With Senator Kerry, it is Christmas every day
Even the NYT called John Kerry <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/politics/politicsspecial1/27alito.html?ex=1296018000&en=42026de1f36f7740&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss">quixotic</a> on this one.
Looks like a snorefest in Congress with unending filibusters of fun with Ted and John.
"Even the NYT..." <chortle>
With an overwhelming majority of Dems against Alito, and some <a href="http://www.gopchoice.org/index.asp">crucial Republicans</a> it looking like the majority of Americans are against Scalito. I guess 57-43 and the filibuster holds.
Do you, NP, disagree with my 57-43 guess, and what are you basing it on? Or were you just being antagonizing?
For candidates who are qualified on paper to be on the Supreme Court, I don't know if the Judiciary Committee performance makes a difference. Clearly, the prospect of going before the JC helped to scuttle the Miers nomination. But with a knowledgeable, well coached, and dignified candidate it's usually pretty certain that they'll do fine getting through the JC. I'm not convinced that a JC performance changes many peoples', or senators', minds. It makes for good political theater, though.
2 weeks ago I would say he would breeze through, but now that Kerry and Kennedy (who essentially have nothing to lose w/ a filibuster try) are gathering the troops, it is really up in the air.
I really think that the opposition is just putting off the inevitable at this point, though..
I bet there are more pro-choice Republicans than the vote would indicate, but, while commendable, aligning oneself with the organization that Dawn posted (Republicans for Choice?) probably wouldn't be the best thing for a vote seeking Republican congressperson to do..
I was completing your thought:
"wouldn't be the best thing for a vote seeking Republican congressperson to do.. Unless you're Lincoln Chafee from Rhode Island."
Not valuing Kerry's difference of prolonging the inevitable when our elected representatives in Washington might be able to make progress on other issues that have not been discussed to death?
In 1993 when Ruthie Ginsberg was confirmed a lot of repubs may not have liked her, but there wan't a whole big ballyhoo about blocking her - she was qualified, and therefore she got through.
Barrack Obama himself said this weekend on Meet the Press that , while opposed to Alito, his party needs to use the filibuster device in a situation where the Dems <i>might actually be able to win</i>.
4 Democrats voted for Alito vs. 1 Republican against. What is this BS about our country not being united? How would you propose that we would be more united?
I propose uniting by nominating a judge that wouldn't split into the most partisan judicial vote in 90 years.
My only statement was that a politician, a creature always searching for the most votes possible in order to get elected, is going to have more of an uphill battle if he/ she goes against the grain of where the rest of the party is.
I applaud and share the viewpoint that there <i>should</i> be more fiscally conservative and socially liberal republicans out there - a lot of representatives that voted Alito dont necessarily share all his views.
Now can we stop it with "valuing peoples differences" shtick you <a href="http://www.rideside.net:8080/drupal/node/2371#comment-14771">use</a> when you disagree?
I only use gimmicks and subterfuge when I feel strongly about something...
You seem to use gimmicks and subterfuge, when it suits your views, but when someone else uses it, you take offence. Just exposing the hypocracies of the past.
Although, I'll argue that the RNC's position that <i>Roe</i> be overturned is probably not representative of the majority of GOP voters.
----
I'm not sure what you two are bickering about, but, please, continue.