Skip to comments.
Senate GOP set to go 'nuclear' over judges
Cox news service via the Times Argus ^
| 11/28/04
| Chuck Lindell
Posted on 11/28/2004 2:36:14 PM PST by NeoCaveman
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-129 next last
To: dubyaismypresident
Same threat from June, 2003.
When Frist finally DOES something besides whine and threaten, maybe he will be deserving of respect. Until Frist finally DOES something, this is just more empty threat served with more whine and cheese.
41
posted on
11/28/2004 3:14:59 PM PST
by
TomGuy
(America: Best friend or worst enemy. Choose wisely.)
To: ninenot
Frankly, we've heard this foofoodust before--about 4 years ago. Well in 2000 there were 50 Republican Senators with 5 RINO's for a net 45.
In 2002 there were 51 Republican Senators with 5 RINO's for a net 46.
Now there are 55 Republican Senators with 5 RINO's and the head RINO has been castrated.
So now there is cause for some optomism.
42
posted on
11/28/2004 3:16:24 PM PST
by
NeoCaveman
(http://route-82.blogspot.com)
To: TomGuy
Same threat from June, 2003. True. But the Senate math looks a lot better than it does 2 years ago.
As 55 R's is better than 51.
43
posted on
11/28/2004 3:17:33 PM PST
by
NeoCaveman
(http://route-82.blogspot.com)
To: dubyaismypresident
Unless a senator from the state of the chosen candidate approves, the candidate does not advance. That too must go.
Harry Reid just had a hold on many appointees, but released his hold only when his guy got appointed to the EPA so that the Nuclear Waste issue in Yucca Mt. would have an opponent.
Blackmail, the democrat way. So, it doesn't matter if your party loses, so long as appointments must have home-state senate approval.
44
posted on
11/28/2004 3:21:41 PM PST
by
Prost1
(If you teach what your history teachers taught you, you will be corrected...)
To: Paleo Conservative
'bout time would be the best comment.
45
posted on
11/28/2004 3:23:36 PM PST
by
deaconjim
(Freep the world!)
To: Syncro
Recess appointments expire at the end of any Congressional session. So any such appointments may be useful in the short term, but they are certainly no substitute for the normal lifetime appointments that come as the result of Senate confirmation.
Regards,
LH
To: Dave Burns
"Mitch McConnell said it takes 67 votes to change a rule on Cal Thomas last night."
The 'nuclear' option does not involve this kind of rule change. It means that when the RATS Filibuster a Court nomination, the President of the Senate (if the Pubbies go Nuclear, Cheney would come in and act as President) would pound the gavel and declare the filibuster Unconstitutional and the Senate would move on and take a vote whereby 51 votes would win.
47
posted on
11/28/2004 3:24:35 PM PST
by
TRY ONE
(NUKE the unborn gay whales!)
...Democratic retaliation...how?
48
posted on
11/28/2004 3:28:11 PM PST
by
clintonh8r
(Get Out The Gloat!!)
To: Dave Burns
Mitch McConnell said it takes 67 votes to change a rule on Cal Thomas last night.Why would he say that? Obviously, if that was the case, then no "nuclear option" would exist at all and there wouldn't even be any discussion. Fortunately, it only takes 51 votes to change the rule.
To: dubyaismypresident
In the words of that great American, Al Bundy: "LET'S ROCK!!!!!"
To: dubyaismypresident
Frist or one of his aides must have been reading up on this in the forum.
The phrase "nuclear option" is stupid PR. The Republicans who first used it handed a valuable propaganda tool to the enemy. Stupid. We should simply say, as Frist is saying, that the Republicans are following the constitution and that the Democrats are violating it by not letting judicial appointments come to a vote in the Senate.
It's not a euphemism, it's the truth.
51
posted on
11/28/2004 3:32:00 PM PST
by
Cicero
(Nil illegitemus carborundum est)
To: TRY ONE
Big Dick screwing the RAT senators would be too delicious....I hope it happens before Rather retires so he has to report it. Doubly delicious...
52
posted on
11/28/2004 3:33:43 PM PST
by
clintonh8r
(Get Out The Gloat!!)
To: Syncro
If they use every tool they possibly can, President Bush needs to do some appointments during the Congressional Break period. Clinton set the precedent for that. We need to do it too to save time and energy.He did it with Pickering, and Pickering's term is already just about over.
53
posted on
11/28/2004 3:33:57 PM PST
by
alnick
To: dubyaismypresident; Dave Burns; AndrewC
Thanks for the link, first time I have looked over there.
Mitch McConnell said it takes 67 votes to change a rule on Cal Thomas last night.
And they don't understand the difference between a rule and the Constitution.
Actually I found on their site that they do know the difference. From a post over there:
- To invoke cloture, a 'supermajority' of "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn" (whether present or not) is required.
- To change the Senate rules, a 'supermajority' of "two-thirds of the Senators present and voting" is required.
54
posted on
11/28/2004 3:35:31 PM PST
by
Syncro
To: Lancey Howard; alnick
Thanks.
You too, alnick.
That makes sense then to make the Dems let the nominations go through in spite of their crying and whining.
55
posted on
11/28/2004 3:38:11 PM PST
by
Syncro
To: TASMANIANRED
His head may be partially filled with sawdust, but I am almost certain that the sawdust was first used on the floors of animal exibits at some state fair.
56
posted on
11/28/2004 3:44:00 PM PST
by
F.J. Mitchell
(If you were still in the womb, would you trust your life to Specter?????)
To: dubyaismypresident
As 55 R's is better than 51. Not when 4 are RINOs. Snowe, Chaffee, McCain, Spector, who now control judiciary.
57
posted on
11/28/2004 3:45:12 PM PST
by
Bommer
To: dubyaismypresident
raising the prospect of escalating clashes in a body that prides itself on gentility and cool judgment. What body would that be?
Certainly not the US Senate.
Not with the likes of soon-to-be-ex Sen "Lil" Tommy Dashole blocking anything and everything. Not with the 'Rats screaming about changing the rules on committee memebership ratios.
They need to give the 'Rats ONE chance on the first nomination.
Then slice 'em and dice 'em.
LVM
58
posted on
11/28/2004 3:48:06 PM PST
by
LasVegasMac
(If it ain't smoked, it ain't worth puttin' on the table!)
To: Petronski
My sentiments exactly. I won't believe it until they do it.
59
posted on
11/28/2004 3:48:24 PM PST
by
smokeyb
To: Bommer
Hmmmm. You seem to have forgotten RINOs Collins, DeWine, and Voinovich...and I may have forgotten a couple, too.
60
posted on
11/28/2004 3:49:45 PM PST
by
SAJ
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-129 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson