1/19/2007

16 Responses to “Fitting the Devil for Ice Skates”

1. Wow, if they support Peter Keisler, a co-founder of the Federalist Society, as a “moderate conservative,” hell really may be freezing over. At least I know where the global warming is coming from.

   Attila (Pillage Idiot) (68fd1f) — 1/19/2007 @ 7:36 am

   
   

2. the constitution doesn’t mandate senate confirmation of any presidential appointee; it says these appointments are made “by and with the advice and consent of the senate”; the clear implication of which is that consent may be withheld if the senate sees fit. i encourage the senate democrats to subject this president’s appointees to the most rigorous scrutiny, and to withhold consent for judges who believe in unlimited expansion of federal power, unlimited expansion of corporate power, and who fail to vigorously uphold the principles enshrined in our bill of rights.

   assistant devil's advocate (d0413b) — 1/19/2007 @ 9:19 am

   
   

3. who fail to vigorously uphold the principles enshrined in our bill of rights.

   And thus sadly, Alexander Hamiliton is proven correct.

   gahrie (27eef3) — 1/19/2007 @ 9:22 am

   
   

4. In the 1990s, the majority Republicans usually told the Clinton Administration that they would not waste time considering nominees that could not demonstrate at least some support from GOP Senators. After all, why spend time considering someone who at best is going to max out at 45 votes in favor of confirmation? The Democrats are welcome to apply the same standard now that they are the majority (though their margin is much thinner), but they do owe consideration to those Bush appointees who have the potential of winning votes from those alleged moderate Dems. If Harry Reid can’t get 51 votes against, he should not try to force a nominee to get 60 votes for cloture.

   JVW (255a81) — 1/19/2007 @ 10:03 am

   
   

5. To be fair, though, they do include an implicit limitation: they only want the Democrats to approve Bush nominees who are “within the judicial mainstream”, a term they don’t define, and which can therefore mean whatever they want it to mean.

   aphrael (e0cdc9) — 1/19/2007 @ 11:14 am

   
   

6. I think the LA Times is trying to get ahead of the “game”.

   They think the Democrats are going to own the Presidency for at least 8 maybe 16 years beginning in ’09.

   They are trying to head off filibusters by Republicans when that happens. I call BS on this article if one thinks they are trying to bring “comity” back into the Senate.

   Luke (c9e7d5) — 1/19/2007 @ 4:34 pm

   
   

7. There’s nothing wrong with a Supreme Court that only has seven or even six justices as long as the vacant seats are Stevens’s, Bader-Ginsburg’s and Kennedy’s. Likewise for the lower courts. Better to leave the seat vacant than to fill it with someone Leahy, Kennedy and Biden like. Will the President keep his promise and not appoint “compromise” justices and judges? He has, so far.

   nk (4d4a9d) — 1/19/2007 @ 5:21 pm

   
   

8. I agree with NK. Furthermore, I think this is a public statement intended mainly for GWB’s ears. The Democrats are telling him publicly what they were probably already telling him privately: Don’t nominate a nuclear candidate, and we won’t go nuclear in response.

   My guess is that means goodbye conservative nominees and hello Justice Alberto Gonzales.

   DRJ (51a774) — 1/19/2007 @ 6:49 pm

   
   

9. That’s the danger, DRJ. In an otherwise sterling record, he nominated a crony, Harriett Miers. He may very well nominate AG AG. (Is AG AG an Aggie by any chance? That would be way too je ne sais quois.)

   nk (4d4a9d) — 1/19/2007 @ 7:00 pm

   
   

10. I looked up Alberto Gonzales’ biography. I knew he was Harvard Law so that should make him more palatable to the Democrats, but I didn’t realize he had been in the Air Force and the Air Force Academy before completing his degree at Rice University. So he’s not an Aggie.

    DRJ (51a774) — 1/19/2007 @ 7:30 pm

    
    

11. I thought it but I forgot to say it: It would be funny if he were an AG-AG-Aggie.

    DRJ (51a774) — 1/19/2007 @ 9:17 pm

    
    

12. It would be funny if he were an AG-AG-Aggie.

    Sure, until somebody plays a Slim Whitman record…

    McGehee (5664e1) — 1/20/2007 @ 9:18 am

    
    

13. AG @ AF Academy?
    His bio says he served with the AF for 2 years, then was at the Academy for 2 years? Then he graduated from Rice. What is wrong with this picture?
    Did he enlist in the AF?
    Enlistment is normally for four years.
    Did he get an appointment to the Academy as an enlisted man?
    Why did he drop out?
    Or, was he just posted to the Academy as enlisted staff?
    Questions???

    Another Drew (8018ee) — 1/20/2007 @ 3:13 pm

    
    

14. He dropped out of the Air Force Academy after two years. Or was cut. It happens. Not everyone is cut out to get a million dollars’ worth of training to fly an eighty million dollar airplane. That’s nothing to hold against him: “Man’s reach should exceed his grasp or what’s a Heaven for?”

    nk (bfc26a) — 1/20/2007 @ 5:53 pm

    
    

15. P.S. My point being that there’s one big heck of a difference between a 20-year old judged on whether he can drop a nuclear bomb on Moscow and a 51-year old judged on whether he should be a Supreme Court Justice. If we object, we should object only to the 51-year old.

    nk (06f5d0) — 1/20/2007 @ 6:10 pm

    
    

16. My point, nk, is that his bio is very ambiguous. These ambiguities should be explained. Blank spots such as these would not be tolerated on a resume, and leave open the question of “resume fraud”.
    Also, not all graduates of the AFAcademy go on to pilot training. And, we don’t have 20-year olds flying planes. You’ll graduate from the Academy at 21-22, then go on to 1-2 years of flight training, then get posted to squadron where you are issued a plane of your own (if a fighter) or assigned to a crew.
    The 20-year old is probably the assistant crew-chief who makes sure that your eighty-million dollar airplane can get off the ground and perform its’ mission (who may, or may not, be a HS drop-out who learned everything he knows courtesy of an AF Tech School where thousands of enlistees, every year, are taught how to ensure that the needs of the service are met without any BS).
    These proud members of the AF then go on to a civilian life, after being discouraged by the broken promises of our fine politicians in Congress, to keep your airliner flying.
    They are all finer men (and women) than the average 50-year old pol in DC!

    Another Drew (8018ee) — 1/21/2007 @ 5:36 pm