Posted on 06/07/2005 5:14:35 PM PDT by hipaatwo
why Thune? Why now?
Yes they should. But they will not unless the pressure gets too great. One bite of the apple, particularly for this nominee won't precipitate much of an appetite to expand the scope of the nuke option, which if it were attempted, would degrade the chances later of using it for a SCOTUS nomination. It just won't happen. Keep you eyes on the main ball that is in play, which has SCOTUS written on it.
If so, I'm not happy about it either but would say it's typical. Cut and run, kick the porblem down the road rather than face it head on. I don't give a damn if they cannot sign another pork filled bill for the next year and a half. This is ALL the base cares about at this time. So Focus exclusively on it. They let this sit and the base will grow increasingly angry and it WILL show up in '06 in ways not to their benefit.
If the constitutional option is enacted now, SCOTUS won't be a problem down the road. The rules would have been changed. The WH cannot hope that the Senate Reps will do the right thing when a SCOTUS nominee comes up. It is time to flush these people out now and get them on the record of supporting the confirmation of the President's nominee to the UN.
What has been going on over the past few years is unprecedented. The longer it is accepted as a fact, the harder it will be to change.
Committee for Justice: Memorandum From C. Boyden Gray Regarding Judicial Filibusters
Wrong place, wrong time. The effort will fail, and it will provide fodder for the claim that the Pubbies want to kill the filibuster all together. Actually I favor killing it all together, but the only vote I control is my own.
It will only fail if the Reps cannot get 51 votes to change the rules. This "wrong place, wrong time" rationale is what is wrong with the GOP and its failure to exercise power as the majority party.
Who cares what the Dems or the MSM say about the GOP's intentions re the filibuster? They are saying that now. It is like saying we should be careful about what we say about the terrorists because it will make them angry. Forget about worrying about the "fodder" and concentrate on getting over 25 judges confirmed and a possible 2 or three SCOTUS nominations over the next three years. Keep your eye on the big picture.
The Senate GOP's feckless response to the Dems unprecedented use of the filibuster to prevent an up or down vote on judicial and executive branch nominess will undermine support for the party. If that is what those GOP senators in the Senate want, then we will be in the minority again.
During the period 1932-1992, the Dems controlled the Senate for 50 of the 60 years and the House for 56 of the 60 years. These past 10 years have been a blip for the GOP and the majority figures pale in comparison to the majorities held by the Dems. In 1936 the Dems had an almost 250 majority in the House and 60 in the Senate. In 1992 the Dems had more than twice the majority the Reps have now in the House and an bigger majority in the Senate than the Reps have had for the past decade.
They can't. Deal with it. The pawns need to be moved around to the right places to change that. It is a chess game. Some are better at it than others.
Who says they can't? They have never put it to a vote. The gang of 7 postponed the vote. Frist thought he had the votes. I believe that if the gang of seven is forced to go on the record with a vote, two at least will support the Senate leadership and the President. If they don't, they don't.
Spare me with the chess analogy. What happened to Frist and the GOP senate leadership was a failure of party discipline and loyalty. They were surprised by the gang of 14 deal, which really saved the Dems' bacon. There is no grand strategy. Sooner or later the GOP must invoke the constitutional option. Delaying it will only make it harder.
He's probably not lying...but no doubt his decision was colored by his being upset with the administration.
yes, but that is a tough sell around here!
I like those two guys....
One of us is 100% wrong about this issue.
It will be "interesting" as to which of us is.
I believe that events will conspire in the next 4-6 weeks that let us know.
I don't see any real disagreement between you two.
IMHO, the Repubs will indeed need to pass the NO. Hell, we've been expecting it since February. Frist's timing was just fine. The dirty seven hashed it up.
So when is the "next best time" to pass the NO? I think we all understand that THIS is a tough question.
I think Frist has only one shot at it. He will have to be certain he has the votes in place. (He thought he did before, until McLame seduced a few gullibles at the last second.)
The same situation could easily happen again, or something akin to it, where enough turncoats cause the NO vote to go down to defeat. And think about THOSE consequences. Bush will be able to count his judicial appointees on one hand.
So Frist has a huge problem. Personally, I'd like to see the NO passed ASAP, but I don't think the votes are there just yet. Perhaps when the Dems' actions force the Repubs to enact the NO, which they have been careful, so far, (and not much time has passed), not to flagrantly jam things up.
Letting time pass status quo will only allow the Dems to manipulate, make a few concessions when they need to, and continue to make false promises, to put off the NO vote.
We definitely will need to have the NO passed.
The MSM said this morning that Frist had rescheduled the Bolton issue for TWO WEEKS in order to concentrate on Judges Rogers and Pryor. Assuming the MSM got this right, I believe that so long a delay could mean that the pubs are backing off on Bolton. I have seen other nominations die in exactly this way, whereby the nominee just withdraws his name at some point during the delay.
I'm speculating here, but there may have been some further horsetrading over the recess that hasn't been made public yet.
Unfortunately, the public perception, aided by the MSM, is that the agreement made by the gang of 14 is binding upon the other 86 senators. The Dems want to maintain the agreement because it perpetuates the myth that the use of the filibuster against judicial nominations is the norm. The GOP has lost the PR battle so they might as well get some spine and win the war.
What the heck is Thune doing??
There is a valid argument for either approach...I am not sure which way I would come down.
I would like this over with ASAP, but at the same time, that may seem like a cheap shot to try to force the Dems in the eyes of the public.
I see your point, but I think at some point the Reps need to let it be known that they are the majority and that is just the way it is gonna be...
IOW--be on the offensive for a change, instead of the defensive..
Carolyn
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.