Posted on 05/25/2005 12:01:41 PM PDT by JZelle
The arithmetic tells the story. The Democrats won the battle over who gets to shape the federal judiciary. In both tone and substance of their rhetoric, the Democrats believe they won, and who can argue with them? The Republican leadership is subdued, as befits a losers' locker room. The Republicans will pay dearly for the events of Monday night, when seven Democratic and seven Republican senators took over the leadership of the Senate, for a long time to come. Since the Republicans occupy the White House and command what ought to be a solid Senate majority of 55 members, this should have been no contest. But for the sixth and seventh Republican defections, the GOP would have had a rare, even historic, opportunity under the Constitution to nominate and approve, in up-or-down votes, highly qualified judges for the nation's highest courts. Because John McCain, John Warner, Lincoln Chafee, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Mike DeWine abandoned their leaders in the Senate and snubbed the president, that historic opportunity was lost. The deal immediately affects five "pending" appellate-court nominees. The agreement would allow floor votes to proceed for three: Priscilla Owen for the 5th Circuit, Janice Rogers Brown for the D.C. Circuit and William Pryor for the 11th Circuit. The deal immediately dooms the nominations of two others, William Myers III for the 9th Circuit and Henry Saad for the 6th Circuit, by permitting the seven Democratic senators to continue their party's filibusters against them. In addition to these five, Democrats had filibustered five other appellate-court nominees during the 108th Congress, three of whose names were subsequently withdrawn. Democrats threatened to filibuster half a dozen others.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
sure, Frist can do that. then you will simply see these 7 Rs start voting some of the judges down in a straight vote. the deal is set, these Rs know exactly what they are supposed to do.
The Rehnquist replacement will not be challenged - replacing him with a conservative is an "even trade". its when a currently pro-Roe SC justice leaves, and Bush tries to replace him/her with an anti-Roe one, that the fillibuster will be used by the Dems (successfully).
There's one problem with that, the horrible clause in the deal that says President Bush should consult with senators from both parties before he nominates any new judicial candidates. If he nominates somebody like Janice Rodgers Brown without going through with this unconstititional approval process, then the DemonRats can call this a violation of the MOU even though Bush didn't agree to the MOU and say it authorizes them to fillibuster. The MOU is just like AIDS for the Republican Party, a gift that keeps on giving.
(Guess this is as good a place as any for a first post):
The Republicans gave up nothing. We get our up or down vote and maintain the status quo sans Dem obstruction. We just allowed the Dems to save face by permitting them a facade of a victory. There is no substance to the "agreement" at all.
Someone please explain to me what we gave up. We got everything we want and gave zilch. The constitutional/nuclear option is still on the table the next time the Dems pull the filibuster crap on judicial picks.
The sixth is Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.
The Socialists (dems) will use the "nuclear option" and eliminate the judicial filibuster and put in their left wing activist judges.
Remember to the socialists (dems), the end justifies the means. They don't worry about getting bad press because they know the press won't call them on it. Quite the contrary the press will remind the people how the Republicans wanted to eliminate the filibuster but because of GOP ineptnes they couldn't get their own party to go along with it. Can't blame the socialists(dems) for getting the job done.
The socialists will laugh at the inept Republicans who left so many judgeship's for them to fill. - Tom
See, this is the problem: we're screaming about this result instead of claiming the victory ourselves. The Dems (who have basically abandoned their plans to block Bush appointees) can now say they've "thwarted the right-wing plot to destroy the filibuster" or whatever.
WRONG! The left has so much at stake (not to mention they are a wholly owned subsidiary of Soros et al.,) that they have no intention of letting the first replacement slip in without a fight. If they permit Rehnquist to be replaced by a conservative, they have everything riding on the 2nd pick that they CANNOT lose. Lose that battle and they have lost the war.
As the article says, we lost 5 judges last year, two were arbitrarily axed by this "compromise" and more are likely to be lost. How can you say we lost nothing? We've been losing this issue for almost 5 years now. Who in the Senate should give "advice and consent," a majority, a minority, or a super-minority? If you said a super-minority then you are happy. Everyone else is mad.
The 7 Rino's invoked GWB into a contract without his consent the way I see it, just a student of business law here, and correct me if I am wrong, this is an illegal contract.
Screw-um, throw the 7 overboard, give them the $ to join the DNC and let us start over. They are useless as tits on a bull and I am sitting on my hands in 06' because of them and I have emailed the GOP Chairman and let him know so, we won my ass....
we'll see.
It will be hard for all 7 Rs (we only need two of them) on the compromise team to oppose the rules change on the fillibuster of the Rehnquist replacement. But it could happen.
The Dems can't control this directly, its only the level of control they are able to exercise over the 7 RINOs that can get them to the finish line. They certainly controlled them for this first round, and I have no doubt they could do it also for a conservative replacement for Ginsburg for example. But on Rehnquist, I am not so sure.
Only if you don't give a rap about up or down votes on every nominee. Only if it is fine with you to let the Senate Democrats (aided by RINOs) usurp the president's constitutional prerogative to nominate candidates to the judiciary (and not from a list drawn up and approved by People for the American Way or the A.C.L.U.)
I have written John Warner, my shameful Senator in this action, and told him that I will make every effort to see him replaced... I urge anyone who has a Senator that is one of the seven to take a few moments and express your views with the indication that this action will not be forgotten...
Time for John Warner to retire...
But the seven RINOs are interested in exactly the same things that the Democrats are interested in - making certain that the only changes to abortion are ones that do away with any and all restrictions, and that the courts set policy (legislate from the bench) gay marriage and any and all cultural issues that the lefties love and cannot pass through legislatures.
Since there are only two viable parties, what do you suggest?
I know, but remember that McCain and Graham claim they are pro-life. I think the other 5 are openly pro-choice (correct me if I am wrong, I am not sure about DeWine). The pro-lifers want some cover on this, so they won't deal to support the Dems on Rehnquist because its an even trade and would expose them. But on some other SC nominee, to replace a currently pro-Roe justice, they will find some other reason to support the Dems.
Bottom line, we will never get Roe tossed with the Senate as currently constructed. No chance.
What are you talking about? There were ten nominations being held up by the Rats. We only got 3 votes. That's 30%, not a victory in my book, for sure!
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.