Posted on 05/18/2005 10:21:08 PM PDT by davidosborne
He was being rhetorical! He did not mean literally. He is calling for people to come vote! Relax!
I just called my Sen. Saxby Chambliss and told him to get a message to the 5 RINO'S, NO DEAL, if there are any comprimise, then there will be no more donations from me to the RNC. His responce was there will be no deals.
That will be another battle front. Count on it. But it is not the battle front we are on today.
Yes, basically all I was saying is that simply because they didn't filibuster doesn't mean they didn't think it was a possibility. As much as they wanted to stop his confirmation they may have simply made the political calculation that it was safer politically to embarrass Justice Thomas to such an extent that he would ask the President to withdraw his nomination, rather than the spectacle of the Democratic party filibustering the second African-American nominee to SCOTUS.
Honest to goodness, I can't tell who is telling the truth anymore -- and that really worries me.
Possibly, but that would have been a death sentence for JFnK! lol
I do believe there may be a Parliamentary Procedure that can override it because I believe it was done before. This is kinda a dim memory.
No, sorry, I missed it. I'm trying, not very successfully, to get some work done.
Well, now we're starting to get into the realm of "well, it depends on what the definition of 'is' is". It was a filibuster of a nominee to the Supreme Court, which our side is claiming now is unprecedented. It doesn't help to have the argument if we have to do backflips with qualifiers out the wazoo. Simply make the argument that the filibuster shouldn't have been used then and shouldn't be used now and change the rule as you are Constitutionally empowered to do.
I'm talking about "constitutionality" and "unprecedented", Howlin. If an "up-or-down vote" is required by the Constitution, how does the committee fit into that scheme? If committee procedural tactics can be used to deny a vote, why can't floor procedural tactics serve the same purpose?
Good for you. I sincerely hope that Sen. Chambliss is keeping up w/all the fluctuations of these renegade rinos.
OK Corral....Noon!!!
Why don't you go pick up YOUR copy of the Constitution and find the words "Judiciary Committee" in the original one.
Fine. According to your argument, the procedures for approving all judges in modern times were unconstitutional.
I don't think you should worry where Kristol is concerned---he is too proud of himself--
Do you think he would come on Tv and say he doesn't know anything? Nah, he had to spin something to make himself look important!
Oh goody, Kit Bond up---he is a straight talker!
Interesting point...my comment was a joke, as I trust you know...however..you are absolutely correct that the VP candidate has to be a male, and most probably a governor..and it can't be a liberal state..you'll never have two senators on the ticket again, and forget a member of the House...so..where's the list of Dem governors?..Vilsak? He's the only one that comes to mind..
I am.
Dan
(c8
He wasn't talking about now. He was talking about his feelings then, when he was Maj Leader.
The GOP leadership is unwavering on this matter of principle. THey figured out what has been obvious to many of us, here, for years. And now they are carrying it out in such a way that the result will be durable.
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.