Or this could just be more b.s. grandstanding on their part, and they’ll let Dubya and the Congressional neocon-Republicans ‘have it all’–as usual. Anyway, Senator Henry Reid of Nevada cautioned that Democrats won’t shy away from using a filibuster, should Bush nominate a candidate with extremist ideological reservations. So he says the Democrats will but we shall see.
WASHINGTON, July 11 – Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said Monday that he did not foresee a filibuster against President Bush’s choice for the Supreme Court, but warned that Democrats would not hesitate to slow the confirmation if they found the process or the nominee objectionable.
“I don’t anticipate a filibuster, but I am not going to shy away from making sure that we have adequate time to explain our position,” Mr. Reid said as Senate leaders from both parties prepared to meet with Mr. Bush on Tuesday morning to discuss the vacancy.
Mr. Reid also said Democrats would try to cooperate in complying with the president’s request that the seat being vacated by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor be filled by Oct. 1. But he pointed out that Justice O’Connor has agreed to remain on the court until her replacement is confirmed and that only six justices are needed for a quorum.[…]
Hmph. All bark and no bite, or will the Democrats stand their ground should Dubya nominate some extremist wingnut to replace O’Connor’s seat on the highest bench in the land? We’ll just have to find out. Also, potential Supreme Court justices during the committee hearings are allowed to take somewhat of ‘judicial’ version of the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer a question.
[…]This response, known in the Senate as “taking the judicial Fifth,” has been recited in one form or another by every recent Supreme Court nominee, and it is almost certain to be used this year by whomever President Bush chooses to replace Justice O’Connor.
It is bound to frustrate some senators and interest groups, since the new justice will be the swing vote on important issues like affirmative action, the role of religion in public life, states’ rights, environmental protection and laws on partial birth abortion.
But as a practical matter, senators have no real recourse when a nominee declines to answer questions. They can hardly refuse to confirm the nominee on that ground alone, since so many other justices who have been noncommittal on the issues of the day have been approved.
In 1986, for instance, Antonin Scalia refused even to say whether he subscribed to the principle of Marbury v. Madison, the fundamental decision in 1803 that established the authority of the Supreme Court to strike down laws as unconstitutional. The Senate confirmed him unanimously.[…]
Yes, we know he was confirmed and he is on the bench now. (sigh) And having an idea of what kind of candidate Bush will nominate, I’m sure watching the committee hearings will be similar to watching the Enron testimonies. I wonder if anyone would keep count of how many times the Fifth was invoked by the nominee.
Maybe the pro-choice groups should threaten to storm the Senate and parbroil Reid’s liver in effigy if he doesn’t come through. I’d tune in to see that on CSPAN, but I’d have to go to somebody else’s house. No cable here. :o
Well, Scalia WAS the darling of both sides of the aisles, right-wing beliefs be damned! Must have been the dimples…
when it comes to any elected governmental body, they might fight with each other but it’s still them against you(the citizens) in the end.
The USSC refused to hear a case that came out of the Ninth Circuit from the Inland Empire, involving the definition of “deadly force” by police officers. I don’t know how the Supremes would have handled this one. Maybe it’s better not to know.
Dimples ?! Who knew ? Maybe that’s what makes the ducks just fall right out of the sky and into his hunting bag.
Stop harshing my buzz, radfem. One would think that you had something against broiled liver, Senate caffeteria-style. :p
Press Action’s website has a couple of good recent articles about the ED rulings, by the way.
LOL…thanks for the links. Our city’s not waiting for the ink to dry on that USSC ruling, before they start taking properties. :-(
What, you don’t think Scalia is like totally hot and happening? *shock*
He’s the sexy Justice, causing people to swoon all throughout Congress led by Gore and Kerry, you know the two women’s rights activists-turned-presidential-nominees, oh so many months ago….one flash of those dimples as he espoused conservatism and everyone pressed the “yes” buzzer in joyful unison. Amen.
***sigh***blush***
I’m just pulling out the latest stilleto in my back from some of our so-called progressives locally who sold the rest of us down the river when the city council voted to restrict public comment again. Fool me once, shame on you…fool me twice…yeah, yeah…
Reminded me of the donkey party. How when the repubs do something dasturdly, the Democrats are always there to put some salve on us so it all goes down a bit easier.
So while I’m sure the Demos might ease our pain I guess, I’m not holding my breath that they’re actually going to do anything.