Posted on 05/19/2004 11:42:25 AM PDT by neverdem
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:15:25 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Would serve the Dems right if Bush simply "forgot" his promise not to recess appoint.
"Among the high-profile nominations not on the list are California Justice Janice Rogers Brown for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and Texas Justice Priscilla Owen to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.."
HUH????
so an agreement to pass the nominees they would pass anyway???!??
But not the KEY NOMINEES THAT THEY WERE HOLDING UP????!?!?
AND NOW BUSH HAS TAKEN A KEY ISSUE OFF THE CAMPAIGN TABLE?!?!?
Was this same story from the Washington Times already posted because I checked "match exact" and "match all words" twice?
The only interest 99.9% of the politicians have is in their own power and profit. They disgust me. I do like Claire Wolfe's comment: it's too late to work within the system, but it's too early to shoot the b*&^%$#s.
Carolyn
this is getting awful OLD!
>
if you read the article, the obstruction of judges is a huge applause line at GOP rallies. Bush will use the obstruction issue in the election to get a better Senate. This deal is meaningless. The best judges are not included. Brown, Owens, etc. Bush will make them an issue, esp in close Senate states. he did it in 2002 and he'll do it in 2004.
well, he better!!!
If this screwy deal lets the Dems claim that they are cooperating when the fine Texas Juctice Owens is not even allowed a vote, it is a farce and a travesty.
And I certainly dont want his recess appointment hands tied next January.
I didn't and don't mean any offense but the multiple postings of the same 'stories' are becoming endemic of late.
A "Deal" with Democrats means head they win, tails we loose.
Why do so many Republican politicians come in different shades of yellow when it regards playing hardball with Democrats????
Who blinked first? Will this be a flip or a flop, a flip/flop, and for who? How would this strategy be described in terms of 'Texas hold'em' for the poker players among us?
the judge issue is how Bush won Minnesota, GA, MI.
It helped in TX too.
Nobody, is paying attention now.
In September/October, Bush will bring up Brown. A highly qualified black conservative woman who is being filibustered bc she is a CONSERVATIVE black. Kerry will be forced to take a stance. Of course he'll flip flop, meaning he'd support Brown if only she'd do this or say this.
But the point is, again, it's May, nobody is paying attention. In October, Bush can draw attention to qualified nominees that Kerry et all blocked. And the voters will decide.
That's right. Plus, he got 25 judges that he wanted.
The Dumbocrats have 'misunderestimated' President Bush, once again.
President Bush is smarter than the Dumbocrats, but they are too vain to realize it.
In other words, Bush got his cake and ate it. He got thru his recess appointments and his judges. Daschle is the one who caved by letting go of his leverage for a promise that Bush won't do what he wasn't going to do anyways. Daschle saves face, Bush wins.
Daschle might not be "deeply saddened," but I am.
As I understand it, the deal is supposed to be until the "end of the year". The federal fiscal year ends Sept.
Thanks for the ping ! :^)
"In return for the president's commitment, which Mr. Card has conveyed to us that there will be no further judicial recess appointments for the remainder of his term, we have committed to confirm now 25 of the judicial nominations currently on the executive calendar by the end of June," Mr. Daschle said. "Some may entail more floor time than others, but there will be a vote on each of the 25 nominations."The agreement is a reversal for Republicans, who had argued that Mr. Bush could make no such agreement because it would be an abrogation of his constitutional authority to make recess appointments.
Similar agreements have been made to dislodge nominees stuck in the Senate, but no one involved in the negotiations could recall a sitting president making such a compromise.
Although yesterday's deal was agreed to by the parties' leaders, it drew criticism from senators on both sides.
"My concern is, now that the Democrat obstructionists have successfully negotiated in exchange for their hostages, what will stop them from blocking all future nominees," asked Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "What will stop future Congresses from employing similar tactics? When does it end?"
The Dems set an outrageous precedent with their extra-Constitutional filibuster and know full well it can be used against them. They were hoping the Pubs would do something rash and thus lay the blame for the whole mess on them.
To me, this signals that they are terrified that the Pubs will, with the help of a few moderate Dems (if there are any left) after November, reach the filibuster-proof magic number of 60 and then there will be hell to pay for them.
I've thought for some time that any deal would be made from a position of strength and patience by the WH and Frist. IMHO, the Dems blinked. Betcha part of the deal included some threats of super-campaigning by Bush against certain high-ranking Senate Dems up for re-election.
Also, Bush can always renominate the six "controversial" judges after he wins re-election, which, judging by this deal, is something the Dems are just about conceding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.