Posted on 10/31/2005 7:29:32 AM PST by ohioWfan
Yes, I am from Covington originally but now live in Lawrenceburg, Ky. just south of Frankfort. We stay in Independence quite often because we have a condo there.
http://www.electharris.org Go Katherine!
It's too bad that Dubya didn't have the spine to nominate Alito the first time.
Attempting to pick a fight are we?!
Actually, Alito is the 'safe' nomination, Miers was the truly "transformational", "outside the box", "let's get back to basics" pick -- more in keeping with the founders' initial conception of those who should comprise both the judicial and legislative branches of our government.
This said, I will STRONGLY support the Alito nomination -- I'll let the uber-cons (or DU plants) like yourself continue the regressive, petty, churlish attacks against both the President and Miers. I'm moving on.
Well, both of my Senators are Democrats (in spite of my best efforts...) but I took the time to drop them each a note anyway. I don't really expect Patty Murray or Maria Cantwell to do anything other than follow the party line, but they need to know where all of their constituents stand anyway.
Everyone needs to weigh in on this fight folks...
(btw, sign-on date is not a factor).
Without a doubt, Deb.
And the motives of someone doing that at this time make his genuineness as a Conservative highly suspect.
I have serious concerns about Alito that have not been made clear, especially after the Specter/Alito meeting two days ago.
Have you seen the latest Drudge Report claiming that Alito went with the pro-choice side in 3 out of 4 decisions?
I'm really not as concerned about the SCOTUS upcoming decisions regarding abortion as I am about future decisions regarding gay marriage, conscription of private property for public use, and the subtle inclusion of European legal precedents in US Constitutional decisions. I think that Alito would stay away from European laws and treaties and am hopeful about the right to own property, but I'm not convinced that Alito wouldn't use the privacy argument from the Liberty Clause to overturn the will of many states regarding gay marriage.
Thanks for the ping upchuck. Appears the gang of 14 will likely once again put a stop to any filibustering ideas.
I thought that made a bunch of sense.
If Alito is a proven originalist (I haven't heard anyone anywhere say otherwise), then you don't need to worry about property rights, or gay marriage, or European laws.
Methinks you fret too easily.............and believe Drudge too quickly.
I dunno. Today's comments from Durbin about his possible support for Alito because he was assured about Alito's commitment to privacy via the Griswold case wasn't encouraging. If Durbin likes you can Schumer be far behind? And if Schumer likes you....
Look what happened with Miers. It was a bloodbath.
They're trying to get the same thing to happen here.
Thanks for the heads-up!
I think that if the SCOTUS somehow upholds a ban on late-term abortion and supports parental notification, it's about as far as the right is going to get in reversing abortion decisions.
Excellent! Especially good to call the home offices..........up close and personal, as it were. :)
The founding fathers were afraid that some charismatic but very unethical leader would come along and sweep the people off their feet. At least enough to get elected and to get control of the house and senate. They were afraid such a leader would use his popularity to take away our freedoms and take power unto himself.
To prevent this they designed a Senate that no one could control. A Senate that was almost impossible to lead or direct. A Senate where a minority of members could block almost anything.
You see the founding fathers anticipated a man with the morals of Bill Clinton, the ambition of an FDR, and the cleverness of an LBJ would some day be elected president. He hasn't been yet.. But I have no doubts he will be.
The founders designed a Senate that would prevent such an evil leader from taking our freedoms. The end result is a Senate that is often described by Majority leaders of both parties to be as difficult to lead as "herding 100 Cats in an open field"
Many of us are very disappointed when getting what we want done seems so difficult..if not impossible. But if you look at our long history as a nation, there have been several times when a Senate Majority in an easy to control Senate would have sold our freedom down the river. Imagine our Supreme court and our freedoms if the Senate had not blocked FDR from packing the supreme court in 1938.
The house of representatives is, on the other hand, very controllable. It was designed to be. A majority can play the house like a good violin. In the house the rules committee controlled by the majority writes the rules under which measures will be considered. The majority in the house pretty much does as it pleases.
But not the senate. The provisions for the senate in the Constitution and the Senate rules allow individual senators or small groups of individuals to block almost any measure.
But I would warn anyone who decries a senate full of unbending and pompous members, to remember our founders knew we would sometimes elect less than ideal people. They designed a system of government to protect us from such people.
The part of our government designed to protect our freedoms was the Senate. Our Founders did not make the Senators the protectors in a positive sense. They made the senate our protectors in that it is darn near impossible to do anything good or bad. To get measures through the Senate they must have the overwhelming support of a large majority of the American people .
The down side is it takes lots and lots of public support over time to change the direction our government is heading.
It was very hard to move it in the wrong direction. It took the left nearly 60 years to do so. It will take us many decades to move it back.
If making things happen in the Senate was easy, our freedoms would have been gone 150 years ago.
Years ago the Majority leader in the Senate was very powerful. The most powerful Majority leader in history was LBJ. Lyndon Baines Johnson had the Senate rules behind him and he used them like an AK47.
After LBJ left the Senate to become JFK's VP, the senators changed the rules to take a lot of the power away from Majority leaders.
But even back then the power of Majority leaders was not absolute. I interviews LBJ in the fall of 1960 when he was running vor V.P. I introduced him at a public appearance and got to ride in the limo, and talk to him before his speech. He told me that he could get Democratic and often even Republican senators to vote his way. Except Senators would turn on him in a heart beat if they heard from a lot of the voters from back home.
He told me of cases where powerful southern senators in one party states would not vote with the rest of the Democratic Party. If they people back home were against it so was the Senator. How did Senators know the people back home were against something? They used the phone calls and mail they recieved as a guide. When the phones would not stop ringing and the mail came in bushel baskets, LBJ said senators would tell him they would like to vote with him.. but the voters back home had spoken and they dared not disobey the people. Senators were afraid of those who can replace them with someone else.
Former Ohio governor Jim Rhodes once told me that all politicians are adicted to fame and power. And the only people who can take that power away are the voters.
There are two facets to the democratic strategy. First they want the right to turn on Alito for being to liberal. This guy as nicknamed Salito for being so like Scalia.
Some will say that He and Scalia will not always agree. Well Scalia and thomas don't always agree.
The Democrats learned their less in when opposing Ronald Reagan. They thought they could defeat Reagan by painting him as a right wingers right winger. They thought that would drive the middle away. It did not work.
What they have found is that they need to paint a person on the right as if he is a secret liberal. That works both ways. the liberals hate a fake liberal, and the right will turn on a fake liberal.
For Democrats it is the best possible attack on a conservative. The media knows the way to destroy someone on the right is to accuse them of being on the left.
The Democrats now know that had they painted Reagan as a closet Democrat that LBJ could love, Jimmy Carter would have served two terms.
The left will do the following. Before then hearings a new story painting Alito as a closet leftist will be published at least once a day.. To drive the right away from supporting Alito. The leftist senators will make statements that they may vote for Alito's confirmation That will make some of the right turn on Alito.
Then in the hearings they will express total surprise and attack Alito for being way too far right wing.
If they drive enough of the Right into opposing Alito the hearings and Drive the left into opposing Alito during the hearings Alito will be gone.
It's clear, especially following the Roberts' and Miers' cases, that some on the right turn very quickly on one of our own if they see a hint of liberalism.............even if it's planted by a leftist media.
This is very clear in the case of Alito whose record is long and clear. It's just not going to work this time.
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.