No, we are not going to blindly accept the next nominee

If the like of Edith Jones, or other reactionary people with law degree and Judaical experience come along - we need to filibuster until no one is left standing.

She's a scholar of Constitutional law, right?

Not after the way s/he openly ripped on Chimpy for picking Miers anyway.

Or Justice Alberto Gonzalez?
Justice John Ashcroft has a nice ring to it.
Justice Janice Rogers Brown seems like the politically-loaded choice the right needs to unify the Freepers.

the filibuster is our best bet.

If we can buy time until we take control of either the Senate or House then we win. We need to hold on for a year. Fight a "rear guard" action....our only remaining tool is the filibuster.

Blindly doing anything is a losing strategy. Why don't you just sit and wait until a nominee is named before declaring war, hmm?

.

However, it is important for a pre-emptive strike. This is the term that they like in the White House, right?

And not a joke like Thomas, either, who, it seems was barely a notch above Miers in judicial experience and we have seen the results since.

Well, not Duers exactly, but Senate Democrats. Also a list of acceptable candidates might be good.

:hi:

permit a filibuster. They want this fight.

a RW ideologue so the Dems can stand up and fight it/filibuster it.

They want to prove they DO stand for something but the nominee has to be demonstrable RW - Edith Jones, Owens, Brown, etc - any of them will be filibustered.

The Democrats are not looking to back away from a fight. They want a fight going into 2006 to accentuate the differences with the Republicans.

Most people don't agree with the RW wacko judges but the "Conservatives" won't be happy if they don't get a RW'er.

They will vigorously oppose a lunatic nominee from a weakened president.

were not obstructionists. The Republicans demanded many things that they had criticized the Democrats for doing so they won't have that argument anymore.

The Dems are really sitting pretty right now. We will see.

We didn't use the filibuster--never needed it this time, so what's to stop us from scrutinizing Dumbass's next pick?

I think, coming out of the Roberts nomination Bushco and the neocons wanted to nominate Janice Rogers Brown, but knew how things would go down if they did.

So, to manipulate the environment that a Janice Rogers Brown nomination would face, they nominated a complete crony.

I couldn't help but raise the red flag when sooooo many neocons, Christian Reich members, and righties, piled up against Bush. It WAS toooo good to be true.

If it's too good to be true, it usually is.

Now, let us take a step back and look at the new environment, vice the immediate post-Roberts environment.

Are the differences between the two calculated and maniputlated, or is it just by chance?

NOW, a Janice Rogers Brown will be compared to Miers, vice Roberts.

Now, she's a candidate that's a whole lot better than Miers. A candidate that's been a judge, a candidate that the dems even broke down and gave the green light to for federal court. She's a lot more slippery than she would have been in the immediate post-Roberts environment.

Setting up that environment could have been calulated. While I don't think that Bushco thought the poll numbers would be this low, they know they have more than a year before the '06 elections. Take the hit now and recover later. Better to do it now than closer to the elections.

This is a lifetime appointment. LIFE.

Manipulating the political landscape has become this administration's trademark.

In this case, how tinfoil hat is it really?

Miers ... a patsy?

Did Shrub or Bushco REALLY think she would pass? Did sooo many Repugs REALLY dogpile their leader over Miers for no reason?

Whether they were in on it or not, they want a Janice Rogers Brown and I think they're going to get one.

She'll pass through now, while I don't know if she would have made it in the immediate weeks post-Roberts.

Thoughts?

as soon as they can. Remember all the rumors that Rehnquist was going to resing... tomorrow?

As Tubin said earlier on CNN - O'Connor is sitting until a replacement is found and she may still provide the swing vote to upcoming decisions. I really think that Bush believed Miers to be confirmed. After all she did not have any paper trail to nail her down. And, he thought, like Robers she would charm them - she is affable, I take it? And as a pioneer woman (in Texas) many Democrats and moderate Republicans would agree.

What he did not count was the attack from his right and, apparently, the wink wink from Dobston did not work.

Remember, when first nominated, many Democrats, including Reid, were willing to keep an open mind about her, tilted to approval, even. And, she was the one vetting previous nominees that were confirmed so the thinking was that she knows what is required to be confirmed.

Thus, confirming one more, that having an opinion on a subject does not mean actually being there. Look at the Catholic church and its opinion about sex.

Also, that as much as Bush thinks that he is in command, in reality he, like Reagan, was picked to provide a face to the shadow figures of the Republican party.