"t1gercat" <wexford1778@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120495925.527208.251800@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

It depends on the flaw and the spirit of the times. Thomas was alleged
to like porn. Worse than that, he was alleged to have bragged about it
in front of his female co-workers. It's the kind of flaw the press
loves and the public understands. For myself, I think porn is tacky
and low, but I'd be more concerned about the candidate's judicial
reasoning. The porn accusations, of course, as lurid as they were,
were not enought to keep Thomas off the bench.

Judicial reasoning, however, kept Bork from getting a seat. It was a
good thing, too. Bork is a nutcase whose thinking makes little sense.
I read both of his "popular" books," The Tempting of America." and
"Slouching Toward Gomorrah," and in both of them I was appalled at the
murkiness of his legal logic. He writes with compelling, even eloquent
prose, but his thinking slips off into the muck and even his prose
doesn't save it. For Bork there is no right of privacy, due process of
law is a myth, the fundies have a perfect right to compel public
schools to teach their religious beliefs, etc. His selection to the
court would have been a nightmare for conservatives and liberals alike.


We'll see what happens. My guess is that Bush's nominee won't be too
far to the right. After all, the last thing the Pugs want is a
reversal of Roe v. Wade. Such an event would destroy the issue that
gives them their most ardent support.

Wexford

They would love a reversal of Roe v. Wade. The dems would scream bloody hell
and the pugs would have a field day bashing them. Part of their strategy is
to get a reaction form the other side and then talk them to death.

It would be a disaster for republicans to toss out 230 years of senate
tradition---whether or not they got justices they want

In that 230 years, no judicial nominee has ever been blocked by filibuster
until the radical, America-hating neo-coms started it last year. Liberals
HATE democracy.

------------------------------------------------------
houston toilet for ladies
</groups?q=author:danaraffaniello%40worldnet.
att.net&start=210&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT>F-8&selm=63j
060%24j0j%40bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net&rnum=225>
use me as your toilet. will be toilet for female parties.
can also be used as a rug, so you can walk on me.

"Arturo Magidin" <magidin@math.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:da9i0s$a0m$1@agate.berkeley.edu...

Not if they are willing to change the rules.

It takes 67 to break a filibuster on a proposed rule change . . . unless
Frist is determined to break the rules on changing the rules with his
"Nuclear Option", a move that will cost him support for his 2008
Presidential bid.

===============================================================================================
"...."Positive polarization" has given the party a hateful and frightening face, ushering in
spates of gay-bashing, intolerance toward legal immigrants and declarations of a "Christian nation,
" essentially telling Jews and those outside of fundamentalist Christianity to get lost. Over the
last two general elections, the state GOP in California has been virtually annihilated.
Even Southern voters are clearly moving on. In the '98 elections, GOP candidates were toppled in
Alabama, Georgia and the Carolinas. But party leadership seems reluctant to hear the message..."
Edward Tafel---Log Cabin Republicans

"Arturo Magidin" <magidin@math.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:da9i0s$a0m$1@agate.berkeley.edu...

In article <_UXxe.15618$pa3.14973@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Andrealphus <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:

"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:1exgvcdxe8zzp.dlg@sec12-astroblaster.pepsi.com...

Bottom line: Absent a character flaw, the president¡¦s nominee will
be confirmed. The short answer is that the GOP has at least 51 solid
votes no matter who the nominee is, and the same majority will break
a filibuster.

It takes 60 to break a filibuster.

Not if they are willing to change the rules.

They struck a deal that says they will not change the rules. If the
Republicans change the rules, it would be blatant treachery.

"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote in
news:QYbye.16082$pa3.5114@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:42c94b3c$0$253$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...

Adenoid-Hinkel@LoonyRighwing.com wrote in
news:tklgc1lrmccji0reglnr7k7jajtu5v3710@4ax.com:

On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 16:05:04 -0400, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

The president can have whichever nominee he wants. Period.

oh, is Judge Bork back in running?

The noise levels on the left are just a smokescreen for the
search-and-destroy operation the left will run on any nominee¡¦s
background,

The only significant data about a nominee is whether or not that
He/she/they can constitutionally support the past doctrines that gave
us Marbury v Madison, Gideon v Wainwright, and Rov v. Wade.

Notice the question will be about constitutional doctrine and the
judicial philosophy that engenders(ed) it.

Bork was defeated for the reason that he said: "I cannot find any
contitutional grounds for (those 3 aforementioned). That proved his
downfall

IOW, when a judge answers that his philosophy is so narrow as to
exclude 200 years of acceptible judical rulings, they will fail.

Even if 200 yearts of accepted judicial rulings are wrong?

Who says they were wrong?

The Constitution.