Posted on 11/15/2006 12:12:55 PM PST by Liz
Schmuckie's right on one thing: with a Dem majority they rule the judiciary committee, led by that 'rat Leahy. If they stick together they can stymie any Bush nominee in committee. A nominee will have to be a superlative legalist to get through (e.g. would Roberts and Alito get through this new senate?). Look what they did to Estrada for two years.
There is thread on here talking about this.
That's exactly right, they ran as GOP lite, especially in the Hosue, but they will vote the radical left pelosi/schumer line.
Sitting on some circuit nominee is one thing. Sitting on a Supreme Court nominee is a whole new ballgame.
You're not alone I feel the same. And now to read that this arrogant ass is 'writing' a book! Aaack!
I predict that in the coming years the term "schumer" will take on the same meaning as "clymer".
Look for several leftie retirements on the court soon with Bush forced to choose moderates.
Pride comes before the fall. Chucky should take a look at what just happened to his Republican buds.
It was either AntiGuv or Torie (forget which) who pointed out that senate rules require that all Supreme Court nominees get a floor vote. Despite the partisan atmosphere in DC, most senators still have friends on the other side. Bush could name Ben Nelson's conservative golfing buddy to the court, for example.
Nope, there won't be a fight at all. They simply won't schedule a vote.
Recall how hard it was to get Alito and Roberts to a vote and that's when the Republicans had a clear and arguably filibuster-proof coalition.
Frist and his fellow incompetent traitors had their chance to take the issue to the mat and settle it once and for all via "the nuclear option" or "the Constitutional option", as you prefer, let the Dems stamp their little feet, declare them Out Of Order, and make it official that delaying tactics and refusing to vote was not an option, and they refused to do it.
So we're all screwed.
And this is news? Did he vote to confirm Alito? Answer - Schumer (D) No
Thank you---I was waiting for an astute FReeper like you to come up with that insight.
There's no going back. Not only do the Dims have to look more rightish---but they have to be as pure as the driven snow. No less a liberal than Newsweak's Eleanor Clift said that if the Dims give a leadership position to, say, Alcee Hastings, an impeached former judge, they will have a two year majority.
Thus the dustup over Murtha's elevation has nothing to do with Iraq---but with his past dealings.
The Dims swinging right also drives Republicans even more rightward. Repubs cannot win without churchgoing conservatives. The Pubbies lost Tuesday b/c their base could not stomach the foisting of pro-abortion liberals like RNC's Mehlman and Guiliani on the party.
OK, Chuckie, let's rock & roll. Who are the 2 members of the USSC most likely to croak or be unable to continue? Stevens, 86, and Ginsburg, 73 and with cancer. Both big libs. Fine, deadlock the Senate, the SC can pump out 4-3 decisions in favor of the original interpretation of the Constitution for a long time.
unless there is some health related incident, I don't think Bush 43 will get another appointment.
"Power is the most important, " said Mr. Schemer. There, fixed it.
We understand you just fine, comrade.
Stevens is 86 and Ginsburg has had cancer and is 73. I don't wish these people ill (no pun intended), but statistics say that people with these characteristics don't tend to live a long time.
If there's a vacancy on the court, wouldn't that most likely occur if they lost a Leftist?
I think Schmuckie Schumer may find out we'll have little incentive to correct that if so.
we didn't need to use the "nuclear option" to get Roberts and Alito through - and the delays were minimal, mostly due to Specter wanting to be "agreeable". now I will agree, that kindness got us nothing.
Look at all their ages. The 4 liberal judges average 15 years older than the 4 conservative judges. Liberals are going to have to pull out every stop to keep the court from going right.
Basically, it came down to Montana.
Those folks in Montana who either voted libertarian, or stayed home and didn't vote for Burns - are the reason Roe v Wade will likely never be overturned now.
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.