Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DWPittelli; briansb; MAK1179
"Yes, the Dems punted. And to do that they had to agree to allow 3 judges, while the Repubs did not concede any judges.

Watch closely. You're about to learn how to read between the lines.

We just got screwed out of our one chance to impact the next 40 years of judicial decisions.

Unless W has the balls to override this BS compromise and marshal whatever forces remain loyal, it's over.... period.

Cheers,
Lloyd

443 posted on 05/23/2005 4:51:23 PM PDT by Lloyd227 (American Forces armed with what? Spit balls?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies ]


To: Lloyd227

Didn't the guy on Fox just say that the Dumbs now cannot say that future nominees are outside of the mainstream if they agree to confirm these three judges? Sounds like at least a partial win to me.


486 posted on 05/23/2005 4:53:07 PM PDT by WestVirginiaRebel (Carnac: A siren, a baby and a liberal. Answer: Name three things that whine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies ]

To: Lloyd227

**Yes, the Dems punted. And to do that they had to agree to allow 3 judges, while the Repubs did not concede any judges.**

>Watch closely. You're about to learn how to read between the lines. We just got screwed out of our one chance to impact the next 40 years of judicial decisions.<

Why? Three -- Owens, Rogers-Brown and Pryor, are going to be brought up.

Presumably they will get an up or down vote.

Let's say they pass. That presents the possibility for President Bush to nominate the first African American woman to go to the Supreme Court.

Do you think those are the last judges that will be brought up in the near future? I don't believe that the president is going to stop nominating judges.

Let's say the next batch comes up, including, say, a conservative Hispanic. The same issues will arise.

Let's say theyt all get votes. Most would probably pass, and some would not -- just like always. And if none get filibustered, how is this a bad deal?

Me... I prefer the constitutional option. I am not ecstatic about this, but I also am not morose.

Looks like the GOP got three judges through, and the GOP leaders did not have to promise that they would not try to change the rules in the future -- just as the Democrats did not promise that they would never filibuster.

Both sides punted until after a vacancy appears on the SCOTUS.

-George


659 posted on 05/23/2005 5:04:24 PM PDT by Calif Conservative (RWR and GWB backer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies ]

To: Lloyd227

I don't think that the president can override this, but the rest of your take is correct.


734 posted on 05/23/2005 5:12:03 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson