Yep...I see more drunken tirades: 
Posted on 05/23/2005 5:23:07 PM PDT by kristinn
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.
This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.
We have agreed to the following:
Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations
A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).
B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).
Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations
A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.
B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.
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.
Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.
We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.
It's not that bleak. They agree not to filibuster except in "extraordinary" circumstances. We agree not to change the rules.
But if they filibuster in circumstances that we do not agree are "extraordinary" then they've broken the deal, and the "constitutional" option becomes viable again. Nothing's changed that makes it un-doable, except that the GOP has agreed not to do it. In exchange for which, the Democrats have agreed to certain behaviors. If they don't, the option goes back on the table...
We yawn....
Yep...I see more drunken tirades:
"this is the hit list"
ehhh. Let's use the term "political hit list". Your line is over the top, even for me tonight.
the dems WILL filibuster a supreme court nominee because they can. and the reps will sit on there hands.
This is a failure of Frist's leadership, period. His weakness gave McCain and crew a shot at a "third way."
Every candidate deserves an "up or down" vote. Get rid of filibusters because they are pointless.
i didnt mean it like that.
There were seven scumbags in that cabal. They all need to be bounced on their asses when they come up for re-election.
The two brainless whores from Maine really turn my stomach. They never miss a chance to sabotage our efforts.
Naw, this is just Super Secret, Super Genius plan number 12,346.
His next step is the stick part of carrot-and-stick. This is basic stuff here.
What, exactly, do people here think the leader of the Republicans SHOULD be doing if not...leading?
Bingo. Both sides have an out and it puts the RINOS in a tough position. Being an optimist this would put the ball back in the RINOS court where they would then have the duty to break the deal if any nominee with top ABA ratings and strong homestate approval got nominated. One thing is for sure - all nominees will come from states that do not have a RINO due to the hold possibility by a home state senator.
When you think about it, Bush can nominate ANY of the judges that have been passed so far, to the Supreme Court. Democrats can't say they are "extrodinary" cirumstances because they were already passed.
When I think about it, I see a JRB filibuster being played by the donks if she is nominated to SCOTUS. Why? Well, SCOTUS makes different rulings as to what the law means, than does appeals. Because an originalist is not going to make law from the bench, and JRB is an originalist, the donks will say that putting her in the position to sit on the SCOTUS is extream, and the filibuster is justified. The RINOS, if bound by their pledge, are powerless to vote for the constitutionl option until the 106th. Nothing good will come of this. Nothing.
But I am really, really trying to use my head too. If we are fighting this same fight later in this administration, especially around 2006...I'm going to be pretty upset. If we have taken care of it and let the Dems save face...then I'm ok.
So ask me again when we go to appoint a Supreme who will not be replacing an already conservative one like Rehnquist. That is where the proof will be. And that is why I had hoped this would be over sooner rather than later.
Remember the RINOs in 2006
| Next Election | Name | State |
| 2006 | Snowe | ME |
| 2006 | Chafee | RI |
| 2006 | DeWine | ME |
| 2008 | Graham | NE |
| 2008 | Warner | VA |
| 2008 | Collins | VA |
| 2010 | McCain | AZ |
If Chaffee switches parties, who would notice?
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.