Democrats: Conservavtive Ideology Constitutes "Extraordinary Circumstances"

The Washington Post ^ | 7/6/05 | Peter Baker and Charles Babington

[Sloth]

McCain has always claimed to be prolife and has, in fact, always voted that way, but has recently strayed from conservatism on all other social, economic and political issues. Let's force McCain to explain his ideology.

As I recall, Alan Keyes exposed the hollowness of McCain supposed pro-life position during the 2000 debates.

[Uncle Miltie]

Democrats: Conservavtive Ideology Constitutes "Extraordinary Circumstances"

Actually, Liberal Ideology is now the extraordinary circumstance. Liberalism has lost the Presidency, House, Senate, Governorships, and Legislatures.

Conservatism is the norm.

Liberalism is abnormal.

[krazyrep]

I don't see how it was worthless. It got us the appellate justices we wanted and we still have the constitutional option to use against Supreme Court filibusters.

The filibuster deal gave us nothing. Oh, we got a few lower court justices approved, but at the price of dumping several other equally qualified and conservative nominees and, obviously, no guarantees it won't happen again.

Now we can say we tried to work things out but the Dems broke the deal.

We can scream and holler the Dems broke the deal until the cows come home, but there's no guarantee McCain & Co. are all going to fall in line. They mutinied before, they can do it again. Besides, the Democrats are claiming conservative ideology equates to extraordinary circumstances, and thus, will claim they didn't break anything. The MSM will predictably parrot the liberal line that conservative views = extraordinary circumstances. Just watch how many times the phrase "extraordinary views" gets mentioned in conjunction with Bush's nominee when the time comes.

The deal was a sham from the beginning, and continues to be one. Unless the President nominates a liberal (or a liberal in conservative clothing), the Democrats will filibuster.

[Khepera]

Thats what they tell you but truth is the jury IS the law and can decide any way it wants. Jury nullification is legal and valid.

[Eva]

This is the perfect opportunity to force McCain out of the closet, so to speak.

[sportutegrl]

Rove did not comment on the chances of a Gonzales nomination but at one point referred to him as "Justice Gonzales,"

Karl Rove, you sneaky genius. I know your plan. Drop hints that Gonzales might be the next nominee, let the democrats torpedo him in the news, then have Bush name his real nominee. It will be over the top apparent that the dems will 'bork' anyone Bush names and the voters will not like it.

[hermgem]

McCain has his hands in just about everything that turns sour.
First he sponsored this law to take money out of political campaigns, or as he phrased it: prevent a party from buying an election.
No such luck, as Democrats exceeded Republicans with campaign funds in a wide open contribution frenzy.
McCain in fact contributed towards legally funneling more monies into campaigns.
And now he comes along and blocks a majority from seating judges.
Yes, majority as Democrats lost the House, Senate, Governorships, Presidential re election, over years of voting.
Make the voice of the people heard? Not in McCain's mind.
Extraordinary circumstances, it means in McCains vocabulary: screw a majority out of their constitutional voting rights and their will not to allow late term abortion, gay marriage, taxation, or having one's own property confiscated.

[BJClinton]

Right on. The other point would be abortion and the pro-abortion crowd is solidly democrat anyway so no love lost there.

[MamaTexan]

is the one most consistent with the average American's view of how the law should work. It corresponds to the instructions given to every potential juror, i.e., base your decision on what the law says, not on what you think it should say.

Not trying to pick nits here, Steve, but that is NOT what the Founders intended when they gave juries the power of nullification-

_________________________________________________________

SAMUEL CHASE (Justice, U. S. Supreme Court and signer of the Declaration of Independence; in 1804):
"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."

_________________________________________________________

U.S. v. DOUGHERTY, 473 F.2d. 1113, 1139 (1972):
"The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge...."

_________________________________________________________

LORD DENMAN, (in C.J. O'Connel v. R. ,1884):
"Every jury in the land is tampered with and falsely instructed by the judge when it is told it must take (or accept) as the law that which has been given to them, or that they must bring in a certain verdict, or that they can decide only the facts of the case."

_________________________________________________________

Any time a judge 'instructs' a jury as to how the should find is violating the defendant's right to due process...specifically the 6th Amendment right to an 'impartial' jury.

[csmusaret]

There is not one single Senator worth the powder it would take to blow him or her to hell. They are a bunch of pompous gas bags who sit around and talk. They don't make anything, do anything constructive, or create any jobs . They are talkers not doers. They are so arrogant and self important that every four years a handful of them run for President. They don't run anything; don't manage anything; are not executives in anyway, yet they think they can run this country. The only thing they are actually good at is getting re-elected. I for one am sick of the entire bunch.

[MamaTexan]

how they should

Ack!

Need more coffee!

[Antoninus]

Time to nuke these punks.

[Steve_Seattle]

Jury nullification is a side issue that I probably shouldn't have opened; for my part, it is not something that I am at all comfortable with. The closest examples of jury nullification that I can think of are the O.J. case and the Susan McDougal case, in which people who were clearly guilty got away with their crimes. These were not jury nullification per se, but came close to it. I think jury nullification is one step away from anarchy.

[MamaTexan]

These were not jury nullification per se, but came close to it. I think jury nullification is one step away from anarchy.

Jury nullification was intended by the Founders as a powerful weapon against a tyranical government. Even many Americans today believe that *law* is whatever the government SAYS it is......nothing could be further from the truth.

In this fashion William Penn (who gave his name to Pennsylvania) was acquitted by a jury in London in 1670 when prosecuted for preaching Quakerism. The Salem witch trials ended in 1693 after 52 consecutive jury acquittals. Similarly, John Peter Zenger was acquitted by a jury in 1735 in New York when prosecuted for criticizing the mayor. The Fugitive Slave Acts were effectively nullified by juries in the 1850s. Similarly, juries effectively put an end to Prohibition during the 1920s.

Here's an informative web page on JURY NULLIFICATION

[wildbill]

Actually this is the time for the Republicans like McCain and Graham on the gang of fourteen to come forward and admit they were lied to by the Dems--and recommend that the Constitutional option is now necessary.

[Inwoodian]

Let's just get this Constitutional Option over and done. The Republicans give far too much credence to the good faith and collegiality of the Dems. When they're in power ideology is out-of-bounds. When out of power ideology is fair game. And , of course , the Pubs would never filibuster a Presidential appointment no matter who it is (see Ginsburg, Breyer ).

[Steve_Seattle]

My opinion is, if as a potential juror you think a law is unjust and you can't enforce it in good conscience, you should recuse yourself from the jury.

[Dilbert56]

The Dimocrat's position is that a nominally conservative President has been elected (twice), and the voters have blessed his party with growing majorities in both houses of Congress, yet somehow it's "extraordinary" that he would appoint someone reflecting his philosophy. How absurd is that?

The President should invoke the Ruth Bader-Ginsburg nomination as an example where the Senate did not consider ideology as a disqualifying charateristic. Let the Dims try to argue she was "mainstream". Then lay out her record and positions. The no more Mothers' and Fathers' Days should be a good start.

[ran15]

Its amazing how gullable our Republican representatives are. 99% of freepers realized the vague wording the Democrats got in the deal, would allow them to do whatever they wanted. While the Republican side had to clearly take its options off the table.