Skip to comments.Renegade Senate Republicans hold power in judicial nominees fight
Posted on 05/06/2005 3:26:34 PM PDT by churchillbuff
The outcome of a looming Senate confrontation over judicial nominees rests with a small band of uneasy Republicans who are reluctant to follow their leaders and force up-or-down votes on President Bush's contested federal court candidates.
... all worried that a clash that's come to be called the "nuclear option" would cause lasting damage to the Senate. ...[snip] Among this band of renegade Senate Republicans are northeasterners Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Nonconformists John McCain of Arizona and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska also are included, as is 27-year Senate veteran John Warner of Virginia, who reveres the chamber's traditions.
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Gordon Smith of Oregon also are counted because they've voiced reservations about the showdown, though only McCain, Chafee and Snowe are considered sure votes against the Republican leadership.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
Axis of Weenies.
Don't you love "moderates"?
In that case we're really screwed.
Elizabeth Taylor sure picks them, doesn't she?
Last week, Frist told J.D. Hayworth, who was subbing for Laura Ingraham, that he had the votes. I hope so. It would be a horrible legacy if it takes about 60 Republican Senators to generate 51 votes for anything.
Then why are they waiting?
The Dems need to fire off an actual filibuster first. Republicans may be (I hope) setting up the Dems for a major pratfall when the first nominee comes for a floor vote.
Any tradition that can be used to conduct an illegal, unConstitutional activity is not a tradition to be revered; rather, it is a tradition that needs modification.
because we don't have them.
this is a bluff that will never happen.
All these RINO's should consider whether or not they want to keep their chairmanships after '06. When conservative voters stay home, they lose those precious chairmanships just the same as the real Republicans do (unless they decide to cross the aisle and completely "disrobe," of course.)
I fear you may be right.
Krauthammer was right. The Constitutional Option won't come about until '06.
Or .. is this just more wishful thinking on the part of the media ..??
I guess you're somebody who doesn't count your hatches (and warners and hagels and the rest) before they chicken,
Yeah, what's with these people. I suspect senility that a guy like Warner would respect Senate "tradition" while judges continue to take an axe to the Constitution. I heard a statement by him a couple of weeks ago that he was hesitant to get rid of the filibuster, in the event that some day the GOP becomes the minority. What an idiot. First, it's defeatist to not do something when you're in the majority because you fully expect to one day be in the minority, and secondly, if the Republicans ever tried to filibuster a Democrat judicial nominee, the majority Dems would go nuclear without batting an eye.
I missed what he said. Is he saying it's all play acting and bluster right now? If so, it's time to vote a bunch of RINOs out of office. Moderation in the pursuit of good judges is TREASON in my book.
Why does Krauthammer believe '06? Usually nothing of significance happens in an election year.
I find it interesting that there is fear of causing lasting damage to the Senate. Is what they are saying is that the change the Demos have made has not already caused lasting damage to the Senate? Can only one side of the isle cause damage to the Senate, and not the other? I don't think so, so what is the real reason to fear challenging the Demos?
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.