Skip to comments.
(DAY-2) LIVE U.S. SENATE "Nuclear" THREAD: for judicial nominations: C-span 2 - 9:30 am EST
http://www.c-span.org ^
| http://www.c-span.org
| http://www.c-span.org
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...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Government
KEYWORDS: 109th; 8hoursearly; constitutionaloption; democratnukereaction; filibuster; may19th2005; obstructionistdems; reidsnuclearreaction; showdown
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 881-900, 901-920, 921-940 ... 3,721-3,738 next last
To: princess leah
You can't reason with crybabys. The dems look like spoiled brats.
901
posted on
05/19/2005 10:17:40 AM PDT
by
Bullish
To: CharlesWayneCT
Explain away this:
On June 13, 1787, it was originally proposed that judges be appointed by the national Legislature, and that was rejected; Madison objected and made the alternative motion that appointments be made by the Senate, and that was at first approved. Madison specifically proposed that a supermajority be required for judicial appointments but this was rejected. On July 18, Nathaniel Ghorum made the alternative motion that the Judges be appointed by the Executive with the advice & consent of the 2d branch, (following on the practice in Massachusetts at that time). Finally, on Friday, September 7, 1787, the Convention approved the final Appointments Clause, making the president primary and the Senate (alone) secondary, with a role of advice and consent. NOTABLY WITHOUT SUPERMAJORITY LANGUAGE. The Founders understood what plain language meant. The absence of "supermajority" determined that "majority" was meant. Period. Take a look at articles in (link for one is in following post): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1406147/posts?page=37#37
902
posted on
05/19/2005 10:17:59 AM PDT
by
AFPhys
((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
To: Mo1; Peach; Howlin
Here's something to ponder..after the 2006 election, when the Dems lose more seats in the House and Senate, can the Dems go into the 2008 WH race with Dean, Reid, and Pelosi as the leadership..the face of the party?..Obviously not..so all three get tossed..but who replaced them. You're gonna see a huge intraparty fight...
903
posted on
05/19/2005 10:19:15 AM PDT
by
ken5050
(Ann Coulter needs to have children ASAP to pass on her gene pool....any volunteers?)
To: Fudd Fan
Lott is on board with Frist completely here. He is not as spineless as his supercritics lead you to believe.
904
posted on
05/19/2005 10:19:28 AM PDT
by
AFPhys
((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
To: All
Go Jeff Go! He is smacking the Dems good now!
905
posted on
05/19/2005 10:19:36 AM PDT
by
defconw
To: MamaLucci
LOL!
Fastpitch eh,....sports are good for kids.....
906
posted on
05/19/2005 10:19:36 AM PDT
by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
(This tagline no longer operative....floated away in the flood of 2005 ,)
To: Bullish
You can't reason with crybabysRight! THey need indefinite time-outs.
907
posted on
05/19/2005 10:19:54 AM PDT
by
Fudd Fan
(red, red voter in a blue, blue state)
To: CharlesWayneCT
Forgivew my ignorance, but does this mean that when dems say they will stop all legislative activity, they are really shooting themselves in the foot- if they don't show up, those that do will simply pass legislation without any opposition?
To: Cboldt
Please help me here. Here is the Clause:
Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Here is what I am having problems comprehending:
but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
What is meant by "vest the Appointment"?
909
posted on
05/19/2005 10:20:33 AM PDT
by
Eagle of Liberty
("Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein)
To: Miss Marple
Good grandma...I'm very comfortable now with warming the bottle..
910
posted on
05/19/2005 10:20:47 AM PDT
by
ken5050
(Ann Coulter needs to have children ASAP to pass on her gene pool....any volunteers?)
To: AFPhys
I'm trusting you're correct... I just still have a bad taste from all the shared power after the 2000 election. That was total bs.
911
posted on
05/19/2005 10:21:08 AM PDT
by
Fudd Fan
(red, red voter in a blue, blue state)
To: AFPhys
If he wasn't he would be out there turning the tables on Reid, like the lefties did to him....something like,
"This morning, The minority leader was quoted making a thinly veiled racial epithet at Justice Brown, saying in fact,
"When Americans think of a scary person in a black robe, they should be thinking of Darth Vader, not Republican choices for judges"
"Frankly I was astounded that the man who was just chastised for calling the President a loser, would engage in race baiting unparalleled by a US Senator since Senator Byrd said that he would not fight,"with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
912
posted on
05/19/2005 10:21:41 AM PDT
by
hobbes1
(Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you dont have to...." ;)
To: maxter
913
posted on
05/19/2005 10:21:57 AM PDT
by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
(This tagline no longer operative....floated away in the flood of 2005 ,)
To: CharlesWayneCT
The best way to look at this is probably by going back to the Congressional record and start actually looking at the counts. Many times they say 2/3 concurring or whatever. But you have to examine it in a special way...There were only the Colonial States at the time, we were a One Party system (which would soon change) and it was difficult to get there. I think I remember votes being taken with just the necessary quorum present and a majority vote (or whatever) of those present as sufficient. But you can see the procedures quite clearly.
If I'm wrong on any of this, mea culpa...It's from memory.
914
posted on
05/19/2005 10:21:59 AM PDT
by
Sacajaweau
(God Bless Our Troops!!)
To: Fudd Fan
Right! THey need indefinite time-outs.After a good hard spanking.
915
posted on
05/19/2005 10:22:30 AM PDT
by
Bullish
To: Fudd Fan
Is there a running list anywheres of who has already spoken, on both sides?
916
posted on
05/19/2005 10:22:58 AM PDT
by
ken5050
(Ann Coulter needs to have children ASAP to pass on her gene pool....any volunteers?)
To: Bullish
I think this retreat Sessions is talking about is the one that took place in Aspen CO.(IIRC)
917
posted on
05/19/2005 10:23:22 AM PDT
by
OXENinFLA
("And that [Atomic] bomb is a filibuster" ~~~ Sen. Lieberman 1-4-95)
To: Kerretarded
What is meant by "vest the Appointment"? "give control" of or "give authority for" the appointment.
918
posted on
05/19/2005 10:23:44 AM PDT
by
RobFromGa
(Enact Constitutional Option Now!)
To: ken5050
Dunno... I missed 95% of this morning's festivities.
919
posted on
05/19/2005 10:23:45 AM PDT
by
Fudd Fan
(red, red voter in a blue, blue state)
To: soloNYer
** Heard a caller on C-Span this morning say "I am a Democrat, always vote Democrat...although I do vote for McCain." **
That's pretty funny. McCain needs some demos to vote for him since Republicans don't want to do it. Maybe McCain won his last election with Demo votes. No wonder a Demo can't beat McCain. hehehehe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 881-900, 901-920, 921-940 ... 3,721-3,738 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