Replies

It's funny that here on FR, people constantly wring their hands over these "deals," yet NRO (I think) quoted a prominent unnamed Democrat as saying that every time there is a deal, it looks initially like the Dems win, then, by the end of the week, they figure out they've lost. I see no downside to this IF Bush planned no more recess appointments.

60 posted on 05/21/2004 6:07:46 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of news.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Here's the down side. The Left is using a process that is NOT written anywhere nor supported by any ruling claiming the need of 60 votes to place a Judicial Nominee.
yet is continues for what 4 years almost.

Yeah some real spunk in the Leadership of the Repulican Senate and White House. Let's give em another 4 years so they can completely assimilate the Democrats.

Ok, let's take your "spunk" recommendation. What exactly is your strategy?

1) Force a "real" filibuster by the Dems? (Do you really think Chaffee and Snowe would maintain party discipline in such a confrontation?)

2) Stop all Senate business on anything else until these are approved? (And that's going to look how, exactly, to the public? Like the GOP is "doing nothing.")

The public does not understand this constitutional nuance, and if you think going to the wall over this is that important, you are asking for a Dem sweep in the Fall. Just speaking political reality. It has been the same in numerous confrontations in American political history: the answer NEVER lies in trying to win a constitutional position, but rather ALWAYS lies in defeating the opponent at the ballot box---i.e., get more than 60 conservatives.