Posted on 05/23/2005 4:18:39 PM PDT by jern
Announce Filibuster Compromise
Reagan lost with Bork and didn't make a statement like that.
What does that mean?
We should be cheering the day the Democraps dodged a bullet and avoided losing everything during total annihilation?
You bet he is!
That could be why Graham came on board. They had 6 RINO's already, that nixed the Constitutional option for now anyway. If the Dem's act to filibuster anyone, Graham can ride herd on the RINOs. Don't like it, but could be the reason.
I didn't hear that either
No one knows exactly what was talked about behind the scene
The media was reporting that no staffers were allowed in
Common sense and logic defined by you. So what?
It's already been coherently pointed out to you that Senators like McCain, et al couldn't care less about the Bush and the WH.
They are positioning themselves for 2008 and want Bush to be a lame duck. They have backed off Soc Sec reform, spend wildly, take the Dems position judges, etc.
I clearly pointed out it's this WH that hasn't vetoed anything and even signed the ridiculous McCain-Feingold bill.
You instead just keep beating the drum of "they had to know, they had to know" like you think McCain, Snowe, et al actually send them e-mails telling the WH what they are going to do.
Sorry, the WH has been blindsided because these same RINO's haven't been forthcoming and the WH even said over the weekend (through spokesmen) that they were confident they'd get an up or down vote.
So IF you are correct, then it shows Bush sold us out too.
I hear ya. McCain is so pleased with his sorry self. Too smug for my liking.
Well then just amble up to Mass. and get your same sex marriage or watch the abortion meter climb over 50 million, or watch O'connor find a constitutional right for sodomites to break every law in Texas. This ain't Kansas anymore!
conservatives are getting votes on the first three judges.
So the dems made "fools of us" in your words. No reason for us to make fools of us by sitting out another election in a tantrum because we didn't get it all.
Time will tell.
Hate to stick up for either Frist or Lott but it is hard to lead when you got bunch of RINO's stabbing you in the back. You could put up a more hardcore republican as majority leader and I don't think he would do much better. Do you got anyone in mind that is man enough for the job and could get enough votes to get the spot?
Is that before or after he submits their names beforehand for approval? The agreement says:
We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word “Advice” speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.
The three they are agreeing to allow through(since that would undermine their agreement). They can hardly call a sitting Supreme Court Justice extreme, so Scalia could be Chief Justice. Of course, that does not stop them from trying to filibuster anyway. But any Republican who would vote for a Bush appointee would hardly feel that selection would be extreme, therefore logically they could vote to change the rules according to this agreement. That also does not stop McCain from being an idiot.
No staffers involved. Now THAT surprises me.
You were. "Kenny Bunkport" is my recent screen name change. You accused me of not being around here very long in post #785. And, as I said, under that screen name, I have not been here long, but under this screen name I've been here since 1998. But regardless of how long one has been a participant (or financial supporter of FR, as I've been), does that dictate who has and who doesn't have a right to express their opinion?
Regards,
"Kenny"
Good points and I understand them. I don't however, feel the pubbies gained that much. With the nuclear option, they would have gained it all, as being in the majority warrants. We were in the minority for 40 years and didn't use the filibuster in the recent manner the dems have. Of course, we look at this issue thru the eyes of a nation with 2 party political rule, something the constitution never guaranteed.
Frist failed to lead. He cannot control his own caucus.
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.