It's Alito - Bush picks SCOTUS nominee

[Sava]

I hate the term "Nuclear Option"

[DanS]

Would you be as equally angry were Republicans to start going after Bush and demanding he cut his profligate spending?

Good question. I would hope that they do it (loudly) in private, internally to the party, as was done in the Katrina spending debate. If somebody needs to be blamed, blame DeLay.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Odin
My pridiction:

The Dems fillibuster, causing the Republican leadership to try to use the Nuclear Option, the moderate Republicans kill the Nuclear option, and the Far Right is humilliated.

Not very likely. I forget the exat number, but I know Republicans in the Gang of 14 have said ideology is not an extraordinary circumstance meriting a filibuster, and that the nuclear option is justified if a qualified nominee is filibustered on ideological ground.

There are 48 Republicans not in the Gang of 14. In addition, it's likely enough not all Democrats will oppose Alito, many Red State Democrats from socially conservative states will be under tremendous political pressure to go along with the nuclear option. On the Republican gang of 14, Warner, McCain, Graham, and DeWine are social conservative who would be likely to break on the issue of the nuclear option in the result of a filibuster.

It should be pointed out that the Supreme Court is probably the biggest issue among social conservatives, as it takes to account much of the issues social conservatives are concerned about such as abortion and guns. Any Republican who failed to support the nuclear option on this issue would be likely to face large scale defections from their own base and imperil their own election. McCain faces a particular difficulty here if he plans on running for President, if he refuses to support the nuclear option he would lose any chance of winning the Republican Nomination.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by DanS


Good question. I would hope that they do it (loudly) in private, internally to the party, as was done in the Katrina spending debate. If somebody needs to be blamed, blame DeLay.

Unfortunately, the party doesn't seem to be listening as profligate spending still continues. I think it would be very appropriate if fiscal conservatives started loudly demanding a change in course and put the party on notice that they would cease to support the party if they don't stop running these huge deficits during an economic expansion.

[DanS]

Unfortunately, the party doesn't seem to be listening as profligate spending still continues.

We'll see what the results are during this budget cycle. Personally, I've been dismayed at the spending the last year or two.

[Shi Huangdi]

By the way, some of you shouldn't be so disappointed with Alito. Remember it was the conservative justices on the Supreme court who opposed Kelo vs. New London, which gave local governments the right to take anyone's property and give it to private developers.

Alito also isn't a kneejerk conservative who will disregard the law to suit his principles. He gave a ruling saying it was unconstitutional for the State of Pennsylvania to prohibit The Pitt News(our student newspaper here at U. Pitt) from running advertisements for alcohol on free speech grounds- showing Alito won't bend on the law just to serve whatever position is morally correct.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


Not very likely. I forget the exat number, but I know Republicans in the Gang of 14 have said ideology is not an extraordinary circumstance meriting a filibuster, and that the nuclear option is justified if a qualified nominee is filibustered on ideological ground.

There are 48 Republicans not in the Gang of 14. In addition, it's likely enough not all Democrats will oppose Alito, many Red State Democrats from socially conservative states will be under tremendous political pressure to go along with the nuclear option. On the Republican gang of 14, Warner, McCain, Graham, and DeWine are social conservative who would be likely to break on the issue of the nuclear option in the result of a filibuster.

It should be pointed out that the Supreme Court is probably the biggest issue among social conservatives, as it takes to account much of the issues social conservatives are concerned about such as abortion and guns. Any Republican who failed to support the nuclear option on this issue would be likely to face large scale defections from their own base and imperil their own election. McCain faces a particular difficulty here if he plans on running for President, if he refuses to support the nuclear option he would lose any chance of winning the Republican Nomination.

The problem with Republicans catering to the far right in your scenario is that for a lot of the more moderate/old school Republicans, they are looking at a broader picture than just the support of hardline social conservatives. To use Warner as an example, he would win reelection even if he completely abandoned any socially conservative stances; the same applies to McCain in a nonpresidential election. The fact is, a lot of reasonable Republicans look at how unpopular the far right's positions are in the country. Almost every state is in favor of upholding Roe v Wade, for instance; in Virginia a recent poll put support for Roe v Wade at I believe 59%.

But most importantly, I'm sure all the Republican senators are looking at national popularity of the Bush administration, and state Republican parties. In addition to the plame case and the DeLay case, Kentucky and Ohio are both immersed in Republican scandal, and Schwarzenegger, once seen as a hope for the GOP, is extremely unlikely to be re-elected. And in Virginia, the Republican gubernatorial candidate unleashed a series of painful attack adds on the Democratic candidates opposition to the death penalty. But instead of taking a hit, the Democrat has never polled better, and for the first time in the race actually has quite a decent shot at winning.

The result is that Republican senators are seeing their party, especially the far right parts of their party, destroying their chances at maintaining control of the government. It is actually possible (though still unlikely) that the Democrats could retake both the House and the Senate. And in this context, Senators like DeWine, Snowe, and Chafee will start looking towards the center, and try to distance themselves from the Bush administration. In this context, I fully expect to see a fair amount of Republican defection in a nuclear option debate.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Sava


actually, it is true... many so called "conservatives" are not conservative at all... they ARE right-wing authoritarian...

if they were truly conservative, they would want the government to stay the hell out of people's personal lives...

And since when isn't governmental interference in people's personal lives not a conservative objective?

American political labels get more messed up by the day.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Odin
The Right hold him up as this paragon of judicial restraint, but in realitiy he is an activist reactionary. This whole "juducial restraint" thing is BS, the Loony Right really want right-wing activist judges.

You really haven't told me anything.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Admiral


The problem with Republicans catering to the far right in your scenario is that for a lot of the more moderate/old school Republicans, they are looking at a broader picture than just the support of hardline social conservatives. To use Warner as an example, he would win reelection even if he completely abandoned any socially conservative stances; the same applies to McCain in a nonpresidential election. The fact is, a lot of reasonable Republicans look at how unpopular the far right's positions are in the country. Almost every state is in favor of upholding Roe v Wade, for instance; in Virginia a recent poll put support for Roe v Wade at I believe 59%.

But most importantly, I'm sure all the Republican senators are looking at national popularity of the Bush administration, and state Republican parties. In addition to the plame case and the DeLay case, Kentucky and Ohio are both immersed in Republican scandal, and Schwarzenegger, once seen as a hope for the GOP, is extremely unlikely to be re-elected. And in Virginia, the Republican gubernatorial candidate unleashed a series of painful attack adds on the Democratic candidates opposition to the death penalty. But instead of taking a hit, the Democrat has never polled better, and for the first time in the race actually has quite a decent shot at winning.

The result is that Republican senators are seeing their party, especially the far right parts of their party, destroying their chances at maintaining control of the government. It is actually possible (though still unlikely) that the Democrats could retake both the House and the Senate. And in this context, Senators like DeWine, Snowe, and Chafee will start looking towards the center, and try to distance themselves from the Bush administration. In this context, I fully expect to see a fair amount of Republican defection in a nuclear option debate.

I agree with you that given Bush's unpopularity of late, Republicans may start to consider looking for issues to distance themselves from the President on. But this one isn't it. There are plenty of other issues which it would be far safer to move against the President on then this one, such as irresponsible economic policies, rampant cronyism, mishandling of the Iraq war, etc.

For one, I disagree with you that the judges issue is the issue that is dragging the GOP down. Polls that I have seen on this issue have shown more support then opposition for conservative justices. The Republican party won the last election, and one of the major factors in that were Bush's conservative positions on social issues.

McCain, Warner, DeWine, and Graham have all been reasonably reliable social conservative votes in the past, to allow the Democrats to prevail on the biggest social issue vote would risk a major defection from their own base on their part. They would likely face strong primary challenges if they went through with it, and in any general election a substantial part of their base, which not only are the most reliable voters, but most active in working for the party and donating, would defect and it would be very hard to make up the lost support.

It's not too likely a bunch of other moderates would suddenly flock to the GOP if they cooperated with the Dems on the nuclear option- but the losses in terms of their own base would be devastating enough that it'd be foolish to risk making this the issue the back off from Bush.

Bush doesn't normally like to reverse courses he sets on- don't think he decided to back off on Miers because he liked to. He did what he did because he was aware of the political consequences of his moves.

[Ben Kenobi]

if they were truly conservative, they would want the government to stay the hell out of people's personal lives...

it is very obvious... look at the support for Patriot Act, the movement to discriminate against gay people and the movement to destroy women's access to reproductive health care...

I can't say much about the first, but as for the second and third, I don't see how asking the government to provide benefits for gay couples amounts to 'staying out of their lives', or how allowing abortion protects the rights of the individual.

Surely if you believe in personal autonomy, you should also respect unborn children too.

[Ben Kenobi]

Almost every state is in favor of upholding Roe v Wade, for instance; in Virginia a recent poll put support for Roe v Wade at I believe 59%.

Any evidence of this? I see most states having provisions in place to limit abortions should Roe be overturned.

[flash9286]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I can't say much about the first, but as for the second and third, I don't see how asking the government to provide benefits for gay couples amounts to 'staying out of their lives', or how allowing abortion protects the rights of the individual.

Surely if you believe in personal autonomy, you should also respect unborn children too.

If were talking about Goldwater conservatism than it isnt governments job to legislate morality. Why shouldn't gay couples get the same treatment that hetrosexual couples get?

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Any evidence of this? I see most states having provisions in place to limit abortions should Roe be overturned.

Some numbers for you:

A CNN/Gallop poll on August 28th: "Would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?" Pro-choice 54%, pro-life 38%.

A pew research poll on July 17th: "In 1973 the Roe versus Wade decision established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?" Yes 29%, no 65%.

A CNN/Gallop poll on June 13th (yes, this was 5 months ago, but the question is so...pertinent): "If one of the U.S. Supreme Court justices retired, would you want the new Supreme Court justice to be someone who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade -- the decision that legalized abortion -- or vote to uphold it?" Overturn 29%, uphold 65%.

That being said, I was wrong about Virginia. According to a Survey USA poll on September 12th (and for the record, Survey USA is a Republican partisan polling organization that generally leans to the right), 39% of Virginians are pro-life, and 54% of virginians are pro-choice. If we look at every state, a majority of the populace is pro-life in only 10 states.

My point is this: the abortion debate is not one where those evil courts legislated something against the will of the people. Really, if we took this case away from the courts and put it to a national vote, social conservatives would get a wakeup call they so richly deserve.

[Jon Miller]

it is also true that people don't like the ammount of abortions allowed now..

I have seen similar polls saying that most people are against late term abortions and the like

why can't we have a nice, scientific, physical line like the onset of brainwaves (which is alittle before the 3 month mark)?

JM