Anybody else having trouble with Coulter's site?

The proof is in the pudding, but from what I have read and heard about this guy he doesn't seem likely to be a Souter.

For one, he's been a known commodity in DC for years and has an extensive record of service to GOP administrations and of donating to GOP senators. Scalia apparently thinks highly of his work. His wife (according to K.J. Lopez at National Review) has been executive vice-president of Feminists for Life, an anti-abortion group. Souter had none of that.

But I think the problem isn't so much a "stealth" record, it's that a certain segment of the base wants a bloody judicial war as much as certain elements of the left, in the hopes that we can "stick it to" the Libs for good. Coulter is in this group, I believe.

Is Roberts the kind of guy that will put the Senate in the position of having to use the "nuclear/constitutional option"? Nope. And that's what has the Ann Coulter's of the world bothered.

By the way, as an aside, how silly will the Dems look filibustering someone who Ann Coulter opposes?

But is he a fellow that will move the court to the right? As my magic 8-ball says "signs point to Yes".

Coulter proves again that she's a nut. Seriously. What drug is she on that she thinks Rehnquist's former clerk and hand-picked protege is a closet Brennan?

Either that, or she's pulling a reverse Moby to help him...

Was Roberts unanimously confirmed to the D.C. court of appeals in 2003?

If so, what's Schumer talking about?
http://1010wins.com/topstories/local_story_201074932.html
(from drudge)

right, it was a no vote in committee. Floor vote was unanimous.

Right,

Schumer voted against him in Committee. The vote was 14-3.

When his nomination was considered on the Senate floor, it passed by Unanimous Consent. This means that no Senator objected to it's passage, and that a roll call vote wasn't taken.

Or perhaps Coulter is hoping the left will support any candidate that appears to be considered weak by the right? I.e. the Brer Rabbit offense?

Thanks.

I was hoping to catch Schumer in a lie.

(I really really don't like that guy)

No problem right - the next time you hear Schumer say "this will be a fair process", you've got him!

When his nomination was considered on the Senate floor, it passed by Unanimous Consent. This means that no Senator objected to it's passage, and that a roll call vote wasn't taken.

I'm curious to what that actually means... are some things passed by Unanimous Consent simply because the dissenters know they have no possible way to block something from passing, and so don't bother with the formality of a vote?

In other words: Does "Unanimous Consent" really mean Unanimous Approval or just Unanimous We Know This Is Going To Pass So We'll Just Get It Over With?

Sounds like he'll be another corporate lapdog like all of bushes appointments. Just what the country needs, another suit.

Yeah, he should have put a cool hippy type in the HIGHEST FUCKING COURT IN THE LAND, you drooling halfwit.
Shouldn't you be cleaning your bong?

Yeah, Bush should have nominated one of your papier mache' puppet heads, hippie. Get a job.

Coulter's complaint seems to be that "we" don't know anything about him. But "we" weren't being asked anyway. Bush sat down with him and looked into his eyes and saw his soul. for Pete's sake. We all know how he can do that!

Is it any wonder I'm goofy for Laura? It's like we're the same person, or boffed each other silly in another life or something.

hee! go figure

looks up from cleaning bong

huh? wha?

You people crack me up.

Republicans are hilarious!

The GOP has 55 seats in the Senate. What the heck is wong with them?

What the heck is wong with them?

ACE: To answer your question, "unanimous consent" can mean both of those things that you suggested.

Essentially, it is a procedural tool used to speed up consideration of items on the floor.

Sometimes, a UC occurs because an item is so innocuous that no one really gives a damn about it. For example, if your home state's University wins a national championship and your home state Senator offers a resolution congratulating them, those items aren't put to a vote. The majority leader (or his designee) simply asks the senate to agree to pass it by UC. Further, UC agreements are discussed with the minority leader and are cleared in advance with the other side.

If a Senator wants to make a stink, he can object and demand a roll call vote. This usually pisses off his colleagues though. No one wants to take 30 minutes off of his schedule to go vote on a meaningless resolution.

It is true that sometimes things get UC'd because the opposition knows that they can't stop it anyway, and that they will look loony if they try.

The true power of the UC is that it only takes one senator to foul things up. So if a Senator objects to a piece of legislation passing this way, he can prevent it and try to leverage that into something else, like agreeing to let it pass by UC if his amendment to the bill is given floor consideration.

Obviously, with nominations, amendments aren't an issue. Sometimes, though, Senators will refuse to allow a UC to occur unless certain nominees are (or arent) considered too.

With regard to Roberts, the Democrats did not have support within their caucus to engage in a prolonged floor battle over his appointment to the DC Circuit. Could Schumer have objected to the UC? Yes. It would then have gone to a roll call vote (assuming the 60 votes needed for cloture were there) and he would have been confirmed something like 90-10.

Further, unanimous consent is needed for other things as well. When the Senate goes into a "quorum call" (those periods of time when no one is speaking on the floor and the clerk is reading names) it takes Unanimous Consent to end the quorum call period.

Also, if a Senator wants to cause trouble and delay the passage of a bill, he can ask that it be read in it's entirety. Harry Reid did this a couple of years ago to protest some language in an appropriations bill that restricted funding for abortions performed on military bases. Since the reading of a bill is a privileged motion, it took unanimous consent for the senate to be allowed to proceed to other business. Reid sat on the floor for roughly 6 hours making the clerk read the 1000 page appropriations bill as he constantly objected to every UC request made.

The "Rehnquist deal" notion, makes an interesting kind of sense. It'll be interesting to see if it matches up to events, as this plays out over the next few months.

Right, evrybody in my clan can't wait for another justice who can't wait to cite Zairian or North Korean law when deciding a constitutional issue. Give us another justice who has little use for the founding fathers or the constitution.

Everybody here just demands it. NOT.

I don't know about Roberts. If the Democrats aren't in rabid dog mode over this guy, I'd question his philosophy and his committment to conservative strict constitutional constructionalism. And this is too important for George to fuck it up.

So let us pray ...

"Right, evrybody in my clan can't wait for another justice who can't wait to cite Zairian or North Korean law when deciding a constitutional issue."
Which justice did that?