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

Skip to comments.

Filibuster Deal Puts Democrats In a Bind
Washington Post ^ | Monday, July 4, 2005 | Charles Babington and Susan Schmidt

Posted on 07/03/2005 8:31:55 PM PDT by 2dogjoe

Democrats' hopes of blocking a staunchly conservative Supreme Court nominee on ideological grounds could be seriously undermined by the six-week-old bipartisan deal on judicial nominees, key senators said yesterday.

With President Bush expected to name a successor to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor next week, liberals are laying the groundwork to challenge the nominee if he or she leans solidly to the right on affirmative action, abortion and other contentious issues. But even if they can show that the nominee has sharply held views on matters that divide many Americans, some of the 14 senators who crafted the May 23 compromise appear poised to prevent that strategy from blocking confirmation to the high court, according to numerous interviews.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 109th; filibuster; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-58 next last
Good news?
1 posted on 07/03/2005 8:31:56 PM PDT by 2dogjoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2dogjoe
Good news?

Depends, Hope so!

2 posted on 07/03/2005 8:35:06 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2dogjoe

"Bind" HELL..., the stalwart "Gang of 14" will melt their way through previous pronouncements and SHAZAAM, agree that their "Agreement" doesn't apply to whatever nominee named by President Bush...


3 posted on 07/03/2005 8:35:33 PM PDT by ExSES (the "bottom-line")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182

It's only good news if the GOP can do something about it.


4 posted on 07/03/2005 8:36:04 PM PDT by Perdogg (07/03/05 - New and improved Freeper Perdogg page)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2dogjoe
Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), a leader of the seven Democratic signers, largely concurred. Nelson "would agree that ideology is not an 'extraordinary circumstance' unless you get to the extreme of either side," his spokesman, David DiMartino, said in an interview.

Define "the extreme of either side". I would guess that registering as a Republican at some point in their life would define any nominee as being extremist. Certainly such extraordinary circumstances could justify a filibuster.

5 posted on 07/03/2005 8:37:00 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2dogjoe
Please!!

We are talking about DeathoCrats here. Since when do they allow a deal, giving their word, an agreement, get in the way of their political ambitions!

Remember:

Never Underestimate The Depths To Which The Deathocrats Will Sink For Personal And Political Power!

Also remember:

Republicans Have Nothing To Fear Except Themselves!

6 posted on 07/03/2005 8:37:03 PM PDT by technomage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Yep.


7 posted on 07/03/2005 8:37:33 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2dogjoe

Deal smeall, the RATS will do as they wish and the pubbies will wilt, as usual. It's happened before. Much, much, before. Surprise me, pubs, get balls.


8 posted on 07/03/2005 8:38:03 PM PDT by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2dogjoe

Some bind! "Extraordinary circumstances" is whatever the hell they want to make it.


9 posted on 07/03/2005 8:38:41 PM PDT by SpringheelJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2dogjoe
With President Bush expected to name a successor to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor next week, liberals are laying the groundwork to challenge the nominee if he or she leans solidly to the right...

I doubt they need to worry. I don't think there is any chance of that.

10 posted on 07/03/2005 8:38:41 PM PDT by eskimo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2dogjoe
Good news?

Maybe, just depends on how it plays out. The real battle will be for "control" of the courts which is ridiculous to be talking about because the courts should not be so important, but none the less they are. If President Bush nominates someone the Dems vote through right away they,IMO, will feel more empowered to oppose the next candidate, surely more Conservative. Thats why I say it is important to make them play their hand now on a real honest to goodness Strict constructionist or originalist. Just my opinion

11 posted on 07/03/2005 8:39:46 PM PDT by Archon of the East ("universal executive power of the law of nature")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2dogjoe

Anyone who expects the Dems to honor an agreement is crazy.


12 posted on 07/03/2005 8:40:45 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Archon of the East
When I said vote through right away, I don't mean to imply they they wont bitch and moan to lay they groundwork for the real battle.....
13 posted on 07/03/2005 8:42:11 PM PDT by Archon of the East ("universal executive power of the law of nature")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 2dogjoe

Expect the Democrats to pull a Bolton on any Conservative Supreme Court Nominee. They'll delay. They'll procrastinate. They'll get out the old playbook and pull a Bork. They'll force the Republicans to change the Senate rules to get a confirmation and kick their feet and throw a tantrum about how the Republicans have destroyed the Constitution.

It's a win-win for the Democrats. If they can delay and block a nomination, they retain marginal control of the SCOTUS. If they force the Republicans to change Senate rules, they win the propaganda war and will use this during the mid-term elections to their advantage.

The Democrats are absolutely ruthless. The Republicans act like they haven't figured out that they are in the majority.


14 posted on 07/03/2005 8:45:36 PM PDT by not neo just conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2dogjoe

You can't serously exspect the lefties to keep thier word, but then the Republicans can use the constitutional option again and finially get rid of the Fillibuster.

Personally I think being able to prevent a yes no vote is a clear violation of the advise and consent policy in the constitution and I know I am not the only who agrees.


15 posted on 07/03/2005 8:46:06 PM PDT by bgnn32
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2dogjoe

LET THE GAMES BEGIN!


16 posted on 07/03/2005 8:46:40 PM PDT by de Buillion (Abortion kills more Democrats than Republicans, More Liberals than Conservatives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: technomage
Never Underestimate The Depths To Which The Deathocrats Will Sink For Personal And Political Power!



They would rather loose the White House in 2008 than give in to any conservative judges on the SCOTUS. Their whole political agendas are built to use the courts to get it their way!
Just remember how alGore tried to steal the election in 2000 with the help of all the liberal judges on Florida SC!!!
17 posted on 07/03/2005 8:47:23 PM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: danamco
Their whole political agendas are built to use the courts to get it their way!

Exactly, and they will stop at NOTHING to keep their political power in the courts.

Deal on filibusters? Ha! You can forget that!!

18 posted on 07/03/2005 8:49:01 PM PDT by technomage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 2dogjoe

The answer is for the President to nominate someone who is already acknowledged by both parties to be acceptable and in the mainstream. Someone like Janice Rogers Brown.


19 posted on 07/03/2005 8:52:06 PM PDT by SmithL (There are a lot of people that hate Bush more than they hate terrorists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: danamco

All they've got left is the judicial system. If they lose control of the Supreme Court, they are finished. You are right. This nomination is more important to them than the mid-terms in 2006 and the 2008 elections combined.


20 posted on 07/03/2005 8:53:50 PM PDT by not neo just conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-58 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