Today's Toons 5/24/05
various | 5/24/05 | various
Posted on 05/24/2005 2:36:42 AM PDT by pookie18
Posted on 05/24/2005 2:46:51 AM PDT by Liz
The real winner in the Senate judge deal could be President Bush — because it opens the way for Congress to finally start getting things done.
Right after the deal was unveiled, Democrats were visibly relieved while Republican conservatives were livid, fuming about a "cave" by centrists led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Talk radio and conservative bloggers went wild.
Why? Because the odds were that if push came to shove, Republicans would have had the votes to kill all filibusters of judicial nominees and humiliate Democratic leaders.
No wonder Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) was cheering, even though the deal guarantees confirmation of jurists Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owens and William Pryor — all of whom he's blasted as unacceptable extremists.
"Armageddon has been averted, and thank God," said Schumer, well aware that Democrats could have come off much worse.
That's why conservative Republican activists in the key states of Iowa and New Hampshire are already vowing revenge against McCain if he runs for president in 2008. But the White House put on a positive spin — after all, Bush will now get three of his top-priority appeals court judges confirmed.
And, if the Senate had come to what Democrats called "the nuclear option" — a vote to strip them of filibuster power over judges — all hope for cooperation in the Senate would be over.
Now the success of the judge deal could encourage centrist Democrats — perhaps Sens. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.) — to start working toward compromise on other issues, as Bush has been hoping.
A Democratic staffer predicted one result will be the confirmation of Bush's controversial nominee for U.N. ambassador, John Bolton "No one is going to want to filibuster him now," the staffer conceded.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I'm betting we not only get the votes, but we get the judges.
I think that the most probably liberal R Senators worth making an example of are Chaffee, Collins, and Snowe. I would not be happy about setting Collins adrift, because she is relatively predictable - and often is a good conservative voter.
The Nuclear Option is off the table for today but it will be back.The rethugs are taking it back to the shop to re-work it and retrofit it so they can unveil the all new and improved model when the supreme court wars begin. At that point, they will unveil the all new:
"CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION"- new and improved for Joe six-pack.
The spinning has already begun. Tweety used the term last night. Lindsey Graham was on MSNBC talking about starting over. Sure they want a do-over because they lost the frame the issue game.
They are using Judo on us. "yielding is strength, that fighters should bend like a bamboo, then strike back"
I'm thinking more in canine terms.
Seriously, though, when the rush of Supreme Court changes (Scalia to Chief Justice) and appointments begin will the dems try their tricks again? May be wrong, but I doubt it. I also wanted to see their faces rubbed in a fresh steamy pile, but have to grudgingly admit that this may work out.
Frist is playing "bad cop", so to speak. The whole purpose of this exercise is to get votes on Bush's nominees. The best way for that to happen is for dems to fear that Frist will invoke the nuke option. That was what brought the dems to the table and it's what will keep them in line in the future.
Retaining the "right" to commit suicide is hardly power.
Orrin Hatch on Tony Snow's show hates the idea..
Well, let's hope you're right.
I would much prefer to have seen the rules changed back to what they had been for 200 years.
Today's Toons 5/24/05
various | 5/24/05 | various
Posted on 05/24/2005 2:36:42 AM PDT by pookie18
He is so annoying, Filled to the gills with self-righteous pomposity.
Am I the only one who heard Reid say last night that the Dems would fillibuster Meyers?
Just to clarify, the rules ARE what they've been for 200 years (well, 80 years, anyway).
It was POSSIBLE to filibuster a judicial nominee under existing rules, it just wasn't done. The dems' filibusters broke tradition, not the rules.
I was referring to the simple majority rules, not the super majority rules.
Since the president asked for a simple up or down vote, repeatedly, for ALL the nominees, I still can't see that it's a good plan that names have been dropped from the list of promised up or down votes.
I'm trying to see an upside to this but am struggling.
Senator Cornyn had this to say in National Review online:
Conservatives have good reason to be unhappy with the agreement announced last night concerning the Senate’s judicial-confirmation process. The agreement does not guarantee up-or-down votes on all of President Bush’s judicial nominees, nor does it restore the Senate’s unswerving 214-year tradition of majority vote for all judicial nominees. In addition, the agreement attempts to rewrite Article II of the Constitution, by giving the Senate an advise-and-consent role in the nomination, as well as the appointment, of judges (see here and here for more). Our objectives are still within reach, however. As one of the signatories to the agreement made clear last night, the agreement does not foreclose the use of the Byrd option in the event that the filibuster continues to be abused.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1409364/posts
The voters in AZ will not rid us of McCain. He has a very good pro-life record that will pull him up in any R primary, and Democrats and "moderates" just love him. He can not be challenged effectively by anybody in AZ.
I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
I started thinking about all the talk of "controversial decisions" by judges. I know what I (and most Freepers) consider a controversial opinion: instructing the MA legislature to write legislation on gay marriage, declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, juvenile death penalty, relying on international law, etc.
I feel comfortable asserting that a vast majority of American voters would agree with my list.
But what is the liberal perspective? If one asked a liberal to list controversial rulings by conservative judges, could they come up with a list that would garner agreement from voters? Perhaps it's my conservative bias, but the only one I can think of is Judge Roy Moore and the Ten Commandments...and he wasn't a federal judge (Thank God).
It may seem like a small point, but I think this might be something the pubbies ought to research.
This deal was only possible because 7 Dem senators had to admit their party has abused their "minority rights" by invoking the filibuster against Bush's judges. That's what the compromise boils down to.
This was only a battle in a war that's been raging for a long time. The Dems' strongest weapon in recent years has been SPIN (given the media's complicity with their obstructionism). Last night they surrendered that weapon. Without going into all the details, it's going to be virtually impossible for Reid to tag future nominees as "extraordinary" (extreme). Also, keep in mind that the media and the dems have been trying to convince us that the public supported the dems' filibustering. But, if that were true, they would never have caved. They realized, once the nuke vote was taken and the public witnessed up/down votes taking place, the public would swing and say "Oh, that seems fair".
As for Frist, his backbone made this deal possible. Without his steely determination, the Dems would never have come to the table. Frist had the votes, Reid didn't. Believing Frist would pull the trigger, the dems capitulated rather than face defeat.
Though I despise having to put up with media adulation of McCain, I think public attitudes will favor the GOP after they see votes take place on Bush's nominees. After that, it will be extremely difficult for the dems to gin up this battle again.
----
I had to repost your whole take on this. I think it possibly is the most accurate way to look at this. Going forward, the way it actually is implemented could affect my further thinking, but as for now, I'm really optimistic about the chances. Someday, we still have to determine that the Constitution actually says that a simple majority of Senators is all that is required for Advise&Consent, but for now that need may be muted.
`
Nope ;-)
My comment was "Bwahahahahahahaa"
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.
