Democrats See Wide Bush Stamp on Court System

[occuserpens]

Basically, dems are dismayed by their own unwillingness to do anything about Alito. I would not be surprised if most of them will support this nomination after all. This is nothing short of hilarious!

NYT. ADAM NAGOURNEY, RICHARD W.STEVENSON. Democrats See Wide Bush Stamp on Court System http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/politics/politicsspecial1/15alito.html

In interviews, Democrats said that the lesson of the Alito hearings was that this White House could put on the bench almost any qualified candidate, even one whom Democrats consider to be ideologically out of step with the country.

That conclusion amounts to a repudiation of a central part of a strategy Senate Democrats settled on years ago in a private retreat where they discussed how to fight a Bush White House effort to recast the judiciary: to argue against otherwise qualified candidates by saying they were taking the courts too far to the right.

Even though Democrats thought from the beginning that they had little hope of defeating the nomination, they were dismayed that a nominee with such clear conservative views - in particular a written record of opposition to abortion rights - appeared to be stirring little opposition.

[rodeodance]

1. why is there so much blaming the Dems here?--the media

is certainly helping the Repugs.

[occuserpens]

2. Because it is hard to tell them from the GOP?

[Lindacooks]

13. Not that crap again.

If you truly think that Democrats are no different from Repukes, you're hopeless.

[...of J.Temperance]

3. That Adam Nagourney is a vicious GOP mediawhore slug...he always

Bashes our people...he's even worse than that Nedra Pickler POS. I wonder how much money the GOP pays the likes of Nagourney and Pickler?

[occuserpens]

6. Adam Nagourney is not good

but it is hard to blame him for anything. The way dems handle Alito is nothing short of disgusting. This is crude simulation of opposition!

[VegasWolf]

4. Because the Dem's are spineless twits that should lose their jobs to

new 3rd party blood?

[newblewtoo]

5. What comes after Alito???

I had just finished reading this article. A couple scary points I noted:

Asked if he had any hope that Democrats could slow President Bush's effort to push the court to the right, Mr. Klain responded: "No. The only thing that will fix this is a Democratic president and more vacancies. It takes a long time to make these kinds of changes and it's going to take a long time to undo them."

By the end of last year, about 60 percent of the 165 judges on the federal appeals courts were appointed by Republican presidents, with 40 percent from Democratic presidents. Of the 13 circuit courts of appeal around the nation, 9 have majorities of judges named by Republicans presidents.

The battle is not in '08, it begins now in '06. Without the house and or senate this will continue to happen.

[DELUSIONAL]

7. If any Dem supports A-lie-to -- most likely they are being blackmailed

by the bushie crime family.

[occuserpens]

8. Can be

[ecoalex]

9. Again DLC poison, and ignoring the base who is mobilised against Scalito

Thanks for NOTHING Dems

[Moderator]

10. Note from LBN Moderator

This isn't breaking news. This is a feature/news analysis article ( Other article )

[Algorem]

11. Bush's Tide Not Ebbing Soon

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060115/NEWS/601150403/1039

Democrats couldn't trump Alito and say the court is becoming out of step.

By ADAM NAGOURNEY,
RICHARD W. STEVENSON

WASHINGTON -- Disheartened by the administration's success with the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., Democratic leaders say that President Bush is putting an enduring conservative ideological imprint on the nation's judiciary, and that they see little hope of holding off the tide without winning back control of the Senate or the White House.

In interviews, Democrats said that the lesson of the Alito hearings was that this White House could put on the bench almost any qualified candidate, even one whom Democrats consider to be ideologically out of step with the country.

That conclusion amounts to a repudiation of a central part of a strategy Senate Democrats settled on years ago in a private retreat where they discussed how to fight a Bush White House effort to recast the judiciary: to argue against otherwise qualified candidates by saying they were taking the courts too far right. Even though Democrats thought from the beginning that they had little hope of defeating the nomination, they were dismayed that a nominee with such clearly conservative views -- in particular a written record of opposition to abortion rights -- appeared to stir little opposition.

Republicans said that Bush, in making conservative judicial choices, was doing precisely what he said he would do in both of his presidential campaigns, and indeed that his re-election, and the election of a Republican Congress, meant that the choices reflected the views of much of the American public...

[depakid]

12. Adam Nagourney

Nuff said.

One of the most dishonest "analysts" in America.

Might as well watch Fox news.