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

To: Txsleuth
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 ...

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.

2,259 posted on 05/18/2005 2:51:15 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2234 | View Replies ]


To: Cboldt

absolutely true, I would rather the moderate Rs vote to sustain the current rules - rather then agreeing to some compromise that has them changing their votes on particular judges, scuttling them in some pre-arranged plan with the Dems. that would be very bad.


2,284 posted on 05/18/2005 2:57:46 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2259 | 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