Durka-Durka-Muhammed-Jihad!!
Can't remember where I saw/heard this (maybe Dick Morris?), but the Democrats are playing the part as expected:
Democrats Demand Legal PapersIt's almost like watching a mouse run through a maze.
Democrats said yesterday they will demand that the Bush administration hand over internal legal memorandums written by Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. while he was a government lawyer -- something the White House has refused to do in the past.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, said he broached the topic during a meeting yesterday with Judge Roberts, who replied that any decision about his writings as deputy solicitor general would be made by the White House.
Republicans on Capitol Hill said the request is not likely to be granted.
Demands for those same documents -- deemed legally privileged by this and previous administrations -- led to the rejection of Miguel Estrada, an earlier Bush nominee to a lower court.
Democrats have used this tactic to stall the nomination of John R. Bolton, Mr. Bush's nominee for ambassador to the United Nations.
Some Republicans said yesterday that the demands may be early signs of a stealth campaign by Democrats to kill the Supreme Court nomination by demanding documents they know they won't get -- a strategy one Republican termed "Estradification."
Now the next stage of this will be the shrill cries of 'Extremism' that will echo through the halls of Congress followed by someone in the House of Representatives (probably Nancy Pelosi (D-Moonbat)) announcing that 'democracy is in danger of being exterminated'.
While I haven't really thought much about John Roberts being nominated to the Supreme Court, this type of knee-jerk reaction is sad - expected, predicted, and sad.
ADDENDUM: Writer Keith Thompson is thinking along the same lines as I am about this....
Well, I hadn't realized until maybe yesterday that he had been an appellate judge. Read it somew
Read more in One-Two-Three...One-Two-Three...
nathalie said:
I agree w/Cait, SCOTUS judges should stick to strict interpretation of the constitution. If the D
Read more in One-Two-Three...One-Two-Three...
Cait said:
To be honest, I was pleasantly surprised at the nomination of John Roberts. He appears to be a f
Read more in One-Two-Three...One-Two-Three...
Trackback Information for One-Two-Three...One-Two-Three...
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/102764Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'One-Two-Three...One-Two-Three...'.
Comments on One-Two-Three...One-Two-Three...
To be honest, I was pleasantly surprised at the nomination of John Roberts. He appears to be a fairly moderate conservative, rather than an ultra-right winger. I haven't read or heard a whole lot on him, and as he's never been a judge, we really don't have any case decisions to go by as to his stance. All I've heard is that he is likely to be a strict constitutionalist, which is pretty much how I see a supreme should be. I think on this one, the Dems would be wise to make a bit of a fuss just for show, and then sit down and shut up.
|| Posted by Cait, July 22, 2005 01:37 PM ||I agree w/Cait, SCOTUS judges should stick to strict interpretation of the constitution. If the Dems drag this out without good reason, they will just shoot themselves in the foot and confirm their roles as obstructionists. Though he has a short record as judge, his 40+ decisions have garnered just 3 dissenting opinions (if I recall correctly.) Not a bad record at all.
|| Posted by nathalie, July 24, 2005 03:31 AM ||Well, I hadn't realized until maybe yesterday that he had been an appellate judge. Read it somewhere. But, short case history.
|| Posted by Cait, July 24, 2005 06:54 AM ||