Posted on 05/19/2005 3:43:33 PM PDT by SmithL
Edited on 05/19/2005 3:48:03 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON -- Both political parties have begun the showdown over judicial nominations in a weakened position, facing low approval ratings for their performance in Congress that compound the political risks in the confrontation.
Few strategists expect any of the arguments over the GOP's bid to thwart Senate filibusters to sway many voters in the 2006 elections. But many analysts believe the conflict could increase and solidify the public antagonism toward Washington surfacing in polls
(Excerpt) Read more at ktla.trb.com ...
Gas prices are down 25 cents in the last month.
Do these reporters simply make up the news they want to hear or what?
I think I heard Nancy Pelosi on the radio saying almost these exact words. She is truly one of the "many analysts" the LATimes consults.
You can bet Rove is doing the math on this.
The dems are apparently hoping they are trapping us by forcing a response to their outrageous, deeply discriminatory behavior. We'll see.
Are these the same experts that have such an excellent track record on Bush's policy in the WOT?
If we daschle half the Senate they still will say it has ntohing to do with this issue.
Can no one understand this? Please e-mail your list with these facts and contact your Senators – we must follow the United States Constitution on this if we are to keep a Constitution at all.
Note how this is the GOP's fault, Not the Dem's fault for stifiling the process and bringing the Senate to a screeching halt.
This would NOT have happened if the GOP had put filibustering nominees at the very TOP of their priority list and taken an initial hit immediately after the new congress had been sworn in.
All that letting this process drag on and on and on and on did was to give the LAT and other liberal mouthpieces a chance to give the GOP a death by a thousand cuts until now it's the GOP fault for obstructing the Constitution instead of the Dems fault for obstructing the nominees.
Our leadership is worthless.
I assume the 'other matter' would be judicial nominees. Filibuster is used often on legislative bills, but rarely if ever for the judicial. I personally think the United States Constitution is etched in granite - when it is tampered with in anyway to appease some political hurty feelings, the whole document becomes null and void. We are so very lucky to have such a Constitution, yet year after year there are those who abuse and trample it.
Go back to the first Bush term in office and see how Tom Daschle and gang changed the rules to suit themselves. These are the rules that Harry Reid is fighting so hard for and they are wrong now and were wrong then. Our Senators must uphold the U.S. Constitution what ever the fight is over. However, as long as notables like Sandy Berger can get away with a major crime, people are going to take more and more license with breaking the law rather than obeying it. Our elected government is not setting the right example for the nation by sliding over Constitutional Law nor was allowing the inclusive democratic voter fraud in Milwaukee to go unaddressed. It seems only the Republicans are made to address their mistakes openly to one and all; I can only surmise that more is expected of a Republican than a Democrat. Republicans by and large are an honest lot, something one cannot say of a Democrat.
Silly, he's talking about the Constitutional Rule. You gotta look real close, but it's right there in the shadows of the Constitution's Advice and Consent clause, after the word "consent"--it says "by up or down vote only". See it? Squint real hard. The emanation's pretty vague, but I *ahem*swear it's there. Really.
It's called Voight-Kampff. In answer to your query their instructions are written down for them. They are designed to engineer a reaction.
Yes, they are here to tell us we don't really care about this issue. Imagining that they know us (and we are stupid and pliable), they suggest what we really care about, and suggest exactly how we'll vote next time, and they'll continue to suggest it louder and LOUDER right up until the votes are counted, and then they'll scratch their heads and wonder, "Are they even more stupid than we thought? Maybe they didn't get the message(s)"?
That was a long answer without an answer. You keep saying "changed the rules." From what? What was the rule before it was changed? Under what circumstances was a filibuster against a nominee prohibited by "rules" prior to 2000?
I don't know you. But I like you.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Dan Rather
Jayson Blair
Newsweek
Yes they do
I've contacted Clinton and Schumer and received canned replies about the evils of the "nuclear option". I'll try again with really big type.
I think you know as well as I do that there wasn't so much a change in the "rules" of the Senate as written, but in the Senate practice, or the interpretation and implementation of the "rules".
Now it it quite true that, as you correctly point out, the COntratution doesn't tell the Senate how to carry out its duty to "advise and consent". Therefore, the Republicans, as the party in power, have a perfectly normal, entirely respectable prerogative to decide how the Senate will carry out this duty. It is interesting to note that in doing so, the Republicans aren't going to change the "rules" either. Only interpret them a bit differently.
Democrats are going to have to wake up to the fact that the elections are over, and they lost.
That's "Constitution" to all you people with fingers narrower than my 2.76 inches per finger.
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.