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

Read it and weep.
1 posted on 05/23/2005 5:23:07 PM PDT by kristinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last
To: kristinn

Future video on CSPAN2, come next July on Supreme Court Nominee

Sen. Byrd: "What now do these Republicans tyrants want from us? We gave them votes on the President's nominees in May! Now they want us to give them a vote on these latest nominees too! As Cicero and Demosthenes would say, this nominee is truly an extraordinary case, and we must filibuster him as per our agreement. God save this wonderful good ole' boy Senate.

I will now drink a toast to my seven Republican colleagues who have given us the power to thwart the will of the people once more."


222 posted on 05/23/2005 6:38:56 PM PDT by oldbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kristinn; All

I can't believe that anything I write here will not already have been written by now.

I just want to add my voice - I am profoundly disgusted.

What more is there to say?


226 posted on 05/23/2005 6:41:04 PM PDT by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kristinn; Mo1; Howlin; Peach; BeforeISleep; kimmie7; 4integrity; BigSkyFreeper; RandallFlagg; ...
related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.

So in the 110th we get to go through all this again?

234 posted on 05/23/2005 6:45:21 PM PDT by OXENinFLA ("And that [Atomic] bomb is a filibuster" ~~~ Sen. Lieberman 1-4-95)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kristinn

Before we rush to conclusions, this isn't necessarily a bad deal.
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.


239 posted on 05/23/2005 6:50:00 PM PDT by mowkeka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kristinn

The question foremost in my mind is "can you see an 'extraordinary circumstance' where 51 senators would approve a nominee? If a majority of the senators would approve a nominee, how can that person be, by definition, labelled "extreme" or "out of the mainstream"? And if a majority would not approve, why filibuster?

What I think has happened here is that the squishies in the middle of both parties have punted the ball downfield. Really nothing has been resolved other than we got three judges (the ones the Dems called the most extreme of the extreme, btw, making the whole 'extraordinary circumstance' premise even more ludicrous than it already is) out of filibuster and the Dems still have the option to filibuster the rest - with the pledge of at least six RINOs that they will break ranks on the "nuclear option" if it is brought up.

Next, we will see who blinks first (as if we couldn't guess?).


246 posted on 05/23/2005 6:53:46 PM PDT by Tall_Texan (If you can think 180-degrees apart from reality, you might be a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kristinn
"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 yawn....

283 posted on 05/23/2005 7:17:21 PM PDT by azhenfud ("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kristinn

So what's new here.......the Republicans cave yet again!!

After the up or down vote on ONLY THREE of Bush's nominees, the Demoncrats have their precious filibuster in play once again for ALL NOMINATIONS to any court, including the Supreme court. In fact, they will be able to now play the "gracious" card. They will trumpet their compromise, their graciousness to President Bush on these three nominations in the court of public opinion. It's all posturing so they aren't seen as obstructionists. In the meantime, they lie in wait for the real showdown where all the marbles are on the table - The Supreme Court. This compromise dealt today becomes ammo for the real fight.

We "real" conservatives were only 24 hours from the showdown, the pinnacle to which we have waited for months to employ part of the Bush agenda only to be thoroughly and wretchedly disappointed once again. These guys we have elected to office in the name of conservatism are nothing but a big tease. They talk big, they threaten big, but when push comes to shove they melt in the hands of the minority. It is so disheartening to see this behaviour over and over and over again. Imagine if the Dems were in power 55-45, they'd be shoving their agenda down our throats no questions asked.

Social conservatives are growing weary from being sold out. Partial Birth Abortion Ban passes and then is rectified by the liberal agenda through the courts. So we need to change the courts, the system by which we are continously hoodwinked. So here we are at the juncture and our weak-kneed Senators sell us out AGAIN!!! If any Republican is reading this and you have influence in our conservatively elected Congress please take note: Social Conservatives are beginning to feel as if we elected a "pig-in-a-poke." At some point the agenda has to be moved in our direction, at some point there needs to be a payoff however small. We are looking at what is happening in the Senate with keen interest. To control the Executive and Legislative brances and NOT get the same percentages of Judges seated as Clinton is UNFORGIVABLE. Trust me, we social conservatives won't be around forever waiting for you to grow a spine. There is a point at which we begin to collectively throw our hands in the air. And we are close to that time!!!!!!!!!!


301 posted on 05/23/2005 7:25:37 PM PDT by Prolifeconservative (If there is another terrorist attack, the womb is a very unsafe place to hide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kristinn

If Readers Digest were condensing this affair, it would read thusly..."We screwed the pubs one more time"...


306 posted on 05/23/2005 7:29:05 PM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kristinn
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).

So, when Sen. Graham told us that he would accept no deal that fell short of allowing an up or down vote on all nominees, he lied.

In addition, how do we know the Democrats involved in this who agreed to vote for cloture also did not secure agreements from the Republicans involved that they would vote against the confirmation of these nominees, thus defeating them?

307 posted on 05/23/2005 7:29:21 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kristinn

We won and bigger than I thought.


309 posted on 05/23/2005 7:31:10 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kristinn

This is pure surrender.

Of 7 nominees, our Rinos have agreed that the majority party deserves 3 of them. That's not even 50%....absolutely incredible.

After those 3 everything is up in the air and filibusters are acceptable means of dealing with them.

It is not just capitulation; it is cowering capitulation.


312 posted on 05/23/2005 7:36:29 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kristinn
We went from 40 senators controlling the senate down to 14. They have no spine, no good judgment and no honor. The senate couldn't govern a cess pool.
316 posted on 05/23/2005 7:40:44 PM PDT by Big Horn (We need more Tom DeLay's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kristinn
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.

I wouldn't consult with the Democrats. And furthermore, we can only hope that the Democrats won't consider all subsequent conservative Bush nominees "extraordinary circumstances."

319 posted on 05/23/2005 7:44:55 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Deport them all; let Fox sort them out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kristinn

So what does this deal do to the Bolton nomination? Does he get an up or down vote? He better.


327 posted on 05/23/2005 7:56:51 PM PDT by Gracey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kristinn
This sucks. Caved in like a bunch of winners who act like a bunch of scared losers.

Just what the heck does "extraordinary circumstances" supposed to mean?

Give me a freakin' break...does anyone in their right mind sign a contract with that open ended unintelligible open to anyone's interpretation gibberish? Just how much are we paying these fools?

I want to filibuster this absurdity. And if Rush Limbaugh, God Bless him, comes on the EIB airwaves tomorrow in support of this insulting degrading poppycock, then I know for sure...well, republicans just don't understand the finer art of winning a street fight and strutting their winning banner.

328 posted on 05/23/2005 8:02:31 PM PDT by harpo11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kristinn

I don't think anybody should assume that the so-called *moderates* who sold out both parties will actually vote yes to all three of these nominations. In fact, I can imagine some of the RINOs actually voting at least one of them down, after cloture and debate, in order to further appease their adversaries. And I'm certain some of the dims will also vote at least one down as well.

Nothing in this agreement says that they must vote them to the bench -- it only says that they will vote for cloture to stop the filibusters on them.

The knife is only beginning to be twisted in our backs.


329 posted on 05/23/2005 8:03:39 PM PDT by Kryptonite (Pope Benedict XVI - The Rat Zinger!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kristinn

Who are the signatories? (Both parties.) Thanks.


356 posted on 05/23/2005 8:39:41 PM PDT by rockinonritalin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kristinn

The only way to meet the challenge of this gang of Neville Chamberlins is to move for cloture on Saad at the earliest opportunity and force the issue once and for all.


360 posted on 05/23/2005 8:50:33 PM PDT by SeaWolf (Orwell must have foreseen the 21st Century Democratic Party when he wrote 1984)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kristinn

What are "extraordinary circumstances?" Holy spit, I don't think I have ever agreed to an online TOS contract with so many non-specifics!


366 posted on 05/23/2005 9:14:49 PM PDT by L.N. Smithee (Freeping since March 1998. This is my blessing. This is my curse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kristinn

Has this been adopted? I hope not.


378 posted on 05/23/2005 10:17:16 PM PDT by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington (Re-elect Dino Rossi in 2005!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

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