Something I forgot yesterday
Nov. 2nd, 2005 01:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumMaia wakes up to Morning Edition.
Yesterday she put it on in the rest of the house as she was getting ready. They did a little confab with a pair of pundits, one "liberal" one "Conservative", to talk about Alito.
I think the Liberal was less than effective, as she was sticking to his stand on abortion, and choice. I think those are important, but not the most troubling aspects of his views.
No, what I forgot to mention was the guy from the National Review who said the nuclear option (or as he prefers to call it, in the newspeak of the day, "the constitutional option", never mind that it's a procedural issue, and not covered in the Constitution) was most certainly a probability if the Democrats resorted to filibuster, because, "we want to have up or down votes on conservative justices."
I don't know if it was a sudden fit of honesty, or a slip of the tongue (I can't believe this much transparency of agenda is one of the new talking points), but I thought it both interesting, and telling.
Never mind that the Republicans killed a huge number of Clinton's picks (where we saw no intimation of an adoration of the principle of "every nominee ought to get a vote), nor that the Dems were more than willing to allow Bush's nominees (with a small number, in fact a bare handful, held up) nope, this guy was willing to say flat out, the only judges which ought to get "fair" consideration, are conservative ones.
If they stick with it, it lets them off the hook for Miers, as she wasn't conservative, or something.
Yesterday she put it on in the rest of the house as she was getting ready. They did a little confab with a pair of pundits, one "liberal" one "Conservative", to talk about Alito.
I think the Liberal was less than effective, as she was sticking to his stand on abortion, and choice. I think those are important, but not the most troubling aspects of his views.
No, what I forgot to mention was the guy from the National Review who said the nuclear option (or as he prefers to call it, in the newspeak of the day, "the constitutional option", never mind that it's a procedural issue, and not covered in the Constitution) was most certainly a probability if the Democrats resorted to filibuster, because, "we want to have up or down votes on conservative justices."
I don't know if it was a sudden fit of honesty, or a slip of the tongue (I can't believe this much transparency of agenda is one of the new talking points), but I thought it both interesting, and telling.
Never mind that the Republicans killed a huge number of Clinton's picks (where we saw no intimation of an adoration of the principle of "every nominee ought to get a vote), nor that the Dems were more than willing to allow Bush's nominees (with a small number, in fact a bare handful, held up) nope, this guy was willing to say flat out, the only judges which ought to get "fair" consideration, are conservative ones.
If they stick with it, it lets them off the hook for Miers, as she wasn't conservative, or something.
