Why didn't the Right give Harriet Miers an up or down vote??

[spanone]

Just saw a commercial for Alito. Declaring he must be given an Up or Down vote. Well, where the hell was the up or down vote for Ms. Miers???? Funny how the right applies thier 'demands'.

[William769]

1. Because Democrats wouldn't allow it!

:sarcasm:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

2. Well...they didn't have a chance to

because she quit?

[NewJeffCT]

10. that will be the RW excuse

but, it was the far right that pressured her to quit.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

11. BUT SHE QUIT

SHE QUIT! IT WASN'T OUR FAULT! SHE QUIT!

We thought she was awesome and would have voted her up or down.

BUT


SHE


QUIT.




you mean like that?

[Skidmore]

3. Because they really want to exercise the nukular option and

have a huge fight. The bottom line is they want an extreme activist court and they want to make sure the clobber everyone to the left of Attila the Hun with a big club to make sure they know that they can do anything they want now.

[Burning Water]

16. You are absolutely right!!

They do want a fight. A fight that they think they can win. I don't know if they can or not, but I do know one thing. Such a fight will reunite the right behind * as nothing else on earth could do.

As the fight goes on, watch his poll numbers rise, as those that left him over his spending, stance on immigration, despair or disappointment over the war, rejoin with him on this one issue. I might be wrong about this, but I really don't think so.

So my question for Democrats is this: Would it be better to let John Roberts get on the court without a vicious battle to avoid giving * a hue bump in the polls and new life to the neo-cons? Or would it be better to fight with every weapon we have in the hopes of keeping him off the court? Realizing that this is a fight that we will most likely lose?

I admit. I lean one way sometimes, and the other way at other times. Are the Democrats even able to make a strategic retreat, or have we reached the point that moral purity on the issues is more important than being in a position to implement them?

These are questions the the Democratic leadership must soon confront and decide. If you have strong views either way, I urge you to contact them. The future of the Republic may well rest on their decisions. Also, I'd like to hear any information that would help me make up my own mind.

[spanone]

17. Alito not Roberts. Not so sure we will 'most likely lose'.

[Burning Water]

18. Alito, my mistake.

I knew that, but my proof-reading was faulty.

Maybe we won't "most likely lose", but you kid yourself if you think there is not an excellent possibility that we will. I don't think the Republicans will abandon Bush on this one.

It was, after all, what the election was about. And they won. Or stole it, but it doesn't matter. They are in the seats of power right now.

[MojoXN]

4. Because they're a bunch of fucking hypocrites...

DUH! :)

MojoXN

[katmondoo]

5. I do not remember ever seeing Promo ads for Supreme Court

nominees in the past. Maybe I wasn't paying attention.

[Roland99]

6. Because they keep saying a nominee's judicial philosophy isn't important.

Oh wait....

[Tony_Illinois]

7. Because Clarence Thomas Once Had A Coke With Her

[spanone]

8. Can you imagine the 'outrage' if the left had pressured her to withdraw?

but when the right applies the pressure.....

[Maggie_May]

9. WE WANT A UP OR DOWN VOTE

Thats all we heard but they put their tails between their legs because they couldn't stand up to the religious right. Wimps thats what they are. They are looking really confused they can't stand up to the President than the can't stand up to the religious right.
WIMPS I say they can never call us that again.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. Because bullies only pick fights when they KNOW they will win. nt

[Greeby]

13. Coz Harriet ain't enough of a Nazi

Scalito sure is

[wishlist]

14. They found out Harriet had expressed pro-choice views several years ago

She is a former Democrat who gave a speech to a women's group back in the 1990's where she defended a woman's right to choose, not just when a woman's life is at risk. She had also voiced support for affirmative action and individual rights in several cases. Although she is not scholarly and accomplished as a judge, I believe she would have more closely followed in the footsteps of Sandra Day O'Connor.

On the other hand, Alito has always been a consistently right wing conservative expressing many views that do not support individual rights.

[Burning Water]

15. I think they did.

They were so unanimously opposed to the woman, that President Bush, who despite popular opinion on this forum, can count to 100 (or at least has aides that can), realized that she couldn't win, and that if she did with the unanimous support of the Democrats (how likely would that be?), it would cost him his base, the one thing he has going for him.

The didn't, after all, threaten to filibuster, or at least I never read anywhere that they did.

One thing that you have to realize, words don't mean the same thing to Democrats as they do to Repukes, and vice-versa