Not to worry, the repubs are the majority in the Senate. They have banded together around a strong leader who will make sure the "R"s vote in unity...../sarcasm
Let's make them do a real filibuster. I'd like to wake up in the morning, turn on my TV, and see Teddy Kennedy rambling on and on about nothing but gibberish, with bags under his eyes because he's been up all night.
Come to think of it, it's a pretty regular occurrence with Teddy anyway.
What the heck does that mean? What, in the deal, makes them exempt?
Why is there a damned deal in the first place? What the heck are the Republicans thinking? You think there's going to be any deals if/when the Democrats have a majority?
What a bunch of spineless morons. We might as well save everyone a lot of grief and put McCain in charge of the Senate.
I am so angry about this bogus "agreement" - my blood is boiling.
There is absolutely no good reason for this guy not to get a vote.
For God's sake - exercise the g-damn power we elected you to use!!!!!
I don't recall them even being mentioned in the written agreement. There are obviously some oral parts of the agreement that are being kept secret from us.
For one thing, Lindsey Graham stated unequivocally several times on the Hannity radio program that ALL nominees, including Saad would get up or down votes, but he always qualified that by saying that not all of them would get confirmed and that he would vote against at least one of them.
There would have to be an oral agreement that five or six of the Republican renegades would vote against Saad and the others when they came up for an up or down vote. But if the agreement has already fallen apart, then the Dems may fall back on some theory that since Saad et al were not specifically mentioned, that they are specifically excluded. Just enough for the Old Media to hang its hat on.
"The White House has said it will not give the Democratic Senators the highly classified documents they are seeking in connection with John Bolton's nomination as U.N. ambassador. Scott McClellan pointed out:"
"The Democratic and Republican leaders of the Intelligence Committee have had access to this sensitive, highly classified information. The Democrats clamoring for it have already voted against the nomination. This is about partisan politics."
"What I thought was priceless was the Democrats' response:"
"But Democrats said it's not about politics, or even about Mr. Bolton anymore. They said their filibuster is an attempt to protect the institution of the Senate against a strong and overreaching administration. Does this mean we have to listen to Robert Byrd all over again? We just preserved the Republic last week, but I guess the Senate minority is going to have to preserve it again soon. How long do you suppose the American people will buy the line that every partisan dispute is "really" all about the Constitution's checks and balances?"
"I have to say, though, that I really don't understand what the Democrats are doing on Bolton. I can understand that for partisan reasons, to give the administration a black eye and to keep their contributors fired up, they think they need to choose a vulnerable appointee now and then, and pick him off."
"But the U.N. ambassador seems like an odd choice. Normally, such appointments haven't even required a roll call vote. No U.N. nominee has ever had more than a handful of votes cast against him. This isn't because they have all been wonderful nominees, but because this is not a position where any significant power gets exercised. For the Democrats to expend so much capital on it seems odd."
"In any event, with this pretext for delay frustrated, I assume we'll have a vote on Bolton soon."
"SCOTT adds: Don't miss Senator McCain's additional contribution to saving the Republic as reported in today's New York Times: "McCain urging accord on Senate and Bolton documents."
Posted by John at 08:51 AM | Permalink
The Socialists (aka, Democrats) are spinning the truth. Call all the talk shows and set them straight on this.
Now I'm really confused. There must have been an oral agreement too. I'm so pissed at the Repulican party over this entire deal.
Saad, Myers, Haynes and Kavanaugh.
See also http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1412393/posts
F = 7 subjected to failed cloture motions in 108th Congress
4 = "1 of 4" that DEMs offered to let GOP choose which 3 to dump
S = Positive mention in Specter's May 9, 2005 speech
M = MOU of 14 will not vote against cloture
m = MOU of 14 makes no promise regarding cloture
C = Out of committee & on the Senate's Executive Calendar
U = Unanimous consent to debate - date TBD
D = Democrats offer to debate - date TBD
v = Debate and vote scheduled
V = Vote -on the nomination- concluded
1. --S - --- Boyle, Terrence W. (4th Cir)
2. --- - --- Haynes, William James II (4th Cir)
3. F4S M CUV Owen, Priscilla (5th Cir)
4. F-S - CU- Griffin, Richard A. (6th Cir)
5. F-S - CU- McKeague, David W. (6th Cir)
6. --S - -D- Neilson, Susan Bieke (6th Cir)
7. F-- m --- Saad, Henry W. (6th Cir)
8. F4S m C-- Myers, William Gerry III (9th Cir)
9. F4S M CU- Pryor, William H. (11th Cir)
10. F4S M CUv Brown, Janice Rogers (D.C. Cir)
11. --S - CU- Griffith, Thomas B. (D.C. Cir)
12. --- - --- Kavanaugh, Brett M. (D.C. Cir)
Last updated May 27, 2005
Owen: Cloture passed 81-18 on May 24
Owen: Confirmed 56-43 on May 25
Brown: Cloture motion filed May 26. Debate starting 2PM June 6.
Brown: Cloture vote scheduled for noon June 7th.
Pryor: Cloture motion filed May 26.
Griffin: Reported out of Committee May 26.
McKeague: Reported out of Committee May 26.
-> Cloture Motions for 108th Congress
-> List of Nominations in the 109th Congress Judiciary Committee
-> Senate Executive Calendar (changes each business day)
-> Senate Roll Call Votes - 109th Congress
-> Specter's Speech of May 9, 2005 (109th Congress - Pages S4632 - S4636)
-> Reid's agreement of May 24, 2005 (S5857)
-> Brown & Pryor cloture motions of May 26, 2005 (S6061)
-> Order of Business for June 6, 2005 (S6065)
Saad should sue Reid for his comments regarding the FBI files!
Sen. SMITH (R-NH): In November of 1991, President Bush nominated Lillian R. BeVier, a conservative from Virginia who had testified for Robert Bork. That was her first mistake. Lord help us, she was a conservative, No. 1, in the Democrat years here. No. 2, she testified on behalf of Robert Bork. She was nominated to the Fourth Circuit. Guess what happened to her. Her nomination languished for a whole year. Finally, the committee deep- sixed her at the end of the Bush Presidency--gone, didn't see the light of day. I guess that was unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional now, surely it was unconstitutional then.Of course, it is not unconstitutional. You have that right. On the same day, President Bush nominated Terrence W. Boyle to the Fourth Circuit. Again, the chairman put a hold on the nomination for an entire year. It languished in the darkness of Judiciary and never saw the light of day.
Here is an article from 1992. It says: ``North Carolina Judge One of 50 Bush Court Nominations that Won't be Approved.'' It talks about the intentional strategy of Chairman Biden to delay and kill Bush nominees because of the likely Clinton victory. That speaks for itself.
Directions to the Congressional Record of the 2000 debate:106th Congress - Page S1211 - March 7, 2000
1. Click here -> Senate - March 7, 2000
2. Navigate to -> 19. NOMINATIONS OF RICHARD A. PAEZ AND MARSHA L. BERZON--Continued --
3. Click on "Printer Friendly Display" to see the entire debate
106th Congress - Page S1212 - March 7, 2000