Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: WoodstockCat

Is this a first? I don't know the Senate rules either (and apparently neither does the fool who wrote this article.) The senate revolts me most of the time regardless of who is running it and I don't pay much attention to their wrangling. I thought that only the senators from the states where a nominee was from could put a "hold" on a nominee and what does that rule have to do with anything except judges? I can't remember appointments getting a "hold" before this. Somebody ring up Sheets Byrd and get an explanation (that's if he has regained his memory since yesterday.)


19 posted on 05/13/2005 7:19:14 AM PDT by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: penowa; WoodstockCat
Last night I heard Vaughn Ververs (reporter for 'The Hill') say that a filibuster or hold on a CABINET-LEVEL appointee of the president was unprecedented.

Of course Barbara Boxer's level of venom and vitriol is unprecedented too.

I know Boxer has a 'safe' seat, but Ververs seemed to think it would be extremely risky for Dims to block Bolton at this point.

46 posted on 05/13/2005 7:44:08 AM PDT by shhrubbery! (The 'right to choose' = The right to choose death --for somebody else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson