I guess what I am asking is, whether there will be an announced "compromise" involving letting only "x" amount of nominees be brought up in exchange for keeping the filibuster for the SCOTUS, but not the other nominees---
WE ALL KNOW this is about the SCOTUS, so I know any kind of compromise will involve the dems keeping their right to obstruct Bush's choices for SCOTUS...
You know, you have a really good grasp of what is going on, but I guess I don't, or can't communicate it well, so I doubt if I have expressed myself well enough, I apologize.
No. That would be political suicide for the GOP. Losing this battle outright would be less damaging than that compromise.
You know, you have a really good grasp of what is going on, but I guess I don't, or can't communicate it well, so I doubt if I have expressed myself well enough, I apologize.
No need to apologize. I'm just trying to communicate clearly. I'm not embarrased to admit I don't get it, or don't understand a question, etc. If you find one of my answers to be unresonsive to your question, say so. Rephrase, whatever. You'll find that I shun label though, and prefer to describe the underlying "thing" or "action" instead of using the common label. E.g., "filibuster" is a label that I don't like. It can be a VERY indefinite term, where two people use the same word to mean two very different things.