Democrats say "NO" after vote. (the rats!)

Atlanta Journal Constitution | 11-15-02 | Anon

[tet68]

The majority 10 democrats on the Senate Judiciary committee on Thursday engaged in a voting maneuver so extraordinary that some of the senators themselves were unsure what happened.

First, they allowed one of President Bush's conservative judicial nominees to be approved by a voice vote.

Then, one by one, all the Democrats present asked that they be recorded as having voted against the nominee, District Court Judge Dennis Shedd.

In effect the Democrats arranged it so they are now recorded as voting against Shedd after failing to make any effort to block his confirmation. Many Senate veteran staff aides and lobbyists said they could not recall a similar event in Washington.

The committee sent the U.S. Appeals court Nominations of Shedd and University of Utah professor Michael McConnell to the full Senate after having delayed the two men before the midterm elections.

[Howlin]

Liars.

And I want John Edwards to know one thing; we will NOT forget this in North Carolina.

Darlin', we were right; they didn't want to go "on the record!"

[uncbob]

Senators approve of nominee, yet get on record as having said "no". The Democrat party is fully Clinonized. Dirty opportunists. This should be spead all over the media for the rank-and-file Democrats to see and then dispair.

wonder how the mental cases at the DU web site are taking this ( If they know about it )

[demkicker]

"Perhaps Trent Lott as a conciliatory gesture to the Dems will kill the nominee. That would show us all he's back in the saddle."

Bwahahahaha! That's a good one:)

[timestax]

They are SICK !!

[Redcloak]

This isn't something to get mad about. You should be laughing yourself silly. The Dems are now so rattled that they can't even muster the courage to give a straight vote. They haven't the guts to stand up to either the President or their own party. They've been reduced to a pack of cowering weasels.

[Howlin]

Was I right, or was I right? :-)

[Dog Gone]

You nailed it.

[k2blader]

Silly me, I didn't know such a maneuver was legal...

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

So, basically, the nomination was sent to the full Senate by a vote of 9 in favor vs. 10 opposed. Only the dems could come up with math like that.

[MonroeDNA]

Good thing that Trent Lott is the (once again) majority Leader. He will not put up with this nonsense.

And monkeys might fly out of my butt.

[fuquadukie]

So, basically, the nomination was sent to the full Senate by a vote of 9 in favor vs. 10 opposed. Only the dems could come up with math like that.

There's that 19 again! "Luie" comes up with same math.

[anniegetyourgun]

Bingo! Sniveling little men and women.

[Saundra Duffy]

The voice vote was the official committe vote.

Are you sure?

[edsheppa]

So why didn't the Rs ask to have it recorded that each individual D was present and did not object to the nominee? It sounds like you can anything at all recorded, true or false.

[Dog Gone]

Yes, I've read that in at least two other reports today.

[jeremiah]

Lott rides sidesaddle.

[hellinahandcart]

Get THIS! Democrats Let Right-Wing Judge Move Forward, THEN Ask to Be Recorded as Voting NO. What Kind of Cowardly, Despicable, Disgusting Garbage is That? Holy Cripe! Where's The Spine!? 11/15

ROFL. I guess it IS possible to find common ground with the left every now and then. >:@

Things that make you go "Huh?"...

[tonyinv]

Is there a link?

[uncbob]

Depends on you definition of RIGHT

[henbane]

The voice vote was the official committee vote.

Are you sure?

Incredible as it seems, the RAT slimebags still have some venom left in their Judiciary Committee poison sacs.

Check out:

DEMOCRATS VOTE NO, BUT ALLOW JUDICIAL NOMINEE TO ADVANCE