Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ashcroft & Evans resign
MSNBC

Posted on 11/09/2004 2:50:48 PM PST by USNA74

Reporting that AG Ashcroft and Commerce Sec Don Evans have resigned.


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ashcroft; commerce; doj; donevans; evans; napalminthemorning; religionofpeace; resignation; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420421-426 next last
To: lentulusgracchus

I agreed with everything you wrote up until the last sentence. Don't have my Con Law hornbooks handy, but the Supreme Court has had its jurisdiction limited several times, I believe. I don't think that's ever been challenged, at least not successfully.


381 posted on 11/09/2004 7:10:58 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: All
I really think we need a great Freeper as AG. I nominate Buckhead!!!! Maybe then we can get Rathergate investigated! LOL
382 posted on 11/09/2004 7:30:25 PM PST by Flamenco Lady (4 More Years! We did it!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: txradioguy

Spectre already said they will give a vote to whoever bush sends. period.

We conservatives need to get over it.
Spectre it seems, has almost NOTHING to do with getting a guy confirmed. What has a lot to do with it, is the commitee ratio balance and rules for cloture in the Senate, and not much of anything else... It has been so since we won the first presidential election in 2000, by such a narrow margin. Winning by a larger ration does not alter the Senate rules, cloture thresholds or committee staff balance.

Spectre will very likely chair the judicial committee with an 11/8 split in our favor, so even IF he votes with the dems, we will get our floor vote. End of discussion. Fighting over Spectre is a useless waste of our finite amount of political capitol. With out a big traumatic confrontation, Bush will be able to nomimate, and the committee will both review background, make a recommendation, and send the guy or gal to the floor for an up or down vote.

If the dems block cloture, the nomination will fail, if they don't the nomination will pass. If we don't change the the threshold for cloture, it will be set as it is, sixty. If we do change it, it will go to 55 or so, and we might come to rue the day we do thus... Later... when WE are the minority party wanting to block a bill or nominee.

But that's our political system and unless we give Bush a 64 seat senate THAT is exactly how it will stay. Re-electing Bush did not give us enough power to overthrow the current numerical balance of power in the Senate. We now have a majority without having to send our Veep over there to take attendance and vote our will on matters.

I am still wondering if we should or should not, change the rules on cloture... a knife that can and will... cut both ways. I wish there was a way that we could make cloture different on nominees only, instead of both nominees and new legislation.

Regardless Spectre is NOT where we will win or lose this.
Rush Limbaugh talked about this for quite a while today and made it rather clear... Spectre won't be our problem on the nominee question...

committee ratios and cloture thresholds are where we will fight this battle and win, lose or draw... we will have to live with it.

I wish that changing one man would flip the turn of events... but it won't. The bush administration seems to be letting ol' Arlen... 'twist in the wind' for a while.

I guess we will get to test the new system first... on a new A.G.


383 posted on 11/09/2004 7:33:17 PM PST by Robert_Paulson2 (the madridification of our election... failed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Dog

Nice pick.
Off the radar.
Respected (and feared by dems) and a KNOWN quantity to the american people...

I do wonder if his arguing FOR W in the first prez election might not hinder his getting a successful vote on the floor of the US Senate.


384 posted on 11/09/2004 7:35:52 PM PST by Robert_Paulson2 (the madridification of our election... failed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: hershey

SOME?


385 posted on 11/09/2004 7:38:09 PM PST by Robert_Paulson2 (the madridification of our election... failed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Crimson Elephant
Ashcroft would never get through the Senate for a judge..the media would make the C.Thomas hearings look like Sponge Bob reruns.

Especially with those ear-splitting shrieks and annoying laugh Sponge Bob has...

386 posted on 11/09/2004 7:49:56 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale
I would like to see Ashcroft give a message in tongues before he walks out the door.

Only if there is someone to interpret.

And no, I don't mean Dan Rather!

387 posted on 11/09/2004 7:51:39 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

"Perhaps you should actually gather some facts"


Perhaps you should read all of my posts (see 320), rather than make redundant responses.


388 posted on 11/09/2004 8:32:07 PM PST by Blzbba (Conservative Republican - Less gov't, less spending, less intrusion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ

"That's not true, quit listening to the Rat parodies."


See my post 320 and stop wasting my time telling me what I've already apologized for.


389 posted on 11/09/2004 8:34:15 PM PST by Blzbba (Conservative Republican - Less gov't, less spending, less intrusion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: L,TOWM

John Ashcroft would be an excellent SC Justice. I hope that whatever he does he is more visible and is more powerful than before.

His steadfastness has kept this nation safe for 4 years in the face of creepy rats like Shcumer, islamists, and assorted other traitorous demorats.


390 posted on 11/09/2004 8:35:35 PM PST by eleni121 (NO more reaching out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan

"Glad to see Ashcroft go"

May I disagree. Ashcroft is the main reason we have not had another attack since 9-11.

We cannot fight wars like the one we are fighting without strong measures and he was primarily responsible for implementing them.

God Bless John Ashcroft.


391 posted on 11/09/2004 8:38:37 PM PST by eleni121 (NO more reaching out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Wneighbor

"I think Pete Coors, who barely lost in Colorado senate election would make a good Commerce Secretary."

Dunno 'bout that, but I'd definitely have him buy the drinks.


392 posted on 11/09/2004 8:46:01 PM PST by WOSG (Liberate Iraq - http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: WOSG

LOL....


393 posted on 11/09/2004 8:48:23 PM PST by Wneighbor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: USNA74

"Reporting that AG Ashcroft and Commerce Sec Don Evans have resigned."

Does this mean we can break the law!


394 posted on 11/09/2004 8:56:08 PM PST by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert_Paulson2

"Spectre will very likely chair the judicial committee with an 11/8 split in our favor, so even IF he votes with the dems, we will get our floor vote. End of discussion. Fighting over Spectre is a useless waste of our finite amount of political capitol. With out a big traumatic confrontation, Bush will be able to nomimate, and the committee will both review background, make a recommendation, and send the guy or gal to the floor for an up or down vote."

Hugh Hewitt is on your side.

Hopefully, we can 'win by losing' here, where we make the point and keep Specter in line rather than let him destroy things either from the inside or from the outside.


trouble is I dont trust Specter, and a committee chairman *does* have power to to things behind the scenes on nominations and other key issues wrt constitution. He is one of the worst possible choices to chair that committee.

That's why we should have dealt with it in the primary, by getting Toomey elected.

"Regardless Spectre is NOT where we will win or lose this.
Rush Limbaugh talked about this for quite a while today and made it rather clear... Spectre won't be our problem on the nominee question..."

Alas, Rush got the WH talking points memo.

WH would rather lose on conservative issues and keep 'power' than actually accomplish the most conservative things.


395 posted on 11/09/2004 8:57:21 PM PST by WOSG (Liberate Iraq - http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Some people think a statute circumscribing the Court's jurisdiction might work. I've seen that idea floated before, and it appears to have some support.

The problem is, you set yourself up for a Supreme Court test with a lot of chips on the table , and if you lose -- you lose everything.

Once the Supreme Court clears its throat and says that gays have a God-given right to marry people of the same sex, your political landscape changes, and now you are the Blue Meanies trying to take something precious away from people who the Supreme Court says are in the right, rather than defending marriage against the pretensions of a bunch of upstart minoritarian morality-flouters. Your degree of difficulty in getting a constitutional amendment passed and ratified instantaneously goes off the scale.

With a statute, you are putting yourself in a situation in which you only get one chance to get it right, and the other side is actively trying to screw you in a (we are on notice) biased court.

I prefer the amendment route, because that drives a stake through the challengers' hearts for all time. Get the amendment ratified, and It's Over, your way. Back to the peace and quiet we enjoyed before this Goebbelsian assault on our self-respect, moral hygiene, and common sense.

396 posted on 11/09/2004 9:09:59 PM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
WH would rather lose on conservative issues and keep 'power' than actually accomplish the most conservative things.

I think Bush is committed to Scalia getting CJ.

On other matters, the election's over and now I think his pragmatic side may re-emerge with squishy or MOR nominees. Business-wing types, brimming with RiNOtude, so Bush can save his political capital for other things, like Iraq.

Hope I'm wrong.

397 posted on 11/09/2004 9:14:13 PM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: WOSG

trouble is I dont trust Specter,


fact is, I don't either.
I will have to trust Bush, Rove, and the Republican Senate leadership. Whatever it takes to get the most amount done with the political capital we have earned.


398 posted on 11/09/2004 9:14:59 PM PST by Robert_Paulson2 (the madridification of our election... failed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Bush and his family are members of a socioeconomic group whose political typology

What kind of person typecasts the president by his socioeconomic group?????

399 posted on 11/09/2004 9:25:19 PM PST by JohnnyZ ("Thought I was having trouble with my adding. It's all right now." - Clint Eastwood)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Parading an improbable catalog of horribles is a traditional excuse for doing nothing. I'm surprised, though, that Jarvis would have said such a thing.

Sure every weirdo in the world will want all their crackpot ideas to become law yesterday. I got news for you - they already do. So nothing will change. The mainstream media will just have something else to hyperventilate about. They already hyperventilate about everything else so nothing will change here too.

In this particular matter though, the legislatures of 38 states will have to adopt any proposed Constitutional amendments. We'll have enough of a task getting them to adopt sensible amendments. Do you really think any weird stuff that might come from a convention would have a ghost of a chance?

Gimmie a break. And you can do better than that. At least be funny - assure us that a convention would cause so much global warming from all the hot air that we'll all croak and die.

As a practical matter, the state legislatures would insist on appointing all delegates to such a convention. And it is far more likely that the slow enactment of state resolutions calling for a convention would inspire Congress to head it off by themselves passing the most pressing amendments and sending those to the states for ratification.

400 posted on 11/09/2004 9:31:52 PM PST by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420421-426 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson