You need to take that up with Mark Levin.
Posted on 12/15/2004 11:23:35 PM PST by Lancey Howard
"No wonder Ann Coulter calls them "girlie men""
That is what they are!
No No .....SHAVE the Whales!
Especially Rich Lowry. He's a bright kid, he just suffers from testosterone deficincy.
Very well written! Also, you are right on the money.
5 Stars for you!
*****
Sure enough! I sent it out to some family, friends, Freepers
and other folks via email. Included on the list was Rush Limbaugh
and Sean Hannity.
Full agreement here. Well done.
Bump City!
Thanks for the ping.
We have too many "Trent Lotts" floating around. We need some real men to play this serious game.
A full court filibuster means that the Republicans have to keep at least 50 on the floor at all times to prevent closing the Senate with a quorum call. Only 1 Democrat would need to be present at all times to prevent anything being passed by unanimous consent. That means only 2-3 Republicans to hit the talk shows and 45 Democrats to do the same. Somehow I think the Republicans would get smoked in the PR war.
If the filibuster is to be used, a rule change is still needed. Maybe they should have add a rule that allows 2/3 of members present to break a filibuster. That would keep most of the Democrats in the room also. But if you're going make a rule change, why not use the constitutional mandate of advise and consent to bring an end to filibusters for judicial nominees.
As the lead essay points out, the Democrats wouldn't let something like the rules stop them from putting whoever they want into the courts. The way Republicans lose this big-time is if they nominate "moderates" so that the Dems will play nice. I think they're on the right track and will find some way through this logjam. This is Bush using the rope-a-dope strategy, although he's giving them more rope than I would.
I predict the Senate will initiate some rule change, but it won't be one that will allow them to quickly ram through nominees. It will rather be one that forces Dems to spend a lot of visible political capital to obstruct, that drives a wedge between their voters and special interests, and still allows nominees to be placed in the end by simple majority.
You need to take that up with Mark Levin.
ONE filibuster of a lower-court nominee is unprecedented - - TEN (filibusters or threats to filibuster) is "routine".
Thanks for reading, and thanks for your input. I truly do appreciate it.
Regards,
LH
Thanks!
Thanks for reading and for your kind words!
I have thought for the past two years that the single most important domestic issue in the recent Presidential election was the judiciary, and especially the Supreme Court. We need to keep our eyes wide open.
Regards,
LH
I was waiting for someone to say nukuler...I am surprised it took 50 posts, however.
"Doh...!" (/Homer Simpson forehead slap)
Thanks for reading and thanks for your input!
Regards,
LH
To some extent I agree. I think a filibuster should be a filibuster. Make some of these old Democrat rat-b*s+#4ds stand there and soil themselves for a week.
THEN go nuclear.
Then they won't need taxpayer support anymore.
Let's hope Soros' help for the ACLU has as much success as his help for MoveOn.org did.
Thanks for your kind comments, and thanks for the heads-up.
I look forward to your own take on this.
Regards,
LH
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.