| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| DonÂ’t Despair |
| 2006-11-09 |
| Strong justices can still be confirmed. By Edward Whelan The Democrats’ capture of formal control of the Senate is bad news for President Bush’s judicial nominations — especially to the federal courts of appeals — during his final two years in office. But don’t be fooled by Democrats’ bluffing. There’s still plenty of room to get another excellent Supreme Court justice — or even two or three more — confirmed. Skeptical? Consider the last Republican appointee to the Court to be confirmed by a Democrat-controlled Senate — Clarence Thomas in 1991. That Senate had 57 Democrats and only 43 Republicans, and the swirl of allegations gave Democrats plenty of cover to vote against the nomination. Still, 11 Democrats voted for Thomas, and he was confirmed by a 52-48 margin. A lot has changed since 1991, but the changes cut in both directions. The Democrats have gotten more unified — and nastier — on judicial confirmations since then, but the high-profile politics of a Supreme Court nomination enhances the case for confirmation of a strong pick. Opponents can’t rely on obscure procedures to block the nomination. They need to make their case openly, and in the Internet age, unlike with the 1987 nomination of Judge Bork, their distortions won’t go unanswered. |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #10 Don't be sad This will cheer you up watch me fire this outa my arse OOOOOO It burns it burns.... |
| Posted by: George W Bush 2006-11-09 14:15 |
| #9 Bush's "compassionate conservatism" has signalled that he is a wimp domestically from the git-go. He never portrayed himself as the son of Ronald Reagan in any sense, including oratoricly. He was always been a hands across tha aisle guy in Texas. I tend to agree. Beside his long-standing opposition to abortion and embryonic stem cell research, and perhaps the tax cuts, what's "conservative" about this man? Reps lost because they have left their conservative soul. |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-11-09 12:33 |
| #8 I appears Pelosi's improvements are of the plastic variety. Her silicon is also an improvement. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-11-09 12:12 |
| #7 I'm not so sure NCLB is such a disaster. The law requires vouchers be issued to children in failing schools--and defines "failing" in such a way that most public schools will ultimately fail. That's why you hear the lefties crying about school funding and proficiency testing so much--they realized, only after NCLB passed, that they'd been set up for a fall. That said, I do think there is reason to be concerned that W will lose heart and start giving the Donks too much. If he has a flaw, it's that he's too willing to credit others with good faith, too forgiving, too willing to believe that an enemy can repent and change his ways. This is probably a function of the President's own life story; don't forget, he was a heavy drinker, and by all accounts a total failure at life before he accepted Christ. I have no doubt that God can work a similar transformation in the lives of a Nancy Pelosi or a Ted Kennedy--with God all things are possible--but He only comes in to do such work if you invite Him. I don't know that it's such a prudent thing to deal with a Nancy Pelosi or a Ted Kennedy on the theory that if you merely show a little Christian charity, they'll come around eventually. |
| Posted by: Mike 2006-11-09 11:55 |
| #6 Bush lost the information war. |
| Posted by: anon 2006-11-09 10:49 |
| #5 It's definitely time to beat on Bush, but for the right things. I'm not sure things would have been substantially different had we gone to Baghdad at the end of GWI. The coalition would not have held and it would have been a clusterfight of immense proportions. Bush II knows the inside story of why we did not go to Baghdad and I suspect that has a lot to do with why we acted so unilaterally in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" has signalled that he is a wimp domestically from the git-go. He never portrayed himself as the son of Ronald Reagan in any sense, including oratoricly. He was always been a hands across tha aisle guy in Texas. Regardless of what one may think of them, he got NCLB and drugs for the elderly in addition to the tax cuts. The only major thing he will not have done that he promised to do is reform social security. The war took that chance away from him if he even had it. If he could work out a deal to fix social security/medicare in exchange for a cut and run from Iraq, he'd be a fool not to take it. The donks are going to force him out of Iraq any way. And if the people change their mind, nobody will want to leave Iraq before 2008. But the MSM will make sure the war only seems more bloddy and evil every day. He's boxed in and doing as well as he can with the promises he made and the cards he was dealt. As to the post itself, Harriet Miers. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-11-09 10:21 |
| #4 It it stood for anything or made a difference, I would just look at the Ranger Up gal for next two years--sort of like treading water for a long time. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2006-11-09 10:10 |
| #3 The problem is I have little faith in the backbone of one George W Bush when ti comes to standing firm on consrvative principles regarding domestic issues. He has dallied around on domestic policy for his entire administration. Other than the tax cuts, and the belated (and mainly symbolic) fence, can you see ANY of his non-war-related policies that he was elected for in law now? Bush is a wimp domestically, and I'm beginning to suspect his is like his father, spineless go-along get-along frat boy ("Read my Lips, No New Taxes" - and now the son is caving like the father on domestic policy). The only difference is his conduct of the war and unwillingness to back down from hunting terrorists, compared to his father's leaving us this war to fight when we coudl ahve taken down and reformed Iraq very easily in the first GW. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2006-11-09 09:51 |
| #2 Won't even get out of committee. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-11-09 09:13 |
| #1 Whistling in the dark. 1. The President will preemptively surrender by nominating more liberal-centrist judges. 2. The MSM will provide cover if Leahy or Kennedy decides to keep the nomination from going to the floor. 3. Idiotarian groups will pressure any Demonrat from voting sensibly. Not everyone can pull off what Lieberman did. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2006-11-09 08:59 |