Posted on 01/16/2006 7:49:10 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
What are you talking about? Who is praying for Ford to die?
Bend over....damn RINO's!
Exactly.
Says who?
Some on this thread have stated that the dims got their one week delay up front. How many one week delays is specter gonna give them, and why is the question.
Right - he gave them their delay based on an agreement not to invoke the rule. They lied and invoked the rule anyway. I don't really think it makes a difference - Alito will be on the Court and the Democrats are once again exposed as liars.
I was not aware of that. If true, Specter did cave.
I wouldn't put ANYTHING past the Democrats.
Hell, he makes Bagdad Bob appear reliable!
Thanks for your post. The knee-jerk ignorance of so many freepers on this thread is distressing.
The Losers have another week to dig for dirt.
The news guys are playing down the seroiusness of his his condition...said he'd leave the hospital next Wednesday.
This is the reply that I remembered.
Specter gave them a one week delay up front as part of a gentleman's agreement that the Dems would not invoke the delay rule after the hearings had concluded. The Democrats agreed. They lied to Specter and invoked the rule anyway, thus, another week delay.
My first thought, too: when's the State of the Union speech? Answer: January 31.
It's not just this thread. You'd think people here that read the news on a regular basis would be more up to snuff on their civics but apparently not. Everyone who has been following this story should be well aware of this Senate rule.
THe only thing odd about this report is that it appears there was an "agreement".
Under the rules, the meeting would have been held on the 17th. At least one democrat would have to show up at the meeting, and all the republicans would have had to show up to ensure they could win the vote.
Then the democrat that showed up could ask for a 1-week delay. There was no choice but to provide that delay (except that Specter could rule the request out of order, and the republicans could support that ruling, but the media would then jump all over the republicans for breaking the rules).
Well, it appears that nobody wanted to end their 3-day holiday tuesday, so Specter agreed to simply NOT have the meeting. That means that the "next scheduled meeting" is now next tuesday. And at that meeting, the democrats COULD invoke the rule to delay a week. They haven't used the delay yet, because this "agreement" reschedules the meeting without them having to show up and invoke the rule.
The democrats have "promised" not to request a delay next tuesday, and I have to think they will live up to this promise -- although Specter was certain they made the same promise in November, which they are now breaking -- except that they haven't actually BROKEN the promise, since the agreement means none of them go on record asking for a delay, and no delay will be recorded --just a normal scheduled meeting being held on the 24th.
I wish Specter had made them show up and renege on their previous promise, just to be spiteful -- but we never would have known which senator requested the delay, and it would have been a useless act.
If the democrats ask for a delay next week, it will be simply them being the democrats they are, so I'm not holding my breath. Last year they promised Lugar that if they would accomodate some scheduling problems the democrats had, they would ensure a vote on without a delay -- and then when that day came, the requested the delay anyway, giving them time to convince Voinovich to switch sides.
Send him a pair of teflon nads
That is maddening. I was not aware of that.
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.