"I SAY ...OKAY EVER ONE!!!....TIME FOR SLEEP........SLEEP.........SLEEP!"
Posted on 05/23/2005 11:10:50 AM PDT by QQQQQ
Yeah, me too. They usually try to say the world is coming to an end .. this is refreshing.
Look at the last election - if they were merely cynical bagmmen for abortion funds they could have easily replaced that particular lobby with another and won, or at least peeled of more votes. That cannot even seem to reach some sort of tacit agreement with the abortion lobby to just keep their mouths shut, let the Dem leadership mislead the public and get into office. Abortion has a nuch deeper grip on these people than just another special interest.
No it is abortion is part an parcel of the left's view of the human being. Almost even constituency on the left demands this as a litmus test.
The same sort of devotion and obsession evidently is being taken up with homosexuality.
So, while it is true that there is an "Abortion Lobby" that provides funds, Imthink it is deeper than that.
Rule change? The issue here is not about a RULE CHANGE but on setting a precendent on the scope of a filibuster.
There is sufficient precedent for the process on how the majority of the Senate can define the scope of the rules of the US Senate. The question that will likely be raised for clarification will be to determine if the Filibuster rule should be meant to allow a delay indefinitely on whether or not the Senators can vote their "advice and consent" on a judicial nominee?
Personally I think there should be generous time limits set for all the "Advice and Consent" work of the US Senate to give the Senators and their staff enough time to evaluate each candidate and evaluate feedback from their constituents. For major appointments (such as Cabinet positions and Supreme Court nominations) I think there ought to be a 30 day limit in Committee and 60 day limit overall upon which the Filibuster delaying option is eliminated. In such cases I think that each Senator should be allotted sufficient floor speaking time (approx. 40-60 minutes) to weigh in on the nominees before a vote is taken. For mid-level appointments (such as underSecretaries and Appelate Court nominees and high ranking General/Flag officers) I think the delaying options could be doubled to 60 and 120 days. For low-level appointments like district judges and low ranking General Flag officers I think that 180-240 days could be appropriate.
Getting rid of the Filibuster altogether would be a horrible mistake. If a President ever makes a bad nomination then we're all going to need some time to get the message out and FREEP our Senators. Otherwise it'll be too easy for a President (especially if the Senate is controlled by the President's party) to make grave mistakes. Do we want a tyranny or a Republic? Please keep in mind that George W. Bush will not always be President and we could have a President/Senate that isn't well-liked by Freepers.
Yes I think ALL these judges should get to have an up/down vote. But I don't think any of them should get an up/down vote until either a supermajority agree to vote or there is sufficient time for nominee advice/consent review and Senators to publicly declare their views/advice on the floor and in the Congressional Record.
The partisanship games are getting very tiresome in Washington. It's obvious that Harry Reid and his caucus are focused on creating a super-constitutional power for themselves to allow a minority of Senators to dictate the terms on whom may be nominated and voted upon for Supreme Court vacancies. Why are they doing this? I think primarily because of Roe-v-Wade. I've never seen such a consistent and far-lasting focus on such a short-term issue. It's played heavily into everything they've done since Al Gore recanted his concession on Election Night in 2000. A big plank of the Florida 2000 chad-counting was the Roe-v-Wade concerns. Remember the Daschle efforts that succeeded to switch Jeffords? Remember how Toricelli got booted out? Remember the zeal/energy to get Mondale put in at the last moment to take Wellstone's place? Remember the unprecedented filibustering games of the 2003-2004 session? Remember the battle cries of the 2004 election? Remember the battle cries that are still continuing in some Democrat circles about Ohio? Some of them still think that the 2004 Election was stolen. It seems that winning is more important to them than the rule of law and the respect for our Constitution. If they really cared about the Constitution and also making sure that "advice and consent" means 3/5ths then they should've amended the Constitution. BTW I'd personally like to see such an amendment get ratified in the Constitution. But I can't see such an Amendment getting passed in Congress now because of all the political warfare going on between the major political parties on this issue. If the Republicans were to support such an Amendment they'd be wrongly labeled Hypocrites by the Democrats because they'll think it'll score them political points.
Yep. It's all about liberals wanting to keep their supposed 'right' to butcher their children.
Can't force a real filibuster.
The Senate rules were changed many years back so that real filibusters don't have to happen anymore. Merely the threat suffices as a filibuster unless cloture is gotten.
To force Senators to stand up like of old would actually require another rules change...and such a rule change proposal would be filibustered, of course.
Also, no constitutional amendment of anything conservative is possible given the current composition of Congress. To GET an amendment to the state requires a vote of 2/3rds of each house of Congress. 2/3rds of the Senate is 67 votes. The Republicans are not close to that.
Hmmm, now I'm more confused than I was. I tend to agree with the Senator who says mattresses won't stop bullets - I guess I had always assumed that that was part of the idea - perhaps incorrectly.
I heard on the radio today the McCain is going to have enough moderate dems join the republicans when a cloture vote is called up on each of the stalled nominees, they'l pass each nominee but yet still retain the 60 votes needed to end the filibuster.
I don't like it.
Can't wait to watch Cspan.
Neither do I. Nuke the thng and get it over with. McCain and the whole "moderate" bunch of RINOS need to be put out to pasture. I wonder if they are on the take or if they have some really foul goods on them. Some of them, like Snowe, I think are Rat plants anyway.
I don't like it either, but it is a big victory nevertheless, if all the President's nominees get on the Circuit Courts. That's where most of the big legal decisions are actually made, since the Supreme Court takes few cases.
All this does is kick the can down the road for future Democrat filibusters, of Supreme Court justices, etc., but when that time comes, it will again be time to force the nuclear option.
Two words: Miguel Estrada.
"I SAY ...OKAY EVER ONE!!!....TIME FOR SLEEP........SLEEP.........SLEEP!"
I don't like it either, but it is a big victory nevertheless, if all the President's nominees get on the Circuit Courts. That's where most of the big legal decisions are actually made, since the Supreme Court takes few cases.
______________________________________________
Does mean that some Dems would vote to allow an up or down vote on each nominee then they would be free to vote against the nominee and preserve the option to fillibuster later?
A couple of whysky bottles for tedddy...oh, make 3, Dean is visiting! LOL
Byrd's gonna have an unfair advantage in this situation - he can both sleep in his sheets and wear them.
I think so.
I think that McCain's proposal means that a handful of Democrats will vote FOR cloture, so that there is a vote. They will then vote AGAINST the nominees in the vote, but the nominees will still pass because they will still have 51 votes.
What this will do is avoid Senator Frist calling for a ruling from the chair that invalidates filibusters of judicial candidates.
But it will mean that the Democrats can filibuster again every time.
I don't know if the Republicans leadership has the spine to end the filibuster of judges once and for all by calling for the rules change anyway and forcing the confrontation.
It is not hard to see how this will all shape up.
The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari on an abortion case, which will be heard in October, and the court is likely to have a retirement this year.
The Democrats will have preserved the power to filibuster the next Supreme Court nominee, Rehnquist's replacement, and will be able to use a direct abortion issue as the plea to the public to sustain the filibuster.
All that said, will the Republicans have the guts to go nuclear this time even if they don't have to?
Nothing they have done since the election, or in the current nuclear option debate, gives any indication that they will. The pro-life right wants the nuclear option. They want the clear VICTORY on the issue. If the Democrats go along with cloture, it will deprive the pro-lifers of their victory.
I, too, was surprised to see that there.
It's some kind of sign of capitulation. I'm not sure whose, but MSNBC is normally a mouthpiece for the MSM.
Could it mean that they think they've lost, and they're doing some early reclamation work?
Saw Biden nearly incoherent a little while ago.
Oh my, they're all turning into Deaniacs......
Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo
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.