Democrats Push to Delay Alito Hearings

AP ^ | 02 NOV 05 | DAVID ESPO

[Common Tator]

I agree with every thing you say.

One think I did agree with Newt Gingrich about. It was his Contract with America. Newt only put items on the contract that had 70 percent support.

And Guess what.. Bill Clinton stole nearly every one and helped pass them into law.. INLCUDING WELFARE REFORM.

What that tells poltiical movements is in effect the politicans are not very important. If one can get 70 percent of the voters to favor something, then all one has to do is put that item on the table and politicians from both parties will work to pass it.

If one of us could wave a majic wand and convert enough voters so that 51 percent were conservatives, politicians begging to do their will would come out of the woodwork to pass nearly evey conservative measure.

Politicians are always about pleasing the voters. If the voters in a state or district aree moderate the politicians from that state or disctict will be moderate. If the voters are liberal the politicians will be liberal. If the voters are conserative the politicians will be conservative.

The key for success of the left or right is education of the public. I have often felt that the biggest danger to Democrats is FOX News. Fox news only favors the right a little bit. That means that lots of moderates watch it and even some on the left watch it. Some of them will be converted. Rush, Hannity, and Air America only talk to their bases. But a media that is only a tiny bit to the right can change the world.

The Democrats control most of the media but do not underestand it. They play to the home team and convert no one. Thank goodness.

The world is changing .. but it will never be changed by candidates for office. It will be changed by movements that convert others to their views and cause.

Convert enough voters and the job will be done.. NO further effort is needed. Politicians will fight to do their will.

[jwpjr]

You're right of course, but I can't help but feel that you could drag a few more of those rino's along if the leadership was bold and accepted no excuses. Things like putting Spectre back in charge of the Judiciary Committee don't help your cause when you want to establish that you are a no nonsense party that knows what it wants and intends to get it.

Besides, it's fun being on the outside, telling them how to run their business when you don't have to be responsible for the outcome!

[AFPhys]

I believe that this "Rule 21" could be changed by a simple majority vote right now. Is that true? Is this one of those items that, like the constitutional/nuke/byrd option is actually susceptible to change this session because Frist didn't accept the rules at the start of the session?

I think so. If so, Frist's (and I honestly believe he was in pow-wow with Rove and the WH last Dec. about this type of problem so I'll include them, too) foresight could be of inestimable value. However, in order for the moderates to get fed up enough about this "stunt", the Dems will have to work this sufficient numbers of times for a strategy to nuke it is prepared.

I doubt that once was enough - despite Frist's anger yesterday.

[Arizona Carolyn]

And we all fought Spector tooth and nail.. Dr. Frist assured us he had assurance Spector was on board -- which none of us believed then or now.... I'm afraid Dr. Frist is a lot of our problem and weakness is not a good recipe for someone who wants to run for President in '08.

[jwpjr]

NEVER should have let them run Trent Lott off like they did. The more the Left dislikes someone, the more convinced I am they're important!

[Cheburashka]

Your points on recess appointments to the Supreme Court are well taken.

One of the documents you cited made three key points, first that most recess appointments made to the Supreme Court were made in the 19th Century (when traveling to Washington was difficult and Congress was not in session for long periods of the year), the last Supreme Court recess appointments were made by Eisenhower, and that the Senate of his time passed a resolution objecting to the use of the recess appointment in that manner.

The President can make recess appointments everywhere in the judicial and executive branches, not just in the Supreme Court, and I was referring to that.

I doubt John Bolton will be confirmed now, for instance, unless the 2006 election results bring a marked change to the Senate. In fact, the recess appointment is practically an admission that the Senate at present will not confirm him.

In general, why would the Senate ratify an end run around its own prerogatives?

In any case, it still makes sense to stand and fight now, not put it off with a temporary appointment. The Democrats would love to fill the vacancy in 2009, if they should happen to win the Presidency. Why reward them for their bad behavior?

[Whitewasher]

The worthless, do nothing, know nothing, Communist Rat Party is pushing for absolute irrelevance. I say give it to them.

[Arizona Carolyn]

I agree with that assessment.

[AFPhys]

I believed Specter had given Frist his word back in May, but my degree of needing to simply trust Frist (and Specter) was much greater than the degree I needed with, for example, the amount of childlike trust I needed in the President's assurance that Miers would fit the bill. I had concerns, though, that Voiny or some other RINO not as visible would backdoor Frist in place of Specter. I am almost certain that Graham and DeWine had the same concerns I did.

Now, though, that someone that Specter supported for the USSC was mistreated, and the way that we've now given up the "High Ground" that the structure of The Constitution demands that every nominee by the executive should be given a vote on the floor of the Senate, all bets are off as to how Specter, and other RINOs in addition to the most prominent six, would vote on the Constitutional/Nuclear/Byrd option.

[Paige]

The problem with all of these elected officials is the fact many of them have been in Washington, D.C. way too long. They do not think they are answerable to the will of the people even though they are democratically elected by the people. This is the problem when we have career politicians and people don't exercise their Constitutional right to enforce term limits when they vote. This is why it is time to seriously push for term limits. Term limits will put an end to the lobbyist strong hold on the elected officials. Without a doubt, it is something to think about but it won't take place until people are really fed up and ready for a change. We don't have to depend on Congress because three-fourths of the states can call a Constitutional Convention to pass any amendment the people so desire as long as two-thirds ratify. So, actually it is up to the people in the states.

[Jim Noble]

If the voters are conserative the politicians will be conservative.

Correction:

If the voters are conservative, the politicians will be pretend to be conservative.

[Jim Noble]

can the Repubs NOT allow a delay and make this nomination go forward?

Yes, but I think the President and his gurus are still concerned (too concerned) about the appearance of conflict (sucker moms don't like it).

The RATs and their gurus are very well aware of this "stop, he's hurting me" meme, so you can bet that if Frist schedules hearings before 2009 the Dems will pitch a fit, refuse to attend, and Katie and the whole rest of the slimy MSM crew will amplify the "tyrant Bush ramming radicals through, just like he lied us into war" theme incessantly.

[Cboldt]

In general, why would the Senate ratify an end run around its own prerogatives?

In general it wouldn't. But in the case of nominations, there is vigorous debate as to whether or not the Senate rightfully has the prerogative to set a vote hurdle of its own choosing (i.e., something other than simple majority) for the advise and consent of nominations.

Bolton would have been approved by a simple majority, if his nomination had gone to the floor for a vote. Bolton wasn't rejected, he was never voted on. The Senate refused to vote on the nominee.

[Cboldt]

If you end up looking up retirement letters, I would appreciate a ping.

Once I found fairly clear evidence that the retirement dates were dates certain, I stopped looking. I believe that O'Connor is the first Justice to deviate from the time-honored practice of providing a date-certain for retirement.

Can you imagine doing that at a place of employment? Resign, timing contingent on your replacement being hired? It puts the boss-man in an awkward position.

[Jim Noble]

It's time open a 55-gallon drum of industrial strength spinal fortitude and begin applying it with a liberal dose of whup-ass.

Karl Rove is a big believer in sucker moms.

As long as he is running the political show, you can forget about the whup-ass.

[cricket]

". . .and Katie and the whole rest of the slimy MSM crew will amplify the "tyrant Bush ramming radicals through, just like he lied us into war" theme incessantly."

Well, Bush should show his 'seasoning' by now. I say, (IMHO, of course!) get the good word out on Alito. ..quick saturation and mow the Demrats down in their tracks; even if it means a ride to through the swamp. . .and make this confirmation happen on Bush's best time-table.

And if the Dems continue to scream. . .'foul' - post confirmation . .slap them silly with their own ugly truth.

[AFPhys]

I agree.

That first day, as soon as I heard that is what she did, I raised my eyebrows in surprise, but wasn't really sure whether that was some type of general practice for the USSC retirements.

Now, I'm pretty sure that it has not been.

This is a dangerous way to operate, I'm afraid. As you point out, it makes it tougher to get serious about finding a replacement. That, in addition to my point about "Suppose O'Conner decided she didn't like the person confirmed (or about to be confirmed) and withdrew her retirement" scenerio - this really seems like asking for trouble down the road.

If that occurred, what would be the alternative? Impeach the justice? Supposing something like a 55-45 vote on the replacement, there are 45 primed to vote against impeachment - it would be a real pickle, I think, especially if a majority of the USSC justices were to agree with the rogue.

"I do not like this, not one little bit."

[Cboldt]

"I do not like this, not one little bit."

I don't see any of those nightmare scenarios happening. But what her "hanging on" does do is reinforce the false premise that there is some duty to preserve status quo ante of the balance or makeup of the SCOTUS. That each nominee should mirror the philosophy of his or her predecessor.

Lots of that sort of talk going on, and will continue. Schumer said outright, "Alito is not in the mold of O'Connor," and uses that as a springboard for his preliminary objection. "A divider, not a uniter" is the same sentiment in less personal terms.

[AFPhys]

I don't see any of these nightmare scenerios with O'Conner.
She has always seemed honorable.

My real fear is for the future, and the precident this sets, and what may happen if someone more prone to write law from the bench were to do one of these "contingent" retirements.

[mosquitobite]

You make me very nervous with the Rule 21 thing. But really, can the Democrats get away with it in the court of public opinion?

Oh sure the media and the Dems can claim it's about National Security, but you and I and every conservative knows what it's REALLY about.

If they do this, does this not rally our base even more? Will this NOT help us get the Nelson's out and other vulnerable Dems? Seats that might have been ok, if not for stunts like these?