ConfirmThem

I didn't even know he was running.

We will be lucky to get moderate Dems from Obama, much less a Republican. I always thought this guy was far left, but he has even shocked me how far left he has moved so fast.

If there remains a Republican party to win the White House, Ted Cruz should be at the top of the list for a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

I think we may get that chance sooner than we thought. The market has reject Obama's fiscal policies and the recession will linger into 2010. Growth will be stagnated even after the recession ends and unemployment will likely still be on the way up in 2011.

Republicans have a chance to lay down important economic markers right now. If people like Paul Ryan take the forefront, the tide can easily be turned against Obama.

I never doubt the Republican's chances of ruining a good opportunity, but we have one right now. We could return to power in 2012 with majorities and that would allow the return of conservative judges.

Although liberal Democrats had no problem filibustering qualified Republican judicial nominees under Bush, they are now saying that Republicans should not be allowed to filibuster qualifed Democratic judicial nominees under Obama. Such hogwash, hypocrisy and falsehood!!!

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-oe-lithwick8-20...

"We should stop the escalating smear tactics and the grandstanding. It hardly matters who started it or who manipulated the rules midstream. Let's stipulate that judges matter a lot in this country, too much to have their nominations and confirmations take place on the sticky bathroom floors of American politics."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/opinion/09mon1.html?_r=1

"The Republicans are trying to use intimidation to hold onto the one branch of government where they still hold sway. Mr. Obama may be tempted to give in to win Republican cooperation for other parts of his legislative agenda. He should resist that temptation, and get to work right away appointing the kind of highly qualified, progressive-minded judges the nation needs."

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2U5NDhlMzg3ZTExOWZiOWQ4MmYwYTNm...

"Today’s New York Times has a house editorial that wildly distorts the letter that Senate Republicans sent to President Obama last week urging consultation on judicial nominees. (I discussed that letter here.) Here is a non-exhaustive list of the editorial’s distortions:

1. The editorial contends that Republican senators are now “threatening … filibusters if Mr. Obama’s nominees are not to their liking”, and it alleges that this threat is “at odds with their previous views on the subject.” But the Republican senators’ letter does not threaten filibusters for the purpose of defeating judical nominees “not to their liking”. It threatens a filibuster if Democrats trample the traditional blue-slip privilege.

2. As to the blue-slip privilege: The editorial states that Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy “must decide whether to follow the Senate’s ‘blue slip’ tradition, which holds that judicial nominees should not move forward without their home-state senators’ support.” Two sentences later, it asserts that “Republicans abandoned them [blue slips] when they controlled the Senate under Mr. Bush.” That assertion is a fantasy, an ignorant statement, or an outright lie. All that Senate Republicans are seeking is maintenance of the same blue-slip practice that they afforded Democrats under President Bush. There is nothing that Leahy “must decide”—unless he wants to trample the blue-slip privilege.

3. The editorial asserts that Republicans “insisted that Mr. Obama begin by appointing holdover nominees who were never confirmed by the Senate.” But Republicans didn’t “insist” on anything. They merely “suggest[ed]” that “[i]t would help change the tone in Washington if [the Obama] Administration would take the same bipartisan step” that President Bush took in 2001—by renominating two Bush nominees. But for the New York Times, it’s evidently fine for Obama to engage in a lot of sweet-sounding talk of bipartisanship, but objectionable to put it into practice."

Then:

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance.

Now:

Senate Republicans are not waiting to evaluate Mr. Obama’s nominations on their merits, choosing instead to deliver their written warning.

The Republicans’ rush to threaten filibusters in the absence of actual nominees is not only at odds with their previous views on the subject, but shows a lack of respect for the confirmation process.