How can the president get up every morning and do his job with the relentless barrage of barbs from every point on the political spectrum. I think I'd just put the pillow over my head and say forget it.
He's a marvelous man and we're lucky he's willing and able to do the job.
(Yes, that National Enquirer. The one that brought us the facts on Jesse Jackson's illegitimate child and many of the details on Clinton's liaisons with Monica Lewinsky.)
I agree with you that President Bush is a great President, but there are a lot of us in the Republican base who've given too much time and money to Bush and other Republican campaigns to be stabbed in the back (again) on judges.
At some point, political leaders and the parties they depend on have to put up or shut up. President Bush campaigned on a promise to appoint judges in the Scalia/Thomas mold. Many social conservatives, me included, voted for the President in large part because of his philosophy with respect to judicial nominations.
The general consensus is that he lived up to his promise with John Roberts' appointment. Bush better continue to keep his promise, or there will be a lot of folks on the Right who will punish Republican candidates for years to come.
The Republican base is sick of liberal Republican-appointed justices like Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter. Sure, Ginsburg and Breyer are terrible judges, but at least they come by it honestly. President Bush has an obligation to appoint a real conservative to the bench, and I fully expect that he will do so.
In a perfect world, judges nominated by the president would be confirmed by the Senate without partisan bickering, and with the only determinative factor being their ability to do the job. Unfortunately, the judiciary, despite being billed as the "nonpolitical" branch of government, has managed to wedge itself into politics by deciding cases based on what it wishes the law were like, rather than what it is. As distressing as it is to hear senators on both sides of the aisle demanding certain results from nominees, the courts have brought it on themselves. In this respect, I agree with jeremy (though I would probably disagree with his politics).
I, for one, am interested to see if the senators making these pronouncements actually make good on their threats to demand yes or no answers from nominees on questions like abortion, etc., or if they wimp out. My guess is that while they might start off demanding answers, the nominee is going to stonewall them by following the "Roberts precedent" and eventually wear them down until s/he makes it out of committee with a close (probably party-line) vote. In that case, the ultimate deciding factor will be the nominee's paper trail, so the administration really is going to have to appoint another Roberts (someone with no record on contentious issues), lest they lose votes from liberal Republicans like Snowe, Chafee, etc.
Of course, I'm probably wrong. Feel free to tell me how much I am underestimating the resolve of conservative Republicans/all Democrats. Cheers!
(Yes, that National Enquirer. The one that brought us the facts on Jesse Jackson's illegitimate child and many of the details on Clinton's liaisons with Monica Lewinsky.)
So the Enquirer gets two things right, and thus the story is reliable? Or is your argument that the National Enquirer sometimes (or, at least twice) gets things right, and thus the story should not immediately be disregarded? Or are you not making any specific arguments, but rather arguing by innuendo?
I hate to be so curt. But whether someone has fallen back into alcholism is very serious. It's not something we should immedately assume (or hope) is true merely because it might work to our partisan advantage. And whether someone has indeed slipped back into a disastrous lifestyle isn't something we should bandy about.
So if the point of your comment was merely to say, "Hmmm...," fair enough. But if the point of your comment was that we should believe something in the National Enquirer because they're been right twice (out of how many thousands) of times before, that's is something quite different.
Kennedy isn't all that liberal, certainly not compared to Ginsburg or Souter. He's currently getting demonized for Lawrence v. Texas but has sided with the Rehnquist / Scalia / Thomas crowd pretty often as well.
"The Republican base is sick of liberal Republican-appointed justices like Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter. Sure, Ginsburg and Breyer are terrible judges, but at least they come by it honestly. President Bush has an obligation to appoint a real conservative to the bench, and I fully expect that he will do so."
He's a marvelous man and we're lucky he's willing and able to do the job.
A friend commented today that if there suddenly appeared a positive proof of George W Bush molesting a 12 year old boy, complete with pictures, the 33% support for him would not change. It takes a lot to be a True Believer, and complete denial is just one of the requirements.
Another friend commented last October, "They've reelected a Buchanan and are acting as if they got another Lincoln."
Here's a partial quotation from a college text on a president: "Plodding and unimaginative, he was a loyal party man who strongly sympathized with the South..."
I guess, the similarity with Buchanan runs deeper than even my friend thought.
In any case, the SCOTUS nomination just got tougher, with Frist about to tank it (or, as several bloggers suggested, to "Lott" it). I wonder how the True Believers are reacting to the insider-trading scandal.
And one other thing--one need not be liberal or a Democrat to despise the morons at the White House. But it sure takes special character to defend them.
Buck, I'm sure the 33% who hate Bush would probably not change if all of his efforts proved to be highly effective. The fact that you claim to recognize sycophants but not those who also viscerally oppose suggests you may be within that second category (note: you don't have to be a liberal or democrat to be in that category---heck george galloway and 'conservative' islamic extremists probably don't really like the guy).
Taking random anecdotes is hardly proof of incompetence by the way (there are far more substantive ways to do that), and also suggests yet again that you may not exactly be part of what you imply is the "reasonable" group of americans.
Kennedy's also caught a lot of flack for his references to international law regarding the death penalty besides just the opinion on Lawrence (I'm hoping the court hears Muth vs. Franck). Still its not fair to compare his jurisprudence w/souter's and steven's. Breyer is a personal favorite of mine and I would venture to say he's honest and pretty good as well as hilarious (his honest monopolist speech starts of brilliantly).
I am beginning to have the funny feeling that history will judge the current President and his administration as one of the worst in U.S. history. The again, the funny feeling I have might becoming from all the sushi I ate a couple of hours ago......
On another point, when did this blog start atrracting so many social conservatives?
I'm just glad that so far, the genius senators from my state have kept their big mouths out of the media.
Outside of that, erp, your first post I just find hilarious. He wanted the job. Why should we be that rip-roaring excited that he's willing to do it. Not like he got yanked off the street, flung in a suit, and was told "Have it, Rove will give you your lines." Although reality shows ARE all the rage currently...
"Buck, I'm sure the 33% who hate Bush would probably not change if all of his efforts proved to be highly effective. The fact that you claim to recognize sycophants but not those who also viscerally oppose suggests you may be within that second category (note: you don't have to be a liberal or democrat to be in that category---heck george galloway and 'conservative' islamic extremists probably don't really like the guy). "
I suppose the weeks after 9/11 don't count. They were an awfully long time ago.
I agree that the partisan system is a little too against each other in their nominations and voting. It doesn't seem that these parties are looking for the best possible candidate for America, yet are looking for the best possible judge that suits their personal and political ideals. The judicial system should exclude politics, but the way Robert's handled himself in the hearing with his non-specific answers in regards to abortion and right to privacy did not make him appear to be a judge but a politcian. John Robert's, re: precedent, said to the committee,
"The theory is a very straight foward one, if the court gets it wrong, Congress can fix it. And the Constitution, the court has explained, is different. Obviously, short of amendment, only the court can fix the constitutional precedents."
Robert's talks a lot about precedent yet if you don't know where he stand on abortion, refer to his Brief for the Respondent at 13, Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991).
Robert's is a solid nomination but I believe him to be a risk for overturning roe v. wade and many have harped on this fact about his lax attitude towards woman's rights..
On another point, when did this blog start atrracting so many social conservatives?
What point are you trying to make, Justin? VC is a well-known blog, attracting new readers every day. As with any blog, you may be seeing posts from people who have been reading the blog for years but only recently decided to venture a comment.
Besides, consistent comments have only very recently become a feature of this blog - they were formerly enabled only rarely on a per-post basis.
Now, both socially conservative and more liberal Republican senators say they may vote against confirmation of the next nominee if the pick leans too far to the left or the right on prominent issues like abortion rights.
Well, duh! Votes from liberals like Chafee and Collins have never been a sure thing, and I think that is fine. It would be a pretty kettle of fish if a nominee managed to loose both the liberals and the conservatives - especially with the President twisting arms. I think this is nothing more than wishful thinking by the Times.
The real concern, it seems to me, is a Democrat filibuster. Absent that, I am convinced that there is sufficient Senate support to confirm almost anyone, especially the names that have been mentioned.
This seems to me like more Times "news" fabricated from whole cloth, strictly designed to shore up the meme that the President is so unpopular that he can no longer effectively do anything.
Can we agree that outside of the six or seven issues that drive NARAL or Focus on the Family crazy, O'Connor and Kennedy have been fairly conservative? Here I mean federalism, government power, standing, etc. As someone left of center on most issues, I always become quizzical when Democratic Congressman call for the next appointee to be just like O'Connor. Unless you think that the Court only addresses abortion and affirmative action cases, or these are the only issues you understand, this is a silly position to take.
I would cheerfully argue the point.
Of course, perhaps some of the posters above really only care about these social issues--a fact I find a bit odd fpr a self-touted libertarian blog (and, I should note, my favorite law blog, for the collection of talent here).
Did anyone notice that this NYT piece was just an empty hack job of a space-filler? It was a total non-story. Two of the most liberal Republicans (pretty much deserving the RINO -- Republican in Name Only -- designation) state that they will have a problem if the next nominee is too conservative for their taste. Two conservative Republicans are quoted as saying that they will have problems if the next nominee is not conservative enough, and especially if he or she is squishy on certain key issues.
The NYT piece said nothing new, added nothing new, and reported nothing that could qualify as news. It was a complete non-event, the print version of the time-filling that occurs on cable news channels while waiting for something to happen. Yet, from the headline, you would think there was some surprising new development that warranted a story.
Reading the headline, "Next Court Nominee May Face Challenges From G.O.P.," one might assume that (a) there had been a nominee, and (b) this nominee carried baggage that Republicans in general would object to. Everything about this is false. First, obviously there is no nominee, therefore by definition there is no story. But even more misleading is the idea that "the G.O.P." was likely to object to this non-existent nominee. Again, the only thing mentioned in the story is that ultra-liberal Republicans might object to a conservative nominee, and that conservative Republicans might object to a non-conservative nominee.
There is not a single syllable of news value in this article. It is simply rabble-rousing, a continuation of Pinch Sulzberger's anti-Bush crusade.
Social conservatives have been voting Republican in large numbers for 30 years in the hope of electing presidents who will appoint justices who will reverse Roe. Republicans, including President Bush, have explicitly courted conservatives by promising to do this. Sooner or later conservatives will give up on the Republicans if they don't deliver on conservative justices. I'm not saying they will vote for Democrats, who apparently cannot tell the difference between Southern Baptists and radical Islamists, but they always have the option of staying home on election day.
And the reason there appear to be more conservatives responding to thise site is because of the historical affinity between libertarians and conservatives. Conservatives understand the libertarian impulse. Many of us also want the government to butt out. We differ on when we approve of government intrusion but often find common cause. Together, we make a majority. Apart, we are a debating society.
You're right ChrisO, a good chunk of those who are most anti-Bush right now did support his actions after 9/11. There was still a small minority opposed to him even then though, and that's probably the better guage of rabid partisans who would oppose him regardless of the situation. Of course I'm sure you recognize that the distinction between 33% and 10% in this case is rather arbitrary. The only support the previous poster had in claiming all 33% would always support bush was an unsubstantiated number he picked out of the air (most polls have Bush at ~40%) along with anecdotes from those who probably disapprove of him. Furthermore, he also set the number up w/a very unlikely scenario. If you're still having trouble understanding the concept of rabid partisans however, i'm sure you can head to the free republic or the democratic underground to become more well versed.
"Again, the only thing mentioned in the story is that ultra-liberal Republicans might object to a conservative nominee, and that conservative Republicans might object to a non-conservative nominee."
What exactly is an "ultra-liberal"? is it like some ultimate plateau entry-level liberals reach when they pass a courageous test of endurance that few of their peers can emulate? "I now bestow upon you, the title of....ULTRA-LIBERAL!" Is it some form of bionic liberal from the future with super crime fighting powers?
I think this must be somewhat incorrect because judging from right-wing talk radio, there seems to be more 'ultra-liberals' than regular vanilla liberals, whom appear to be outnumbered by at least a 10-1 margin. Sometimes you get the feeling that there are no liberals at all, and that they've all morphed into 'ULTRA-Liberals.'
I like the term "Ultra-Liberal" because I agree with the need to classify those liberals with psychokinetic powers, superhuman strength or who'm otherwise consistently display excellence apart from mortal liberals. But if everyone to the left of John McCain is an "Ultra-Liberal" I think the qualifications for Ultra status need to be revamped at the next meeting.
Ultra-liberal can be absolute, or it can be relative.
I think that you all assume that it must be absolute in this case, and that's making you look foolish.
Lincoln Chafee is, quite simply, the most liberal Republican currently in the U.S. Senate, both by voting and by stated policy. In fact, his voting puts him roughly in line with the center of the Democratic caucus in the Senate.
In such circumstances, I think that it is relatively safe to call him "ultra-liberal" to distinguish him from the simply liberal Republican senators, like Specter, Snowe, and (to some extent) Collins.
I don't think that it would be inappropriate to do something similar when discussing the differences between, say, Zell Miller and John Breaux.
Two of the most liberal Republicans (pretty much deserving the RINO -- Republican in Name Only -- designation) state that they will have a problem if the next nominee is too conservative for their taste.
In which case the President should err on the side of sending the Senate a nominee who is conservative (read: federalist, originalist) regardless of whether it offends the pro-abortion litmus test of Senators Chaffee and Snowe. The Senate only needs 51 votes to confirm a nominee which means that Republicans can afford lose up to 5 Senators (Chaffee, Snowe, and Collins are really the only ones likely to defect) and still get a well-qualified nominee approved by the Senate.
To respond to the folks who seem offended that a social conservative would dare read this blog, I've been reading it for years. I'm sorry that I've offended your "libertarian" principles by daring to read and comment on a blog published on the Internet and freely available to everyone. Besides, why shouldn't conservatives and liberatarians make common cause on judicial issues, where we often agree the most? Houston Lawyer's comments point the way toward this, and I completely agree with him.
Further, I don't think the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade because I oppose abortion. I think Roe should be overturned because it was wrongly decided. What's socially conservative about that?
Besides, read my original post. I didn't argue that Bush should appoint social conservatives to the bench, I argued that Bush should appoint judicial conservatives because of his promise to social conservatives.
Further, I don't think the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade because I oppose abortion. I think Roe should be overturned because it was wrongly decided. What's socially conservative about that?
Straight up, boss. I'm liberal as catch-all and despise Roe. The Rule of Law RULES!
In fact, [Chafee's] voting puts him roughly in line with the center of the Democratic caucus in the Senate.
According to statistical analyses at sites like Voteview.com, Chafee is only to the left of Ben Nelson (D-NE).
If Chafee and Snowe break off, there won't even be an up-and-down vote; the nomination will be pulled once it's clear that a filibuster would be successful.
Doubt that only because I see a lot of Republicans spoiling for implementing the Nuclear Option. It was one thing when the Democrats fillibustered appeals nominees. But the Republicans joined with the Democrats to almost unanimously approve ACLU attorney Ginsburg for the High Court, and having the Democrats fillibuster here would be just the incentive needed to implement it.
So, I will suggest that the proper count is losig 6 Republicans, not 2, because with 50, Cheney breaks ties. And that means that 6 of the 7 "moderate" Republicans in the Gang of 14 would have to bail - and some of them would face significant pressure not to. It just takes two of them to vote with the rest of the Republicans to get the Nuclear Option.
It beats waiting for the Democrats to implement it if they do take over. Now that the option is on the table, I sincerely doubt Democrats could bring themselves to refrain from using it, if the alternative was not getting whoever they wanted.
Bruce, I don't want to go into Ginsburg again, a nominee pre-cleared by Hatch even though Republicans were in the minority.
Where I think you're wrong is that I think that so long as there's 1-2 Republicans who oppose the nominee, then I believe that the other five Republicans in the Gang (even if they support the nominee) won't support using the nuclear option to put him in. I think people like McCain and Warner would rather be seen as Preservers of the Senate rather than ramming through a questionable nominee.
Don't presume McCain is a moderate on this issue. Although he is a member of the gang of 14, his most recent comment is that Bush promised to nominate justices in the model of Thomas and Scalia, and that he should keep that promise. He also has presidential ambitions of his own that will be undermined if he stabs the president in the back on this one.
Does anyone believe that the Democrats wouldn't use the nuclear option if they had the presidency and 51 votes?
It has nothing to do with whether he is a "moderate"; it's whether he has an ego, and is more interested in Legacy and perception than in helping the President.
I think Roberts is an excellent pick and that the President deserves credit for selecting him -- this holds, even if Roberts votes to uphold Roe in the next 5-10 years.
If Kerry had flipped Ohio, we'd be facing Charles Schumer and Lawrence Tribe as new additions to SCOTUS.
Let's thank our luck stars, jeez, and smell the roses every once in a while:)
So, I will suggest that the proper count is losig 6 Republicans, not 2, because with 50, Cheney breaks ties. And that means that 6 of the 7 "moderate" Republicans in the Gang of 14 would have to bail - and some of them would face significant pressure not to. It just takes two of them to vote with the rest of the Republicans to get the Nuclear Option.
Senators John Warren (R-VA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) both said after they signed onto the “Deal” that they would consider the filibustering of a SCOTUS nominee to be a breach of the agreement and then feel free to invoke the Byrd Option.
There’s your two.
Of course since the Democratic signatories are already in breach of the express terms of the Deal by failing to all vote for cloture on Judge Owens, the Republican signatories already have sufficient cause to vote for the Byrd option and end the filibustering of any future nominees.
He's a marvelous man and we're lucky he's willing and able to do the job.
(Yes, that National Enquirer. The one that brought us the facts on Jesse Jackson's illegitimate child and many of the details on Clinton's liaisons with Monica Lewinsky.)
I agree with you that President Bush is a great President, but there are a lot of us in the Republican base who've given too much time and money to Bush and other Republican campaigns to be stabbed in the back (again) on judges.
At some point, political leaders and the parties they depend on have to put up or shut up. President Bush campaigned on a promise to appoint judges in the Scalia/Thomas mold. Many social conservatives, me included, voted for the President in large part because of his philosophy with respect to judicial nominations.
The general consensus is that he lived up to his promise with John Roberts' appointment. Bush better continue to keep his promise, or there will be a lot of folks on the Right who will punish Republican candidates for years to come.
The Republican base is sick of liberal Republican-appointed justices like Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter. Sure, Ginsburg and Breyer are terrible judges, but at least they come by it honestly. President Bush has an obligation to appoint a real conservative to the bench, and I fully expect that he will do so.
I, for one, am interested to see if the senators making these pronouncements actually make good on their threats to demand yes or no answers from nominees on questions like abortion, etc., or if they wimp out. My guess is that while they might start off demanding answers, the nominee is going to stonewall them by following the "Roberts precedent" and eventually wear them down until s/he makes it out of committee with a close (probably party-line) vote. In that case, the ultimate deciding factor will be the nominee's paper trail, so the administration really is going to have to appoint another Roberts (someone with no record on contentious issues), lest they lose votes from liberal Republicans like Snowe, Chafee, etc.
Of course, I'm probably wrong. Feel free to tell me how much I am underestimating the resolve of conservative Republicans/all Democrats. Cheers!
So the Enquirer gets two things right, and thus the story is reliable? Or is your argument that the National Enquirer sometimes (or, at least twice) gets things right, and thus the story should not immediately be disregarded? Or are you not making any specific arguments, but rather arguing by innuendo?
I hate to be so curt. But whether someone has fallen back into alcholism is very serious. It's not something we should immedately assume (or hope) is true merely because it might work to our partisan advantage. And whether someone has indeed slipped back into a disastrous lifestyle isn't something we should bandy about.
So if the point of your comment was merely to say, "Hmmm...," fair enough. But if the point of your comment was that we should believe something in the National Enquirer because they're been right twice (out of how many thousands) of times before, that's is something quite different.
"The Republican base is sick of liberal Republican-appointed justices like Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter. Sure, Ginsburg and Breyer are terrible judges, but at least they come by it honestly. President Bush has an obligation to appoint a real conservative to the bench, and I fully expect that he will do so."
A friend commented today that if there suddenly appeared a positive proof of George W Bush molesting a 12 year old boy, complete with pictures, the 33% support for him would not change. It takes a lot to be a True Believer, and complete denial is just one of the requirements.
Another friend commented last October, "They've reelected a Buchanan and are acting as if they got another Lincoln."
Here's a partial quotation from a college text on a president: "Plodding and unimaginative, he was a loyal party man who strongly sympathized with the South..."
I guess, the similarity with Buchanan runs deeper than even my friend thought.
In any case, the SCOTUS nomination just got tougher, with Frist about to tank it (or, as several bloggers suggested, to "Lott" it). I wonder how the True Believers are reacting to the insider-trading scandal.
And one other thing--one need not be liberal or a Democrat to despise the morons at the White House. But it sure takes special character to defend them.
Taking random anecdotes is hardly proof of incompetence by the way (there are far more substantive ways to do that), and also suggests yet again that you may not exactly be part of what you imply is the "reasonable" group of americans.
On another point, when did this blog start atrracting so many social conservatives?
Outside of that, erp, your first post I just find hilarious. He wanted the job. Why should we be that rip-roaring excited that he's willing to do it. Not like he got yanked off the street, flung in a suit, and was told "Have it, Rove will give you your lines." Although reality shows ARE all the rage currently...
Dan
I suppose the weeks after 9/11 don't count. They were an awfully long time ago.
"The theory is a very straight foward one, if the court gets it wrong, Congress can fix it. And the Constitution, the court has explained, is different. Obviously, short of amendment, only the court can fix the constitutional precedents."
Robert's talks a lot about precedent yet if you don't know where he stand on abortion, refer to his Brief for the Respondent at 13, Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991).
Robert's is a solid nomination but I believe him to be a risk for overturning roe v. wade and many have harped on this fact about his lax attitude towards woman's rights..
What point are you trying to make, Justin? VC is a well-known blog, attracting new readers every day. As with any blog, you may be seeing posts from people who have been reading the blog for years but only recently decided to venture a comment.
Besides, consistent comments have only very recently become a feature of this blog - they were formerly enabled only rarely on a per-post basis.
Well, duh! Votes from liberals like Chafee and Collins have never been a sure thing, and I think that is fine. It would be a pretty kettle of fish if a nominee managed to loose both the liberals and the conservatives - especially with the President twisting arms. I think this is nothing more than wishful thinking by the Times.
The real concern, it seems to me, is a Democrat filibuster. Absent that, I am convinced that there is sufficient Senate support to confirm almost anyone, especially the names that have been mentioned.
This seems to me like more Times "news" fabricated from whole cloth, strictly designed to shore up the meme that the President is so unpopular that he can no longer effectively do anything.
Don't you think that's somewhat overstating a footnote?
I would cheerfully argue the point.
Of course, perhaps some of the posters above really only care about these social issues--a fact I find a bit odd fpr a self-touted libertarian blog (and, I should note, my favorite law blog, for the collection of talent here).
The NYT piece said nothing new, added nothing new, and reported nothing that could qualify as news. It was a complete non-event, the print version of the time-filling that occurs on cable news channels while waiting for something to happen. Yet, from the headline, you would think there was some surprising new development that warranted a story.
Reading the headline, "Next Court Nominee May Face Challenges From G.O.P.," one might assume that (a) there had been a nominee, and (b) this nominee carried baggage that Republicans in general would object to. Everything about this is false. First, obviously there is no nominee, therefore by definition there is no story. But even more misleading is the idea that "the G.O.P." was likely to object to this non-existent nominee. Again, the only thing mentioned in the story is that ultra-liberal Republicans might object to a conservative nominee, and that conservative Republicans might object to a non-conservative nominee.
There is not a single syllable of news value in this article. It is simply rabble-rousing, a continuation of Pinch Sulzberger's anti-Bush crusade.
And the reason there appear to be more conservatives responding to thise site is because of the historical affinity between libertarians and conservatives. Conservatives understand the libertarian impulse. Many of us also want the government to butt out. We differ on when we approve of government intrusion but often find common cause. Together, we make a majority. Apart, we are a debating society.
What exactly is an "ultra-liberal"? is it like some ultimate plateau entry-level liberals reach when they pass a courageous test of endurance that few of their peers can emulate? "I now bestow upon you, the title of....ULTRA-LIBERAL!" Is it some form of bionic liberal from the future with super crime fighting powers?
I think this must be somewhat incorrect because judging from right-wing talk radio, there seems to be more 'ultra-liberals' than regular vanilla liberals, whom appear to be outnumbered by at least a 10-1 margin. Sometimes you get the feeling that there are no liberals at all, and that they've all morphed into 'ULTRA-Liberals.'
I like the term "Ultra-Liberal" because I agree with the need to classify those liberals with psychokinetic powers, superhuman strength or who'm otherwise consistently display excellence apart from mortal liberals. But if everyone to the left of John McCain is an "Ultra-Liberal" I think the qualifications for Ultra status need to be revamped at the next meeting.
I think that you all assume that it must be absolute in this case, and that's making you look foolish.
Lincoln Chafee is, quite simply, the most liberal Republican currently in the U.S. Senate, both by voting and by stated policy. In fact, his voting puts him roughly in line with the center of the Democratic caucus in the Senate.
In such circumstances, I think that it is relatively safe to call him "ultra-liberal" to distinguish him from the simply liberal Republican senators, like Specter, Snowe, and (to some extent) Collins.
I don't think that it would be inappropriate to do something similar when discussing the differences between, say, Zell Miller and John Breaux.
In which case the President should err on the side of sending the Senate a nominee who is conservative (read: federalist, originalist) regardless of whether it offends the pro-abortion litmus test of Senators Chaffee and Snowe. The Senate only needs 51 votes to confirm a nominee which means that Republicans can afford lose up to 5 Senators (Chaffee, Snowe, and Collins are really the only ones likely to defect) and still get a well-qualified nominee approved by the Senate.
Further, I don't think the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade because I oppose abortion. I think Roe should be overturned because it was wrongly decided. What's socially conservative about that?
Besides, read my original post. I didn't argue that Bush should appoint social conservatives to the bench, I argued that Bush should appoint judicial conservatives because of his promise to social conservatives.
Straight up, boss. I'm liberal as catch-all and despise Roe. The Rule of Law RULES!
According to statistical analyses at sites like Voteview.com, Chafee is only to the left of Ben Nelson (D-NE).
If Chafee and Snowe break off, there won't even be an up-and-down vote; the nomination will be pulled once it's clear that a filibuster would be successful.
Doubt that only because I see a lot of Republicans spoiling for implementing the Nuclear Option. It was one thing when the Democrats fillibustered appeals nominees. But the Republicans joined with the Democrats to almost unanimously approve ACLU attorney Ginsburg for the High Court, and having the Democrats fillibuster here would be just the incentive needed to implement it.
So, I will suggest that the proper count is losig 6 Republicans, not 2, because with 50, Cheney breaks ties. And that means that 6 of the 7 "moderate" Republicans in the Gang of 14 would have to bail - and some of them would face significant pressure not to. It just takes two of them to vote with the rest of the Republicans to get the Nuclear Option.
Where I think you're wrong is that I think that so long as there's 1-2 Republicans who oppose the nominee, then I believe that the other five Republicans in the Gang (even if they support the nominee) won't support using the nuclear option to put him in. I think people like McCain and Warner would rather be seen as Preservers of the Senate rather than ramming through a questionable nominee.
Does anyone believe that the Democrats wouldn't use the nuclear option if they had the presidency and 51 votes?
Trust me, I know ;-)
If Kerry had flipped Ohio, we'd be facing Charles Schumer and Lawrence Tribe as new additions to SCOTUS.
Let's thank our luck stars, jeez, and smell the roses every once in a while:)
Senators John Warren (R-VA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) both said after they signed onto the “Deal” that they would consider the filibustering of a SCOTUS nominee to be a breach of the agreement and then feel free to invoke the Byrd Option.
There’s your two.
Of course since the Democratic signatories are already in breach of the express terms of the Deal by failing to all vote for cloture on Judge Owens, the Republican signatories already have sufficient cause to vote for the Byrd option and end the filibustering of any future nominees.
Yes, I am also worried that he may not help overturn roe v. wade.