Posted on 05/24/2005 1:23:58 PM PDT by Libloather
Frist's first interview since the musshy middle announced their deal. As far actual news goes - Rush called Frist's office and at this point all judges will get a vote.
You can get Hannity on XM Radio channel 124 now.
If I was Sean, I would have asked Graham why the Republicans would want to maintain the ability to filibuster judges in the future when they hadn't thought of doing it to prevent Ginsberg from ascending to the USSC! She passed 97-3! There sure as heck were more than 3 Rep Senators during the 90s....
If the Reps wouldn't filibuster Ginsberg, then they won't filibuster anyone in the future.
Besides if the Reps won't do something that *might* make the MSM mad at them (pull nuclear option) when they are in the majority, they sure aren't going to do it when they are in the minority.
...every judge... (Some grammatical items do slip by spell check...)
I'd bet big money that the good people of South Carolina would love to "start over" on that election to fill Thurmond's old seat.
I quit donating years ago. I'll still vote Republican like a rational soldier but they will have to get their money elsewhere.
I always liked Sean, he does stick to his guns (although he does get a bit repetitive), Sean's one of us, I can't understand why so many freepers hate him. I'm glad to have him on our side.
Sean did an awesome job just now, he didn't back down, the weasel senator sounded worried, kept pleading for conservatives to "wait and see".
To all the sc voters, kick this weasel out in his next primary.
It puts maintaining a Senate rule over the Constitution. Senators do not make any kind of oath to support current Senate rules, nor to keep themselves from changing one that interferes with their Constitutional responsibilities.
Beldarblog is written by an attorney and I think that he really has analyzed why the pubs have signed away the ability to use discretion a) because of the language in the agreement and b) because Kennedy is going to wave his signature around once they "break" the agreement.
In a nutshell, the agreement is all so subjective that the Democrats can filibuster without having "broken" the agreement, thereby eliminating any pub's ability to vote to change the rules without violating it.
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2005/05/liveblogging_th.html
What this means is that anyone of the dwarfs who voted their power away lose the ability to run for president with any credibility whatsoever.
But he doesn't give a crap because he's succeeded in what he wanted... to have the Washington Press love him.
Did Sean with Lindsay's wife best wishes? Oh, wait, Lindsay isn't married is he? Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Warren Crudman another faux conservative.
I've got news for Graham. He is never going to get a chance to do a filibuster. Color him "gone" in the next election.
horseshit, they're just scared to lose their conservative base, and the money and votes that go with it.
Not one thin dime!
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said her group was "heartened that the crisis has been averted and the right to filibuster preserved for upcoming Supreme Court nominations. We are confident that a Supreme Court nominee who won't even state a position on Roe v. Wade is the kind of 'extraordinary circumstance' this deal envisions."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050524-122305-7180r.htm
Here comes your question.
Hysterical. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
If Bush nominates Gonzalez and not a conservative justice to the USSC, the shiite is going to hit the fan.
Graham is full of something!
I would - if I had XM. I'm still waiting for some satellite broadcast to carry Rush. Until then, I won't commit (unless there are exceptional circumstances, of course...)
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.