Friday, January 27, 2006
NYT: F-bomb Alito
Read the entire New York Times editorial.
Elections have consequences, my friend. Clinton, when he was the victor, got the spoils. Now it's Bush's turn. More of you guys should have showed up for the game in November '04 if you wanted a Supreme Court justice in the -- love the lie that is this term -- "mainstream."
Alito has nowhere near the track record of partisan activism as Ginsburg. And she got 96 votes on her confirmation. Why? Because Republicans understand that the president has the right to nominate who he chooses -- and unless that person is wholly unqualified, he/she should get seated because that's the way the Constitution lays it out. But then, libs make the Constitution say whatever they want it to say to justify enacting their agenda. It's not balls the Democrats need, as you've suggested more than a time or two; it's integrity.
Even the old Grand Wizard of the Democrats, Robert Byrd, understands that. Did you catch his comments yesterday?
No doubt, a filibuster would not keep Alito off the court. But it would force some issues -- mainly force Senate Dems to decide whether they're Dems or lapdogs.
I'm for that. You should be, too. Make '06 elections a lot clearer, wouldn't it?
BTW, suggesting that use of the filibuster is not part of "the game" is bullsnot. Its like saying the hail mary is not a fair play in football.
What you're talking about is a gentlemen's agreement. Thanks to your party, there are only a few gentlemen left in the Senate -- Sen. Byrd is one of them -- so I don't know why you'd be defending THAT.
The only other case of judicial filibuster, Abe Fortas during the Johnson administration, didn't have majority support and would have been voted down. In that instance, the filibuster was a way, in essence, for him to be spared the ignominy of being denied confirmaiton. And, let's not forget, the reason he didn't have majority support was becuase he was embroiled in some sort of scandal or another.
What happened to Bork, while conservatives weren't happy, was perfectly fair. Dems had the 51 votes they needed to send him packing, so away he went.
It's modern-day Dems who have extended a parliamentary act historically used to bottle up legislation to block judges they don't have the numbers to defeat on an up-or-down vote. They argue it's because those judges are "out of the mainstream," but wouldn't it logically follow, if the Dems were "in the mainstream," that they'd have the Senate majority required to defeat a nominee on a straight up-or-down vote?
You call that, perverting longstanding parliamentary procedure to get your way even though voters in the majority of states rejected your ideas at the ballot box, "gentlemanly"? We must have different dictionaries, you and I.
(Somebody tell this Yank what it means for a Southron to call somebody "Bubba.") :-)
That was the Clinton genius, he nominated someone that was fire-proof. Go back and read the conservative magazines at that time and you will see their absolute frustration.
So this ,"Oh weren't the Republicans so sweet and helpfull in the Ginburg nomination", is simply wrong, hell even many Democrats actually thought she was far to liberal, but how could they vote against her either.
That said, Alito is going to be confirmed. There should be no obstructions put in his way at this point. They are only pre-presidential election campaigning from the losers of the past which we Democrats don't need in our future.
If I were George Bush, and I got another chance at the SCOTUS, I would nominate a Black/Native American/female/jewish/radical neocon.
And I'm not sure I buy the whole "Ginsburg was fireproof" thing. Dems filibustered a black woman -- Janice Rogers Brown -- and those qualities are at least as much sacred cowish as as being a Jewish woman.
("We have every mixture you can have. I have a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple. And we have talent." -- James G. Watt, describing his staff to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on September 21, 1983; this comment led directly to his forced resignation; quoted from Bartlett's Online.)
Bubba is a relationship nickname formed from brother, given to boys to indicate their role in the family, especially the oldest male sibling. It can also be applied to boys as a term of affection from friends who are not family members.
For some boys and men, bubba is used so persuasively it replaces the given name.
THAT'S THE SENSE I meant it, regarding Nick.
Not this part:
Because of its association with the southern part of the United States, bubba is often used outside the South as a pejorative meaning low economic status and limited education. Former President Bill Clinton, who is from Arkansas, was sometimes called bubba by detractors. Ironically, the current President, George W. Bush, takes great pride in having a similar background, as a boy from west Texas.
In Bush's case it should be blurbba.