Will be following throughout the day. Thanks for starting the thread! :>)!
What time will they start?
I have a question. Didn't Frist say that he would force senators to debate until 11:00 last night? What happened?
I watched part of this for several hours yesterday -
Very Sad but very telling how the democrats believe that the courts should be the creators of law. It is blindly clear that they think if they can control the courts then they still have a chance at controlling the country.
What is sad is they choose to ignore the fact that they lost two elections and the people are tired of courts like the 9th and want the process stopped.
It makes me sick - but then a lot of thing s do.
Let the games begin!
bttt
More jaw-jaw. When can Frist move for a final confirmation vote to be taken?
I'm listening to Feinstein. She's worried that the Court could rule legislation unconstitutional. What's at stake is the radical New Deal, Great Society and 1970's social legislation. This is Kennedy's concern too on the Unitary Executive issue becuase it will wrest control from the buerocracy and turn it back to the people's representatives.
We've heard from almost every democrat that the Supreme Court protects us from excessive Executive Power, but when the Court dares to pare back excessive Legislative Power, well that just can't be allowed.
I watched Kerry and Hatch last night on C-Span. Kerry was, as ever, vacuous. Hatch was good but too long-winded and too soft in how he delivered his rebuffs to his lying and/or deliberately misleading Democratic colleagues.
He did ping Kennedy and Schumer plenty of times - but without the emphasis that would have produced some telling sound bites.
The way Frist now appears to have structured the debate simply guarantees that we will have more hot air.
So...she thinks it's "okay" for her to get down to specifics, but she doesn't like Alito to be specific in applying the law.
Hypocrite.
Such a statement completely glosses over the real fact that the World Trade Center was attacked in 1993, and neither her Party, which was in control then, nor her Party's Leader reacted, nor did they do what was necessary to detect terrorists, nor to defend us against their numerous subsequent attacks on America!
Had President Clinton not allowed Jamie Gorelick to erect the "wall" we've heard much about, preventing the sharing of intelligence information, had Al Gore been "clued in" when he headed the Commission on Airlines Safety, or had President Clinton been attentive enough to suspect that perhaps terrorists were living among us all those years and communicating back and forth with their counterparts overseas, and had he taken seriously his duty to defend American citizens from attacks and authorized monitoring of those conversations, perhaps 3,000 people might not have had to die.
Feinstein and her Party failed us when they had the opportunity to defend us. When will they be called to account for that?
I like Coburn.
Aye = 52 Nay = 23
4 GOP yet to commit: 21 DEM yet to commit:
Chaffee Akaka Johnson
Collins Bayh Landrieu
Snowe Bingaman Lautenberg
Stevens Byrd Levin
Cantwell Lieberman
Carper Lincoln
Conrad Menendez
Dayton Pryor
Dorgan Rockefeller
Inouye Sarbanes
Jeffords
DEM Crossover = 1 GOP Crossover = 0
Nelson (NE)
Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the time from 10 a.m. until 8 p.m. tonight be divided, with the time from 10 to 11 under the control of the majority leader or his designee, the time from 11 to noon under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee, with each hour rotating back and forth in that same manner. I further ask unanimous consent that on Thursday this same division occur, with the first hour from 10 to 11 under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee.
Here! Thanks for the thread.
Inouye, a democrat representing Hawaii, is speaking next. He is somewhat moderate, and a gang of 14 member. Will be interesting to see where he falls, though if he is being allowed by the democrats to speak first during their debate hour, I imagine he'll announce his opposition to Samuel Alito.
In his Autobiography, Jefferson recalled: "Sitting near me on some occasion of a trifling but wordy debate, he asked how I could sit in silence hearing so much false reasoning which a word should refute? I observed to him that to refute indeed was easy, but to silence impossible. That in measures brought forward by myself, I took the laboring oar, as was incumbent on me; but that in general I was willing to listen. If every sound argument or objection was used by some one or other of the numerous debaters, it was enough: if not, I thought it sufficient to suggest the omission, without going into a repetition of what had been already said by others. That this was a waste and abuse of the time and patience of the house which could not be justified. And I believe that if the members of deliberative bodies were to observe this course generally, they would do in a day what takes them a week, and it is really more questionable, than may at first be thought, whether Bonaparte's dumb legislature which said nothing and did much, may not be preferable to one which talks much and does nothing.
"I served with General Washington in the legislature of Virginia before the revolution, and, during it, with Dr. Franklin in Congress. I never heard either of them speak ten minutes at a time, nor to any but the main point which was to decide the question. They laid their shoulders to the great points, knowing that the little ones would follow of themselves. If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send 150 lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, & talk by the hour? That 150 lawyers should do business together ought not to be expected."
(End of quotation)