Posted on 11/13/2006 4:26:15 PM PST by wagglebee
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Now that the elections have given them control of the Senate, leading Democrats on judicial issues have a message for President Bush. They don't want him to send up for confirmation any judges who would be hostile to legalized abortion or they plan vote down or filibuster them.
Democrats now have 51 votes in the Senate and will likely have a slim one vote majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee when Congress starts its new session in January.
Though they technically have enough votes on the panel and in the Senate to defeat any Bush judicial pick, they may still have a tough time keeping their caucus together as some moderate Democrats joined a group of Republicans in making sure filibusters weren't used to hold up nominees.
But leading pro-abortion Democrats tell Bush he needs to pick someone without a record opposed to abortion in order to get judges -- especially for the Supreme Court -- confirmed in their Senate.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, told Newsday that Bush should nominate only "consensus" nominees.
Sen. Charles Schumer, of New York, was more strident and vowed to block any nominee he feels is too extreme on abortion.
"We will do everything in our power to see that that happens," he told Newsday, saying filibusters should be expected. He added that Bush "will have to negotiate with us, because we'll have the majority."
There are no current Supreme Court openings, but pro-abortion Justice John Paul Stevens, who was the subject of retirement speculations shortly before the elections, is 86 years-old and battling significant health problems.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg, another abortion advocate is 73 years-old and has her own health concerns.
Had the GOP kept control of the Senate, the liberal judges may have waited to retire, but they could step down feeling that the chances they would be replaced by a less conservative judge are higher with Democrats heading up the chamber.
How Bush reacts to Democratic control may be seen in whether he chooses to re-nominate six conservative appeals court judges who have yet to be confirmed.
Should a Supreme Court opening develop closer to the 2008 presidential elections, that may put more pressure on Senate Democrats to hold off on confirming a replacement until afterwards.
Wouldn't that have been nice? So many opportunities missed and blown. Thanks nadless GOP Senators. Thanks ego-McCainiac. Thanks butt-kisser Graham.
It wasn't in the mainstream news AT ALL until the Constitutional option was brought up.
Heck...on second thought forget it. There's not enough time to make use of it.
Isn't it nice to see comity and compromise in the Senate?
I'm sure we'll soon hear this little experiment in bipartisanship only applied to republican ruled congresses.......Now all bets are off.
Dems are suddenly pushing hard on all the issues they refused to talk about during the election.
Abortion, Gay rights, higher taxes, Surrender, etc,etc...
And the MEdia is utterly silent about it...
Recess appointments, baby!
No, Schumer, he doesn't have to negotiate with you. All he has to do, under the Constitution, is send his judicial nominations to the Senate. If you choose to reject them, leaving all sorts of courts without judges, that's up to you. If I were Bush, that's exactly how I'd play it, and let the public know who's responsible for all those judicial vacancies. Including the SCOTUS, if it comes to that.
But we know they won't.
That just wouldn't be nice.
Isn't that the truth.
The position stated is kind of an extrapolation of the nuances presented as illustrations in the essay. As such it is BS.
What Bush should do is turn this into farse. Line up about 20 good people willing to do this. Nominate a good conservative justice. Wait one week for the democrats to make fools of themselves and withdraw the nominee - democrats vetoed him. Bring up the next guy. Wait one week for the democratw to make fools of themselves........Repeat for 2 years.
I have no love for Frist, but I think the nuclear option was short-circuited by MeCain and his gang of 14. (rhymes with whore-team)
Gee, what a shock. Hope the Catholics who turned to the rat party of death are pleased.
I just don't understand how a Catholic can vote for a rat...surely, they know they all stand for abortion.
It's funny that all those liberals gave their comments to Newsday, the house organ of the Democrat Party.
Well, should one or both of these goodfellows go on to meet their maker, Bush might consider the following option:
Nominate the best constitutionalist available and when the RATs defeat him/her, leave the post vacant.
Memo to Dems -- blocking Supreme Court nominees won't be a winning proposition for 2008.
The blood will be on their hands, as well as any other who don't vote against them.
Shhhh! Don't tell them that!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.