How WE can decide who is the next Supreme Court nominee

[Walt Starr]

Joan Lefkow should be the next United States Supreme Court Justice, and WE CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN!!!

Joan Lefkow is a serious, non-nonsense Judge on the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. She was confirmed UNANIMOUSLY by the Senate in June of 2000.

She has proven her courage and dedication by vowing to remain on the court after terrorists attacked and killed her husband and mother earlier this week. She did her undergraduate work at Wheaton College (a small Christian College in Wheaton, Illinois) where she met her husband. She and her husband were both VERY active in the Episcopalian Church. Today, she is a widow and sole provider for her four daughters.

There needs to be an outcry. Anybody willing to stand up to terrorists and vow to remain on the court after an attempt to intimidate her out of her seat has proven she has the moxy required to be a fair and impartial jurist on the highest court in the land.

No president, regardless of party affiliation, can argue against a jurist who was unanimously confirmed and who has proven this level of dedication to serving the people.

I call for internet activists of all stripes, political affiliations and philosophies to urge the president to nominate Joan Lefkow to the Supreme Court as of the first vacancy.

[Walt Starr]

1. We need to push this

Here is a way to get a reasonable court appoinment. If pushed, Bush would have to appoint her. He'd lose a lot of political capital if this became a movement and he didn't appoint her.

[Walt Starr]

2. Looks to me like Jon Stewart and Lizz Winstead are more important

than an opportunity to push a reasonable Supreme Court nominee that cannot be ignored by the president.

:shrug:

Ah well, looks like I don't have my priorities straight.

[Walt Starr]

3. I'm kicking it one more time because I'll be gone for the next few hours

I hope somebody notices this, because we could force Bush to make this nomination.

[ChairOne]

7. Do you have a reasonably comprehensive professional bio? /eom

[Walt Starr]

9. Sure, from dick Durbin's office:

http://www.senate.gov/~durbin/PressReleases/000630g.htm

[mmonk]

4. I don't think we have a voice

I think only multinational corporations and hill billy trash fundamentalists have a voice in the new America. The experiment that was the US IS OVER FOLKS. We are the RULED, there is NO MORE BY THE PEOPLE. There is no protection from tyranny of the majority. There is no longer a free and informative press. There is no longer a solid opposition party, only parts of it.

[Walt Starr]

10. Push this angle

"She knows what it's like to eb a victim of crime, so she will stand up for victim's rights."

Frame the debate in a way that the average American can get behind, AND be outraged if she is not nominated!

[DistressedAmerican]

5. Hope You Are Right. Too Bad We Are Rife With Appeasers That Will

most likely vote for who ever Bush sends us.
Hey, He advises, We consent! Remember?

[ArkDem]

6. I'm sure the bush administration is keenly interested in the

thoughts of internet activitists.

[Silverhair]

8. You have about ZERO chance of success.

Fact: Even if W did nominate her, you and the rest of DU would still hate him. In fact, you would start to wonder if there was something hidden about Ms. Lefkow that made her acceptable to W.

So what does he have to gain by making a nomination that will anger his own base and not gain him any support from the left? Obviously, none. Therefore your effort will be in vain.

He views himself as on a mission, and he will nominate someone like Gonzales, if not Gonzales himself.

[Walt Starr]

11. We are in a unique position in this case

and can create national outrage if she is not nominated.

BTW, Clinton nominated her in 2000 and she sailed through confirmation with no porblems. Her unique situation screams out for activism to get her nominated.

[Silverhair]

12. I admire your optimism, but it is not founded in reality. NT

[Walt Starr]

13. Actrually, yes it is founded in reality

The victim's Rights angle gets the moderates on board. If a majority of the country are thinking "Joan Lefkow" when Rhenquist steps down in June and Bush continues to burn through political capital between now and then pushing his dismantling of Social Security, it will be necessary to nominate her in order to gain some political capital back.

The Religious Right won't be able to oppose her because she's from a VERY Christian family and went to a Christian College. The Senate confirmed her unanimously for her present position.

It's a win-win for Bush. He makes himselff look like he's standing up for victim's rights. He gets to decalre he has used njo litmus test, the religious right wackos cannot fault him for nominating a woman so active in her church.

It SCREAMS for a non-partisan activist movement!

[Walt Starr]

14. .