[votelife]

Jim let me tell you what a great service you have done for our country by creating this website! as they say on Rush, megadittos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is a letter I wrote Bush on this issue.

Dear President Bush,
With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.

[votelife]

this is good to see; Rush also says that liberals are fun to watch when they're out of power. Out in California I can only imagine the rants you here from Boxer.

But with all three branches of government under GOP control, and a Bush 2004 reelection victory seeming to be on the horizon, "activist Democrats are apoplectic," Mr. Gaziano said. "Their world is crumbling." No better time to be brazen than now.

[Mark]

We need a bullet-proof Senate. Zell switching to the Republican party would be a good start, expressing his above complaint as the reason.

[umgud]

Two points:

1. What would the Dems do if the Republicans were doing this? Maybe the answer to this question should be our response.

2. Ronald Reagan would already have gotten this issue before the public more effectively than Bush has.

[PhilDragoo]

Recess appointments:

1) Robert Bork

2) Kenneth Starr

3) Ann Coulter

Senator Bingaman sent a 2,000-word obfuscation of his obstruction which I debunked by phone, fax and email.

The Constitution cites seven matters requiring a super majority--and advice and consent is not one of them.

[Kozak]

Screw the Dems. this is a war and they seem to be the only ones who realize that. Go Nuclear and force a change in the standing rules, let the nominations come to the floor and force the vote.

[templar]

Some explain to me how this fillibuster stuff works at the Federal level. the only fillibusters I was ever familiar with were on a local level and requried a continuous (24 hour) speaker to occupy the floor and tie up everything till it was over (usually out of total frustration and fatigue on one or both sides). The filibustering speakers usually took turns passing the floor to one another hoping the opposition would go home or give up and they could ram their stuff through. That was a long, long time ago though.

[Imal]

The Democrats have never in their history let little things like the U.S. Constitution stand in the way of their politics.

[jackbill]

One strategy involves a politically divisive procedure to change the Senate's standing rules, a tactic reportedly tried only twice in Senate history, the last time in 1975 by then-Vice President John D. Rockefeller. Mr. Frist said he prefers instead to seek cloture reform, which he sees as "a nonpartisan solution."

From everything that I've read, this 1975 example was successful and it was primarily Democrats who lead it and voted for it. It changed the number of votes needed to invoke cloture from 2/3 (66) to 3/5 (60). Current Senators who voted for it include Byrd, Kennedy, Biden, Inoyue, Leahy.

It didn't happen overnight. It took a series of procedural votes over several months. The exact same thing can happen on the proposed filibuster rule change. All that it takes is some guts by the Republicans.

It is said that some Republicans are currently reluctant to try it but given one or more new filibusters, they may change their mind. I suspect that if we see a Supreme retire in July, another filibuster may arise and that just may be the straw that stiffens the Republicans' spines (to quote a mixed metaphor).

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[lowbridge]

[laredo44]

Further, the Senate has confirmed just 53 percent of appeals-court nominees during Mr. Bush's first two years in office

Here's what makes this so frustrating. Yesterday, Tony Snow interviewed Hatch and Schumer on Fox. There, Schumer claimed the Senate has confirmed 126 of Bush 128 nominees. Here we're told only 53%. What's the truth? Which apples are being compared to what oranges?

I suspect Schumer referring to those nominees voted on by the full senate while the article's 53% denominator also includes those killed in committee. But why didn't either Snow or Hatch challenge Schumer on this? Viewers were left with Schumer's unchallenged contention that Democrats were being bend-over-backwards reasonable and Republicans were a bunch of crybabies.

[monocle]

Do you think that this situation would exist in the absence of the Seventeenth Amendment so that senators' appointments would be subjected to the same type of treatment in the respective state legislative bodies?