Posted on 05/18/2005 10:21:08 PM PDT by davidosborne
Text Credit to Ken5050: DAY-1 THREAD
Welcome, all you Freepers, to the continuing C-span soap operas about judicial nominations. "The Guiding SEARCHLIGHT, " "As the SENATE Turns, "One NOMINATION to Live" "GERIATRIC Hospital" (for all you Byrd and Lautenberg fans out there). Follow along with us, as the Dems raise the level of histrionics, bloviation, pontification, and all around bad acting to new highs, er, lows...
Senator Lott who is on the floor....
Kristol has been too sure of himself when making predictions in the past couple of weeks. I don't trust much of what he says.
I'd think that, in the end, the Democrats want to keep the filibuster because of the money that NARAL just spent in investigating 30 potential Supreme Court justices (as reported by Robert Novak the other day). Any option that removes the filibuster will have wasted that investment. So, a deal that gives the Democrats something that they'd preserve on their own anyway (by not filibustering when the vote comes to avoid the nuclear option) would be the Republicans giving away the store when they don't have to.
-PJ
I remember it because of Schumer: "Then we'll stop them ALL in Committee".
Abe Fortas was filibustered because many 'rats did not want to be on record as going against LBJ and being on his SH** LIST.
How about we just give her McCain, no strings attached?
ROFL
You're right about Trent "Finger in the Wind" Lott....CYA time, but what will he do about his "I don't have to do what the Republicans want because they dumped me" remark?
Is Lott almost BEGGING for a deal? Or, is it just me?
Oh OK, Rush had me distracted!
OK. What did I miss? Can someone sum up the morning for me?
I've often wondered where in the constitution it says we can bargain away ideals laid out therein.
He is making a very honest presentation of why things unfolded the way they did. It's not an entirely pretty picture, but it is an honest one. Hats off to him.
So do I Howlin'. Given the donk posture, I'd say that my take is closer to the truth than what any "Mavrick" or MSM talking head has to say.
The RNC is watching the RINOS, and the RNC know we are watching IT. As long as we hold fast, I think the RNC will force the RINOS to hold fast. We must hold fast, and understand that the MSM (and FNC is included) has agenda. Be it political (everyone except FNC) or wanting to get the story first (FNC), we have to be wary.
Uh, oh---Lott just said that a compromise COULD be reached by the end of the day---
He said it "hypothetically", but it means he is OK with compromise!!! NOT GOOD!
I did get the impression the McConnell wasn't interested in compromise at all....
Regardless of the reason, it was a filibuster. And stories of the time (since even though I was alive, I have no first person memories of it!) indicate it was a Republican-led filibuster, even if it did enjoy bipartisan support.
The Senate Rule you are talking about does NOT apply to presidential appointments. See Post#37 (38/39) for why.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1406147/posts?page=37#37
A supermajority was rejected by the Constitutional Convention in 1787, and a majority vote only is required for advise and consent.
Kristol is so full of himself, he has no credibility.
Yes, he is making some good statements on the History!
He also said, ..."could a compromise be worked out, sure it could, by sundown".
You must have me confused with someone else. I have never argued the constitutionality of the matter. You bringing up Fortas is not the same as what is going on today.
I would love for them to ACTUALLY filibuster. My argument is that no other Senate has used the filibuster to deny a vote to a nominee who would have had a majority vote. The DEMS are not even using the filibuster right now. They are simply THREATENING to use it. The Pubbies are going to force them to use it. I do not even think that the "constitutional option" will be used. Frist is going to let them talk themselves out of their jobs.
Fortas did not have a majority.
Paez got a vote.
Clinton's nominees were denied in committee (according to Senate Rules! Most of them near the end of Clinton's second term and WERE RADICAL!)
It used to be common practice to give a Full Senate vote to a nominee that came out of committee and that nominee only needed a simple minority. By filibustering a nominee, you are in effect changing tradition so that it takes 60 votes to confirm a nominee. The DEMS saw that they had a loophole that they could exploit and exploited it.
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.