Thanks for the link(s). With all of these CQ/Power Line/Instapundit/Hewitt readers coming in today, it's nice of you to expose them to some of my ideas. (Of course, the prediction was your idea to begin with! I'm just joining in on that.)

I think we're sticking our necks out there with this prediction, but I clearly think it's the wise move for the Dems. If they do it, the next nominee had better watch out, because the sharpened knives will be out and thirsting for blood. The interest groups will accept nothing less.

Bloody knives or not, I would love to see Estrada nominated to the High Court.

When the President deems someone qualified, he keeps nominating them until they're confirmed. Estrada did bow out, and hard to blame him, for the circuit court. But the Supreme Court - higher stakes, higher visibility, and an open declaration of confidence on the President's part.

That said, he's a longshot.

I find no Constitutional basis for the Filibuster, and it seems to have been used historically mostly to protect repressive political possitions.
I would love to see it eliminated.

I doubt Estrada would subject himself to another inquisition by the Judiciary Committee Torquemadas.

I think our best hope of keeping a Republican majority to seriously threaten the nuclear option is a moderately conservative woman, ideally a Latina.

The best defense against a filibuster is probably Larry Thompson. If there's little or no political, or judicial paper trail, what are they going to filibuster him about? That he worked for Ashcroft? I don't think they can do it just for that. I'd say, if the President can determine that Thompson is a solid originalist, the real deal, then that seems like a good choice. The only problem is, conservatives like their paper trail too. I think maybe we should trust Bush to hit another homerun. He's in the zone.

If the consensus is the Libertine Socialist (Democratic) Party will filibuster any nominee why not go for the gold...Janice Rogers Brown? Judicious black female libertarian. For me it doesn't get a lot better.

I would say the best defense against a filibuster is that the GOP will do away with it permanently if the Democrats use it for no reason. I think at this point, virtually any filibuster would be looked at askance by several of the dupes—er, I mean Senate leaders—who signed that risible deal last spring.

But whether Miguel Estrada sets up a gambit is moot, since IMHO, the president is going to nominate someone who cannot be filibustered: Priscilla Owen. Call it the Rove Gambit.

I really would love to see the Constitutional Option exercised. It's an excellent way to see who's campaigns you want to contribute to and who's opponent's campaigns. I have nothing but contempt for Republicans in the Senate who think that cooperating with Democrats will enhance comity.
The main thing is to learn from John Roberts. He was never contentious, but he didn't let the hostiles get away with falsehoods. He was amazingly patient and good humored. And his intellect was on full dispay without giving them any ammunition to use against him. One thing he did that was brilliant, if it's what I think was to suggest to them that he can agree on some things. He supports the holding in Griswold based on privacy, but when asked about abortion, he told them he couldn't answer. He invoked legal ethics rules. He and the Republicans made very effective use of Justice Ginsburg's refusal to answer questions, and Senator Biden's advice to her that she shouldn't answer such questions.

If it's Estrada, Brown, Owens or Johnson I think that the Democrats might have a harder time getting a filibuster to hold than they did before. These hearings are much higher profile and I think that the Rs could stir up a lot of interest among women, blacks and hispanics/latinos.

The parts of the hearings I listened to concerned me. I kept thinking "How could people keep re-electing these bozos?" I was thinking that Roberts must be taking some serious valium, because I wanted to pop Joe Biden in his smug pucker when he was being so condensending, I can't imagine actually being in the room with the guy. Everyone already knows how they're going to vote, can't we just skip the show. When will someone from the press jump up and start screaming "THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!"?

Doesn't matter. The senate dems have a bigger worry: Called 2006. John Roberts hearing was televised AND discussed on the Internet. Pollsters know he did well with the American public. And, the senators need to be seen as sticking close to the mainstream.

WHO COMES NEXT? Given that George W. Bush has an array of cards, all of them excellent; he's going to send his next person UP as soon as Roberts Confirmation is made.

The dems can only lose. (I'll bet that Hillary votes FOR Bush's nominees; just as I see Donna Brazille, trying to grab the reins of the out-of-countrol "donkey.")

So, whose next? Edith Clement? Estrada? I'm actually full of anticipation, because I enjoy the way Bush plays his poker hand. And, EVERYBODY on his team is EXCELLENT. This just makes matters WORSE for the dems. Since, so far, all they're adding over their heads is much more water. Katrina is a minor threat in comparison.

Yikes! I'm not from the house of Slytherin! My hat's not hissing in my ear at all. Wanna take bets on volume 7 of Potter?

Re: Carolynp at September 18, 2005 12:19 AM

> The parts of the hearings I listened to
> concerned me. I kept thinking "How could
> people keep re-electing these bozos?"

There's no way around it. Morons elect bozos, and "educated" morons elect even bigger bozos. New Englanders and Californians have a lot to answer for these days. I grew up in Minneapolis, with the influence of the University of Minnesota, so I had a front row seat for some of the Midwest's biggest bozos. Not quite Berkeley-class circus, but darn close. But now, I think Minnesota, if not Minneapolis, is on the road to recovery. I hope.

Well, there's more than one Carol Herman posting. And, I wonder why? I know I have type key registration; and I see two of my posts that had to wait for approval, before showing up here. Then, I see the strangest thing. Someone with my signature (Carol_Herman) with the Re: Carolynp quote.

Fancy such computer mistakes! Easy to solve. I'll post no more. You're welcome to the person whose trying to pose as me. Betcha there's no "Carol" or "Herman" on that person. Just a device. Phooey.

Morons do NOT elect BOZOs. Personal choices of people are quite allowed under our Constitution. Okay. Now, I'm gone.

Carol_Herman II:

I see two of my posts that had to wait for approval, before showing up here.

No comments are held for moderation. Anyone with TypeKey can post comments immediately.

If they were delayed, it was for some internal program reason over which I have no control.

Dafydd

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)