Skip to comments.
Why Frist and all won't go 24/7 (Vanity)
vanity
| 8/4/03
| votelife
Posted on 08/04/2003 3:29:36 PM PDT by votelife
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-106 next last
comments?
1
posted on
08/04/2003 3:29:37 PM PDT
by
votelife
To: votelife
when I say this it's because it might make it easier for some Dems to retain Senate seats saying they worked with the Pres on judges, as opposed to blindly opposing any and all judges conservative.
2
posted on
08/04/2003 3:31:37 PM PDT
by
votelife
(Free Bill Pryor)
To: votelife
I have been a proponent of the nuclear (or, "nuke-you-lur"!) option, but your arguments make some sense. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the mechanics of a full-blown filibuster to carry on an informed conversation. I disagree with premise #1, though. I think the public would support the president and the Republican senators in a flame war with the media.
3
posted on
08/04/2003 3:35:32 PM PDT
by
clintonh8r
(You can have no better friend and no worse enemy than a United States Marine.)
To: votelife
Also the rats have to pick the fight carefully,...as a lot of judges have been confirmed.
To: clintonh8r
you may be right about number 1, and with radio and the internet, you have a very strong case, but if my 1 is wrong, wouldn't it be better for the future of the Courts if this high stakes battle were played out right before the election so it was fresh on the voter's minds?
Similar to a bill which would push income tax day to right before the elections...
5
posted on
08/04/2003 3:38:33 PM PDT
by
votelife
(Free Bill Pryor)
To: spokeshave
Dems like to say they have confirmed 130 or so of Bush's judges. There are a few problems with this.
1. This is just a guess, but I bet these are more "moderate" Kennedy/O'Connor judges.
2. Or, they're older judges who the left doesn't view as a threat.
3. Or, I and think this is common: the Dems filibuster Appeals level judges and approve District Judges, ie trying to stop Bush from getting the more important posts.
There are good internet sites where you can see that many of Bush's judges just haven't got hearings, so while Dems have voted for most of them, it's only on ones that haven't been stalled, blocked, "blue slipped" etc.
That being said, I'm glad to see some of Bush's judges get through while Estrada and Pryor draw the heat.
6
posted on
08/04/2003 3:42:32 PM PDT
by
votelife
(Free Bill Pryor)
To: votelife
I've been one of the people saying, "What's wrong with these Republican wimps?" Your post definitely offers some perspective. What really matters is that we get the conservative judges; whether this route will achieve the goal remains to be seen.
On this issue, as with the administration's Middle East policy, I'm of two minds. I'd like to think that Bush et al are doing something really cagey, so subtle that I just don't get it. However, sometimes I fear that they're just clueless, and actually believe that being nice to people who want to destroy your way of life (Democrats, Saudis, Palestinians) is really going to work.
7
posted on
08/04/2003 3:43:01 PM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(GUNS - the anti-liberal!)
To: votelife
Patience is a virtue. I believe that Bush is ever-so-conscious of the dereliction of the Democrats, and will implement rules that deny a minority of Senators the power to determine the makeup of the judiciary.
8
posted on
08/04/2003 3:43:47 PM PDT
by
Cboldt
To: votelife
You do not have to make any apologies. You have been a tireless, unceasing, and dedicated Freeper on this issue.
Everyone blames Frist and the R Senators, but you are right, this is a well thought out long term strategy by the WH.
President Bush told each of his nominee's that he would stand by them. I guess I'm a Bush-Bot also, and his word is good by me.
To: votelife
Finally, I think Freepers who are really mad at Frist should share some of that anger against the so-called moderate Dems like Breaux, Lincoln, Dorgan, Johnson, Baucus, etc or Dems from "Red" States! It's not Frist's fault if the Dems want to arbitrarily block qualified conservatives.
Look at it from the left's perspective. You don't think Hillary, Dashcle, and Leahy are exerting pressure behind the scenes? How about all the liberal special interest groups. Don't the Freepers who criticize Frist think these groups are reading the Dems the riot act?
10
posted on
08/04/2003 3:45:40 PM PDT
by
votelife
(Free Bill Pryor)
To: votelife
wouldn't it be better for the future of the Courts if this high stakes battle were played out right before the election so it was fresh on the voter's minds?
You are assuming the GOP can control what the media "spotlight" topic will be....I don't think they can as the media will find/manufacture/hype another issue to "spotlight", and it will surely be one that favors the Dems.
If Bush loses, the American judicial landscape will appear no different than it was when he arrived..
11
posted on
08/04/2003 3:49:45 PM PDT
by
mr.pink
To: woodyinscc
12
posted on
08/04/2003 3:52:32 PM PDT
by
votelife
(Free Bill Pryor)
To: votelife
3 things you missed:
It's August, DC is on vacation, they can't go 24/7 (they could have started earlier and run into August but the next two show why to not do that)
The Dems have realized they're putting their head in a noose, other than the high profile filibusters we're getting judges through very nicely
Never blow the wad when it won't do any good, this is a ready made campaign issue next November, but not if it gets solved over a year in advance. If they're still filibustering next October it's a great stump speach and might be a good time to force it to 24/7 to really increase the profile.
13
posted on
08/04/2003 3:54:08 PM PDT
by
discostu
(the train that won't stop going, no way to slow down)
To: votelife
It's simpler than all that. They are gonna wait til next election and make it a campaign issue ... especially to force all the incumbent Dems to stay in Washington when they want to be campaigning.
14
posted on
08/04/2003 3:54:11 PM PDT
by
Guyin4Os
To: mr.pink
that's true, but if he gets Pryor, Estrada, and Owen on the lower courts, but doesn't get reelected, than a future liberal Supreme Court will likely create lots of liberal havoc, and I don't think many freepers will console themsleves with "Well, at least Estrada's on the DC court, and at least will got that Pryor guy on the 11th circuit court"
Think big picture!
15
posted on
08/04/2003 3:54:19 PM PDT
by
votelife
(Free Bill Pryor)
To: votelife
because of my analysis, I have stopped calling/freeping Dem senators on this issue for the most part. I'll call them once in a while, but it's gotten to the point where I'd almost PREFER the so called "moderates" to filibuster. Especially the ones who are up for reelection. At this point, as locked in as the Dems are I think it's more important to call Bush/Frist/Hatch, etc and tell them to keep fighting for the judges. Do we really want say John Edwards to "see the light" on Estrada, make one good vote, and then get stuck with him for 6 more years? If he wants to block Estrada, I'm happy to hang that issue over his head.
16
posted on
08/04/2003 3:57:47 PM PDT
by
votelife
(Free Bill Pryor)
To: votelife
I won't pay attention to them if they are not well reasoned.What's well reasoned to you might be very well reasoned to me. Free Miguel!
17
posted on
08/04/2003 3:57:50 PM PDT
by
Saundra Duffy
(For victory & freedom!!!)
To: Saundra Duffy
I could basically reduce my entire argument down to FREE MIGUEL, but I want to get the Frist bashers to look at the larger picture.
That said, Free Miguel!
18
posted on
08/04/2003 3:59:15 PM PDT
by
votelife
(Free Bill Pryor)
To: votelife
and for the Freepers who say Bush isn't doing enough, well, he has fought 2 wars, (is still fighting them) and is dealing with Israel/Palestine, and "16 words" and all the Dem harping etc. Bush can't do EVERYTHING.
19
posted on
08/04/2003 4:00:21 PM PDT
by
votelife
(Free Bill Pryor)
To: votelife
Here's an example of the kind of letter that will help us get the court we want:
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.
20
posted on
08/04/2003 4:02:12 PM PDT
by
votelife
(Free Bill Pryor)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-106 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson