David Broder sometimes makes sense
but to suggest that the President surrender his constitutional prerogatives
and that the majority Senate surrender its constitutional responsibility to the minority party
is extrodinarily destructive to the country and inane.
To: ricks_place
well generally when you are working in politics with a rational opponent this would be the way to go. however, the Democrats are not rational or honorable or really even more than political hacks.
2 posted on
04/24/2005 6:33:50 AM PDT by
MikefromOhio
(I want my very own Ron Mexico jersey and the NFL won't let me!!!)
To: ricks_place
I think the republicans need to quit trying to help the Democrats. The republicans need to ACT in the manner of which the people who have elected them, by leading and implementing the conservative policies they have been put into office for in the first place!
To: ricks_place
The title tips me off right away ("First step" -- because the Republicans have done nothing right). Then that it's David Broder. Fuggeddaboudit.
Dan
Biblical Christianity BLOG
4 posted on
04/24/2005 6:43:44 AM PDT by
BibChr
("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
To: ricks_place
-The Democratic Senate leadership should agree voluntarily to set aside the continued threat of filibustering the seven Bush appointees to the federal appeals courts-
As if the Rats would ever keep such a promise. Unfortunately, the Republicans would keep theirs, and then we'd be out 2 for 2.
To: ricks_place
I didn't know Harry Reid (NV-'RAT) writes a syn. column for the WaPo...who's next; Bubba "little willie"/$hrillary "the Red Queen" Klintoon and Nancy "Botox" Pelosi
8 posted on
04/24/2005 6:54:17 AM PDT by
skinkinthegrass
(Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you :^)
To: ricks_place
Agree. David Broder sometimes reveals his true colors ~ that of arch traitor to America.
Can we ship this guy to France or something, so he can discuss the new EU Constitution.
9 posted on
04/24/2005 6:59:40 AM PDT by
muawiyah
To: ricks_place
(Democrats also get a) pledge from Republican Senate leaders to consider each such nominee individually, carefully and with a guarantee of extensive debate in coming months.
That's the problem now David. It isn't the Republicans who control the debate length but rather 41 of the democrats. They have debated and debated on some of the nominees but won't let the debate end and a vote take place. If they would then the mess we are in now wouldn't be there.
13 posted on
04/24/2005 7:08:35 AM PDT by
deport
(You know you are getting older when everything either dries up or leaks.)
To: ricks_place
Except for Clarence Thomas, who was supported by only 11 Democrats, every single Supreme Court nominee of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton was confirmed with the support of the overwhelming majority of opposition-party senators.Robert Borke will be as surprised as I was to learn this. David Broder needs to hang it up.
14 posted on
04/24/2005 7:08:35 AM PDT by
catpuppy
To: ricks_place
Sounds to me like the 'rats are starting to cave.....
17 posted on
04/24/2005 7:31:59 AM PDT by
expatpat
To: ricks_place
Broder is not being reasonable. The Senate has a Constitutionally mandated responsibility to give the President "Advise and Consent" on Judicial nominations, and they are failing intentionally to do so.
Start with that.
21 posted on
04/24/2005 7:39:55 AM PDT by
savedbygrace
("No Monday morning quarterback has ever led a team to victory" GW Bush)
To: ricks_place
Back up a moment; Broder cant be trusted EVER.
The Democrats have finally woken to the fact that they are at a huge disadvantage now, and should have held their powder until this was about the Supreme Court.
When Frist pulls the trigger (and he will), the Democrats wont be able to stop anyone except in committee, where if Specter gets out of line, he will be yanked faster than a bad pitcher.
Don't ever believe that Broder is not speaking the party line. Democrats put him up to this article, because this is all they can hope for at this point. They have lost this battle, and after the nuclear option, they will have lost the war.
23 posted on
04/24/2005 7:56:47 AM PDT by
Pukin Dog
(Sans Reproache)
To: ricks_place
24 posted on
04/24/2005 8:01:46 AM PDT by
El Gato
(Activist Judges can twist the Constitution into anything they want ... or so they think.)
To: ricks_place
The Republicans should tell the democrats up yours.
27 posted on
04/24/2005 9:09:07 AM PDT by
solo gringo
(Liberal democrats And Flora-duh judges are parasites)
To: ricks_place
In return, they (Democrats) should get a renewed promise from the president that he will not bypass the Senate by offering any more recess appointments to the bench Sadly, the logical outcome of the Dem filibusters is that all federal judges will now only serve in recess appointments.
After filibustering GWB's appointments, as long as there is even just one Republican Senator, they will filibuster any Democrat president judicial nominee.
28 posted on
04/24/2005 9:33:16 AM PDT by
RJL
To: ricks_place
30 posted on
04/24/2005 10:06:25 AM PDT by
smoothsailing
(Qui Nhon Turtle Co.)
To: ricks_place
No.
All this is, is a way to delay confirmation of the Justices AGAIN while preserving their ability to renege and filibuster.
No compromise. Democrats have shown they cannot be trusted. They must have the option to deny the President his Constitutional Right stripped from them.
To: ricks_place
Let me get this straight: The Republicans should regain a usurped right (that of the president to appoint judges) by sacrificing another? Brilliant, a win-win for the democrats. No doubt the weak-kneed among the republicans will be rushing towards this 'compromise' in no time at all.
33 posted on
04/24/2005 11:28:37 AM PDT by
No Longer Free State
(The last thing Reuters wants is a free and unfettered Iraqi press)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson