blzrul Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Sure he's alway's calling for toning down whilst his attack dogs do the dirty work for him. I'd go for a winner-take-all slugfest in the parking lot, it's better than all the weasel-words and will actually accomplish something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted July 5, 2005 Author Share Posted July 5, 2005 Sure he's alway's calling for toning down whilst his attack dogs do the dirty work for him. I'd go for a winner-take-all slugfest in the parking lot, it's better than all the weasel-words and will actually accomplish something. 374957[/snapback] So he's letting his attack dogs go after someone he considers a good friend, someone he appointed as his AG? Sorry, I don't buy that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 That's right. Teddy Kennedy should shut his Chivas soaked trap. Bus should just tell all the dems to STFU and vote up or down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 That's right. Teddy Kennedy should shut his Chivas soaked trap. Bus should just tell all the dems to STFU and vote up or down. 374994[/snapback] Without confirmation hearings? That sounds curiously like rhetoric to me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berg Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Sure he's alway's calling for toning down whilst his attack dogs do the dirty work for him. I'd go for a winner-take-all slugfest in the parking lot, it's better than all the weasel-words and will actually accomplish something. 374957[/snapback] Who are the participants, what are the rules, and winner take all what??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 That's right. Teddy Kennedy should shut his Chivas soaked trap. Bus should just tell all the dems to STFU and vote up or down. 374994[/snapback] Did you even read the article? The rhetoric about Gonzales is coming from the conservative right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Did you even read the article? The rhetoric about Gonzales is coming from the conservative right. 375018[/snapback] Because apparently Gonzalez isn't willing to make abortion completely illegal. Damn pragmatist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Because apparently Gonzalez isn't willing to make abortion completely illegal. Damn pragmatist. 375029[/snapback] I just think it's ironic that everyone assumes that the Dems will be the big problem with these nominees (which they will be, but that's their right by the rules of the Senate), but the Gonzales nomination is in most danger of getting derailed by the religious right. You know...Bush's base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 I just think it's ironic that everyone assumes that the Dems will be the big problem with these nominees (which they will be, but that's their right by the rules of the Senate), but the Gonzales nomination is in most danger of getting derailed by the religious right. You know...Bush's base. 375034[/snapback] Am I missing something, Gonzales hasn't been nominated, has he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 I just think it's ironic that everyone assumes that the Dems will be the big problem with these nominees (which they will be, but that's their right by the rules of the Senate), but the Gonzales nomination is in most danger of getting derailed by the religious right. You know...Bush's base. 375034[/snapback] It doesn't matter who gets nominated. The wackos on either side will make it into a circus. Mostly because the majority remain silent. It's amazing we can be so powerful yet colossally stupid at the exact same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 It doesn't matter who gets nominated. The wackos on either side will make it into a circus. Mostly because the majority remain silent. It's amazing we can be so powerful yet colossally stupid at the exact same time. 375040[/snapback] It is a hard line to walk, but we are so good at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Am I missing something, Gonzales hasn't been nominated, has he? 375039[/snapback] You're right. Technically no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 You're right. Technically no. 375043[/snapback] Thanks, I was suprised by the tense. I don't think Bush can nominate Gonzales between his thing on torture and abortion. But I think he was the one Bush wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Because apparently Gonzalez isn't willing to make abortion completely illegal. Damn pragmatist. 375029[/snapback] It'd be nice if we weren't hoping (more like bracing) for nominees who will "make" policy rather than just interpret the laws on the books. Ho hum... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 There is one thing I can almost promise. No matter who is nominated, that person will be painted as extreme, draconian, fascist, and every other name in the book. They will supposedly be "ultra-uber-conservative". Bush could nominate the ghost of FDR and this would happen. The dems risk overplaying their hand and looking stupid, but they are probably willing to risk this given SDO was in the middle of so many issues and her replacement will be viewed as someone who could tip the "balance" of the court. I have posted this many times on this board. However, like others have said, they cant do this with the gonzalez nomination. First of all, they have to realize gonzalez is about the best they can get out of this president. To reject him, they are assured of getting an even more right wing nominee to follow him. Secondly, Gonzalez won his AG confirmation vote 60-36 (Not sure which 4 senators did not vote). Among the democrats voting for him were Lieberman (CT), Landrieu (LA), Pryor (AR), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), and Salazar (CO). All but Nelson (FL) are part of the so called "Gang of 14" who signed the no filibuster agreement unless under extreme circumstances. They are going to have a hard time explaining why they agreed to confirm him for AG, but not its an extreme circumstance and vote to filibuster and hold him up from a supreme court spot. On a side note, how can you be a United States Senator and NOT vote on the attorney general of the United States? What could be more important? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 I have posted this many times on this board. However, like others have said, they cant do this with the gonzalez nomination. First of all, they have to realize gonzalez is about the best they can get out of this president. To reject him, they are assured of getting an even more right wing nominee to follow him. Secondly, Gonzalez won his AG confirmation vote 60-36 (Not sure which 4 senators did not vote). Among the democrats voting for him were Lieberman (CT), Landrieu (LA), Pryor (AR), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), and Salazar (CO). All but Nelson (FL) are part of the so called "Gang of 14" who signed the no filibuster agreement unless under extreme circumstances. They are going to have a hard time explaining why they agreed to confirm him for AG, but not its an extreme circumstance and vote to filibuster and hold him up from a supreme court spot. On a side note, how can you be a United States Senator and NOT vote on the attorney general of the United States? What could be more important? 375172[/snapback] If you know he's going to win, and you need the time to do some fundraising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Followup on my last post....the 4 senators who did not vote: Republican Conrad Burns of Montana and Democrats Max Baucus of Montana, Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii. This is absurd. DO YOUR JOB. If I was in any of these states I would be furious they missed this vote. For the record Inouye is also a member of the "Gang of 14", leaving Senator Byrd the only member of the Gang to vote Against a Gonzalez nomination for AG. Hardly sounds like they can come up with the "extreme circumstance" they need to block his nomination. Point is, a Gonzalez nomination would (and could) be pushed though very fast. Personally I wish bush would nominate someone "in the mold of thomas or scalia" as he promised in his campaign. But I think we are all making a mistake right now. Lets let the president make his selection, as he has a right to do, and then critique it. But remember, whoever it is, is the choice of the rightfully elected president, and the way our system works is that there is a vote in the senate to confirm or deny that nominee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 If you know he's going to win, and you need the time to do some fundraising. I surely hope you are joking and that they were not doing fundraising instead...unless they are attending a funeral or tending to an important international crisis, they should make their opinion known and vote, especially on something as important as an attorney general confirmation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 I surely hope you are joking and that they were not doing fundraising instead...unless they are attending a funeral or tending to an important international crisis, they should make their opinion known and vote, especially on something as important as an attorney general confirmation. 375183[/snapback] I'm not, over 50% of most senators' time is spent doing fundraising due to the way our campaign financing works (I was reading about this the other day in a book on party politics in America). I don't know for a fact if they were fundraising, but I would bet that if they didn't vote, they probably were. This is a big reason why I'd support publically only, or at least a lot heavier limit on current campaign financing donations. Lets put the senators, presidential candidates, and others to do what they do, and let the government and political parties do the campaign financing, not the candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Yet, the article couldn't help but state "At stake are divisive issues such as abortion rights and affirmative action. Bush, who has said Americans aren't ready to ban abortion, declined to say whether he will name a justice who would vote to outlaw it." Overturning Roe V Wade would not "outlaw" abortion. It would allow states to ban it, or place restrictions on it, should they choose to. I think there would be state laws passed to place restrictions on it (such as late term or parental notification for minors), but are there any states that would ban it outright? Before anyone answers that, please get some data to back it up. Most of what I've seen leads me to believe there might be some state bans, but very few. And while some believe the basis for the decision on Roe V Wade was questionable, it doesn't mean that there isn't an arguable basis elsewhere in the Constitution. 374752[/snapback] Well, the religious right is mobilized and committed to overturning roe v. wade and also to outlaw abortion. They also feel that Bush owes them for their support in the last election. I'm not sure that our country is ready for even a few state bans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts