Republicans deserve their first name... - gutless.
Yup, every day, they earn my new name for them...
"Brokeback Republicans!"
Here's a pow-wow with Chief "Squats-when-peeing" from Louisianna!
Posted on 12/19/2005 8:44:54 PM PST by lowbridge
In the face of US Senate opposition, House Republicans have dropped a plan to split the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals.
House Republicans who contend the nation's largest federal appeals court has gotten too big to be effective had sought to attach legislation breaking it in two to a deficit-trimming bill.
Senators led by California Democrat Dianne Feinstein vowed to block the move if it made it to the Senate floor. The measure was left out when the bill passed the House early Monday. A Senate vote could come later in the day.
Nevada Democrat Harry Reid also opposes the measure while Republican Senator John Ensign supports it.
The Ninth Circuit covers nine states with about 54 million people, and has 28 judgeships. The circuit with the next-largest number of judgeships is the New Orleans-based Fifth Circuit, with 17.
Opponents of splitting the 9th Circuit alleged political motives by Republicans annoyed by its rulings, including a 2002 opinion that declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
The House legislation would have created a Ninth Circuit covering California, Hawaii and the Pacific Islands, and a new 12th Circuit covering Alaska, Washington state, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Arizona.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
You're probably right, but did you check out my tagline?
All right! Another cave job.
Yes, but you were speaking for CA, and I see IL as even more forlorn. Now with Henry Hyde bowing out, there won't be much conservatism from IL at all. Even Phyllis Schlafly has moved back to MO.
The fact is that splitting the Ninth should not be controversial among rank-and-file uninformed voters. But the GOP is too fearful to attempt even such a modest step at judicial reform. It's like the GOP is Casper the Friendly Ghost. Before long, even WY will turn Democrat the way things are headed.
Republicans deserve their first name... - gutless.
Yup, every day, they earn my new name for them...
"Brokeback Republicans!"
Here's a pow-wow with Chief "Squats-when-peeing" from Louisianna!
It wasn't too long after this photo that GWB tapped Dr. Frist (many of us had great hopes for him) to replace Trent. Trent did not know that "they" were out to get HIM too! Poor ol' Strom never figured out what all the fuss was about.
We were going to lose.
If you would have preferred we lose everything instead of just this bill, I guess that is your choice.
Me, on the other hand, would prefer to get at least some of the goodies tacked onto the budget bill. There is only so much moderate Dems will take before joining in a filibuster. This would have definitely taken them over the edge.
Defeatists.
Soon after arriving here in '64, Ronald Reagan started running for Governor! Another IL boy who also dreamed of CA, but for somewhat different reasons...
Better to keep the conservatives on your side if you want to remain a Republican. If they are so afraid of liberal block voters, maybe they should just switch their membership.
Just what makes them think Americans wish socialism, wish for America to be less safe, wish for America to sell off its secrets to the highest bidder?
Maybe we need term limits for senators. Apparently living in Washington is very detrimental to the moral fiber of our representatives. Power is very corrupting - especially for senators in the "club environment".
CLUCK CLUCK
Spineless jackasses.
Are you crazy? We do not back down from a fight.
We do not allow the threat of filibuster to determine our actions. We fight for what we believe in. Notice how the dems are willing to fight against losing odds. Are we less effective?
Am I crazy? This is a fight the republicans will never win. Why would democrats agree to split up the 9th court when it is to their detriment to do so? What exactly would you do if you were in charge that would make the Rats agree not to filibuster?
Furthermore, it's not the threat that bothers republicans, it's the fact that they will filibuster this bill so it ain't gonna pass no matter what republicans do.
Anyone got a reason why splitting would actually be better?
Yeah, it's assumed that as well as the split, new judgeships will be created so there will be an opportunity for Bush to stack these new judgeships with conservative judges. This is the real reason this will never happen as long as the Rats can filibuster the bill.
You don't get the point. We do not abandon a fight because it will be hard, it won't pass or whatever. That is allowing a minority party to overrule the majority.
I don't know enough about it to know whether they could win or not - but I am sick to death of all the excuses about what we do because of what the dems will do.
If we do not act when in the majority and make our mark - we do not act ever, because we cannot get anything done when in the minority. Yet - somehow - the dems do.
Once they take office, I find that many conservatives "move to the middle" in a bid, sometimes fruitless, to attract "moderate" and some liberal voters for the next election. They call it expanding their base. Senator Lugar of IN, for instance, has been very successful with that type of liberal outreach.
So, the threat of a filibuster is the same as an actual filibuster?
Seems like lazy do-nothingness to me. It also sounds like caving, like allowing the dems to rule without the power, the action required to overrule the GOP. It is laziness pure and simple.
They know there will be a filibuster - so do nothing.
That way the elite senators do not have to work hard. Why stay up late, miss their parties, and all that. We know they will filibuster so let them have it.
No, they have to do an actual filibuster spending the time and effort in order to overrule the majority party. And, if this is not done - I will call the GOP lazy senators caving to the minority party without the fight. Which is exactly what they are doing.
Why should our men go to battle when the government politicians will change their minds a year later? Why go to elections, when the minority party will still rule? Why send representatives to Washington and pay for their "work" when they just count votes and go on to bed giving up the fight by an easy count - not an actual filibuster.
Filibuster or shut up - no simple vote counting.
Well - I'm afraid he is working against us then.
We are not after liberal voters, we are after the conservative agenda. We will get enough "watering down" by disgruntled democrats switching parties because their party is now overrun with socialists.
If we do not demand conservative votes, what is to hinder democrats fooling us and getting us to vote them in?
There were no filibusters at all until 1917, I believe. The greatest Senate speeches were supposedly made prior to 1860, when many senators served short tenures because it was such a sacrifice to spend time from their businesses even though the Senate was in session for just two months a year! Now these senators spend much of their time on the social circuit, as you clearly explained. A really hardworking one like Senator Coburn would be disdained by most of his "lazy" (your word) colleagues.
Disenchanted conservatives will sit out elections, and some (not I) will vote Democrat on the premise that all they have as an option is to vote out the "ins."
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.
