The 'Rats will never stop their obstructionism, that's why we need to get to 60 seats.
1 posted on
02/27/2005 2:04:06 PM PST by
wagglebee
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
To: wagglebee
Just go "nuclear" and Biden could shove himself.
3 posted on
02/27/2005 2:07:29 PM PST by
GSlob
To: wagglebee
Is there a Dem with a bigger ego than Biden?
To: wagglebee
"A good copy is better than a poor original." -- Joe Biden
5 posted on
02/27/2005 2:09:16 PM PST by
My2Cents
("Friends stab you from the front." -- Oscar Wilde)
To: wagglebee
Is anyone really surprised by this.....? We take them on sooner or later....I vote for sooner.
6 posted on
02/27/2005 2:09:16 PM PST by
hoosiermama
(It's more than an election...It's a change of heart....an enlightenment....life is important)
To: wagglebee
7 posted on
02/27/2005 2:10:42 PM PST by
billorites
(freepo ergo sum)
To: wagglebee
Bidet did an interesting Tapdance around the whole "advise and consent" thing. Something about one set of rules and procedures regarding lower justices, but another for the "big fish" (my words). This leaves truck sized holes for Bidet-flavored mayhem.
Joe Bidet is the classic turd in a punchbowl.....
8 posted on
02/27/2005 2:10:49 PM PST by
rockrr
(Revote or Revolt! It's up to you Washington!)
To: wagglebee
If President Bush taps Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to replace William Rehnquist as chief justice, he won't be able to count on support from Delaware Democratic Senator Joe Biden -Do you think they were counting on this liar?
9 posted on
02/27/2005 2:10:54 PM PST by
Howlin
(Free the Eason Jordan Tape!!!)
To: wagglebee
Biden questions Scalias work?What a joke.
Biden isn`t even qualified or intelligent enough to plagiarize Scalias writings.
10 posted on
02/27/2005 2:11:13 PM PST by
carlr
To: wagglebee
I read an op-ed a few days ago in which former Senator Helms warns that the "nuclear option" is a bad idea. Helms said that we would have federal funding of all abortions for "the poor" without the Senate filibuster. There are other situations where the filibuster defeats liberals too. He said that giving up the filibuster to gain typical judges John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Sandra Day O'Connor, or Anthony Kennedy is madness. He made me think twice about the "nuclear option." Helms said that we can't stop filibusters on judicial nominees and retain it on other matters, but I don't know whey we could not.
12 posted on
02/27/2005 2:11:26 PM PST by
Theodore R.
(Terri has already outlived Eleanor Centzone.)
To: wagglebee
Scalia "thinks there are no such thing as unenumerated rights in the Constitution which fundamentally alters the way in which you read the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment and a whole range of other things," the Delaware Democrat complained Can someone please explain what Biden is talking about here?
15 posted on
02/27/2005 2:13:27 PM PST by
zeebee
To: wagglebee
The Democrats truly suck. They want the right to appoint Justices when the Democrats are in office, and the right to appoint Justices when the Democrats are not in office. As I said, the Democrats truly suck. If they want to choose the Chief Justice, they need to win the White House. Otherwise, they should stop messing with the Constitution, which says the President picks the Justices.
To: wagglebee
Scalia "thinks there are no such thing as unenumerated rights in the Constitution which fundamentally alters the way in which you read the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment and a whole range of other things,"
Can someone explain to be what this babbling is about? Last I heard, Scalia believes there's no such thing as "unenumerated" powers of the fedgov. And what does that have to do with the 14th Amendment? And where is a "liberty clause" in the that Amendment? It's not in my copy of the Constitution. What is this guy rambling about?
To: wagglebee
That is why we need to change that stupid 'rule'.
21 posted on
02/27/2005 2:14:25 PM PST by
mathluv
To: wagglebee
'cuz biden cheated in school, and scalia did not?
24 posted on
02/27/2005 2:15:57 PM PST by
ken21
( warning: a blood bath when rehnquist, et al retire. >hang w dubya.< dems want 2 divide us.)
To: wagglebee
Biden insisted that his about-face on Scalia had nothing to do with the justice's conservative views. "I would oppose him because of his methodology, the way he interprets the Constitution," he explained.
And that has nothing to do with conservative views?
Scalia "thinks there are no such thing as unenumerated rights in the Constitution...
Biden and his party would just be up a dead end if
it weren't for "unenumerated rights".
Go Scalia!
28 posted on
02/27/2005 2:17:23 PM PST by
tet68
( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
To: wagglebee
You don't mean "anti-everything" Joe "Crazy" Biden do you? What a surprise!
29 posted on
02/27/2005 2:17:39 PM PST by
Road Warrior ‘04
(Kill 'em til they're dead! Then, kill 'em again!)
To: wagglebee
The 'Rats will never stop their obstructionism, that's why we need to get to 60 seats. the Constitution says "advise and consent", not "filibuster and derail". Frist should do whatever is neccessary to bring all nominees directly to the floor for a limited debate and vote, with no filibusters (which are not in the Constitution) permitted.
To: wagglebee
I would like to see Pres. Bush nominate California Supreme Court Justice, Janice Rogers Brown, with her understanding that the left would show up to the hearings with rope and a scaffold. It would be throwing her to the lions, but I think she would understand and it would make a glorious point and cause Biden, Schumer and Boxer to mess themselves on national media. Justice Brown would be cannon fodder and running interference at the same time, but I think she's up to it. After the Dems were done befouling themselves lynching Justice Brown, Justice Scalia would slide on through. Justice Brown could fill another US vacancy at a later time.
41 posted on
02/27/2005 2:23:23 PM PST by
elbucko
(Feral Republican)
To: wagglebee
In November of '86, Biden said:
Say the administration sends up Bork and after our investigation he looks a lot like another Scalia, I'd have to vote for him and if the groups tear me apart, that's the medicine I'll have to take, I'm not Teddy Kennedy."
But he's working on it.
Michael M. Bates: My Side of the Swamp
46 posted on
02/27/2005 2:28:21 PM PST by
Mike Bates
(Irish Alzheimer's victim: I only remember the grudges.)
To: wagglebee
The Rats are trying to get Bush to just put one Justice up instead of going with the upgrade and and another one.
47 posted on
02/27/2005 2:31:05 PM PST by
Deetes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson