January 4, 2006
WELL, THAT'S NOT HELPFUL...:
U.S. Bar Association Grants Alito High Rating (THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, 1/04/06)
Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito received an unanimous well-qualified rating from the American Bar Association on Wednesday, giving his nomination momentum as the Senate prepares for confirmation hearings next week. [...]The ABA rating -- the highest -- is the same that Alito received back in 1990, when President Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, nominated him to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
...to the 40%ers.... Posted by Orrin Judd at January 4, 2006 12:39 PM
(Repeat prediction) Watch for those people to raise the issue of the N.Y.T vs. U.S. case as grounds for a filibuster.
It is quite possible that the NSA surviellance story was timed so as to raise this matter before the Alito confirmation hearings.
Posted by: Lou Gots at January 4, 2006 1:15 PMLou - perhaps. But I have yet to see anyone in legal circles argue the NSA wire taps were illegal or that Bush didn't have the authority. So what are the Senate Dems going to filibuster on?
Posted by: AWW at January 4, 2006 1:41 PMAWW;
Their belief that the wiretaps were illegal and unprecedented. None of their previous judicial filibusters have been based on reality, so why should they change with Alito?
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at January 4, 2006 4:07 PMAnyone: Don't you think there are more glaring issues that the Democrats could attack Bush on, elsewhere in his conduct in the War on Terror?
Posted by: Grog at January 4, 2006 10:34 PMNo.
Posted by: David Cohen at January 4, 2006 11:31 PMGrog:
Consider this: the Dems certainly have better access to more complete information on all these "glaring issues" than we do. (They should, since they're in the business, while we're all a bunch of amatuers hanging out on OJ's bandwidth in our spare time.) I also assume that they're intelligent, highly motivated, and reasonably ruthless.
So why aren't they pressing on the "glaring issues?"
It could be that Karl Rove has his hooks in every last one of 'em, the fiend. It could be that because they're members of the corporatist bougeoise class caught in the grip of the unstoppable forces of dialectical materialism. It could just be that they're not as smart or ruthless as I'm giving them credit for.
However, I suspect it's simply that the "glaring issues" just aren't all that glaring.
Posted by: Mike Morley at January 5, 2006 6:18 AMGrog:
Which issue can they get away with siding with the Islamicists on?
Posted by: oj at January 5, 2006 7:55 AMGrog: "getting away with" at the national level means winning an election. At the national level. Either house of Congress or the presidency will do. Turning up the volume in the Kos echo chamber doesn't count.
Posted by: joe shropshire at January 5, 2006 12:05 PMThe Dems are bought and sold by the same people that buy and sell the Republicans. The Republicans get more money and have more support from the corporations who own big media. The Dems are worthless hypocrites of an opposition party, and now their only job is to coordinate their bumbling mediocracy with the needs of the Republican agenda.
Posted by: Grog at January 6, 2006 3:49 AMThere are glaring issues, they just don't receive too much consideration on thid board; the moment I point them out, the instant response comes back to me, every time "Oh, so I guess you think the Democrats and Clinton are any better?" No, I don't, I think our country is being mismanaged by both parties.
Posted by: Grog at January 6, 2006 3:52 AMGrog:
It is the mark of the least serious among us that they think their own ideas too big for either party.
Posted by: oj at January 6, 2006 7:36 AM