Idiot GOP Senate Set to Shaft Estrada?

rushlimbaugh ^ | 2/28/2003 | rushlimbaugh

[Howlin]

Doesn't it give people the opportunity to point out and to learn that the story is false? How is that not doing good for people?

And yet those of us who continually try to point out the continued falsehoods being posting on this forum are branded as "harpies," "mean-spirited," and "disruptors."

[aristeides]

Still sounds like a Constitutional amendment by fiat, no?

Not to me. What the Constitution ordains is that the appointment be a lifetime one where the president and the Senate agree on a candidate.

[TLBSHOW]

The offices of Senators Santorum and Hatch rang up my office on Friday, and said that the Fox story is not accurate. There will be no cloture vote.

Rush Limbaugh 2/28/2003

In an exclusive interview with Fox News, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he sees no other options but to press for a vote to break the Democrats' filibuster. A decision is expected Monday and a vote could come as early as mid-week next week.

Fox News 2/28/2003

[Howlin]

and its clear to me that the Gop was going to cave until the outrage from Rush against the GOP was on his show for almost 2 hours yesterday and the calls started to pour in about the peoples outrage

Total, unadulterated BS.

Next you'll be saying that YOUR posting on FR is what caused the whole thing.

Rush went with a story that was WRONG -- even Rush said HE was wrong; and now you're here trying to make it something that it isn't. As usual, you're willing to go to any exteme to make your point.

Totally bogus.

[aristeides]

Maybe that sort of thing wouldn't be said if you discussed the content of postings you disagree with, instead of attacking the posters.

[Political Junkie Too]

seems to me your accusation of lying does a lot more to destroy people's reputation than the stories here that you don't like.

First of all, I am not in that camp.

Secondly, I was addressing your comment that there is good in printing false stories because of what people learn by rooting out the falsity. To that point I turned the question around as a personal hypothetical: would you feel the same way if the falsity was directed at you, because of what people would learn when the falsity was pointed out (if ever)?

I apologize if the hypothetical intent of the comment wasn't obvious. Reread post 171 and my reply and you'll see what I mean.

-PJ

[Howlin]

The offices of Senators Santorum and Hatch rang up my office on Friday, and said that the Fox story is not accurate.

Thank you; you proved MY point for me.

And yet YOU continue to post tripe like this:

and its clear to me that the Gop was going to cave until the outrage from Rush against the GOP was on his show for almost 2 hours yesterday and the calls started to pour in about the peoples outrage

Now, Rush said on the air EXACTLY what happened.

Why are YOU continuing to lie about it?

[justshe]

"...and its clear to me that the Gop was going to cave until the outrage from Rush against the GOP was on his show for almost 2 hours yesterday and the calls started to pour in about the peoples outrage.

And therein is the reason so many have been discussing this issue with you, Todd.

It was a false story that the GOP was going to cave.

You admit on one thread that you understand that and say you were wrong.

And yet....on this thread you state the 'cave of the GOP' was real and only Rush and the outrage of the people stopped this cave.

Thank you....now we can stop trying to discuss this issue with you. You have made your position crystal clear.

Either you were dishonest when you stated you had been mistaken on the other thread....and earlier on this thread, or you are dishonest with the statement right here.

Which brings us full circle to questioning.....WHY?

[TLBSHOW]

lol

[TLBSHOW]

discuss why the gop was going to cave instead..

In an exclusive interview with Fox News, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he sees no other options but to press for a vote to break the Democrats' filibuster. A decision is expected Monday and a vote could come as early as mid-week next week.

Fox News 2/28/2003

[capitan_refugio]

I've been looking for the rules. Where did you find them? Thanks.

[Howlin]

Maybe that sort of thing wouldn't be said if you discussed the content of postings you disagree with, instead of attacking the posters

How many ways are there to say the story was INACCURATE?

Why don't you spend a little less time criticizing those of us who are interested in the truth being posted on this forum and spend a little time asking yourself what this particular poster continues to post LIES even in the face of the truth?

[Howlin]

It could be both, did you ever think of that? :-)

[Political Junkie Too]

On point (1), I think the Democrats have already set the precedent by mounting the filibuster.

Maybe I'm being anal here (it won't be the first time), but is a filibuster not a filibuster until it is attempted to shut it off? The House has a cloture rule that automatically ends debate; the Senate has a cloture vote that allows for unlimited debate. Until someone tries to stop debate, it is just debate. Once an attempt to stop debate fails and debate continues, wouldn't that then become filibuster?

On point (2), if the Constitution's "advice and consent" language doesn't permit filibusters, then the filibuster of Abe Fortas in 1968 was unconstitutional. I've never heard anybody argue that.

I looked up Foras' brief bio on an on-line almanac site, and I think the differentiation is this: Fortas was already on the Supreme Court. The filibuster was on his appointment as Chief Justice.

[Howlin]

deport can find literally anyhing!

[justshe]

That is splitting a very fine hair, imo.

[TLBSHOW]

The Senate members in all of their supposed wisdom do not understand their duties, much less the entire Constitution. That is painfully obvious when they speak and write. Their duties are advice and consent with nothing more and nothing less. The word advice causes a bit of a problem but the definition of it is to give opinion and on that they fall short of understanding. They think their duty is to dictate to the President what person is sent or who is not sent for consent. The duty they have is part of the balance to protect the Constitution, not an exercise in choosing those with the proper socialist ideology, which they favor.

Every President takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. It is his sworn duty to send to the Senate nominees for the Supreme Court who are well grounded and well versed in the United States Constitution in all respects. Those nominated are not to have an agenda other than ruling by the words contained in the document to stop or prevent unconstitutional acts by the other two branches or states when called upon to do so. Conversely, if the President does not send qualified nominees, the Senate is within its power to give advice and refuse their consent. That happened when FDR tied to pack the court with his cronies so that his socialist agenda would have legal backing. (Being shut off from a scheme to regulate farm products during the depression, FDR tried to load the court with cronies to make an end run against the Constitution. That would have forged an unholy alliance destructive to every freedom we have.)

Now what is advice? It is simply a message to the President to send those who understand the Constitution and will follow it; then and only then can they give consent. Advice and consent is one of the checks on presidential power that would become too great if not reigned in by the refusal to give consent. The Senate stopped FDR with Article II as they were supposed to do.

With the power usurpation by the Senate, the nation is now hostage to a despotic rule that the founders never intended but knew could happen. That is obvious when the federal papers James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay and now the worst fears of the founders have crawled out of the closet. With direct election of Senators the power of the President has been diminished and the power of both the Supreme Court and Senate enhanced unbalancing the powers and destroying separation.

http://www.conservativeviewsandforum.com/Senate_President_page_12.htm

[Political Junkie Too]

Thanks. You saw what I saw.

-PJ

[marajade]

Could you imagine how difficult it would be in a relationship?

[TLBSHOW]

I have not seen Fox say it was in fact they rewrote it and gave Bill Frist the credit for it.