May 30 2005
As we watch the MSM and democrats try and control the filibuster compromise, some interesting things have been coming out of these attempts. Today in the WashPost Dan Balz is trying to lay responsibility of the deal’s survival on Bush (like a gooe MSM liberal), but in doing so he does something astonishing – he redefines mainstream rightward.
The fragile compromise that averted a Senate showdown over judicial filibusters last week deliberately left unanswered the crucial issue likely to be at the heart of a debate over a future Supreme Court vacancy: Can Democrats filibuster a nominee on the grounds that he or she is too conservative without triggering the “nuclear option”?
Republicans have argued that, if Priscilla R. Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William H. Pryor Jr. — three of President Bush’s nominees to the appellate courts who had been attacked by Democrats as out of the mainstream philosophically — were suddenly given a filibuster-proof stamp of approval by the agreement, then no Bush nominee for a Supreme Court vacancy should face the threat of a filibuster because of judicial philosophy.
…Bush may have the utmost power to ensure its durability or its demise, depending on how he acts when faced with a vacancy on the Supreme Court, which, given the health of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, could come in the next month.
A mainstream conservative nominee would be likely to face opposition from many Democrats but probably not the kind of resistance that would trigger pressure for a filibuster. A nominee as conservative as Brown could trigger all-out war, with the Democrats’ allies on the left pushing to use any means necessary to block confirmation.
Really? The dems have no ground to say Judge Brown is too conservative once she gets confirmed to the appellate court. Therefore she MUST be a mainstream conservative.
The democrats and MSM have no idea about modern day political strategy. I am still Chillin‘, and now smirking a little bit.
Comments Off on Is Bush Redefining “Mainstream”?