DebateGate

The Rumor About John Paul Stevens

by Sean Rushton
Posted Nov 04, 2006

For weeks, commentators have speculated that significant numbers of conservatives, alienated by over-spending, the Iraq War, and other perceived GOP disappointments, will stay home on Election Day, giving one or both Houses of Congress to Democrats. But for those who care about reforming the Supreme Court, sitting this one out may soon look like a mistake of historic proportions.

For the past several weeks, there has been a rumor circulating among high-level officials in Washington, D.C., that a member of the U.S. Supreme Court has received grave medical news and will announce his or her retirement by year’s end. While such rumors are not unusual in the nation’s capital, this one comes from credible sources. Additionally, a less credible but still noteworthy post last week at the liberal Democratic Underground blog says, “Send your good vibes to Justice Stevens. I just got off the phone with a friend of his family and right now he is very ill and at 86 years old that is not good.”

Normally, this news might be too ghoulish to repeat publicly. Nevertheless, with the election just days away, it is news that should be considered. It points out what could be a once-in-a-lifetime chance for the 20-year movement to recast the court with a constitutionalist majority. It would be a cruel twist indeed for conservatives to “teach Republicans a lesson” next Tuesday, only to be taught a lesson themselves within months when new Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.) leads a Democratic majority against the most important Supreme Court nominee in decades. Conservatives whose mantra is “no more Souters” should bear in mind Robert Bork’s fate after the Senate changed from Republican to Democratic hands in 1986.

The rumor should focus the mind not only on whether the Senate will remain majority-Republican, but by how much.  In 2005, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.) was able to force Democrats to abandon filibusters of numerous Bush judicial nominees by threatening use of the Constitutional Option, which would have ended such filibusters. Democrats threatened to “go nuclear” in response, shutting down Senate business. Instead, a face-saving deal was reached in which moderate Democrats agreed to drop the filibuster, effectively paving the way for the filibuster-free confirmations of John Roberts and Sam Alito.

With 55 Republican senators, the majority needed for the “constitutional option” was never a sure thing. But with significant Republican losses on Tuesday, it will surely be buried, leaving Senators Teddy Kennedy (D.-Mass.) and Chuck Schumer (D.-N.Y.) free to return to filibusters, including against Supreme Court nominees. Schumer is reported to have assured Democrats that Bob Casey Jr. -- despite running as a moderate Senate candidate -- would be supportive of Democratic efforts to block constitutionalist judicial nominees. “There’s no worry on judges,” said Schumer. “And judges is the whole ball of wax.” Other supposedly centrist Democratic candidates including Harold Ford Jr. (Tenn.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Jim Webb (Va.) have refused to rule out filibusters against judicial nominees.

Even if the rumor turns out to be unfounded, it is worth repeating because it crystallizes the reality that there will soon be another high court vacancy. Senators elected next Tuesday to six year terms will, assuredly, vote on the confirmation of at least one new Supreme Court justice before their term is out.

This week in Indiana, Montana, and Nevada, President Bush raised judges as a key reason to elect Republicans to the Senate. By all accounts, it has been and continues to be a favorite applause line among Republican crowds. Judicial confirmations were key to tight Senate races in 2002 and 2004. Conservatives should not forget the issue this Election Day, when the victory of a generation may be at last within their grasp.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17869

A West Point Cadet sends this along with the photo below:

I'm a cadet at West Point, and tonight at our game against the Air Force Academy, a big sign emerged, and it was shown to the Corps of Cadets, who cheered wildly, and then shown to the Air Force cadets, who also cheered.



http://www.blackfive.net/photos/uncategorized/picture_092.jpg

The unemployment rate fell in October to 4.4 percent from 4.6 percent in September. It was the lowest unemployment rate since 4.3 percent in May 2001 and was likely to fan concerns that labor markets are growing tight and could contribute to inflation pressures.

Average hourly earnings rose 0.4 percent to $16.91 - higher than the 0.3 percent that analysts had anticipated - while the average work week edged up to 33.9 hours from 33.8. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 3.9 percent, the department said.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-11-03T142328Z_01_N02359086_RTRUKOC_0_US-ECONOMY-JOBS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.” - John Kerry

Insurgents Want Democrats to Win on November 7
Friday , October 27, 2006

By John Gibson

A couple days ago I wrote that if the Dems win, insurgents win.

That produced a huge amount of hate mail. A woman in L.A. can hardly wait for impeachment and she figures I should be on the impeachment list along with Bush and Cheney.

But look at the report today in The Sydney Morning Herald, which says that the Pentagon spokesman Eric Ruff "attributed the rising violence in Iraq to attempts by Al Qaeda to influence the U.S. elections and stir up opposition to President George W. Bush." Ruff stopped short of saying that Al Qaeda wanted a Democratic victory in the November 7 elections and denied emphatically that he was implying that, the paper said.

Eric Ruff probably saw all my hate mail for saying precisely that and decided to keep quiet. But he did quote an Al Qaeda leader, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, reported by the Washington Post to be ordering redoubled attacks "to have a great effect on the American elections."

Now why would Al Qaeda want to affect American elections?

Because Al Qaeda needs an American exit date in Iraq, and if the Democrats win, all indications are they will see to it that there is an exit date in Iraq.

I've gotten all sorts of e-mail saying yes we should get out because the killing will stop. It makes you wonder. Where would someone get that idea? If the Americans leave the Sunnis will be slaughtered.

Now, I sometimes wonder why we should be protecting Sunnis since they're the ones killing our troops. But we'd get blamed for the bloodbath even if we were gone and could not have pulled the triggers or dropped the bombs.

I stand corrected. The Sunnis will likely have their heads cut off. That's the preferred method of ethnic cleansing in Iraq.

So, I don't want to stay any longer than is necessary. But someone explain to me again how everything is going to be great in Iraq when the Americans pull out shortly after a Democrat victory?

I'm listening. In fact, I'm all ears.

That's My Word.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,226002,00.html

"Democrat leader [Nancy] Pelosi voted against the Secure Fence Act because she has never been to the border to understand that it is a national security emergency. The Democrat leadership must think that border security is about adding more security guards at Borders Book Stores," said Ron Bonjean, spokesman for Mr. Hastert.

Everyone must pay their taxes but me!

Sherrod Brown apparently believes that the law is only applicable to the rest of us

Sherrod Brown, Democrat candidate for US Senate from Ohio, has admitted that legal action had to be taken against him to force him to pay unemployment taxes on his business. The details, though, seem to be hazy even to him.

Brown first said that he did not pay unemployment taxes for twelve years; however, he has now changed his story to be that he "made a mistake," and that he did finally pay them -- but only after the State of Ohio took legal action against him.

Says the DeWine campaign:


"Worse still, he's got the nerve to try to blame the DeWine campaign for his own financial mismanagement. Tuesday his campaign said Sherrod paid his tax bill in 2005. Today, they say, no wait, he only waited until after the state took legal action against him to pay his late tax obligation. Oh, and he says that he must have forgotten to get the lien released that the State had been forced to file against him."

Elected officials in our government, who have the power, as John Galt so blithely put it, to take money earned by the citizens at the point of a gun, must at the very least follow the same laws -- and pay the same taxes -- which they require from us. Sherrod Brown has shown that he cannot be trusted to do that very simple thing.

http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2006/everyone_must_pay_their_taxes_but_me

Rep. Steny Hoyer Apologizes to Michael Steele for 'Slave' Remark

A ranking House Democrat has apologized for saying that African-American Senate candidate Michael Steele has "slavishly” supported the Republican Party.


House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland said he meant no offense when he made the remark on Sunday at a campaign event for Rep. Ben Cardin, the Democrat who is running against Lt. Gov. Steele for the Senate seat in Maryland.



"I shouldn’t have used those words,” Hoyer said Tuesday through a spokesman.


"If Mr. Steele did in fact take offense, let me assure him that none was intended.”


Steele’s spokesman Doug Heye called Hoyer’s comment "insensitive and pretty stupid.”

And the Washington Post reported that Steele himself referred to "the sheer craziness of some in the Democratic Party who think they can use racist terms and infer things about me just because I’m an African-American Republican.”

Spokesman Heye told CNN that in 2002, Hoyer referred to Steele as a "token” candidate, although Hoyer said at the time that he was quoted out of context.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/10/18/132551.shtml