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

Skip to comments.

Compromise is Unconstitutional

Posted on 05/24/2005 8:14:07 PM PDT by AndyMeyers

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 next last
To: JLS

I can agree with that.


21 posted on 05/24/2005 9:24:41 PM PDT by TruthConquers (Delenda est publius schola)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JLS

The action these fourteen Senators did was much more than vote in a block. They actually wrote a compromise that will effect future and immediate appointments and nomination procedures for a long time. Their actions , in the name of even handedness and expediency , have in reality tilted the hand of the majority party to that of a lesser one, in turn taking away the power of the president in office to make appointments that will tend to balance the views of judges in office that have been placed by previous presidents. Since these things seem to be cyclical , they have in effect flattened the tire.Some Senators truly do reflect their constituents opinions in that they are short sighted and do not have the good of the whole in mind.


22 posted on 05/24/2005 9:24:59 PM PDT by loneroofer (love life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: loneroofer

Odd that:

1. President praised some of this today

2. The majority leader did not scream bloody murder but did remind the minority that rules changes are still possible if they filibuster in the future.

What matters ultimately here is results. If all the nominees get floor votes, the GOP won big here.


23 posted on 05/24/2005 9:29:36 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: lakey

I'm all for throwing out the Reps and Senators - both Republican and Democrat. I thnk we should elect Reps and Senators who we KNOW will abide by and defend the US Constitution. A favorit6e Son or Daughter type of Candidate. No political party affiliation needed.

We started this counry with down to earth people, now we have POOR Democrats like Kennedy and the rest of the Eletist - living in million dollar homes in DC, passing laws that are making our lives miserable and selling our freedoms to the New World Order. They have squandered enough of our Taxes on every program for every country in the world, and now they will not even protect our own borders. Passing laws that force us by their laws to accept filthy practices of homosexuality and lesbianism. I am very sick of the whole damn bunch - we need to change the oil in DC.


24 posted on 05/24/2005 9:31:10 PM PDT by 26lemoncharlie ('Cuntas haereses tu sola interemisti in universo mundo!')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: lakey

I'm all for throwing out the Reps and Senators - both Republican and Democrat. I thnk we should elect Reps and Senators who we KNOW will abide by and defend the US Constitution. A favorit6e Son or Daughter type of Candidate. No political party affiliation needed.

We started this counry with down to earth people, now we have POOR Democrats like Kennedy and the rest of the Eletist - living in million dollar homes in DC, passing laws that are making our lives miserable and selling our freedoms to the New World Order. They have squandered enough of our Taxes on every program for every country in the world, and now they will not even protect our own borders. Passing laws that force us by their laws to accept filthy practices of homosexuality and lesbianism. I am very sick of the whole damn bunch - we need to change the oil in DC.


25 posted on 05/24/2005 9:31:10 PM PDT by 26lemoncharlie ('Cuntas haereses tu sola interemisti in universo mundo!')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AndyMeyers
We all agree here........the 60 votes threshold is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. But HAVE you heard it in the MSM.....anywhere?

I don't know how this is going to turn out and frankly I am so pissed for the moment I don't care. All I know is that I will do everything in my power to make sure those weasels in the gang of seven pay with their Senate seats.

26 posted on 05/24/2005 9:37:53 PM PDT by PISANO (We will not tire......We will not falter.......We will NOT FAIL!!! .........GW Bush [Oct 2001])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JLS

And we wait. While we wait , each party claims victory , which is the desired result in a compromise . But can there truly be two winners ?


27 posted on 05/24/2005 9:39:45 PM PDT by loneroofer (love life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
The Senate is entitled to set its own rules for the handling of nominees

I find it hard to believe Judge Bork said that. By this logic the Senate can mandate a 2/3rds vote or 3/4ths or hell even a UNANIMOUS vote before approving the nominee.

The US Senate makes their own rules but those rules MUST be within the bounds of the US CONSTITUTION not outside of it.

28 posted on 05/24/2005 9:43:22 PM PDT by PISANO (We will not tire......We will not falter.......We will NOT FAIL!!! .........GW Bush [Oct 2001])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: loneroofer

Can there be two winners? Maybe. Let's see:

1. The GOP gets up or down votes on all the judicial nominees, Bolton confirmed, no filibuster of future judicial nominees in the 109th Congress including US Supreme Court Nominees.

2. The Dims claim to their supporters that they saved the filibuster, Senate, Constitution, World, Universe, take you pick. They are not publically neutered by the GOP changing the rules. They claim they matter.

The question will be what happens from here. Do all 10 or 15 appeals court nominees get up or down votes? If so the GOP won. Do only the 3 specifically mentioned nominees get up or down votes and the Dims filibuster again immediately, then maybe the GOP got snookered. But again the GOP can act immediately and maybe got the 3 plus Bolton confirmed more quickly than they would have been without this deal.


29 posted on 05/24/2005 9:47:45 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: 26lemoncharlie; lakey
"The whole Congress is in Bed with the New World Order, the US Constitution is being sold out."

Exactly right!

30 posted on 05/24/2005 9:48:04 PM PDT by Radix (Having the best Free Republic Tag Lines since...what time is it anyhow?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tarheelswamprat

Agree. HOW the Senate performs its duties or regulates ITSELF becomes an issue only when it affects the government as a whole (viz., denying the President the ability to exercise his Constitutional duty & privileges). The tyranny of 14 affects the government as a whole--not to mention the nation.


31 posted on 05/24/2005 9:48:19 PM PDT by Mach9 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tarheelswamprat

You assume that people can and do actually read, and care about these issues. Sadly, they clearly do not.


32 posted on 05/24/2005 9:51:38 PM PDT by Radix (Having the best Free Republic Tag Lines since...what time is it anyhow?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: loneroofer
They actually wrote a compromise that will effect future and immediate appointments and nomination procedures for a long time

The RINO 7 specifically committed themselves not to vote for the constitutional option for the entire term of the 109th Congress. They will keep that commitment, not because they have one scintilla of honor among them, but because they don't want a conservative judiciary any more than the Democrats do. That means that the Democrats can, and probably will, filibuster practically all conservative judicial appointments Bush sends up for the next year and a half and Frist's big gun will not be loaded.

33 posted on 05/24/2005 10:00:49 PM PDT by epow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Radix
You assume that people can and do actually read, and care about these issues. Sadly, they clearly do not.

Excellent point!

However, most of our elected officials are lawyers. They can read, and they know exactly what the Constitution says and means. They don't care, and they will never acknowledge it, and they will lie about it, because it stands between them and accomplishing their agendas.

34 posted on 05/24/2005 10:03:36 PM PDT by tarheelswamprat (This tagline space for rent - cheap!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: JLS

We do agree that we must wait and we agree upon the points for scoring this game. If your opinion of the Dims view of a win is correct then they are settling for more form over substance, useful for pulling the wool over eyes but not much else.I could only hope that this is all they could gain from "The Compromise".


35 posted on 05/24/2005 10:05:52 PM PDT by loneroofer (love life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: loneroofer

If your opinion of the Dims view of a win is correct then they are settling for more form over substance
_______________________________________________________

The Dims going for form over substance, who could have ever imagined it? Right?


36 posted on 05/24/2005 10:11:31 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: tarheelswamprat
The Senate IS required to perform its Advice and Consent function. It is not optional

We should have considered this while we were "blue slipping" all those Clinton appointees. Then again, foresight and turnabout has never been the strong suit of pols and partisans.
37 posted on 05/24/2005 10:17:57 PM PDT by LanaTurnerOverdrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ambrose

maybe you should listen to what Bork said one more time ...


38 posted on 05/24/2005 10:19:01 PM PDT by EDINVA (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
Judge Bork was on Hannity today, and said this argument is hogwash. The Senate is entitled to set its own rules for the handling of nominees.

Even if Congress could pass a rule that any nominee who didn't get 60 votes would be rejected, would that give the Senate the right to sit on nominations without rejecting them? That, after all, is what filibustering is all about.

39 posted on 05/24/2005 10:20:11 PM PDT by supercat (Sorry--this tag line is out of order.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: epow

Actually, if the Democrats filibuster someone who any who are not extreme, then this frees the Senate to rewrite the rules.

Of course at first the Senate did not have the filibuster option. The first Senate rules had a simple majority vote to cut off debate and move the previous question.


40 posted on 05/24/2005 10:32:08 PM PDT by Donald Meaker (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 next last

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.

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