 |
 |
 |
||
|
 |
|||
 |
 |
 |
Posted on 07/19/2005 11:33:16 AM PDT by fedupjohn
Senator Barbara Boxer appearing on Fox News this afternoon was asked about the 'Gang of Seven' deal not to Filibuster nominees unless it is Extra-ordinary circumstances; declared that "with the right to privacy and Roe v Wade on the table this is an Extra-ordinary circumstance and the Filibuster is on the table".
Well people they just moved the goal posts.
They asked O'Connor to stay so they could make her Chief Justice. They were certain Rehnquist was resigning. That's the reason Rehnquist stated he is not leaving.
| |
|
|
||
|
|
|||
|
|
|
Let it be said Senator Barbara Boxer, not Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, nor any other Senator, brought in the "nuclear option" with her comment. She knew the rules of the game before she spoke.
Hey Babs we've been doing it for over 220 years.
>>If they filibuster, Frist will pull the trigger. Game. Set. Match.
LOL.. Frist will indeed pull the trigger -- the republican surrender [suicide?] trigger, not the "constitutional" trigger.
I think Frist and the Republicans are intensely studying the companion book to the Sun Tzu's "Art of War" -- "Art of Surrender"
For what it's worth, the first time I saw Barbara Boxer was when she gave her victory speech in the 1992 November election. Hubby and I had just completed final arrangements to move to California and we were walking through a Silicon Valley mall at the time.
I was shocked because her speech centered totally around women and the fact that her election was a victory for women and how she would fight for women's rights. I remember thinking, "um, does California elect one senator for women and another for men?"
I don't know that people here in California realize it but that is exactly what how it seems, except for the men part. I can't speak that much for Feinstein but Boxer is definitely a senator for women only (make that liberal women only) and her statement about privacy and Roe vs. Wade just confirms it. If you examine her record, you will find a women's rights extremist with little else accomplished. Her narrow focus is extremely unfair for more than half the population of California.
Incidentally, I am a woman with a law degree and her sexism makes me sick. She is supposed to represent all Californians but she doesn't.
Ahhh you have the same problem as I do. I have Hillary. YIKES!
I'd call it an extraordinary circumstance if Babs ever said anything intelligent.
Barbara Boxer getting two live neurons to fire in sequence would be an extraordinary circumstances.
Dan
/c8
I just got to this thread and you said all that needs to be said...we told them so!
A lib will stab you in the back everytime...........Lucy will hold that football this time, I just know it..........
Linguini spine will finally grow a pair? Yeah sure he will...
What "goal posts"? All I see is bare asses on both sides hanging out. Goal posts? Ha!
FMCDH(BITS)
A better analogy would be that they just pulled the football off the kicking tee ... AGAIN.
Or worse yet, enforces it instead of "interpreting" it to suit the political correctness de jure.
Now the question is whether the Dems will use the filibuster. I don't think they will, as the American voters are getting real tired of their obstructionism. They will do their homework on the candidate, and surely try to make her look bad in the hearings, and especially allow Kennedy, Biden, and Schumer to appeal to the radicals, but in the end, she will pass with more than 75%.
"In other words...anyone right of Barney Frank is unacceptable."
I guess it's OK to be to the right of Barney Frank. You just don't want to be in front of him.
Groan...
Yep. That's what you would say!
"You can always ease tensions and avoid confrontations by surrendering. You can always postpone a showdown, even when that simply lets the problem fester and grow worse.
Some Republicans may take comfort from the fact that they still have the option of changing the Senate rules in the future if the Democrats violate the spirit of their deal. But, once you have had the votes to win and wimped out instead, there is little reason to think that the weak sisters and opportunists on your side will be with you the next time high noon rolls around.
While members of both parties are trying to put a good face on this political deal and the media have gushed about this "bipartisan" agreement, Republican Senator Charles Grassley was one of the few who called a spade a spade, when he characterized what happened as "unilateral disarmament" by the Republicans.
If it was just the Republican Party that lost in this confrontation, that would be a minor partisan matter. What is of major importance is that the American people lost a golden opportunity that may not come again in this generation."
"Some incorrigibly naive conservatives say Democrats won't be able to get away with blocking "conservative" judges in the future, having agreed not to block Brown, Pryor and Owen, who everyone agrees are originalists and "conservatives." But Democrats can simply say that by agreeing not to block a vote on these three, they weren't conceding the nominees weren't "extraordinary," but that they were an acceptable, short-term compromise in exchange for the right to block similarly conservative nominees in the future... Republicans have also bestowed upon Democrats a public relations victory by implying that it was the Republicans, not Democrats, who were breaking with historical precedent and violating the spirit of the Constitution. In short, Republicans had the moral and historical high ground and voluntarily surrendered it to a militant Democrat minority by tacitly agreeing to a false version of the facts and history."
"Never has a majority party proved to be so spineless. Republicans, lest we forget, constitute 55 out of 100 senators and have the power to do what they please. Instead, they capitulated. It is now crystal clear that unless Republicans own almost 60 seats, rules will not be changed; unless Republicans own almost 70, cloture will never be invoked on a major issue. If that doesn't discourage the Republican base, nothing will."
"One may argue that a compromise is durable to the extent its signers make genuine sacrifices. In this compromise, conservatives and moderates have sacrificed resorting to the constitutional option that would confirm judicial nominees by a simple majority. The left has sacrificed three nominees it would have lost anyway, while thwarting two and retaining the right to apply a Senate rule of a required supermajority (60 percent to break a filibuster) not only to all other district and appellate nominees, but to nominees to the big enchilada - the Supreme Court."
"It is not a great deal for two nominees who have been accorded a nice wake having been thrown overboard at sea. (And) everyone should also clearly see that ultimately, nothing has been settled when a vacancy arises on the U.S. Supreme Court."
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.