Well, just as I predicted back in May, The Democrats have tipped their hand and my prediction is on the verge of coming true. Chuckie Schumer (D) New York, was caught talking on a cell phone yesterday plotting to filibuster President Bush's appointee to the Supreme Court. This came from The Drudge Report:
Senate Judiciary Committee member Chuck Schumer got busy plotting away on the cellphone aboard a Washington, DC-New York Amtrak -- plotting Democrat strategy for the upcoming Supreme Court battle.
Schumer promised a fight over whoever the President's nominee was: "It's not about an individual judge, It's about how it affects the overall makeup of the court."
The chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee was overheard on a long cellphone conversation with an unknown political ally, and the DRUDGE REPORT was there!
Schumer proudly declared: "We are contemplating how we are going to go to war over this."
Schumer went on to say how hard it was to predict how a Supreme Court justice would turn out: "Even William Rehnquist is more moderate than they expected. The only ones that resulted how they predicted were [Antonin] Scalia and [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg. So most of the time they've gotten their picks wrong, and that's what we want to do to them again."
Schumer later went on to mock the "Gang of 14" judicial filibuster deal and said it wasn't relevant in the Supreme Court debate.
"A Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown style appointment may not have been extraordinary to the appellate court but may be extraordinary to the Supreme Court."
Sadly, this is just as I predicted. The Democrats have every intention to filibuster the next Judicial appointment. It makes no difference who The President chooses. This has gone beyond mere political wrangling. This reveals the political agenda of the left, as most of their previous opposing arguments have done, but this one is so blatantly obvious, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the Liberals to explain it away with any credibility at all. They simply oppose Bush, regardless of ideology or political stance, and whatever he does, They will oppose it. That is troubling to say the least, and potentially dangerous at most.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Thank you Bubby, did you notice I mentioned you in my last comment on the last post?
Well yes, if he appoints David Duke there will be a filibuster; If he appoints a normal intelligent logical person who is qualified it won't be a problem.
It's stupid to talk about a filibuster before they know who the nominee is but Bush's reputation preceeds him.
No, Toad, the democrats would scream if he appointed Ted Kennedy Because they want to prevent the President from accomplishing anything.
Reputation or not, Mr. Bush did WIN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, and as the winner he gets to pick his own nominees, whoever they may be.
If you guys want to pick judicial nominees, try winning some elections.
Just a suggestion...
By the way, Mark, this is another top-notch post.
I don't want to log in here and only comment on other people's comments...
I have the ability to stay on point if I try...
David Duke? Is he in the running? Yes, Toad, I agree that it's stupid to talk of a filibuster before Bush even appoints anyone, but Chuckie, Teddy, Biden, Pelosi, and others are already talkng about it. So tell them they are stupid. I won't.
They are stupid for doing so, good thing I am not a Democrat, but again Bush's reputation precedes itself; He appointed a guy to the UN who said that half of the UN building could disappear forever and no one would notice.
Tugboat: Yes Bush won one election, not two. And yes he can appoint whomever he wants but congress can deny whomever they want.
RE: Mark
No David Duke isn't running, you cannot run for the Supreme Court.
Toad, I didn't ask if he was running. I asked is he IN the running. And it was tongue-in-cheek.
Oh, and if the UN building did disappear, I would notice and celebrate. They are a corrupt organization that needs desperately to be disbanded.
Bush still can't ride a bike I think he needs training wheels ...now he's consulting an actor on Law and Order about Judicial Nominations what a farce... too bad your not a Dem. toad we would be glad to have you...
Oh boy! 2 trolls! I have come up in the world!
Bruiser, If Karl Rove is a traitor, what does that make Dick Durbin?
Toad said:
Yes Bush won one election, not two
Absolute rubbish! I can't believe that's still even disputed when in so many ways you cut it, President Bush still would have won in 2000. Not only that, but 4 other states were also within less than half of one per cent in difference. I forget one of them, but three of them were Iowa (I'm pretty sure), Wisconsin, and New Mexico (only 300 votes differentiated Gore and Bush- in Florida it was something like 500 a 500 vote differential). And guess what else? Gore won these 4 other states, no different really than Florida in rightfully protesting the results, if Bush wanted to pull the same stunt as Gore did over Florida.
Furthermore, Florida is worth only 25 electoral votes. These 4 other states were worth 30 each.
Back to topic....the following is a cut-and-paste, because it sums up what I wanted to add quite nicely for me:
Clear majority is 51.
However, someone on the left figured out that if they attempt to fillibuster the nomination, the nominee will never get through, since it takes exactly 60 or more to defeat a fillibuster. The Democrats are hoping that some left-leaning Republicans that would otherwise vote for a nominee would be swayed to end the fillibuster. Or the nominee would remove themselves, or the President call for another nominee to fill the spot.
What the media has not uncovered is the Presidential Perk that nominating positions in the administrative (ambassadors, cabinet, etc) and in the judiciary (federal level judges, Supreme Court justices) is. Presidents are given the ability to nominate somene that they feel is legitimately qualified for the job, and Congress does an investigation, and barring anything glaring is found in the candidate's background they are approved and take the job.
But, because the Democrats in Congress are more interested in dirty pool than accomplishing something, this occurs.
No other president in history has ever had their judges so vindictively refused, and unconstitutionally rejected. Its one thing to do it the proper way. But to find the loophole is purely illegal.
How do you misinterpret the words,
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime Pol Pot or others that had no concern for human beings,"?
I did read the entire speech he made. It is found in the congressional record. The rest of his statement does not absolve him from that part of the statement which Al-Jezeera used to encourage the terrorists. And that is a fact, not supposition. Here is another fact: The "memo" Durbin was supposedly reading from here does not mention say what he says it does. It mentioned only that 1 prisoner was chained to the floor. The rest of what Durbin said was conjecture, according to an FBI agent familiar with the aforementioned memo. I covered all this a month ago. Do try to keep up, Bruiser.
Dick Durbin is a Patriot and is helping the veterans in Illinois
Turban Durbin is hated by much of our military who took personal offense to his slander, as they are the ones on the frontlines, and stand directly in harm's way.
what has your party done besides cut benefits for the veterans ????
Funding for veterans was up 24%, last I heard from 2004; it also increased faster under President Bush than under President Clinton. Twice as fast.
The number of veterans getting health benefits is also went up 25% under Bush's budgets.
I think, Mark, If you could read verbatim what Mr. Durbin said in his speech you will understand that he never smeared the troops.
No, but most of our troops were outraged by his remarks, which make their job all the more difficult, as well as slander our military by criticizing without substance, what goes on at Gitmo.
As far as your other post, congratulations: you just lost credibility and anything else you post will read like so much liberal kool-aid hate and spin.
Post a Comment