1 posted on
11/14/2003 7:33:40 AM PST by
Brian S
To: Brian S
What the...?
2 posted on
11/14/2003 7:35:52 AM PST by
Chad Fairbanks
(What if we see sailfish... jumping... and flying across the magnificent orb of a setting sun?)
To: Brian S
Time for some recess appointments.
3 posted on
11/14/2003 7:37:06 AM PST by
HarleyD
To: Brian S
can you say cash to the dems for 2004.....even foreigh cash..
7 posted on
11/14/2003 7:40:41 AM PST by
mo
To: Brian S
actually the goal was to shut us conservative grassroots folks up by obtaining a "talking point" for the Sunday news shows. Anyone with an ounce of honesty can admit that this was just a waste of time stunt that'll be forgotten within a few days by the general public.
8 posted on
11/14/2003 7:41:18 AM PST by
KantianBurke
(Don't Tread on Me)
To: Brian S
This was so weird.
The Dems threaten filibuster, and the Pubs go talk for 30 hours.
What the...?
To: Brian S
This is what ticks me off: We have the procedural "nuclear option". The concern is that if and when the Dems ever return to power, they would use it against the GOP. But the crux of the issue is this:
Given the choice of losing, or using the "nuclear option", the Dems will choose the nuke.
Even after the Trent Lott Era, the 'Pubs still can't find a set. What the Dems are doing is disgusting, and quite possibly unconstitutional (it certainly runs against 200+ years of precedent). So help me, the GOP is shooting itself in the foot again.
14 posted on
11/14/2003 7:49:59 AM PST by
Mr. Bird
To: Brian S
I heard someone on talk radio say that the Republicans should have stretched this out to Sunday when all the Democrats are heading to Iowa. God forbid they should show some fortitude!
20 posted on
11/14/2003 7:57:29 AM PST by
surrey
To: Brian S
The Federalist Paper, No. 58:It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution, cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale. In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general wealth, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences.
Sound familiar? We were warned of this at the founding of our nation.
To: Brian S
I hope Bush does the recess appointments. Then when the senate returns, they can take a straw vote and see, if they had indeed voted, that the judical nominees would have been confirmed.
32 posted on
11/14/2003 8:23:00 AM PST by
ampat
To: Brian S
The media hardly covered this. I hope this is just the beginning and I wish Bush would appoint Judge Bork as his first recess appointment.
33 posted on
11/14/2003 8:23:52 AM PST by
1Old Pro
(ESPN now has 4 little wimpy sissies left. I'm switching back to FOX.)
To: Brian S
The Borkathon is over but the spirit remains.
34 posted on
11/14/2003 8:26:53 AM PST by
Only1choice____Freedom
(If everything you experienced, believed, lived was a lie, would you want to know the truth?)
To: Brian S
I suppose its a double-edged sword, but if Bush does the recess appointments, then maybe that will lock in his re-election. Perhaps the American people will applaud his defeating our sad sack senate democrats.
35 posted on
11/14/2003 8:26:55 AM PST by
ampat
To: Brian S
The Republicans have done all they can in the Senate to get these nominees passed. All we can do now is have President Bush make recess appointments. I am very proud of the Republicans for taking a stand.
What I don't understand is the people of Arkansas and Louisiana. Why haven't they put more pressure on their Democrat Senators? We have a strong base in those states, but never seem to change the Democrats mind. What is the story on that?
The people of Arkansas and Louisiana need to work a little harder.
37 posted on
11/14/2003 8:30:35 AM PST by
yellowdoghunter
(Liberals should be seen and not heard.)
To: Brian S
The majority(under the leadership? of Bill Frist)has proved again what El Rushbo said long ago.The Republicans don't know what to do when they are in the majority!!They are played for FOOLS by The DemonRats!!!!!!!!!
To: Brian S
Frist needs to play tough now...absolutely NO compromise...NO bills that the democrats want will make it to the floor...NONE of their ammendments will be passed...IT's war.
49 posted on
11/14/2003 8:46:56 AM PST by
Capitalism2003
(Come on Freepers! Go here and JOIN! http://www.NRSC.org)
To: Brian S
I never did understand how this was supposed to work for Republicans.
65 posted on
11/14/2003 3:25:01 PM PST by
nosofar
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson