Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Moving the Bar

Filibuster Deal Puts Democrats In a Bind
By Charles Babington and Susan Schmidt, Washington Post

Democrats' hopes of blocking a staunchly conservative Supreme Court nominee on ideological grounds could be seriously undermined by the six-week-old bipartisan deal on judicial nominees, key senators said yesterday.

With President Bush expected to name a successor to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor next week, liberals are laying the groundwork to challenge the nominee if he or she leans solidly to the right on affirmative action, abortion and other contentious issues. But even if they can show that the nominee has sharply held views on matters that divide many Americans, some of the 14 senators who crafted the May 23 compromise appear poised to prevent that strategy from blocking confirmation to the high court, according to numerous interviews.

The pact, signed by seven Democrats and seven Republicans, says a judicial nominee will be filibustered only under "extraordinary circumstances." Key members of the group said yesterday that a nominee's philosophical views cannot amount to "extraordinary circumstances" and that therefore a filibuster can be justified only on questions of personal ethics or character.

The distinction is crucial because Democrats want to force Bush to pick a centrist, not a staunch conservative as many activist groups on the political right desire. Holding only 44 of the Senate's 100 seats, Democrats have no way to block a Republican-backed nominee without employing a filibuster, which takes 60 votes to stop.

There it is, and let the liberal spin begin.

The next terms face many issues. The (D)umbassrats are already revising O'Connors career to look "centrist" in their attempt to demand someone "like her".

Nice trick they're attempting to pull.

You want something orange? If I can convince you that more red is actually orange, then it won't take much to give you yellow. It's called moving the bar.

Right Leans right Centrist Leans left Left

+----------!----------+ <~ center

But if I can convince you that ...

+----!----------------+ <~O'Connor - this is center by revising the view ...

+----!----) <~ O'Connors revised career by MSM, (D)'s, by not talking about WHOLE tenure decisions

Gee ... what do you get there if you pander to crybaby (D)umbassrats then?

+--!-----------------+ <~ all the (D)umbassrats really want

Lets actually look at the truth to Sandra Day O'Connors tenure. The (D)umbassrat lie they are spinning is that Mrs. O'Connor was/is a "centrist" who was the "swing vote" on many cases.

As pointed out here "she alone was in the majority of every one of the court’s 13 5-4 decisions this last term."

Perfect example of the revisionist history being feed to the masses.

Pointed out here is the actual fact that "there were 24 5-4 decisions this Term, not 13 — and Justice O’Connor was in the minority in quite a few of those cases." (Hat Tip to : BlogsforBush)

This can all be backed up here. I urge anyone concerned to actually look at the facts yourself and not rely on anyones articles (including my own) to form your opinion.

These are merely facts I present to you to get you thinking critically.

Here we discover she is pro-abortion...

O'Connor balked at letting states outlaw most abortions, refusing in 1989 to join four other justices who were ready to reverse the landmark 1973 decision that said women have a constitutional right to abortion.

In 1992, she helped forge a five-justice majority that reaffirmed the core holding of the 1973 ruling. Then, in 2000, she provided the fifth and decisive vote that struck down a Nebraska law that was aimed at banning a procedure critics call "partial - birth abortions."

Here we learn she is anti-religion ...

Among O'Connor's noted opinions are those dealing with issues of religious freedom. A concurring opinion she wrote in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) on the constitutionality of a government-sponsored nativity scene has subsequently established the legal standard for determining when such displays violate the Constitution's prohibition on government establishment of religion. A year later, another O'Connor concurrence was important in outlining the constitutional bounds on a state-prescribed "voluntary moment of silence" for school children. According to O'Connor, the challenged law was unconstitutional in that its purpose was to encourage prayer, but might have passed muster had it not favored "the child who chooses to pray ... over the child who chooses to meditate or reflect."

O'Connor the Liberal ...

In her decision, which also was joined by Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens, O'Connor declared that the 1973 Roe decision legalizing abortion nationwide is ''a rule of law and a component of liberty we cannot renounce. ''The woman's right to terminate her pregnancy before viability is the most central principle of Roe vs. Wade,'' she wrote. (News flash ... a "rule of law" is not a courts opinion, but a legislative one. Thats our problem today ... Judges legislating law from the bench.)

Anti-abortion groups criticized O'Connor's appointment to the court because of what they called her pro-choice voting record in the Legislature, while the National Organization for Women touted Reagan's choice as a ''major victory for women's rights.'' (NOW support? Thats not exactly a good thing after all)

''The court is moving rapidly to the right, but O'Connor is staying exactly where she was,'' said state Sen. Chuck Blanchard, D-central Phoenix, a former O'Connor clerk. ''You're going to see Sandra Day O'Connor as the liberal.''

I encourage you to research here here and here .

Listed on BlogShares