To: EQAndyBuzz
60 Republican Senators.Why? After all less than 50 were enough to keep President Clinton's power grabbing relatively in check.
6 posted on
06/29/2004 9:34:33 AM PDT by
ksen
(Free the GRPL 3! (Woody, CaRepubGal, Wrigley))
To: ksen
10 posted on
06/29/2004 9:35:50 AM PDT by
Independentamerican
(Independent Sophomore at the University of MD)
To: ksen
Agreed. This is out of hand. We all are comfortable with this now but just imagine Skerry the former prosecuter or a Hildebeast in the white house with things going this way. Hide your guns.
13 posted on
06/29/2004 9:36:49 AM PDT by
myword
To: ksen
After all less than 50 were enough to keep President Clinton's power grabbing relatively in check. Huh. And a GOP majority wasn't enough to convict him on articles of impeachment. More of the same won't change a thing.
23 posted on
06/29/2004 9:45:24 AM PDT by
Romulus
("For the anger of man worketh not the justice of God.")
To: ksen
60 is needed for filibuster proofing the Senate. With 60 the judges would have been appointed.
31 posted on
06/29/2004 9:50:53 AM PDT by
EQAndyBuzz
(Hitler? Stalin? The left has a tough decision as to who they would rather emulate.)
To: ksen
60 to vote through Dubya's judicial choices without interference from Mrs. Clinton and her ilk.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson