Democrats abort deal on Alito vote

The Washington Times ^ | January 17, 2006 | Charles Hurt

[CA Conservative]

Didn't the senile Specter allow them to add the one week delay to the START of the hearings, which were to start in December originally? I seem to recall that. If that's true, they got two delays, which is NOT in the Senate's arcane "rules". Specter is such a loser, and Bill Frist is no Senate leader. They both need to be replaced.

It is potentially worse than that. The Dems didn't exercise their right to "hold over" the nomination this week, for the simple reason that the committee didn't meet this week. If you read Leahy's words carefully, he is promising that no Democrat will exercise that right next week, in exchange for not having the committee meeting this week.

Does anyone want to lay odds on the chance that some other Dem senator on the committee will not feel bound by this agreement as well, and will hold the vote over for another week, making the committee vote January 31 at the earliest?

[Calvin Locke]

I seem to remember Leahy giving his word to Strom Thurmond, and then going back on it. Something about not holding up a
Thurmond friend and/or constituent.

Great way to see Thurmond retire from the Senate.

Leahy can't be trusted.

[robertpaulsen]

They're delaying the inevitable for one childish reason -- so Bush cannot mention the confirmation in his State of the Union speech.