POL: Alito Debate

[Flasch186]

Just thought Id start the thread...but I have nothing to say as of now :D

[JonInMiddleGA]

but I have nothing to say as of now :D

Which will pretty much sum up everyone involved in the entire confirmation process now that you mention it.

:D

[KWhit]

What's the point of starting a thread with nothing to say?

[st.cronin]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[sterlingice]

Schumer and Cornyn were on Meet the Press yesterday. Nothing really of note, tho. They hemmed and hawed the usual: Cornyn defended Alito's right to dodge questions as much as he wanted while Schumer talked about how the filibuster is an option if he dodges questions but wasn't at all specific.

SI

[albionmoonlight]

Interesting to see if the GOP tries to make this more of a story than it would have been otherwise in order to get the corruption mess off the front pages.

[sterlingice]

I saw something that caught my eye while flipping through stations yesterday. I think it was on Chris Matthews and he was talking about his panel of experts and how they polled about a couple of particular questions. The first was about what they think the main topic will be- abortion or presidential powers (with the whole spying mess) and it was 8-4 presidential powers. And then, which topic would be easier to deal with if you were Alito, and it was again 8-4 presidential powers.

If the Republicans can shift this over from abortion to the spying thing and then frame the debate as freedoms versus national defense, then it will be much easier to conferm Alito than if it was about abortion, which is such a divisive (and-stupid-single-issue-moronic-voter-piece-of-crap) issue. So, looking at the big picture, if you're a Republican, wouldn't you rather this story have come out about now instead of a year ago so that it's fresh in people's minds and you could actually shift some of the Supreme Court focus away from the unwinnable abortion debate?

SI

[Flasch186]

What's the point of starting a thread with nothing to say?

Just to put my flag in first!! :)

[sterlingice]

And here we go with headlines from the first day:

Alito Pledges to Do What the Law Requires (http://us.rd.yahoo.com//mymod/ldpht/sty/*http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20060110/ap_on_go_su_co/alito_34)
Alito: Only obligation is 'the rule of law' (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/09/alito/index.html)
'A Judge Can't Have Any Agenda' (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181052,00.html)


Gee... I'm glad that was cleared up with today's hearings :rolleyes:

SI

[John Galt]

I'm confused. Did Alito score 500 points? Or was it the Senators?

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/POLITICS/01/10/alito/t1.alito.tues01.ap.jpg

[John Galt]

And here we go with headlines from the first day:

Alito Pledges to Do What the Law Requires (http://us.rd.yahoo.com//mymod/ldpht/sty/*http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20060110/ap_on_go_su_co/alito_34)
Alito: Only obligation is 'the rule of law' (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/09/alito/index.html)
'A Judge Can't Have Any Agenda' (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181052,00.html)


Gee... I'm glad that was cleared up with today's hearings :rolleyes:

SI

It's that damn liberal media bias, I tell ya!

[Flasch186]

ding ding ding...get ready for a whole bunch of hot air and no answers.

[ice4277]

What's the point of starting a thread with nothing to say?
Have you not read 90% of the threads on this board?

[sterlingice]

I'm confused. Did Alito score 500 points? Or was it the Senators?

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/POLITICS/01/10/alito/t1.alito.tues01.ap.jpgNice :D

SI

[Flasch186]

what is this republican doing!!?? Alito has spent two days avoiding the possibility of Roe and this guy is setting the Roe thing up as going to be overturned by Alito. The Dems have had no luck getting Alito to say anything and this Republican is brining it to the fore....I dont understand it!! Regardless of whether he's right or not, I thought they wanted this not talked about....that Alito would never touch it allowing him to be affirmed.

EDIT: Brownback is his name.

[flere-imsaho]

Brownback clearly isn't following the Republican script.

[digamma]

Which will pretty much sum up everyone involved in the entire confirmation process now that you mention it.

:D
Except they'll do it in many, many more words.

[flere-imsaho]

We all know about his stance on Roe, but I wonder how small-government conservatives are going to like his "Power to the Executive Branch" views on the Court.

[MrBigglesworth]

If the Republicans represent 'real America' as they always say, why is it that they must hide and lie about their views when out in public? Alito won't just say he is against Roe v. Wade and won't just say that he was in that sexist Princeton club, even though everyone knows it, even the media which pretends they don't know it.

[Flasch186]

If the Republicans represent 'real America' as they always say, why is it that they must hide and lie about their views when out in public? Alito won't just say he is against Roe v. Wade and won't just say that he was in that sexist Princeton club, even though everyone knows it, even the media which pretends they don't know it.

I wasnt talking about his thoughts, simply that the Republican that was asking the question, which after listening to some other questioners, it seems the Republicans strategy session overnight, must've prompted a more aggressive tact regarding the Roe case.....After watching more it seems that Brownback was just the first to lead this tact. Im surprised by this because I thought that they would not broach the subject but it seems that they are putting it out there, which IS leading Alito to state some things or omit some things that in context leads one to believe that the Republicans are of the opinion that Alito WILL vote to overturn Roe, the next time it comes up....BUT Im just critiquing the actual show, not the merits of whats behind it.

[albionmoonlight]

Personally, I think that it seems clear to the Senators that, barring an unforeseen development, Alito will be confirmed.

So now they are doing what Senators do best--using the platform to blow lots of hot air. Solidify their "pro-Roe" or "anti-Roe" or "pro-Presidental Powers" or "anti-Presidental Powers" position.

The Republicans are not trying to trip up Alito on abortion. They are just making sure that the right people remember that they are against Roe.

[MrBigglesworth]

I wasnt talking about his thoughts, simply that the Republican that was asking the question, which after listening to some other questioners, it seems the Republicans strategy session overnight, must've prompted a more aggressive tact regarding the Roe case.....After watching more it seems that Brownback was just the first to lead this tact. Im surprised by this because I thought that they would not broach the subject but it seems that they are putting it out there, which IS leading Alito to state some things or omit some things that in context leads one to believe that the Republicans are of the opinion that Alito WILL vote to overturn Roe, the next time it comes up....BUT Im just critiquing the actual show, not the merits of whats behind it.
If you want to talk merely about the political strategy, I think you have to keep in mind the motivations of the GOP. Bush's unpopularity means that it's no longer in their best interests to always look out for Bush's best interests, so the highest item on their agenda is not getting Alito confirmed. This is an election year, and half the GOP is in ethics or legal trouble. By bringing the abortion debate to the forefront, they create a win-win situation: if Alito gets confirmed they can tell their conservative constituents how they are looking out for them and got an anti-abortion judge on the court, if Alito gets fillibustered they will knock some of the scandal news off the front page. "Up or down vote" headlines work better for them than payola headlines.

[st.cronin]

Personally, I think that it seems clear to the Senators that, barring an unforeseen development, Alito will be confirmed.

So now they are doing what Senators do best--using the platform to blow lots of hot air. Solidify their "pro-Roe" or "anti-Roe" or "pro-Presidental Powers" or "anti-Presidental Powers" position.

The Republicans are not trying to trip up Alito on abortion. They are just making sure that the right people remember that they are against Roe.

yep

Alito will be confirmed
Roe will not be overturned in my lifetime
Marcus Vick will do or say something dumb next month

Those all seem like incredibly safe bets.

[sterlingice]

Oh geez- Alito's wife went out of the hearings and had to cry? Geez and that's a top spot on the news.

SI

[Dutch]

:)

[Flasch186]

CNN Pipeline is cool

[Buccaneer]

<TABLE id=epoll cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=0 width=742 bgColor=#999999 border=0><TBODY><TR bgColor=#ebebeb><TD align=middle width="20%" bgColor=#ffffff></TD><TD align=middle width="20%">Legal analysis
</TD><TD align=middle width="20%">Presentation
</TD><TD align=middle width="20%">Avoiding pitfalls
</TD><TD align=middle width="20%">Will be confirmed?
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#999999><TD colSpan=5>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/images/1.gif</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD align=middle>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/ELECTION/2004/special/president/convention/interactive/gallery.conv.players/4/tz.paul.begala.jpg
Paul Begala
Political strategist
</TD><TD align=middle>A</TD><TD align=middle>D</TD><TD align=middle>A</TD><TD align=middle>A</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD align=middle>http://i.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2005/supreme.court/images/tz.jeffrey.jpg
Terence Jeffrey
Editor, Human Events
</TD><TD align=middle>A</TD><TD align=middle>B+</TD><TD align=middle>B+</TD><TD align=middle>A</TD></TR><!-- poll_parms: color1=#022ECA color2=#022ECA color3=#022ECA color4=#022ECA color5=#022ECA color6=#022ECA threshold=50 columnspan=3 dotbar=TRUE timezone=EST --><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD class=cnnBodyText width=140>CNN.com USERS
Grades show the average of CNN.com user scores in each category.
<TD class=cnnBodyText align=middle width=119>A</TD><TD class=cnnBodyText align=middle width=119>A</TD><TD class=cnnBodyText align=middle width=119>A-</TD><TD class=cnnBodyText align=middle width=119>A</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



Paul Begala

Legal analysis: The guy's no dummy.

Presentation: Alito has all the charisma of Squiggy from "Laverne and Shirley." But he can't help being a nerd. He can help being a dissembler. When he says the racist, anti-women Concerned Alumni of Princeton was really about ROTC, he is not credible. In fact, his pants were on fire.

Avoiding pitfalls: I might re-characterize that as "avoiding honest answers." He gave three versions of why he broke his word and ruled on a case affecting his investments. He says he can't recall why he joined the elitist CAP. He says, after 25 years of opposing Roe v. Wade, both personally and professionally, that he'll keep an open mind about abortion. Yeah, right.

Terence Jeffrey

Legal analysis: Unfortunately, Judge Alito has not had as much time as he should to address serious legal issues because some Democrats, such as Sen. Joe Biden, have been more interested in hearing themselves than hearing Alito. Sen. Ted Kennedy has been more interested in Alito's mutual fund investments and whether or not he should have remembered he was a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton than he is in Alito's legal views. Why haven't Democrats asked Alito more about his views on the Establishment Clause, the Commerce Clause, or the Takings Clause, all of which have been central to recent controversial Supreme Court decisions? I suspect they know the majority in the country do not agree where they stand on those issues.

Presentation: Judge Alito has maintained a remarkably even demeanor considering some of the attacks that have been leveled against him.

Avoiding pitfalls: Judge Alito has done a better job than even Chief Justice Roberts did of not disavowing earlier statements critical of Roe, while refusing to reveal how he would vote on future cases.

On track for confirmation: The fact that Democrats are falling back on bogus ethics issues such as his non-recusal from the Vanguard case demonstrates they do not have a substantive argument against him.

[ISiddiqui]

That Terence Jeffrey guy... he seems objective ;).

At least Begala tried not to be a talking head for his party :D.

[Buccaneer]

asked Alito more about his views on the Establishment Clause, the Commerce Clause, or the Takings Clause, all of which have been central to recent controversial Supreme Court decisions
But this is completely true. The Senators want to spend more time grandstanding and playing politics instead of asking about what really matters (and it's not about abortion either). They were smart enough to talk about these issues with Roberts (and he talked circled around them) but I guess that's not the point this time around.

[MrBigglesworth]

But this is completely true. The Senators want to spend more time grandstanding and playing politics instead of asking about what really matters (and it's not about abortion either). They were smart enough to talk about these issues with Roberts (and he talked circled around them) but I guess that's not the point this time around.
So your opinion is that the Senators should spend more time asking questions that they know won't be answered, I know won't be answered, and you know won't be answered, and will just be a big goddamn waste of everyone's time. Then, when they ask those questions, you'll come back on this board and say, "Those dumb Senators want to ask all these stupid questions when they know that he can't comment on them because it might be something that may one day come before the court. They were smart enough not to talk about these issues with Alito."

[sterlingice]

Man, I just don't believe a word that's coming out of the guy's mouth. It feels like watching a political debate. He just has this look about him that looks like a guy who practices lying in the mirror and that's the look he has on his face 90% of the time.

Kennedy was stupid enough to take the bait on this CAP thing. He gambled that they wouldn't have any records that could turn up and that would shed a lot of doubt. However, they magically turned up after being gone for a couple of hours and now they're going to piss away a couple of hours tomorrow. And his little tiff with Specter was the second story in the news after the stupid Alito's wife story today.

One guy I'm really liking today as I rewatch the questions on CSPAN (yes, going back to my choosing of cable stations that no one watches a few months ago, JiMGA, I'm the one guy who watches that station, too ;) ) is Mike DeWine. I really like his questions- they're not softballs and they are relevant. They lead a little but not grossly like, for instance, Graham. Alito just dodges them like crazy but he had really good questions about important cases like ADA, antitrust bundling, and freedom of speech issues. Big points for DeWine today- he seemed like one of the very few actually interested in significant cases.

SI

[Grammaticus]

So your opinion is that the Senators should spend more time asking questions that they know won't be answered, I know won't be answered, and you know won't be answered, and will just be a big goddamn waste of everyone's time. Then, when they ask those questions, you'll come back on this board and say, "Those dumb Senators want to ask all these stupid questions when they know that he can't comment on them because it might be something that may one day come before the court. They were smart enough not to talk about these issues with Alito."
Yep, so he just needs to be confirmed and everyone can move on. He will be a great justice.

[sterlingice]

Yep, so he just needs to be confirmed and everyone can move on. He will be a great justice....

...

*blink*

*blink*

SI

[MrBigglesworth]

...

...

*blink*

*blink*

SI
Cult of pesonality. Bush nominated him, so he must be good. It's not like he has a history of appointing complete incompetents to major positions or anything. Questioning him on his appointments would just be giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

[Grammaticus]

Cult of pesonality. Bush nominated him, so he must be good. It's not like he has a history of appointing complete incompetents to major positions or anything. Questioning him on his appointments would just be giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
I'm guessing you did not have much to say when Ginsberg did not answer questions on her beliefs and how she would view issues. But that is just a guess. The reality of it is no matter how much you don't like his views and conservative outlook, there is nothing you can do about it. He is going in like Flynn!

[Flasch186]

who is Flynn?

[flere-imsaho]

But this is completely true. The Senators want to spend more time grandstanding and playing politics instead of asking about what really matters (and it's not about abortion either). They were smart enough to talk about these issues with Roberts (and he talked circled around them) but I guess that's not the point this time around.

Especially since, unlike Thomas and Scalia, Alito is a big Executive-Power conservative type of guy. Again, you'd think some of these "small-government" Republicans would at least want to address that issue.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm guessing you did not have much to say when Ginsberg did not answer questions on her beliefs and how she would view issues. But that is just a guess. The reality of it is no matter how much you don't like his views and conservative outlook, there is nothing you can do about it. He is going in like Flynn!

FYI, Orrin Hatch, Republican Senator from Utah, suggested both Ginsberg & Breyer to Clinton as good nominees for the Court. You can find the details in his autobiography.

[Buccaneer]

Ginsberg, along with Scalia and Thomas, would not be nominated let alone confirmed in today's politics.

Again, you'd think some of these "small-government" Republicans would at least want to address that issue.I fully agree. They are the only ones who could potentially ask such questions because their opponent certainly will not.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Unlikely though it may be, I think I'm with Joe Biden (D-Del) on the subject.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060112/D8F359AO7.html
WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court nominees are so mum about the major legal issues at their Senate confirmation hearings that the hearings serve little purpose and should probably be abandoned, Democratic Sen. Joe Biden said Thursday.

"The system's kind of broken," said Biden, a member of the Judiciary Committee considering the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito.

"Nominees now, Democrat and Republican nominees, come before the United States Congress and resolve not to let the people know what they think about the important issues," such as a president's authority to go to war, said Biden.

As the committee headed into its fourth day of hearings on the Alito nomination, Biden told NBC's "Today" show that a better solution might be to skip hearings and send nominations straight to the Senate floor for a vote.

"Just go to the Senate floor and debate the nominee's statements," the Delaware senator said, "instead of this game."

That was once standard practice. Until 1925, Supreme Court nominees were not expected to testify before a committee, and their nominations were sent straight to the floor, according to the Senate Historical Office.

[Flasch186]

yup might as well not even have them show up....silly in that ALL of them just try to answer as little as possible to play the game.

[duckman]

yup might as well not even have them show up....silly in that ALL of them just try to answer as little as possible to play the game.
Both Democrat and Republican candidates shouldn't have to answer the questions regarding possible cases. They don't have all the evidence in front of them and can't make an intelligent decision about them. It damages the arguments for both sides of these possible important future cases.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm going to have to agree with JiMGA & Biden here. Anything really damaging is going to come out in the press and/or be found by a senator's staff on one side of the aisle independent of the hearing anyway, so might as well just have the nominee meet individually with the senators, maybe have the committee debate it, and then just forward it to the floor.

After all, both Roberts & Alito came to the hearings with stuff they didn't want to discuss, and got away with not discussing it. Both Breyer and Ginsberg came to their hearings with their record already well-known and clear, so all those served was a little more grandstanding by various senators.

[Buccaneer]

And before that, they didn't have to say anything for fear of violating judicial independence and fairness. Shit, we try to get an impartial jury and during important trials, they are not to read and talk about anything lest they are influenced externally. Now we find it proper to get a SC nominee to pre-judge?

[Buccaneer]

Imran, what do you think?

[Flasch186]

Both Democrat and Republican candidates shouldn't have to answer the questions regarding possible cases. They don't have all the evidence in front of them and can't make an intelligent decision about them. It damages the arguments for both sides of these possible important future cases.

right, so the panel is pointless, might as well just debate it on the floor and skip the showcase.

[sterlingice]

Yeah, I gotta agree with this all, too. Just have the Senate debate his record for a couple of days, sans candidate who just tries to avoid questions anyway.

SI

[MrBigglesworth]

I thought this was humorous:
FB: Let's get right to it. Does the Constitution protect the right to an abortion?
ALITO: I'm open-minded on abortion, Fafnir. In fact I think it's safe to say that just like every other recent Supreme Court nominee, I've managed to go through a decades-long law career while never actually giving any significant thought to abortion as a legal issue at all.
...
ALITO: You know, people are focusing way too much on the triviality of things I've said or done or repeatedly expressed a strident ideological commitment to. I don't let my legal opinions affect my legal decisions - I just follow the law, the Constitution, and the original intent of the Founding Fathers.
FB: So you don't want to strip-search ten-year-old girls without a warrant. James Madison wants to strip-search ten-year-old girls without a warrant!
ALITO: Exactly!
FB: That bastard! Why'd we let im write the Constitution anyway?
ALITO: Dunno! I guess we're just stuck now.
hxxp://fafblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/fafblog-interviews-judge-samuel-alito.html

I thought those two parts really hit on the absurdity of the situation, where everyone knows what Alito really believes but everybody pretends they don't and go through this weird kabuki.

[Flasch186]

Welp, he's been completely and utterly a staunch conservative along with Roberts so the entire confirmation and his unwillingness to say anything was a total farce. It is EXACTLY as the left accused him of being, and the right said, "no, no, he's open minded, give him a chance." The conservatives "hid" him and got him confirmed to allow their agenda to stay on course....

I have absolutely NO problem with that. My problem is the lying and deceit to get him in, that I think falls in line with all of the other gutter hypocritical stuff I rail against.

[Young Drachma]

Meh. I think we all knew he'd be like that. If anyone in the Senate thought otherwise, they were kidding themselves.

[Flasch186]

Meh. I think we all knew he'd be like that. If anyone in the Senate thought otherwise, they were kidding themselves.

that's my point....it was all of the shrouds and lying and smoke and mirrors. If they wouldve just come out and said it, and not tried to paint him as something else than that would be it...but it's this take a Toyota and throw some paint on it, a new emblem and call it a Mercedes that I hate.

[Warhammer]

The lying and deceit is all part of politics. Hell, the Supreme Court appointments that Bush got through are the best part of his presidency if you ask me. Note: I am just saying the ones that actually made it to the Court, not Myers or any of the others that didn't.

[albionmoonlight]

Supreme Conflict is a pretty good book about the remaking of the Court over the last twenty-plus years, starting with O'Connor and going all the way through Alito.

It focuses mainly on the GOP's steps and mis-steps as it tried to remake the Court in its image.

[wade moore]

that's my point....it was all of the shrouds and lying and smoke and mirrors. If they wouldve just come out and said it, and not tried to paint him as something else than that would be it...but it's this take a Toyota and throw some paint on it, a new emblem and call it a Mercedes that I hate.

I'm not picking sides here, but come on Flasch..

If they don't go through this dance, he doesn't get confirmed... this is how politics works - and each side is equally guilty in this instance, as usual.

[Flasch186]

I'm not picking sides here, but come on Flasch..

If they don't go through this dance, he doesn't get confirmed... this is how politics works - and each side is equally guilty in this instance, as usual.

well, as many people pointed out in this thread and others, the dance is what has turned alot of people off about politics and their politicians. It's total BS and to me it is the crux of why there needs to be reform to allow honest people into office. Both sides do it, but IMO it has been much much worse in the past 7 years than it was under the Dems. I just hate that crap, I want to be able to call a spade a spade and not have one side tell me its something different only to have ti come out that it was a spade to begin with.

and dont get me started on the executive privilege stuff that to me is totally BS for anyone to use. I want a completely transparent gov't outside of Nat'l security stuff.

[larrymcg421]

Despite being a big pinko liberal, I'm going to have to defend Alito (and other justices). The confirmation process is a joke because a judge is asked so many questions that are completely inappropriate and if he answered them would make him prejudiced towards so many cases that they might hear.

Alito was clearly qualified. So were Ginsburg, Scalia, Stevens, Breyer, Souter, Kennedy. Thomas was not. O'Connor was not.

[Flasch186]

Despite being a big pinko liberal, I'm going to have to defend Alito (and other justices). The confirmation process is a joke because a judge is asked so many questions that are completely inappropriate and if he answered them would make him prejudiced towards so many cases that they might hear.

Alito was clearly qualified. So were Ginsburg, Scalia, Stevens, Breyer, Souter, Kennedy. Thomas was not. O'Connor was not.

I guess im bitching about the process. I hate that both sides paint the person in whatever color they want to deflect the current momentum and then when they get in, they are what they always were. Its the charade that pisses me off.

[Warhammer]

The problem with it being so bad the last 7 years is two fold. First, the Dems were trying to be an absolute pain in the Republicans' ass. Second, the Republicans did not govern like a party in power. Rather than get stuff done, they tried to play nice, and that is something you don't do in politics.

[KWhit]

The problem with it being so bad the last 7 years is two fold. First, the Dems were trying to be an absolute pain in the Republicans' ass. Second, the Republicans did not govern like a party in power. Rather than get stuff done, they tried to play nice, and that is something you don't do in politics.

Now that's funny.

[Flasch186]

it was so nice when they locked the Dems out...

[MrBigglesworth]

The problem with it being so bad the last 7 years is two fold. First, the Dems were trying to be an absolute pain in the Republicans' ass. Second, the Republicans did not govern like a party in power. Rather than get stuff done, they tried to play nice, and that is something you don't do in politics.

I think the most egregious thing here is the thought that the Republicans were 'playing nice'. That's indefensible on any level, from the impeachment, to the indictments of GOP congressmen for attempting to rig congressional districts and state elections, to the strong arming into a disastrous war, to the fact that mere mention of a filibuster gave the GOP the vapors a year ago and now every single thing is filibustered, to the AG scandals about targeting Dems. And that doesn't even mention anything from the Cheney branch of government.

[larrymcg421]

What happened was the Republicans kept screwing up their appointments (Stevens, Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter) so bad they still can't overturn Roe even with 7 of 9 current Justices being appointed by Republican presidents. With Roberts and especially Alito, they made sure not to let that happen again. (And the Democrats certainly made sure to protect their lead with Breyer and Ginsburg).

[JPhillips]

The problem with it being so bad the last 7 years is two fold. First, the Dems were trying to be an absolute pain in the Republicans' ass. Second, the Republicans did not govern like a party in power. Rather than get stuff done, they tried to play nice, and that is something you don't do in politics.

It was nice when they called the Capitol police on the Dems.

[Bubba Wheels]

One of the few things Bush got right. Now if someone would throw a bucket of water onto Ginsburg we could get another one in there.

[KWhit]

One of the few things Bush got right. Now if someone would throw a bucket of water onto Ginsburg we could get another one in there.

Between this and commuting Libby's sentence, evidently Bush has done a LOT right lately.

:rolleyes:

[Bubba Wheels]

Between this and commuting Libby's sentence, evidently Bush has done a LOT right lately.

:rolleyes:

Ok, he's on a roll. And the Supreme Court picks will go along way toward his legacy dwarfing his predecessor's. But he's also got alot to make up for, at least to the conservatives that have supported him. Even Ann Coulter was wishing he'd get gone during her Chris Matthew's stint.

And if Mark Rich can get a full pardon, why couldn't Libby get the same? Maybe Libby should have crammed some documents in his pants, then he would have just gotten a slap on the wrist to begin with.

[larrymcg421]

And if Mark Rich can get a full pardon, why couldn't Libby get the same?

It seems pretty silly to argue that Bush has met Clinton's standards when the right vilified Clinton for 8 years. I guess you guys didn't think Clinton was that bad after all?

It's also a mistake to assume everyone on the left loves Clinton. Attacking him does nothing for me. If both Bush and Clinton had to spend the rest of their lives getting raped up the ass in prison, then I would be a very happy person.

[clintl]

What happened was the Republicans kept screwing up their appointments (Stevens, Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter) so bad they still can't overturn Roe even with 7 of 9 current Justices being appointed by Republican presidents. With Roberts and especially Alito, they made sure not to let that happen again. (And the Democrats certainly made sure to protect their lead with Breyer and Ginsburg).

Ford was solidly pro-choice. So I don't think (with respect to Roe v. Wade, at least), Stevens could count as a mistake. And as I recall, it wasn't really a big factor in O'Connor's selection, either. The Republican strategy to get Roe v. Wade overturned by Supreme Court nominees really started with the Bork nomination.

[King of New York]

What happened was the Republicans kept screwing up their appointments (Stevens, Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter) so bad they still can't overturn Roe even with 7 of 9 current Justices being appointed by Republican presidents. With Roberts and especially Alito, they made sure not to let that happen again. (And the Democrats certainly made sure to protect their lead with Breyer and Ginsburg).

Republican political strategists such as Karl Rove do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned--at least not for a couple of decades. That's why they opposed grass-roots movements like the one in South (or was it North) Dakota to get a restrictive abortion law passed through a referendum. Roe v. Wade is the one thing that guarantees massive evangelical support for the GOP. Overturn it, and those voters will start voting on different issues--or they might stop voting entirely.

However, if the Republican base starts to break away before Roe v. Wade is actually overturned, then Republican strategists might feel that their hand is being forced, and put up justices who really support overturning it.

[larrymcg421]

Republican political strategists such as Karl Rove do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned--at least not for a couple of decades. That's why they opposed grass-roots movements like the one in South (or was it North) Dakota to get a restrictive abortion law passed through a referendum. Roe v. Wade is the one thing that guarantees massive evangelical support for the GOP. Overturn it, and those voters will start voting on different issues--or they might stop voting entirely.

However, if the Republican base starts to break away before Roe v. Wade is actually overturned, then Republican strategists might feel that their hand is being forced, and put up justices who really support overturning it.

This doesn't really fit with what has happened. The mistakes were made well before Rove had a say. I guarantee you Reagan wanted to overturn Roe, and I'm sure he wasn't expecting two of his three justice appointments to co-author the opinion that upheld the decision. Souter was a Republican and despite few judicial opinions written on the subject, he was privately advertised as a slam dunk to overturn Roe. He was the other co-author that upheld Roe.

Now since Rove has had influence, Republicans have gone 2 for 2 in getting pro-life justices on the court. If they don't want to overturn Roe, then their actions make no sense whatsoever.