Here Comes the Filibuster

[IHL]

When the spineless seven Republicans caved to the Democrats on the filibuster deal, many people, especially on the Left, considered it a great deal. The 'deal' was that the Democrats would stop their childish game of blocking virtually every judicial nomination except in only 'extreme circumstances'. Their logic, or lack of it, was founded in the irrelevant premise that the nominations that Bush was putting forward were radical nominations. Nevermind the fact that the Democrats were the minority and had no basis on stopping the nominations put forward by President Bush. And nevermind the fact that the liberals were not even allowing a vote on the nominees because they knew they would lose - as they ultimately did. They tried though. The party of "count every vote", "vote or die", and constant rants about voting irregularities, did all they could to stop the vote from even happenings. The deal said that the Democrats would stop filibustering except under "extraordinary circumstances", if the Republicans would back away from changing the rules that allow the filibuster from happening at all.

Well, guess what. Those 'extraordinary circumstances' have just reared their head. Today, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor submitted her retirement (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20050701/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_o_connor_10) letter to President Bush. Here is a prediction for you. I don't care who the president nominates to replace Justice O'Connor, the Democrats are going to try to block it. This is exactly what the Demoncrats had feared. They probably expect that Justice William Rehnquist would retire due to his ill health, and there is little doubt that he will retire before President Bush leaves office. The libs can't stomach the fact that President Bush may get the opportunity to appoint at least two new Justices to the court.

If the seven Republicans (http://www.nationalledger.com/commentary/article_1450.shtml) that betrayed America had voted correctly and allowed the Republicans to stop the filibuster, this would all be avoided. Instead, the filibuster and political firefights are going to start full steam in the coming weeks and months.

The retirement of Justice O'Connor will show the liberals for what they are. They will do all they can to block any nominee that President Bush presents. To them, this is politics. It's not about appointing the best person or following the rules. This is about holding out as long as possible and block the presidents appointment. Fortunately, there is enough time that the president will be able to get a nominee appointed to the court. Don't be surprised if the whole filibuster fight comes back again and let's see what those seven Republicans do this time.

This is a HUGE deal to the liberals. Since they can not win elections and push their agenda through via the people, they are trying to do it via the courts. We see it all the time with the liberal judges. The Supreme Court judges are more important to liberals than almost anything. The liberals would give up the presidency in order to keep the courts. This is going to be political bloodbath. The liberals know they have to have another moderate to liberal judge appointed in order to have any chance of maintaining any degree of power.

[teens4bush]

Frusturatign isn't it? We need to appoint John Ashcroft. He is tough on crime, and is a staunch conservative and patriot.

[IHL]

Trust me - that won't happen. The libs would flip!! It would be funny to watch but it won't happen.

[Bumblebee]

It's a good thing that we can trust Bush to stick to his guns.

When the 7 Republicans gave in to the Democrats, I never believed for a minute it will hold up. Especially when they said they would only fillibuster on "extraordinary circumstances". They'll just make everything extraordinary circumstances. I really detest how the Democrats assassinate every nominee that Bush puts up.

I heard in on Fox channel, that the Republicans and Democrats have been preparing for this. Both parties have ads and are ready, particulary the left sector group.

I think the Republicans will fight hard this time. Hopefully those 7 weak Republicans will too.

[Topiary Lady]

I see you're right on the ball as usual IHL.

It certainly did not take long for the liberals to begin their outrageous rants. I hear Kennedy was already on TV crying foul in advance of any nominees. The ACLU and abortion loving Planned Parenthood have already chimed in their concerns. For the love of God, you'd think we were on the brink of war. Oh, that's right, the prospect of President Bush nominating a conservative IS a declaration of war in the mind of a liberal.

Well that's just too darned bad for the whiners. They'll loose this battle just as they have lost so many other posts. Kennedy and his crybabies can just go back to the compound and drown their sorrows. Uh oh, did I say 'Kennedy' and 'drown' in the same sentence? Guess I should'nt be bringing up things in the past, except that Kennedy's comments especially strike me as being the same broken record rhetoric he uses against any conservative advance. Is anyone even listening to that old drunk anymore?

I've got to agree with you IHL. This is a HUGE deal for the liberals. I suppose we've ruined their holiday weekend with this one.

Happy 4th of July weekend everybody! Looks like we'll have some very interesting fireworks on the political scene in the coming months. And I thought there would'nt be much to talk about in the political scene this summer. Silly me.

[teens4bush]

Trust me - that won't happen. The libs would flip!! It would be funny to watch but it won't happen.

I am aware of that. Wishful thinking. :icon_frow

[chi1088]

Yes but Ted Kennedy (I believe) has made a statement. Everything's clear if Rehnquist steps down. He's not opposed to replacing Rehnquist, a conservative, with another conservative. But since O'Connor was believed to be a centrist, he does not want a conservative judge. I think it's well worth it to get people behind a centrist judge instead of a far right (or for that matter, if a Democratic pres. was in office I wouldn't want a far left either) judge to replace O'Connor.

You all can talk about Ted Kennedy's drinking habits but I would like to see someone make this look like a fight the liberals shouldn't wage. Ted's being fair and giving you all the benefit of the doubt that when Rehnquist steps down, a conservative will go in his spot. If you goes wrong and "flip flops", than crucify him.

All and all: Replacing O'Connor, a centrist, with someone who is a centrist would be and is ideal.

[IHL]

No Chi1088 I believe you are wrong. The American people voted for George Bush. The American people voted out the liberals in the Senate and replaced them with conservatives. The American people voted out the liberals in the House and replaced them with conservatives. The American people have switched the balance of power to the conservatives. The American people have spoken.

When judges come up for nomination, it is the president of the United States that nominates them and then it goes to a vote. It is not up to Ted Kennedy to dictate that the Supreme Court must be balanced in any direction. It is not up to Ted Kennedy to do anything at all other than vote. Remember voting? ...that thing that liberals were all so concerned about when they thought they would win because Snoop Dog and Bono were going to get all the kids out and vote for Kerry. Remember the 'every vote must be counted' mantra from liberals in 2000? I can certainly understand Ted Kennedy's concern. I'm sure it takes an extra few shots of whiskey every night for him to sleep because of the worry over O'Connor resignation. But the fact remains that the way this works is that the president nominates and the nominee gets voted on. It's the luck of the draw to some degree as to who happens to be president at the time but 'them's the breaks'.

I wonder how quick Kennedy would be to replace Rehnquist with another conservative if John Kerry were president? I can hear Kennedy already: "We've had to put up with conservative Justices for long enough. The American people voted for a change and it's time for a change." Kennedy would replace those Justices with liberals faster than you can say Chappaquiddick.

[Topiary Lady]

President Bush is under no obligation to replace a centrist with a centrist Chi. A lot of people are saying that he should also choose another woman to replace O'Connor and he's under no obligation to do that either, just as he would be under no obligation to replace Rehnquist with another old white guy.

Would you have us all believe that you would be here on this site suggesting that President Bush nominate another conservative white man to replace Rehnquist if it were he that had announced his retirement? LOL Chi! Would that be 'ideal' for you?

Oh, and about the drunken Senator, you may be right about something here. I guess that when I think about a guy who got away with a drunk driving homicide, only to be awarded with a senate seat by the loony left, it really is not that funny after all.

I'd like to see President Bush do what the people elected him to do and nominate a conservative judge. That'd give Howard Dean something to really scream about.

[DoubleU]

This has been said by others but I say get Ann Coulter on the Supreme Court. If not for real, then just to watch the hysterics of the left for a few moments.

I was watching the Bloomberg channel when they announced the retirement of Justice O'Connor. As quick as they could get them on they had democrat political analysts (by phone), Durban (by phone), I heard "the Religious Right" several times and " must be a mainstream judge" several times, all within 20 minutes. The liberal media went into panic mode right away.


Oh...ATTENTION DEMOCRATS..... YOU ARE NO LONGER in the MAINSTREAM.

[Bumblebee]

Bush will have nominees who follow the law, not make it up as they go along, as the liberal judges have been doing. This is pricisely what he wants to accomplish. Either way, unless he picks another Gingsberg, the Democrats will go against anyone that he picks.

It's all over the TV, Ted Kennedy already talking about Bush picking judges he and the Democrats would approve of, because they say Bush said was a uniter and not a divider? :icon_roll

IHL is right, we're in for a bloodbath. :frown: If they are starting in now, with not even a nominee, yet, there's bound to be one.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

The easiest way around this, is to nominate one of Bush's appelate judges, like Brown. The fact that she has been confirmed already, makes it difficult if not impossible for the dems to justify a filibuster against her, again.

If they do, their infantile egomaniasism will be laid open for all to see.

[gateway]

My sources say, it will be Brown for O'Connor and Alberto Gonzalez for Rehnquist

[chi1088]

My sources say, it will be Brown for O'Connor and Alberto Gonzalez for Rehnquist

You have good sources.

[Wadi66]

If Republicans were foolish enough to appoint a centrist to replace O'Connor there is absolutely no guarantee the Democrats would let Bush replace Rehnquist with a conservative. In fact, you could be almost certain they would block it through another filibuster and then the spineless republicans would again cave and nominate another centrist.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

Brown and Gonzales.

That would be interesting. Considering they're both minorities, and they'd both be the first minorities on the Supremes. The dems would have a hard time justifying a filibuster against them.

But you have to think about something else. We all know that politics are strategies and counter strategies. So what if the gilibusters were used to draw attention away from more conservative judges that could have been nominated? I mean, the instant the filibusters started, that's all anyone spoke about or focused on. What if Bush had other judges he wanted to get in there who were more conservative than Brown, for example.

Were there? Because if there were, then the dems ran rope-a-dope around Bush, and that would only be a warm up match compared with what's comming down the pipes.

[gateway]

You have good sources.


I know! Just remember the democrats CAN'T Filibuster Brown or Gonzales if Bush decides to pick those two. :icon_razz

[teens4bush]

Actually, the first minority jusitces were Thurgood Mashall, who just got the BWI airport named after him, and Clarence Thomas.

[gateway]

Actually, the first minority jusitces were Thurgood Mashall, who just got the BWI airport named after him, and Clarence Thomas.

i..e. One would be a black female and one would be the first hispanic.

[teens4bush]

He could go with Miguel Estrada, but Priscilla Owen has been approved alerady, just liek Janice Brown.

[All American Kid]

this is going to be interesting. Never before has a Supreme Court Justice have been filibustered and I think we will see it happen here soon enough.

I would like to point out that O'Conner of course was a Reagan nominee, but liberals tend to forget that Reagan was dealing with a Democratic majority as Bush is not. O' Conner was after the Bork defeat (which lead to the eminent domain voting Justice Kennedy) in which Reagan seemed to be force in changing his consideration for nominees due to a democratic majority.

Well thank goodness that Bush dosn't have to deal with a Democratic majority. It also seems that we may gain even more seats consider this report by a liberal that discribes the 2006 Seante races as "bleak" for the Democrats and he didn't even include the Florida seat that is very probable to goto the republicans. http://outsidereport.blogspot.com/2005/03/senate-2006-things-look-bleak-for.html

My point is I agree with everything on this pertaining to the point that Dems will do anything to fight Bush's nominee even filibuster a suprme court nominee for the first time in American history. Which I say let them, in the end they will continue to look foolish and lose even more seats.

I still stand by my prevoius position that the comprimise between the 7 republicans and democrats is a good idea. Now if Dems want to block the vote of Bush's nominee they will have to show extreme cause in which they may try and in the end will just look like the character assassins they are. That would result in maybe suring up some of the tossup seats in 06 that would put us at or over 60 seats!!!!

[RightisRightLeftisWrong]

I think the Liberals are panicking because they are losing their power in the high government systems, it should be real interesting how this will play out.

[DoubleU]

This may have been posted before, but this will be the theme song (http://www.freepgs.com/marklevinfan/DNCThemeSong.swf).

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

Yes but Ted Kennedy (I believe) has made a statement. Everything's clear if Rehnquist steps down. He's not opposed to replacing Rehnquist, a conservative, with another conservative. But since O'Connor was believed to be a centrist, he does not want a conservative judge.

Excuse me, who died and made Kennedy the Grand Poo Bah of the USA, that he gets to decide who does and does not make it to the Supreme's?

Kennedy's only job is to vote for or against whom ever the prez nominates. And he's required to vote on behalf of his constituents, not how he personally feels.

[RightisRightLeftisWrong]

So True DoubleU that song should be the theme song. :icon_bigg