Moderate Republicans - The Nuclear Option will destroy your party!

[CTLawGuy]

If Frist is allowed to thwart the Senate Rules and kill the filibuster, then your party will have shown its true colors, that it has become completely morally bankrupt.

The voters will be angry about this, and even if you do not lose your seat because are not up for reelection, you will lose majority status. People do not take kindly to people who blatantly abuse power. and this time, we have Chairman Dean running the show, who will not let you get away with it.

if you have any shred of decency or self-preservation in you, you will vote to kill the nuclear option tomorrow.

We don't want those judges to be appointed for life, we don't want to give your party 1.5 years more to ram other horrible judges down our throat, that's why I'm telling you this, moderate Republicans.

[rock]

1. Shhhh

Let's not help them!

[Internut]

2. Why is that bad? n/t

[CTLawGuy]

3. in 1.5 years

Bush can shove through up to 3 Supreme Court justices and countless appeals court judges.

If Bush gets 3 Supreme Court judges, bye bye Roe v. Wade, bye bye Lawrence v. Texas (sodomy case), bye bye freedom.

Even if we get a majority in 2006, we could not get rid of those judges. They will be there for 20-30 years. That is 20-30 years of eroding progress.

it's better NOT to have those judges get on the bench in the first place.

[Internut]

4. The poster is warning Republicans that if

they continue what they are doing, they will lose majority status. It is implied that if they don't, they won't. So - why would I NOT want them to continue what they're doing? I thought our goal IS for them to lose majority status.

[CTLawGuy]

5. ok so they will be sure to lose majority status for at least two years

but in exchange they put John Ashcroft, Ted Olson, and Alberto Gonzales on the Supreme Court, FOR LIFE! That means for 20-30 YEARS, they will ultiimately decide what freedoms we have.

Internut, would you take that deal?

also, if X implies Y, no X does NOT imply no Y

I did not imply that if they didn't go with the Nuclear option, they would retain majority status, I said that if they DID go with it, they'd DEFINITELY lose it.

[Internut]

6. This reminds me of David Souter confirmation hearings -

we have been told by Democrats who objected to him during the confirmation hearings that the guy is a little to the right of Attilla the Hun. In fact, he is to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. So - don't be so sure that whoever Bush nominates will, in fact, toe the right wing line.

[CTLawGuy]

7. wow

Please start a thread with the idea that the judges Bush nominates might not be so right wing,

and see what kind of responses you get.

[Internut]

8. Was David Souter right wing?

That is certainly the impression I got from his confirmation hearings.

[CTLawGuy]

9. I can't say that I saw his confirmation hearings

but theres a difference between GHWBush appointing a republican from New Hampshire, not the MOST conservative of states, and George W Bush, who is fully in the pocket of the religious right appointing people who have a track record of doing things so heinous that they don't deserve to be confirmed.