Texas Rainmaker
This is what Dianne Feinstein had to say, on January 16th, about a filibuster against Judge Sam Alito:

“I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat and often a swing vote on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I don’t see those kinds of egregious things emerging that would justify a filibuster.”

Mrs. Feinstein said a filibuster against Judge Alito would be an abuse of the parliamentary tool.

“When it comes to filibustering a Supreme Court appointment, you really have to have something out there, whether it’s gross moral turpitude or something that comes to the surface,” she said yesterday on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

“This is a man I might disagree with,” she said of Judge Alito. “That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be on the court.”

Sounds reasonable enough. Of course, she begins by saying that a filibuster didn’t seem likely. We know Democrats govern by polls and trends, so would she stick to this sentiment if some leading Democrats came out saying they would filibuster?

Of course not. Here’s her position on January 27, 2006 - just 11 days later:

�Based on a very long and thoughtful analysis of the record and transcript, which I tried to indicate in my floor statement yesterday, I�ve decided that I will vote no on cloture.�

In other words, Ms. Feinstein will gladly support an abuse of the parliamentary tool. That ought to make a nice election year campaign slogan.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments

The New York Times is finally giving up on trying to be an objective observer and reporter of the news. Today, the Old Gray Lady has said to hell with the code of journalist ethics that say, “Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting.”

Today, the “newspaper of record” is making a purely political statement and encouraging Democrats to filibuster Judge Samuel Alito’s nomination. They say “he holds extreme views” and that he is an “eager lieutenant in the ranks of the conservative theorists who ignore our system of checks and balances”.

This is the same newspaper that hailed the chief ACLU litigator-turned-Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s celebration of “the role religion plays in her work” as a Supreme Court Justice and called her a “Balanced Jurist at Home in the Middle.”

A filibuster is a radical tool. It’s easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.

Thanks for the objectivity. But I guess actual objective journalism would require coverage of this, so it’s understandable why they don’t.

At least the New York Times is admitting they’re tired of pretending to be unbiased. Admitting you have a problem is the first step toward recovery.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
The Liberal Plan for America
January 23rd, 2006 10:01 pm
Susan Estrich said tonight on Hannity & Colmes, that the Kelo decision, whereby the Supreme Court ruled that the government can take a citizen’s home using Eminent Domain for the benefit of private contractors, is “a practice in democracy.”

Reminds me of when Hillary Clinton said, “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

Do you need any more motivation to get out and vote?

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
Ted Kennedy: Do As I Say, Not As I Hoot
January 17th, 2006 9:15 am

From the Boston Herald:

U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy � who ripped Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito for ties to a group that discriminates against women “says he’s going to quit a club notorious for discriminating against women �as fast as I can.”

Kennedy was outed by conservatives late last week as a current member of The Owl Club, a social club for Harvard alumni that bans women from membership.

What an incredibly huge hypocrite.

In an interview with WHDH Channel 7’s Andy Hiller that aired last night, Kennedy said, “I joined when I . . . 52 years ago, I was a member of the Owl Club, which was basically a fraternal organization.”

Kennedy is so ashamed of his own membership in an organization that bans women from membership that he is quitting membership “as fast as [he] can”… 52 years after joining. They say alcohol impairs your reflexes, but 52 years? That must be some good stuff.

And it’s not like Kennedy has had an awakening as to his own social values, he’s quitting simply because he got caught. Like a 4 year old who says, “I’m sorry”, not because they’re truly remorseful, but because they think those words will head off any impending punishment.

Afterall, Teddy freely admits in the article that up until now he’s still paying dues.

Asked by Hiller whether he is still a member, Kennedy said, I’m not a member; I continue to pay about $100.

Um, ok.

Then, the kicker:

The Harvard Crimson reports that, in 1984, the university severed ties with clubs like the Owl, citing a federal law championed by Kennedy.

So Kennedy continued supporting the club for 22 years after introducing legislation that forced Harvard to sever ties with the club for its sexist policies. So much for that “practice what you preach” axiom.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
Former Third Circuit Judge Timothy Lewis (a black Clinton appointee who says he is appropriately on the “far left” of the panel of testfying judges, is “openly and unapologetically pro-choice”) testified “out of [his] own sense of justice and fairness” about Judge Alito’s “intellectual honesty”:
I cannot recall one instance when Judge alito displayed anything remotely approaching an ideological bent.

Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, another Clinton appointee gave Alito a glowing review.

…and when asked, point blank about race and women’s rights, here’s what the Democrat-appointed, pro-choice judges had to say about Alito:

COBURN:But, Judge Barry, I wanted to ask you — and also Judge Lewis — do you think that there is any merit whatsoever to the allegations that were made that Judge Alito is hostile to the rights of women or minorities? And have you seen that? In the 30 years, have you seen any indication whatsoever, either in his opinions, his personal life, in his interpersonal relations with you, or you, Judge Lewis, that there is any indication that there’s that type of bias in this man?

BARRY: I have never seen it. And if I had seen it, I would not be here today.

COBURN: Judge Lewis?

LEWIS: I’ve already said that if I sensed that Sam Alito, during the time that I served with him or since then, was hostile to civil rights or would be hostile to civil rights as a justice of the United States Supreme Court, I absolutely would not be here today.

I am not interested in saying anything on behalf of someone that I believe would hold views like that or would proceed in that way.

I am basing what I am saying on my years of experience in conference with him, discussing cases. We had different views and different approaches, but never did it seem to me that he held any hostility to civil rights, which is an area that I hold very dear and is very important to me — and remain committed to furthering in this country.

And what are the Democrats doing during this testimony? They left. That’s right… got up and walked on out. They’re apparently not interested in hearing from well-respected judges and appointees from their own party’s administration… simply because they have positive things to say about Alito.

They’re also criticizing these judges just for testifying in the first place. These are the very people that the Senators ought to be listening to (as opposed to their own bloviations and self-congratulating campaign sermons) when deciding whether Judge Alito is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

The only Democrat Senators who bothered to stay on the dais are Leahy and Feinstein. Almost all the Republicans are there. Most notably, Senator Chuck Schumer got up and left right before the judges began to speak. Not only do they not care about the Judges’ testimony, apparently, they don’t even care about the disrespect for these judges that the bench of empty seats on the Democrat side bespeaks.

It is once again clear that Democrats have nothing positive to offer the American people. They drone on about Alito’s hostility to women and minorities and then don’t have the decency, much less the respect for the judges, to actually listen to testimony on the subject from folks within their own party who know Alito best. That makes it very clear that they are completely unconcerned with Alito’s judicial qualifications (the purpose of the confirmation hearings) and simply think the judiciary is a political tool to advance their agenda. Another reason they should not return to power for a long, long time.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments

…for the Senators?

Chuck Schumer got a Constitutional lesson today from Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito.

SCHUMER: Does the Constitution protect the right to free speech?

ALITO: Certainly it does. That’s in the First Amendment.

SCHUMER: So why can’t you answer the question of: Does the Constitution protect the right to an abortion the same way without talking about stare decisis, without talking about cases, et cetera?

ALITO: Because answering the question of whether the Constitution provides a right to free speech is simply responding to whether there is language in the First Amendment that says that the freedom of speech and freedom of the press can’t be abridged. Asking about the issue of abortion has to do with the interpretation of certain provisions of the Constitution.

I wonder if Schumer’s going to find an invoice in the mail for tutoring session.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
What About Bob?
January 6th, 2006 5:05 pm
Drudge is running an “exclusive” about Democrats plan to attack SCOTUS nominee Sam Alito. I’m guessing this has to do with Alito’s membership (p.16) in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton. This really isn’t news, as the Left has been freaking out over this issue since Alito’s name first rolled off of Bush’s tongue. In fact, Ted Kennedy has requested “key documents on Alito involvement” in CAP. They claim CAP “was formed in 1972 to oppose Princeton’s decision to admit women and minorities and was openly hostile to gay and disabled individuals.”

I don’t know what all CAP did or didn’t do, but am I to understand that the party that openly welcomes a former recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan because his membership was in the past is going to base an attack on Sam Alito for this?


Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
What Media Bias?
November 1st, 2005 1:12 pm

In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.

This is just a subtle way to advance the liberal rhetoric of “house slave” and “uncle tom” when referring to *gasp* conservative blacks. Is it because he’s not a race pimp? It certainly can’t be the pro-life issue… as 62% of blacks share that position. Maybe it’s time to update the term “mainstream“.

Regardless, it’s pretty disgusting to see an editorial board stoop this low. Disgusting, but not suprising.

What do you think would happen if Rush or Hannity or Bill Bennett uttered, “Of course, Ruth Bader Ginsburg ought to have an asterisk next to her name because, frankly, she’s just not Jew enough”?

Sensible Mom says “If they can claim that Justice Thomas isn’t technically black because he doesn’t think like the typical black man, then we should have the right to claim that Breyer and Stevens aren’t men since they think like women.” - Brilliant!

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (1) Comment
The Fortas Filibuster
November 1st, 2005 10:17 am
You’re going to hear alot about Abe Fortas in the coming weeks… especially from Democrats. Given that the current obstructionist Democrats are almost guaranteeing they’ll use a filibuster against Sam Alito’s confirmation, they’ve begun trying to excuse their obstructionist tactics by pointing way back to the 1968 confirmation of Abe Fortas. There are just a few problems with this attempted moral relativism.
  1. Abe Fortas had already been confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice.
  2. The filibuster dealt with his elevation to be Chief Justice.
  3. It was bi-partisan (24 Republicans and 19 Democrats joined in).
  4. It was the result of an ethical scandal taking place while he sat on the U.S. Supreme Court. (not just because some radicals in the minority party wanted to thwart the Constitutional process)
  5. It was not aimed to derail a final vote. It was to enable further information to be elicited since the scandal was unfolding.

Fortas ultimately resigned from the court under public pressure and congressional scrutiny, including a threat of impeachment. He was the first justice to do so.

Today’s threatened filibuster is simply a tactic being used by a party who is upset about being out of power. Nothing more. Sure, you’ll hear the Democrats talk about Alito’s desire to take us back to slave days, his goal to require women to wear burkas, his passion for killing baby seals and his aim at legalizing puppy-kicking…

If Alito is such a horrible choice, you can bet constituents will inform their respective representatives and those representatives should have the opportunity to vote for or against his confirmation.

You know, like those guys, whose faces are on our money, designed the system to work.

(Cross-posted at GOPBloggers)

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
Time to Have Alito Fun
October 31st, 2005 5:50 am

Sam Alito is the new SCOTUS nominee. This time, Bush got it right. How do I know?

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) warned that a nomination of Alito … could run into trouble. “This is not one of the names I’ve suggested to the president,” Reid said yesterday of Alito on CNN’s “Late Edition. In fact, I’ve done the opposite,” he said. “I think it would create a lot of problems.”


Some things to note about “Scalito”:

  1. Considered to be a very close match to Antonin Scalia.
  2. Wrote the lone dissent when Planned Parenthood v. Casey came before the Third Circuit in favor of certain state restrictions on abortion. (Justice Rehnquist’s dissent from the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the spousal notification provision of the law quoted Judge Alito’s dissent and expressed support for Judge Alito’s reasoning.)
  3. Nominated by George H.W. Bush on February 20, 1990, to a seat vacated by John Joseph Gibbons; Unanimously confirmed by the Senate on April 27, 1990.
  4. In ACLU v. Schundler, wrote the majority opinion holding that a city’s holiday display that included a cr�che and a menorah did not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment because it also included secular symbols such as Frosty the Snowman and a banner promoting racial diversity.
  5. Was a front-line federal prosecutor in New Jersey for four years.
  6. More notable opinions.
  7. Liberal groups say his nomination raises troubling concerns as he is a frequent dissenter on the 3rd Circuit, one of the most liberal federal appellate benches in the nation.
Looks like we got ourselves a worthy candidate. Should be a scary Halloween for the Democrats.

And a note to the Republican “leadership” in the Senate. When the Democrats threaten to filibuster, make them actually filibuster this time. None of this BS filibuster-lite with breaks and going home at night. Make the obstructionists show their true colors and “take it to the diaper”. Your President has offered up a strong nomination. Do something about it!

Update: Lindsey Graham, one of the Gang of 14, says: “If the Democrats staged a filibuster against Judge Alito or Judge Luttig because of their conservatism, “the filibuster will not stand.” Email the other 6 and demand an Up or Down vote.

Update 2: CNN reviews Alito’s “hefty legal resume“.

Update 3: Frist on FoxNews just said, “If the Democrats are looking for a fight, we’ll be up for the fight. We won’t back down… We’re gonna get an up or down vote on the Senate floor and if the Democrats want a fight, they’ll get one.” - Finally.

Update 4: Chuck Schumer has converted Rosa Parks’ casket into a soapbox and standing there upon is currently giving a partisan-hack speech about Alito. Shameless.

Update 5: Hugh Hewitt has an Alito poll up. Go voice your opinion.

Update 6: California Conservative coins the term “Scalito’s Way

Update 7: Mike Dewine, another of the Gang of 14, says, “I can’t believe anyone would believe this is a nominee that could be filibustered or that it would rise to the level of ‘extraordinary circumstances. If someone would filibuster, though, I would be prepared to vote to change the rules.” - Looks like we’re going nuke-ya-ler.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments

Texas Rainmaker is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
Graphics by: Margolis Media Works | Style by: Lisa Sabin - E.Webscapes

Copyright © 2003-2006

Users Online



    • HuckPac.com

    • sidediv

    • sidediv


    Fatal error: Call to undefined function wswwpx_fold_category_list() in /home/texasrai/public_html/wp-content/themes/rainmaker/sidebar.php on line 62