but can this mutt stay awake till W is out of office???
Posted on 12/13/2006 4:45:27 PM PST by RWR8189
Shoot me if it's Miss Graham.
I tend to agree that if Bush appoints ANY solid conservative, even a senator, the nomination won't be confirmed by this Senate. The one possible exception would be an appointment that would shift a seat from R to D, but even then, I don't think it would happen. My guess is that in the unlikely event of a SCOTUS vacancy, Bush will appoint a moderate, whether a senator or a judge.
Stevens is in his late 80s. Ginsburg is in her mid-70s, but her health is poor. Either (or both) could quite likely retire (or even die) in the next two years.
The others vary in age from their early 50s to early 70s, and all appear to be in reasonably good health.
If Bush gets another chance to appoint, I hope he will try to do as well as he did with Roberts and Alito. If the Democrats block the appointment, it will be likely to hurt them in '08.
First of all, Johnson isn't out of the Senate, and even if he were, if Bush wanted a Senator on the Court, he'd just choose someone like Cornyn, who would have his replacement appointed by a Republican governor.
It doesn't have to be a Senator nor did I say it had to be. I just said I think a Senator wouldn't be filibustered by his colleagues, thus we would have a better chance of getting a conservative confirmed. Its been probably 50 years since a Senator has been nominated to the court.
It used to be very common in the 19th and early 20th century.
I think it would be a battle royale; I didn't say we'd lose. If Bush nominates a moderate, pro-choice justice, he loses conservatives forever, and the Republican Party will have a terrible time winning them back for 2008. It would be an utter disaster.
And he can win. It will mean using tactics that Republicans aren't used to using - like actually disrupt the operation of the Senate. Senate Republicans, who see politics as the maintenance of a working system instead of the changing of an old system, aren't comfortable with this. (Hence their capitulation to the Democrats during the judge battles, and the eventual Gang of 14.) But they will have to learn to do these things, because their political survival at the ballot box depends on it.
They can start by filibustering and holding every last bill that comes up for consideration, from Health and Human Services to renaming the local post office. They can have daily press conferences, demagoguing the Democrats shamelessly, talking about "this good man (or woman) who deserves a vote, who has a great legal mind, who loves his or her country, and the Democrats will not let her serve."
It can be done. But the President and the Republican Party must have the vision, and must learn not to be driven be expediency when principles are on the line.
"In fact who was the last senator to be appointed to the SCOTUS?"
Ok, the last person to have served in the Senate to be appointed to the Supreme Court was Sherman Minton however he was not a sitting Senator at the time of his appointment. He was an appeals court judge. He was appointed by President Truman in 1949. The last sitting Senator to be appointed to the SC was Harold Burton. He was appointed by President Truman in 1945.
It certainly "can be done" and might even work if it were done. But it won't be done. Republican senators are mostly spineless, caring more about relationships across the aisle, their image among the elites, etc., than almost anything else. Yes, a fight would be at least slightly helpful to the GOP in '08. But I don't believe that's how most of our senators think or prioritize.
I apologize for misstating what you said. You say it would be tough. I say it would be very unlikely.
I don't think Bush SHOULD appoint a moderate, but I think he will.
Yes I agree, that would be one of the best outcomes. Especially if the Senate wastes their next two years arguing over the next Supreme Court Justice.
Please. not Lindsay Graham.
vaudine
but can this mutt stay awake till W is out of office???
Why not Janice Rogers Brown?
http://www.neoperspectives.com/janicerogersbrown.htm
Our Constitution does not require prior judicial experience or even legal experience to be a member of the Supreme Court.
An Historian could be named and approved since the role is to determine whether laws are in accord with the Constitition and the Founding Fathers meanings, that is the meanings of the thoughts and words at the time of writing.
Legalize is for the undergrads.
The Democrats could VERY easily dig in their heels for 2 yrs. and hold out against allowing anyone that Bush would nominate, liberal, conservative, or something in between. Every day that passes is one day closer to their opportunity to having an appointment made by a Democrat president instead, and no amount of public uproar could force them off the dime until they see if they can't get a Democrat president in '08.
Will Justice Stevens Retire?
This is the same a**hole that you could count on to vote communist or fascist, depending on the circumstance.
This is the same goosestepper who proclaimed: "we must rethink the concept of private property.."
This is the same sh*thead who wrote the majority decision in Kelo.
Stevens is at best a filthy hedonist Marxist. My opinion of what he really is would get me banned from FR for a thousand and one years. The f'n prick.
If Stevens retires I will laugh my head off every time an evangelical says they stayed home to teach the pubs a lesson.
Why is an unsubstantiated rumor worth a column?
Because it gives hope to those who believe in freedom that the bastard will die.
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.