Posted on 05/25/2005 4:04:22 AM PDT by ken5050
Good morning all. Senate convenes at 9:30 am this morning, to vote on the nomination of Priscilla Owen. I've started the thread early, as I have to leave for a few hours, but also to give us a place to start commenting early on the events of yesterday....
yup , I'm with you! ,... talk about a Tyranny of the Minority , 14 !!
Mr. DURKIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. INOUYE) is necessarily absent.
I'd still like to know what his excuse for the being there is.
Frist is basically acting the deal was never made, he will pull the trigger when they filibuster again and you know they will. Even Warner conceded that!
She will vote nay.
Hill may vote yes, she's trying to distance herself from the rest of the freaks!
Are you sure that was Durbin?
I'll take under at 53 (McShame and Chafee Dish join all 45 DemonRATs in "No").
Nope
Is this what you're talking about?
I was listening to Bill Bennett's radio show this morning, and a caller noted that the dems had already breached the agreement by the gang of 14. The agreement provided that all of the signers would vote in favor of cloture on Priscilla Owen. However, Daniel In-No-Way failed to vote apparently. He didn't vote against cloture, as I understand it, he just didn't vote. That violated the agreement (for what it is worth).
Just a note. Let's see how they vote today.
He agreed to not engage in filibuster, but he voted against the cloture motion yesterday.
Actually, he didn't vote at all (which is a distinction without a difference except to the DemonRATs and the LeftStreamMedia).
It's "under the steamroller" (a bus has too much clearance).
This, and the new emerging role of advise (i.e. consultation of the President and Senate prior to nominee submission) that is the new mantra of the partisans will prevail. I predict a straight party line vote on the up-or-down.
Remember, they want "consultation rather than confrontation", and "mainstream jurists" for "lifetime postitions on the federal bench." The fillibuster is being saved for Supreme Court nominees.
> Mr. DURKIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr.
> INOUYE) is necessarily absent.
I'd still like to know what his excuse for the being there is.
So not only did Inouye not show up and thus break the deal, he got his DemonRAT friends to lie so he can't be docked for the day he took off.
LOL!
Maybe, but I think the Dems want to keep the approval vote under 60 if at all possible. Otherwise it shoots down their previous actions of preventing cloture on Owen repeatedly. If Owen receives over 60 votes, the question needs to be asked of those Dems who voted for her, why did they vote against cloture previously.
And who is Durkin?
for the being there is. = for not being there is....
oops
What about the possibility of a spoken-only agreement to vote down these three nominees?
Some commentators are crowing that it will be harder to filibuster future nominees because these three will get confirmation and are the most "offensive" of the lot. What if the Seagrams 7 sold their votes and the Democrats can show by their Senate defeat how horrible the nominees were?
Not that the Dems care about being hypocrite's!
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.