Republicans Retreat on Health Bill Repeal
Senate Republicans Roll Over For Fed
Conclusion: BOTH PARTIES SERVE the SAME MASTER!
"GOP wary of waging fierce fight over Supreme Court choice; Expect to take wait-and-see approach on pick" by Peter Baker and Carl Hulse, New York Times | April 11, 2010
WASHINGTON — The retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens presents a test for Republicans as much as it does for President Obama as they weigh how much they want to wage a high-profile battle over ideological issues in the months before crucial midterm elections.
I doubt it is going to come to that, and if it does it's all fireworks fooleys, folks!
In the aftermath of the polarized health care debate, some Republican leaders said they were reluctant to give Democrats further ammunition to portray them as knee-jerk obstructionists.
Yup, the REPUGS are BACKING DOWN again!
They are NO BETTER than DemocraPs!!!
But they also want to harness the populist anger at Obama’s policies and are wary of alienating their base when they need it most....
Well, you should be wary. I am your f***ing base, and I'm furious about another backtrack.
Incumbents out, independents candidates -- even Satan himself -- in.
With Democrats’ poll numbers down, Republicans said they did not necessarily want a fight for the sake of a fight because it could boomerang on them, and they left open the possibility that Obama might pick someone they could largely support....
What, NOT NOW?
No POLITICAL ADVANTAGE?
Masters say no on this?
And SINCE WHEN, anyway?
You will excuse me the next time I grab a gas mask when it comes to the political wind from Washington, 'eh?
Obama appears to be leaning toward choices intended to avoid provoking Republicans. Still, any Supreme Court vacancy energizes the most committed activists on both sides, particularly over such issues as abortion, guns, and religion....
Don't you love the MSM pushing all the division issues?!
Ilya Shapiro, a constitutional scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, said the new health care law would play into the debate, especially given legal challenges to the program.
What challenge?
You know, I guess when the paper is only read and written by a small segment of the population they only would talk to certain people.
I wish I was being hyperbolic; however, I am not. I've been reading the Globe to long.
Even if Republicans cannot stop an Obama nominee, the fight could shape the fall campaign.
I'm tired of the "politics" filling up so much time and space in the newspaper!
“I think Republicans are going to try to take advantage of the tea partiers’ anger at what is a populist view of a government that is out of control,’’ Shapiro said. “They will try to make this a debate whoever the nominee is — not in the sense of trying to derail the nominee, but just to showcase the issues and to make the case that this is why you need to elect Republicans in the fall.’’
Well, he's disillusioned anyway so you can't really take his analysis seriously; I suppose I would qualify as a tea partier -- whatever that means -- and I'm not feeling to smug about Repugs these days. You crap all over and ignore Ron Paul and I'm supposed to reach out and embrace?
Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, chairman of the House Republican Conference, noted that the Supreme Court could eventually “decide whether the federal government has the power to compel Americans to purchase health insurance,’’ and so, he said, “now is the time to have a thorough debate over the course and direction of the court.’’
I'd rather he not debate anything.
Related:
"I never thought I'd live to see the day that an American administration would denounce the state of Israel for rebuilding Jerusalem. I urge the president to stop all this talk about settlements in Jerusalem and start focusing on isolating a threatening and menacing and rising nuclear Iran." -- Representative Mike Pence of Indiana said on the House floor yesterday after speaking with Netanyahu.
Also see: Another Moving Van on 9/11
Enough said.
Republicans said they saw little prospect of a filibuster unless they could make the case that the nominee was far out of the mainstream. A filibuster would be hard to justify, they said, after Republicans assailed Democrats for blocking votes on President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees.
Yeah, what a worthless PoS tool that turned out to be, huh -- and here the MSM spent so much time covering how important was that 60th vote.
But they noted that Obama voted as a senator to filibuster Bush’s nomination of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., so they could rationalize one if necessary. “In truly extraordinary cases, I reserve the prerogative to vote no on confirmation or even to vote to deny an up-or-down vote,’’ said Senator Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican.
By all accounts, the front-runners are Solicitor General Elena Kagan and two appeals court judges, Diane P. Wood of Chicago and Merrick B. Garland of Washington. The main choices of liberals are not in the top tier.
How many limp dicks must a liberals face before they wake up?
Kagan, considered by some Democrats as the most likely candidate, could be hard for Republicans to block given her lack of a judicial paper trail and her support from conservatives who appreciated her opening the doors to them when she was dean of the Harvard Law School.
I think we have found a winnah!
Garland, who is well known and well regarded in Washington’s political-legal circles, is widely seen by Republicans and Democrats as the safest choice, most likely to draw 85 votes.
But he's a white man.
Wood, who is less known in Washington, would be the favorite of liberals among the top three and has written decisions on abortion and religion that would generate more fire from the right.
Is that why we are not reading much about her?
I would like to know more.
Where does she stand on GOVERNMENT POWER?
TORTURE?
CIVIL LIBERTIES and the SPYING, 'er, Patriot Act?
War crimes trials?
Where does she come down on those?
Not in there.
And what is with the mixed messages!?
"GOP readies for fight over Stevens’ successor; Refuses to rule out use of filibuster to derail court pick" by Laura Litvan, Bloomberg News | April 12, 2010
I can't say as I am not disappointed after what I read a day earlier.
WASHINGTON — President Obama may have a fight on his hands if he names an “ideologue’’ to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court, Republicans say.
“I don’t know whether they will show any self-restraint or whether they will just try to jam through an ideologue, which of course would provoke a lot of fireworks,’’ said Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican who is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Stevens, a leader of the court’s liberal wing who turns 90 on April 20, announced Friday that he will step down when the high court concludes its term around the end of June. The Senate last year confirmed Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, with nine Republican votes.
Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, suggested the stakes will be high even if Obama’s nominee isn’t likely to shift the balance on the closely divided court.
“I’d like the new nominee to be one of five, not one of four when the votes come up, and somebody who would be quite persuasive in terms of influencing other justices,’’ Schumer, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said yesterday on ABC’s “This Week’’ program.
This is why I never watch the Sunday shows I used to love so much.
During football season that was my Super Bowl on Sunday; alas, all it did was stink up the room.
Sadly, I NEVER WATCH CABLE or NETWORK NEWS anymore.
My only AmeriKan MSM prism is the Boston Globe, folks -- New England's largest daily.
Still, he said he doesn’t expect a major battle over ideology because of Obama’s record in making judicial nominations. “He chooses people in the mainstream,’’ Schumer said.
Republican senators yesterday declined to rule out the possibility that they would mount a filibuster to derail a nominee.
Senator Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican, also a member of the Judiciary Committee, said on the ABC program that although a filibuster isn’t off the table, it should be used only in “extraordinary circumstances,’’ such as to oppose a nominee who is “overly ideological.’’
Whatever, pffft! Is that what took the time up on the show?
*****************
A confirmation fight would follow the bitter battle over health care that culminated in a narrow victory for Obama and the Democrats. Cornyn said Democrats might be “feeling their oats’’ after last month’s party-line victory....
Democrats, who control 59 votes in the Senate, are one shy of the 60 needed to shut down a filibuster that can block a vote on confirmation....
They aren't going to have to worry based on who h is nominating, and what I read above -- unless, of course, on of these reports is a distortion or lie.
Cornyn, who previously served on the Texas Supreme Court and as state attorney general, said he is still sizing up the possible Stevens replacements. He said Kagan, 49, former dean of Harvard Law School, may lack the proper experience to serve on the Supreme Court. Kagan has never been a judge and is “pretty thin on what I would call real-world legal experience,’’ Cornyn said.
Okay, that's one nay for her.
So the CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN from TEXAS likes the LIBERAL'S FAVORITE of the top three?
YIKES! I guess we do not want her.
--more--"
