With the latest push to delay the confirmation of Judge Sam Alito, the Democratic Party's leaders are tilting at windmills.
Speaking from Switzerland, Former Presidential contender John (Don Quixote) Kerry called for a filibuster. "Judge Alito's confirmation would be an ideological coup on the Supreme Court," Kerry said in a written statement.
"We can't afford to see the court's swing vote, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, replaced with a far-right ideologue like Samuel Alito."
Senator Edward M. (Sancho Panza) Kennedy agreed, "There's some division in our caucus," Kennedy conceded. "It's an uphill climb at the current time, but it's achievable."
However, the senior Democrat of the Senate, Robert Byrd (D), crossed party lines, and has announced he will vote to confirm Alito.
"My considered judgment from his record, from his answers to my questions, and from his obvious intelligence and sincerity, leads me to believe him to be an honorable man who loves his country, loves his Constitution and will give of his best. Can we really ask for more?" said Byrd.
Mr. Byrd said his constituents had told him they were "appalled" by the harsh questioning Judge Alito received from the Senate Judiciary Committee at his confirmation hearings, calling them "an outrage and a disgrace."
Without Byrd, it is unlikely the Democrats will have the votes necessary to get a filibuster started.
If Robert Byrd and others in the Democratic party refuse to mount their horses, and take up the filibuster lance, the windmills their leaders charge will be formidable foes, indeed.
16 comments:
Some call it "tilting at windmills", and others call it "circle jerking".
Either way it adds up to another Conservative judge on the SCOTUS.
---------
On to Brett Kavanaugh.......SCOTUS is important, but there are still Appeals Court vacancies to fill.
I was quite shocked that Robert KKK Byrd actually voted yes for Alito.
But leave it to the Democrats to hold up progress.
"Mr. Byrd said his constituents had told him they were "appalled" by the harsh questioning Judge Alito received from the Senate Judiciary Committee at his confirmation hearings, calling them 'an outrage and a disgrace.'"
and he went on to say:
"It is especially telling that many who objected to the way in which the Alito hearings were conducted do not support Judge Alito. In fact, it is sorely apparent that many who opposed Judge Alito's nomination also opposed the seemingly made-for-TV antics that accompanied the hearings..."
personally, i think he's referring to martha-ann's shamelessly exploitative histrionics....
and here's to marie, for wasting no time in trotting out that tired old kkk bit. you know, sammy once belonged to a rather regressive club, too. i eagerly await your mock outrage.
"But leave it to the Democrats to hold up progress."
"two cents", eh? you've got change comin'....
KEvron
"personally, i think he's referring to martha-ann's shamelessly exploitative histrionics...."
You think so? Well, maybe you need to know what he said next!
Byrd has gone off on the disgrace that were the judicial committee hearings. He said he has gotten e-mail from all over the state of West Virginia and all over the place talking about what an absolute disgrace it was to have to sit through this, that these have simply become made-for-TV hearings. He says the hearings were an outrage and a disgrace. Even the people who didn't support Judge Alito are sending Byrd mail, saying, "We didn't support the guy but this was an embarrassment." He talked about Mrs. Alito fleeing the hearing room to protect and maintain her dignity, leaving those in the hearing room with little dignity of their own. Now, he hasn't mentioned any names, right? But, of course, he doesn't have to!
So, Kevron, you don't subscribe to an elected president nominating who he/she wants to fill vacant "appointed" positions? If our founding fathers believed Supreme Court Justices should be elected, don't you think they would have provisioned that in the constitution?
"maybe you need to know what he said next!"
touché!
KEvron
"So, Kevron, you don't subscribe to an elected president nominating who he/she wants to fill vacant "appointed" positions?"
i favor the tried-and-true system of "checks and balances" which the framers designed to prevent any one branch of our government from having too much power.
"If our founding fathers believed Supreme Court Justices should be elected, don't you think they would have provisioned that in the constitution?"
i have no idea what any of this means....
KEvron
Gawd, I hate to admit this, but I gotta go with what Kev said in his last comment, here. I don't see where you came to that conclusion, Old Soldier. Sorry. Believe me, I don't want to agree with Kev.
I am going to go get sick now.
Well Mark, it happens to all of us from time to time.
The President nominates and the senate elects. So I am in the same boat as you are. YECCCH!
i'm rubber, yer glue....
KEron
I need to clarify, for Old Soldiers sake. What I meant was I don't understand what old soldier is talking about either. That's the only thing about what Kevron said that I agree with.
that'll show me....
KEvron
Come on, guys, I’m certainly not that deep a thinker.
”i favor the tried-and-true system of "checks and balances" which the framers designed to prevent any one branch of our government from having too much power.”
Kevron, that does not even begin to address my question. Constitutionally, the President appoints justices to the SCOTUS via a nomination that the Senate “advises” is qualified and then consents to the nomination/appointment. Nowhere is there a litmus test prescribed based upon ideology or personal stand on abortion. So what does this have to do with the balance of powers? The president is not limiting or expanding the powers of either the judicial or legislative branches by appointing a replacement justice IAW the constitution.
My comment: "If our founding fathers believed Supreme Court Justices should be elected, don't you think they would have provisioned that in the constitution?" The point Kevron and Mark, is that Alito was mauled politically during his confirmation hearings as if he were a candidate running for an elected office. The charade seemed to take on the life of an election, in that the liberals were voting against Alito based upon his ideology vs his qualifications. My point is that it is NOT an elective process; that it IS an appointment process.
"....the President appoints justices to the SCOTUS via a nomination that the Senate “advises” is qualified and then consents to the nomination/appointment."
so the "advice and consent" part is merely a token gesture, eh? i think otherwise.
"....Alito was mauled politically during his confirmation hearings as if he were a candidate running for an elected office."
like freedom, confirmation hearings are messy.
"The charade seemed to take on the life of an election, in that the liberals were voting against Alito based upon his ideology vs his qualifications."
seemed like a confirmation hearing to me.
"My point is that it is NOT an elective process; that it IS an appointment process."
then what's holding up the chimp and his appointment?
KEvron
I suppose Ginsburg and Breyer were infinitely more "qualified" than Roberts or Alito, since their confirmations didn't come close to resembling the three ring circus the Democrats just put on. The Dems have certainly earned the tag line "the party of obstruction". We'll see how this election cycle turns out, but I would not place any bets on the Dems retaking either the House or Senate this year.
"I suppose Ginsburg and Breyer were infinitely more "qualified"...."
spilt milk, pal. now you understand the value of close scrutiny.
KEvron
Post a Comment