Roberts is in.

Interesting info from a web source:

Democrats who have announced their opposition (21):

Looks like a who's who of haters of the 2nd Ammendment, and some cry Roe v Wade. I think it's more about gun rights, or just a strange coincidence.

Evan Bayh of Indiana,
Joe Biden of Delaware,
Barbara Boxer of California,
Maria Cantwell of Washington,
Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York,
Jon Corzine of New Jersey,
Mark Dayton of Minnesota,
Dick Durbin of Illinois,
Dianne Feinstein of California,
Tom Harkin of Iowa,
Daniel Inouye of Hawaii,
Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts,
John Kerry of Massachusetts,
Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey,
Barbara Mikulski of Maryland,
Barack Obama of Illinois,
Jack Reed of Rhode Island,
Harry Reid of Nevada,
Paul Sarbanes of Maryland,
Charles Schumer of New York and
Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.
 
You'll be too late. I'll save Teddy and John for you, though. Your state owns them, y'all can deal with them.

Just say another really pathetic read, by a Liberal Rag. These clowns are trying to justify Leahy's split with the party. Leahy knows how blocking the nomination would SCREW him back here. He's already under heat for voting AGAINST eliminating frivolous lawsuits by cities.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak25x.html

Robert Novak
Leahy's vote for Roberts part of Democrats' strategy

September 25, 2005

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST




The vote by Sen. Patrick Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, to confirm Judge John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice surprised Bush administration officials. But it fit Democrats' Supreme Court grand strategy.

Leahy is not really at odds with Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who came out against confirmation. Leahy opened the door for yes votes by Democratic senators (including two Judiciary Committee colleagues) who believe Roberts is going to be confirmed anyway. Reid's position puts the party formally in opposition to Roberts, satisfying People for the American Way and other anti- Roberts liberal activist groups.
 
(Mod hat on) Might I suggest that some of these comments (although I kKNOW are said as a joke) might seem threatening to someone reading them that isn't part of our little community??? I've deleted the ones in question.

Lynne
 
Thanks, Lynne. With the First Amendment under fire, you can't even afford to joke about harming a politico... some idiot will think you mean it.

Personally, the way I want to "harm" Teddy Kennedy is 100% legal - I want to vote the SOB out of office and watch him cry about it! That would be sweet to see.
 
dwarven1 said:
Personally, the way I want to "harm" Teddy Kennedy is 100% legal - I want to vote the SOB out of office and watch him cry about it! That would be sweet to see.

I dream about it almost every night. :D
(and your welcome)
 
Another way to "hurt" Teddy would be to convict him of his past indiscretions, lock him up in solitary, give him a case of Chevas each day, and let him drink himself to death.

That would be a legal version of "Assisted Suicide", wouldn't it?
 
Nickle said:
Another way to "hurt" Teddy would be to convict him of his past indiscretions, lock him up in solitary, give him a case of Chevas each day, and let him drink himself to death.

That would be a legal version of "Assisted Suicide", wouldn't it?

That would hurt Teddy? Isn't that how he spends the Senate recess at the compound? "Heaven, I'm in Heaven!!!!"
 
JonJ said:
That would hurt Teddy? Isn't that how he spends the Senate recess at the compound? "Heaven, I'm in Heaven!!!!"

It should eventually kill him, and the body would already be embalmed in alcohol (but then again, it already is).
 
Back
Top Bottom