Posted on 03/15/2005 12:22:27 PM PST by Sub-Driver
You are exactly correct. If they don't want to show up - we can do this without them.
And .. I believe Rush is right when he said that if the repubs do this - several more dems will retire from the senate - because losing the power of judges will mean they are really totally out of power.
That was priceless....Had to share with friends.
A few tips in credibility:
Don't be telling old timers how to post when this is (maybe) your first day here.
I will raise it to 100 to one. The Reps are truly weak men who deserve our contempt. They are pushing our once great Republic towards rabid Socialism as fast as the demoRats. I bet very few Senators even know what the 10th Amendment means. I will also take 100000000000 to 1 odds that the excrement known as Specter will BLOCK any judge that believe in original intent. Yea, we have the three branches of government -- does any one see shrinking spending and employees?
bttt
lol. your'e kidding right? the MSM will twist this around and blame the Reps. Sadly, most of the public will believe the MSM. You forget that very few people are as informed as Freepers.
Do it. Call their bluff. They'll be portrayed as cry babies.
Go ahead and do it...We are majority and they can all
go to hell. Kennedy-Kerry-Boxer-Clinton...etc. all a
bunch of power hungry ingrates...Worry about helping
the American people..Yeah..just like they help all the
Blacks....President Bush has done more for minorities
than all the Presidents this centuury...even since Abe
Lincoln..Jake
Democratic Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. tells reporters on Capitol Hill Tuesday, March 15, 2005, that Democrats intend to slow or stop most Senate business if Republicans change rules to assure confirmation of President Bush's controversial court appointments. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)
From the article:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats served notice Tuesday that they will slow or stop most Senate business if Republicans unilaterally change the rules to assure confirmation of President Bush's controversial court appointments.
Any such change would mark "an unprecedented abuse of power," Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., wrote Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.
< snip >
"To shut down the Senate would be irresponsible and partisan," Frist said in swift rebuttal. "The solution is simple: return to 200 years of tradition and allow up or down votes on judges."
Check THIS out. A recent speech by John Cornyn (R-Texas):
(Texas Senator John Cornyn's)
Floor Speech: Judicial NominationsExcerpt:
So my question is, to whom is the distinguished Democratic leader [Harry Reid] referring? None of President Bush's nominees have been turned down by the Senate-- none, zero. The nominees he referred to were denied a vote altogether. In fact, all of these nominees would have been confirmed last Congress had majorities been allowed to govern as they have during the entire history of this country and the entire history of the Senate -- save and except for the time when Democrats chose to deny a majority the opportunity for an up-or-down vote.
So I would say, correcting the record, it is a little difficult to turn down a nominee, as the minority leader has said, if the nominee never gets an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.
Now, the second part I would like to correct is that when the Democratic leader was asked whether obstruction would create a 60-vote threshold for all future judicial nominees, he said:
It's always been a 60-vote for judges. There is -- nothing change[d].
He said:
Go back many, many, many years. Go back decades and it's always been that way.
Well, we took his advice, and we did go back over the years.
It turns out it has not always been that way. Indeed, there has never, ever, ever been a refusal to permit an up-or-down vote with a bipartisan majority standing ready to confirm judges in the history of the Senate until these last 2 years. Many nominees have, in fact, been confirmed by a vote of less than 60 Senators.
In fact, the Senate has consistently confirmed judges who enjoyed a majority but not 60-vote support, including Clinton appointees Richard Paez, William Fletcher, and Susan Oki Mollway; and Carter appointees Abner Mikva and L.T. Senter.
Click HERE for the full article.
An absolute WIN-WIN.
Bring it on!
PLEASE!!!
This is what happens when a traitor like
Hanoi Kerry is left in the US Senate.
Let the Dems go on strike. When they don't show up, garnish their pay as the Senate rules require! We'll see how long they stand up for principle.
No, in fact they will hypocritically savage the Rs. But there is a fundamental difference between then and now called the New Media. We can win this one.
Bring. It. On.
The only thing better than a more conservative judiciary is a crippled legislature.
After what happened to that judge in Atlanta, I think they have a lot of gall. They should be portrayed as thugs when they stand in the way of the court appointees, who deserve more respect.
.."Them critters are dumb as an old jackass i had back in '79. Dadgum democrats give me bad gas. The Missus won't sleep with me when i get all stirred up from them no-count varmints."
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.