially mixed marriages; in Griswold v. Connecticut, which recognized that governments could not impede couples from using contraceptives, and only then in Roe which recognized that the power of governments to require a woman to bear a child to term was bounded on the one side by the woman's right of personal autonomy over her own body, and on the other by the state's interest in protecting the unborn.

Of course, one chooses words strategically in this context. You say this right was "invented" to diminish its substance. Was the right of interracial couples to marry "invented" in Loving? Was the right to use contraceptives "invented" in Griswold? I suppose you get to think so, if you choose. I choose to believe that these rights were instead "recognized", because I believe that people are fundamentally free, and that governments have authority over people only by virtue of their consent; and that the rejections of government power found in Loving, Griswold, and Roe were not "inventions", but "recognitions" - that there was no ground from which the government could claim power to exercise authority over these kinds of actions, and that the government's exercise of that power was never legitimate, but merely accepted.

And, by the way, Rhenquist's dissent in Roe was based entirely on his rejection of the recognition of those kinds of rights, an aversion he shares with Scalia and Thomas. That is, they think that you don't have a constitutionally protected right to use contraceptives, or marry someone of a different race. Sorry.

[Spexvet]

To be fair, this is probably less of a misinformed statement on your part and more just one that I personally disagree with because it comes from a point of view that differs from my own- so its not so Darrisesque by your definition, but I just wanted to apply that term to you (sort of like me being called a liberal ;^).

By that, do you mean dead-on-accurate, you bleedin' heart liberal?

Post #147 in "GOP National Convention" thread :

To be honest, I don't envy anyone who chooses to have an abortion. I have a hard time believing anyone considers it a positive choice. I can only assume that it is a decision that is reached out of fear, desperation, or despair- so anyone who has been forced to make such a decision should receive my sympathy, not my condemnation.

Post #181 in "How does same gender marriage hurt you?":

Personally, if some guy wants to marry another guy that's just fine with me.

Post #33 in "VP debate prediction" thread:

Since you did ask, however- here's what I would like to cut...

3.) Identifiy weapons programs which are redundant and eliminate them- i.e., the various branches of the military each work on different weapons programs which are virtually identical. Although sometimes different needs do warrant specialized equipment, make the boys and gals in blue, green, white, etc. all work together

4.) End the domestic "war on drugs"- that is, stop filling our court system with expensive cases prosecuting drug offenders. Of course, the murders, robberies, etc. that come with drugs need to prosecuted. However, prosecution of drug offenses should be something more like: the drugs are confiscated, the offender fined, and any property involved in the use of the drugs is confiscated and sold (if daddy's boy wants to use his Bimmer to pick up a nickel bag, it should be confiscated and sold- oh, and the kid should lose his license).

5.) Welfare reform- do more along the lines of making welfare temporary. Basically, make training programs available to all on welfare, but- barring medical disability (and let's be realistic here), you get maybe 2 years to be on welfare and that's that

Post #89 in "VP debate prediction" thread:

As we've established in other discussions, I believe there are certainly individuals who require- and should receive- financial assistance to survive (whether for assistance is needed for shelter, food, clothing).

Post #4 in "stem cell research" thread:

Regarding stem cell research as a whole, I suppose using the remains of unwanted babies for research is a natural progression if society is going to accept the termination of these babies to begin with (and, as we've covered previously, our society is apparently comfortable with allowing people to choose who should- and shouldn't live). Therefore, once again while I'm personally against the concept of stem cell research (unless cells can be harvested in a manner which doesn't preclude someone from living), I suppose it should be allowed given our society's stand on this issue.

Post #9 in "stem cell research" thread:

To attempt to answer your question, I believe abortion is wrong. Therefore, I wouldn't have an abortion (or, in my case, advocate my wife, daughter, or any significant other of my son to have one). Since abortion is legal, however, I certainly cannot physically prevent someone from terminating the life of their unborn child.

[Pete Hanlin]

Wow, my initial though is that I've been "Opti-stalked." :)

On further reflection, I: a.) stand by everything you've quoted, b.) would point out that I am a conservative- I simply recognize that not everyone is a conservative (I wouldn't even argue that it would be a better world if everyone were- because having diversity of opinion is one ingredient in discovering truth).

As it should be clear by now (based on the above quotes), I am pro-life, anti-abortion, whatever you choose to call it. If Roe v. Wade is about "boundaries," as my friend Robert suggests, then I would opine that the court improperly surveyed the line between the unborn's right to existance and the mother's right to autonomy. The only difference in the life of a mother and child is the ability of the former to act on free will.

For example, what if an unborn baby were to decide that s/he did not wish to be born of that particular mother and elected to leave the womb. For the sake of keeping a congruous example, let's suppose doing so would cause the mother's death- but the child would live on relatively unscathed. Would we argue that the unborn child should have autonomy?

Now, if I'm so "pro-life," why don't I care if a Supreme Court justice is pro-life or not? I recognize that I am working from a particular set of presumptions and morals that everyone does not share. I think something like 68% of Americans do not wish to see Roe totally overturned (I think there is considerably more support for certain restrictions to abortion among the "non-activists"). Furthermore, whether invented or "recognized," the "right to abortion" has become ingrained into society. Therefore, overturning it now would cause all sorts of problems (mainly, it would exacerbate the problems that existed before abortion was legal). Personally, it should be a state issue- which is what it was before Roe v. Wade, I believe (could be wrong).

To that last point, I believe a less sophomoric description of Rhenquist, Scalia, Thomas' thoughts on the Constitution is that issues such as abortion, marriage, etc., should be state issues as well. I don't believe for a second that these justices are the bigots that Rpbert intimates by his description- they merely hold to what is- in my opinion- the way our government was established. Namely, there were certain establishments in the Constitution, but the states were left with a lot of power to self-govern. The Federal government (and court system) has definitely evolved into a more powerful part of the equation than that established in our original form of government.

Some would say this evolution is all part of the natural progress of society- others hold to a more static, and strict, interpretation. This is the real difference between the possible nominees.

I heard on NPR today a quote from a Democrat Senator that W should "be like Ronald Reagan and nominate a consensus choice." Wow, 20 years later the Dems are asking Presidents to act like Ronald Reagan... Well fine then, W should nominate someone who he believes will be conservative (which is what Reagan was doing with O'Connor). I would suggest the Democrats in the Senate should behave like their predecessors in the 80s did and pass a nominee unanimously!

I further hear Sen Boxer (as you know, my favorite legislator) saying the "filibuster has been on the table for 200 years." Well, its remained there for 200+ years as well, madame Senator- because I don't think its ever been used to block a nominee. Personally, I hope there are no McCain theatrics this time and the Dems do pull the trigger on a filibuster. I think the C-SPAN coverage should be broadcast non-stop. Let everything grind to a complete and full stop for however long the Democrats can talk (i.e., til the mid-terms). Then we'll have a public referendum in the form of mid-term elections.

PS- Seriously, you didn't see these kind of theatrics when Ginsberg- who is far more to the left than any nominee W is likely to make will be to the right- was nominated by President Clinton.

[Spexvet]

Wow, my initial though is that I've been "Opti-stalked." :)

Don't worry. I was bored and the Optiboard search function is VERY good. But I am convinced that, deep down inside, you're more liberal than you think. :cheers:
Just the fact that you can live with an alternative point of view shows that you're not the typical right-winger.

[Spexvet]

To that last point, I believe a less sophomoric description of Rhenquist, Scalia, Thomas' thoughts on the Constitution is that issues such as abortion, marriage, etc., should be state issues as well. I don't believe for a second that these justices are the bigots that Rpbert intimates by his description- they merely hold to what is- in my opinion- the way our government was established. Namely, there were certain establishments in the Constitution, but the states were left with a lot of power to self-govern. The Federal government (and court system) has definitely evolved into a more powerful part of the equation than that established in our original form of government.

Wouldn't the ultimate self-governing be to decide what's best for one's self? As in a woman's right to choose, a person's right to marry the gender of their choice?

[Pete Hanlin]

Just the fact that you can live with an alternative point of view shows that you're not the typical right-winger.
I would think that current events would show just the opposite. Let's look at recent history- Justice Ginsberg, whom I assume you will admit is certainly a liberal judge- basically sails through confirmation (showing that conservatives were able to confirm a nomination without stonewalling). I don't think there was any doubt where Justice Ginsberg stood on Roe v. Wade. Now its President Bush's turn to nominate someone, and a whole flurry of "anyone conservative will be filibustered" rants erupt. Now, I ask- which side is capable of living with an alternative viewpoint and which is not?

Listen to the garbage Democrat Senators are spewing. Such as, "In the past, nominees have gotten away with not revealing how they would rule on specific cases- that's not going to fly anymore." I can see why the Republicans would consider taking moves to thwart the filibuster- after all, Democrats have obviously abandoned any decorum that has existed regarding the nomination process!

I would suggest there are individuals on both sides of the aisle who are equally intolerant of opposing viewpoints. There are also individuals on both sides who are capable of listening to and living with an alternative viewpoint. Let's call me a conservative who is so capable, and hopefully there are individuals here on the liberal side who will demonstrate a capability to do the same.

[Cindy Hamlin]

It is interesting how history repeats itself, isn't it? It seems when Reagan appointed (if I recall correctly) 2 justices to the supreme court there were the same threats, etc. It is also amazing to me that they had the same conservative reservations and yet it did not alter history. Nothing seemed to change and the court ruled as the court did on the various issues.

I believe this is retaliation for the Bush/Gore debacle in FL. That they are trying to stack the deck for the next time there is an inadvertent opportunity for them to decide another election.

And, to my Cuz' defense (not that he needs it) just because you are able to see the other side of the issue and apprecaite that there are real people involved does not make one a liberal, just tolerant! I too am conservative, but don't agree with a lot of the conservative stances. That doesn't make me liberal any more than it makes me a human!

[chip anderson]

What kind of a judge (or leader of any kind) can give concrete answers to hypothetical situation in public. If one is not in possession of all the facts one cannot tell how one will judge a particular situation. If an enemy knows just how fare he can go, he will go that far..

If a judge reveals just how he will rule in a given situation before the situation exists, the situation will exists soon.

If he changes his mind based on facts or the evolution of his maturity, he will be called to account when called to rule on such situations.

What kind of idiot judge would place himself in such jeopardy prior to the event?

In short the man who passes or even allows himself to be subjected to the litmus test is not the man you want.
Chip

[Spexvet]

And, to my Cuz' defense (not that he needs it)

You say that as though "liberal" is an insult. :p

I just noticed that some of Pete's posts weren't totally consistent with his declaration of conservativism (methinks thou doth protest too much). I truly think he is more moderate than he'll admit, or realizes. Once you get past the "let me keep my money" issue, he appears fairly moderate on most issues.

Pete: Come to the dark side. ;)

[chm2023]

What kind of a judge (or leader of any kind) can give concrete answers to hypothetical situation in public. If one is not in possession of all the facts one cannot tell how one will judge a particular situation. If an enemy knows just how fare he can go, he will go that far..

If a judge reveals just how he will rule in a given situation before the situation exists, the situation will exists soon.

If he changes his mind based on facts or the evolution of his maturity, he will be called to account when called to rule on such situations.

What kind of idiot judge would place himself in such jeopardy prior to the event?

In short the man who passes or even allows himself to be subjected to the litmus test is not the man you want.
Chip

I agree. Cases that the judge has ruled on, and his/her written opinions, more importantly, are what should be evaluated.

I would like to see a woman nominated. Now before you accuse me of tokenism or affirmative action or whatever, I think a lot of the rulings of the court have definite gender specific consequences and it's disconcerting for women to see 8 old guys and only one old woman making these rulings.

[Pete Hanlin]

I would also like to see a woman, an Hispanic, or another African-American on the bench as well. I believe Hispanics are the largest minorty in the US right now... Wow, that sounds like affirmative action or something- maybe I AM liberal (see you later, I need counseling). In reality, a good justice (or a good human, for that matter) should be able to consider all sides sympathetically- if not empathetically. Still, in my opinion, the Supreme Court also plays a symbolic role as the highest federal judicial body. As such, it would be nice if it were comprised such that it somewhat resembled the demographics of the country. So, if it were my honor to choose a nominee, the person would probably be a Hispanic female. I think there are a lot of capable judges out there- I don't think being on the Supreme Court takes much more in the way of legal skills than it would take to be on a Federal Appeals bench.

Since I haven't even heard of any such candidate being on the "short" or "long" list, I would probably go with Judge Emilio Garza from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judging from the reaction to Attorney General Gonzales nomination for his current post, I just don't think its prudent to nominate him. The Democrats have already let you know they don't like the guy, so don't force him on them again.

Speaking of which, the problem is- every time this administration has nominated a conservative minority judicial candidate, the Dems have gone nuts resisting the nomination. Seems that liberals only love liberal minorities. Over the years, I've heard liberal friends say Justice Thomas "doesn't count" as a black justice. Whoa- do you mean you have to be a liberal to "count" as a minority? Talk about bigotry!

Assuming the President doesn't have a more serious injury on his mountain bike, it will be interesting to see who he selects. There was a lot made of his ability to bring people together when he governed Texas- let's see if he can demonstrate some of his skills here.

[chm2023]

I would also like to see a woman, an Hispanic, or another African-American on the bench as well. I believe Hispanics are the largest minorty in the US right now... Wow, that sounds like affirmative action or something- maybe I AM liberal (see you later, I need counseling). In reality, a good justice (or a good human, for that matter) should be able to consider all sides sympathetically- if not empathetically. Still, in my opinion, the Supreme Court also plays a symbolic role as the highest federal judicial body. As such, it would be nice if it were comprised such that it somewhat resembled the demographics of the country. So, if it were my honor to choose a nominee, the person would probably be a Hispanic female. I think there are a lot of capable judges out there- I don't think being on the Supreme Court takes much more in the way of legal skills than it would take to be on a Federal Appeals bench.

Since I haven't even heard of any such candidate being on the "short" or "long" list, I would probably go with Judge Emilio Garza from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judging from the reaction to Attorney General Gonzales nomination for his current post, I just don't think its prudent to nominate him. The Democrats have already let you know they don't like the guy, so don't force him on them again.

Speaking of which, the problem is- every time this administration has nominated a conservative minority judicial candidate, the Dems have gone nuts resisting the nomination. Seems that liberals only love liberal minorities. Over the years, I've heard liberal friends say Justice Thomas "doesn't count" as a black justice. Whoa- do you mean you have to be a liberal to "count" as a minority? Talk about bigotry!

Assuming the President doesn't have a more serious injury on his mountain bike, it will be interesting to see who he selects. There was a lot made of his ability to bring people together when he governed Texas- let's see if he can demonstrate some of his skills here.

Gonzales has more problems with the far right than liberals. As far as the Dems going nuts on judicial candidates, I believe the record speaks for itself--97% approved if I'm not mistaken. (If you got 97% of your proposals or budgets approved at work, would you complain?)

As for the Lance Armstrong of presidents: W's many "fall down go boom" incidences are arguably no more embarrassing than the spectacle of the last president jogging en route to McDonald's!!!:D

[Spexvet]

Assuming the President doesn't have a more serious injury on his mountain bike, it will be interesting to see who he selects. There was a lot made of his ability to bring people together when he governed Texas- let's see if he can demonstrate some of his skills here.

President Ford - uh, I mean Bush (Ford was the other klutz), hasn't brought many people together so far in his tenure, why would he start now?????

Seems that liberals only love liberal minorities.

Just shows how fair-minded Liberals are. They are "color blind" and measure people by their merits, not their ethnicity.

CHM is correct. 8 of 10 current justices were apointed by republican presidents.

[Spexvet]

Speaking of which, the problem is- every time this administration has nominated a conservative minority judicial candidate, the Dems have gone nuts resisting the nomination. Seems that liberals only love liberal minorities.

Speaking of nominations:

"The committee has approved more than 40 of President Bush's judicial nominees, many unanimously. It is clear that the White House and Republican senators are unhappy with the likely outcome of this one vote, but that is hardly reason to suggest that the committee process is broken. And there is no reason to support the argument that the Senate should ignore the committee process and overrule its decision.

In contrast, more than 50 Clinton nominees were not even granted a hearing by the GOP-led Judiciary Committee. Six more who had hearings were not given the courtesy of a committee vote. In fact, 35 percent of Clinton's appeals court nominees were blocked without a vote while the GOP controlled the Senate from 1995 to 2000."

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1262

It isn't just those Democrats who are guilty of blocking nominations. Republicans just used other means, including the threat of filibuster:

"Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott and others have threatened to filibuster other Senate action or try unprecedented maneuvers to force the nominee to the floor"

[Pete Hanlin]

President Ford - uh, I mean Bush (Ford was the other klutz), hasn't brought many people together so far in his tenure, why would he start now?????
My point was that the President obviously seemed to have some skill at uniting Dems and Reps in Texas, and no- we haven't seen that to date. So, it would be nice to see him use some of that skill in this situation. Gosh, you guys are hard to even agree with!

As for the Ford reference- I would certainly hope you're just being funny. The President works out jogging or biking every day. Having done some biking myself, if you do enough serious biking, you're going to have accidents. How serious of a biker is the President? From what I understand, they have a hard time finding Secret Service members who can keep up with the guy- hope I'm in that kind of shape at his age (heck, at MY age)!

Gonzales has more problems with the far right than liberals. As far as the Dems going nuts on judicial candidates, I believe the record speaks for itself--97% approved if I'm not mistaken. (If you got 97% of your proposals or budgets approved at work, would you complain?)
I'd complain if I didn't get 100% of my budget approved- because I don't ask for anything I don't absolutely need (and that's my story every year at budget time ;^). Okay fine, the Democrats are clearly working with the President in good accord and faith on his judicial nominees. Let's save this kind of bull for the politicians! The Dem minority is being every bit as obstructionistic as the GOP minority was before them- at least fess up to it.

Like I said earlier, if it comes to it, I pray- I hope- I earnestly wish- the Democrats get a chance to pull the trigger on their filibuster. I salivate at the thought of Fox News providing live coverage of the content of the filibuster (whoops, there's a major media outlet willing and capable of giving news slanted the "other" way- what a thought). I earnestly desire giving the American people the chance to see Sen. Boxer in her true form (I've thrown stuff at my TV watching her spew on CSPAN). If the Democrats are stupid enough to do it, let 'em rot in public perception hell. W should play the Dem senators the same way President Clinton allowed Newt Gingrich and the GOP representatives shoot themselves in the feet over the budget. Americans know obstructionism when they see it, and they're not going to side with the Dems for it.

PS- "Here we are in day 49 of the filibuster. Sen. Kennedy is ranting on about the need to have automobiles with seat cushions that float, and Sen. Boxer is explaining why Alaskans shouldn't be able to drill on their own land close to the Artic Circle. No one has seen Senator McCain after his mysterious disappearance driving home from a dinner meeting with Sen. Hatch..." What great TV that would be!

[Spexvet]

Like I said earlier, if it comes to it, I pray- I hope- I earnestly wish- the Democrats get a chance to pull the trigger on their filibuster. I salivate at the thought of Fox News providing live coverage of the content of the filibuster (whoops, there's a major media outlet willing and capable of giving news slanted the "other" way- what a thought).

The speaker would be in the omnipresent little box in the corner of the TV screen with a clock ticking away....

[Pete Hanlin]

The speaker would be in the omnipresent little box in the corner of the TV screen with a clock ticking away....
Oh the thought! Democracy in action (or inaction, as the case may be). :o

Before we get too carried away by all this, I think its important to get back to the matter at hand. Assuming the President nominates someone capable of making judgements, the nominee should be confirmed. Filibustering a nominee because you don't like their views on a few issues is a bit ridiculous.

Then again, history shows the Democrat party feels they have some inalienable right to mess around with the make-up of the Supreme Court to fashion it to their liking. President Roosevelt attempted to radically change the court (by getting legislation that would force several members to retire due to age, and by lobbying to increase the number of justices to 15) in an effort to get his social programs passed. Had one justice not responded to his meddling by changing his vote, we may have had a much different court today. Of course, if he had failed in his attempt to hijack the court via extortion, I wouldn't have 7.85% of each paycheck being confiscated for Social Security- god, what a horrible time for America the Roosevelt admin was (perhaps only eclipsed by that of LBJ)!
;)

[chm2023]

god, what a horrible time for America the Roosevelt admin was
;)

Stupid "greatest generation". When they could have elected the great and visionary Hubert Hoover......;) And say what you will, I am pretty certain FDR never fell out of his wheelchair!:cheers: Is it cocktail hour yet?????

[Pete Hanlin]

Stupid "greatest generation". Well, just goes to show no one's perfect! :)

When they could have elected the great and visionary Hubert Hoover...... Well, he makes one hell of a vacuum cleaner! (The actual story of the invention of the vacuum is really interesting. The guy who invented it was an asthmatic who was charged with beating and cleaning museum rugs. He put a fan in a can and vacuumed the rugs instead. It wasn't until he showed the thing to his married sister (you guessed it, Mrs. Hoover) that they figured out the thing could be marketed. I don't believe there was any relation to the infamous politician.

I am pretty certain FDR never fell out of his wheelchair! Is it cocktail hour yet????? Oh, now that's just ('hick-up') low! :p