Skip to comments.
Senate Committee Passes 'Nuclear Option' Filibuster Rule
CNSNews.com ^
| 6/24/03
| Jeff Johnson
Posted on 06/24/2003 4:20:00 PM PDT by kattracks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121 next last
To: cyberbuffalo
We should say what we need to say and vote as we need to vote and not play these parliamentary games.
21
posted on
06/24/2003 5:19:53 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(gazing at shadows)
To: Satadru
Actually, Pickering was shot down in Committee back when the RATS still controlled the Senate and Patrick "Leaky" Leahey was the Chairman of the Judicial Committee
22
posted on
06/24/2003 5:24:52 PM PDT
by
MJY1288
(The Gifted One is Clueless)
To: cyberbuffalo
What they have done is wrong, buffalo. We're willing to play by the rules. The prez gets to nominate his choices. We get to elect the prez. I can live with that.
23
posted on
06/24/2003 5:26:45 PM PDT
by
Bahbah
To: Howlin
Thanks for the ping, Howlin.
24
posted on
06/24/2003 5:27:46 PM PDT
by
Bahbah
To: MJY1288
Is there a chance he will be re-nominated, or is Bill Pryor supposed to be his replacement?
25
posted on
06/24/2003 5:28:51 PM PDT
by
Satadru
To: kattracks
great news.
bump.
To: cyberbuffalo
I, for one, am not in favor of the filibuster of ANY judges on either side. I don't want liberal judges on the bench any more than anyone else, but this is still a republic, and I do not like the idea of a minority group of senators running the show, even if they are conservatives. We've got certain principles to uphold, and one of them is majority rule.
27
posted on
06/24/2003 5:29:58 PM PDT
by
VOR78
To: RightWhale
I agree with you, Lets embarrass the democrats for their obstructionism and when that horrible day comes when a democrat gets to appoint Judges, we give the candidtate a fair hearing and vote them up or down on the Senate floor.
If we don't the Judicial nominating process will be a continual mess.
I'm hoping GWB will use this issue during the campaign to show the country just how obstructive the democrats have been.
28
posted on
06/24/2003 5:30:55 PM PDT
by
MJY1288
(The Gifted One is Clueless)
To: Dog Gone
Did we even try with Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Most people don't know the true Ginsburg story. Her husband is a powerful tax lawyer who saved Ross Perot a bundle. Perot was so thankful that he endowed a chair for hubby at Georgetown Univ. Law Center. Ginsburg had heavy hitters among GOP, Dimwits and Independents going to bat for her. She was also the choice of trial lawyers, a constituency that Clinton aimed to please. She was the closest thing one could come to for a teflon nominee...one that would pass through cleanly without alot of fuss (despite her leftist leanings).
29
posted on
06/24/2003 5:31:49 PM PDT
by
Young Rhino
(Does God Wear a Tinfoil Hat? Is he a member of the CFR and Trilateral Commission?)
To: Satadru
I'm can't be absolutely sure, but I believe President Bush has already said that Pickering's nomination is still on the list, just as Precilla Owens still is
30
posted on
06/24/2003 5:32:57 PM PDT
by
MJY1288
(The Gifted One is Clueless)
To: Satadru
BTW, Bill Pryor has shown more guts than any Judicial Nominee I have seen in years and I hope this guy goes all the way to the Supreme Court.
31
posted on
06/24/2003 5:35:24 PM PDT
by
MJY1288
(The Gifted One is Clueless)
To: cyberbuffalo
"Anyone else think that this change will just bite us in the ass when it comes time for us to filibuster liberal judges?"
That's my greatest fear. However, we cannot squander the greatest opportunity conservatives have ever had to reshape the judiciary to our benefit. Remember, if President Bush's judicial nominees and supreme court nominees (I am assuming there will be at least one retirement) are confirmed we can at last overturn Roe Vs. Wade and end affirmative action, plus so much more.
To: kattracks
Past time!
Now they better make it stick!
33
posted on
06/24/2003 5:38:13 PM PDT
by
sarasmom
(Punish France.Ignore Germany.Forgive Russia..)
To: Satadru
Pickering has been renominated.
34
posted on
06/24/2003 5:39:49 PM PDT
by
votelife
(FREE MIGUEL ESTRADA!)
To: RightWhale
Thank you!
35
posted on
06/24/2003 5:42:24 PM PDT
by
visualops
(It's easier to build a child than repair an adult.)
To: kattracks
ANYONE: 1) can a president make a RECESS Supreme Court nomination?
2) What would happen if Bush did so with Estrada if there comes a vacancy???? If the problem has been that the issue has not been "high profile" enough for Hispanics to get energized, and put the heat on Dems, would this not "elevate" that debate?
36
posted on
06/24/2003 5:46:08 PM PDT
by
LS
To: kattracks
I think this is a Constitutional matter.. Send it to the SC and hope they don't urinate on it.
37
posted on
06/24/2003 5:47:11 PM PDT
by
Jhoffa_
(Hey you kids, get off my lawn!)
To: Satadru
No, he was not.
38
posted on
06/24/2003 5:49:15 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: CyberAnt
They have the 51.
39
posted on
06/24/2003 5:52:00 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: DannyTN
Since the technique has already been used, I don't see anything stopping the rats from lowering it again.Exactly.
40
posted on
06/24/2003 5:52:40 PM PDT
by
Howlin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson