Skip to comments.
Collateral Damage from the Nuclear Option
Cato Institute ^
| May 5, 2005
| David Boaz
Posted on 05/05/2005 12:05:15 PM PDT by MikeJ75
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 last
To: MikeJ75
The nuclear option will do too much collateral damage. Nonsense!
The "nuclear" option will be a reality with the next Dem senate majority (which will be sooner than some expect due to grass roots Republican disaffection with wobbly Senate Republicans.)
SENATE REPUBLICANS
Try thinking of it as the COURAGEOUS OPTION!
The other option is to go down in history as a pack of wobbly appeasers that have no idea why they lost the next election.
.
61
posted on
05/05/2005 8:50:29 PM PDT
by
Seaplaner
(Never give in. Never give in. Never...except to convictions of honour and good sense. W. Churchill)
To: MikeJ75
You know this writer is doing his best to carry the democrap's water when you read the following obfuscation/misdirection: "Throughout the 20th century, it was liberal Democrats who tried to restrict and limit filibusters, because they wanted more legislation to move faster." This constitutional option of going to the 51 votes has not one damn thing to do with legislation! Democrats and their servant journalists are liars, plain and simple. And it ticks me off that they continue to get away with this sort of lying bevause they have such disadain for the populace's discernment. They've been getting away with it in the black community for fifty years, so they think it is the best approach, obviously.
62
posted on
05/05/2005 8:50:34 PM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
To: MikeJ75
If each senator is assumed to represent half that state's population,What a disappointment. Libertarians really are not very American after all. Why base an argument on this irrelevant premise? Surely this guy knows that Senators were intended by the Founders to represent the interests of the States, not percentages of population, which is why they were selected by legislatures, not popular vote, until the 20th century.
Comment #64 Removed by Moderator
To: MikeJ75
Conservatives may believe that they can serve their partisan interests by ending filibusters for judicial nominations without affecting legislative filibusters. But it is naïve to think that having opened that door, they won't walk through it again
It was the partisan democrats who "opened that door." Additionally, I believe the Republicans are intentionally allowing this to be dragged out for their own political agenda (getting re-elected). I'm betting they'll string this out until they feel they're reaching a point of diminishing returns. They will then invoke the Constitional (not nuclear) option.
65
posted on
05/06/2005 4:07:01 AM PDT
by
Toadman
To: rcocean
When the Dems gain control of the senate & the white house they will activate the "nuclear option" faster than you can say Chuck Schumer.
EXACTLY. Bet the farm on it. With the media carrying the water all of their current objections to the issue will be forgotten, just as their objections to using filibuster to block judges in 98 are glossed over now. The Pachyderms in the senate need to act from principle and change the rules to insure that judges get a fair up and down vote.
To: Toadman
"I'm betting they'll string this out until they feel they're reaching a point of diminishing returns. They will then invoke the Constitional (not nuclear) option."
You may well be right. I wish they would use this "dragging out time though to better educate our citizenry. Instead of jaunting around to the Middle East running for president, Senator Frist needs to be in Washington orchestrating this Nuclear option. (As much as we may dislike the term Nuclear it's going to stick good--I have no problem with that.) But I would like to see some "control rods" for the nuclear option. First of all the public should be shown what a true filibuster is and force the demorats to actually keep talking for days. Then they should explain that, for a judge who had the clear backing of a majority of the senate, the filibuster has never been used to block his or her nomination. Then the Republicans should hold public Senate testimony regarding the advisability of changing the rules. And finally, change the rules and pour those judges through faster than greased lightning.
To: SolomoninSouthDakota
I agree with you whole heartedly. I really like your ideal of making the rats do a REAL filibuster! Instead of saying "ok we're filibustering" and then everyone goes home, make them stand up for hours spewing bovine scatalogy and THEN change the rules ;-)
68
posted on
05/06/2005 11:01:18 AM PDT
by
Toadman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 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