Idiot GOP Senate Set to Shaft Estrada?

rushlimbaugh ^ | 2/28/2003 | rushlimbaugh

[marajade]

they are...

[aristeides]

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.

I don't see why that should make any difference. The Senate was there using the same constitutional advice-and-consent power that is at work in the Estrada matter. If it's legally wrong to filibuster Estrada's appointment as circuit court judge, I do not see why the filibuster of Fortas's elevation was not equally illegal.

[chnsmok]

Gee, the dicussion was interesting there for awhile. Here we go again.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Why invoke cloture when your opponent is shooting himself in the foot!

"Never get in your enemy's way while he is busy destroying himself." - - Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"

[deport]

Click Here Go down the page a little and look for the links about the Senate, rules & procedures.....

[TLBSHOW]

don't discuss the problems just keep bumping the thread then. I can't wait for Mondays Rush Limbaugh 3 hours.

[justshe]

disccus why the GOP was going to cave instead...

---

To: justshe I apologized for going by the fox story as written last night for part of my opinion, but they cleared it up today.

*snip*

129 posted on 02/28/2003 10:12 PM PST by TLBSHOW

[Political Junkie Too]

I'm certainly no expert on the matter, but I'd see a big difference between someone not on a court at all being appointed to a court, and someone already on the court being named the Chief of the court.

Conversely, someone not on the court being blocked for appointment to a court, and someone on a court being refused leadership of the court but still staying on the court.

-PJ

[aristeides]

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?

"Filibuster" isn't even a legal term. It doesn't appear in the Senate rules. It's a colloquial term. So there's no way to decide, as a legal matter, whether what has happened or is happening is accurately called a "filibuster."

But, whatever we call it, if the DemocRATs succeed in blocking Estrada's appointment, they will have successfully set a precedent (actually a further precedent, after Fortas) that, where a party is willing to use all its power, 60 Senate votes are needed for the confirmation of a judge. It's that (further) precedent that we ought to want to stop, and it seems to me a cloture vote is a way to try to stop it.

[deport]

deport can find literally anyhing!

---

LOL.... Well I can't find that damn TURNIP TRUCK that came by the forum and made a deposit. If I could I'd sabotage it so no one else would fall off.

Last year, harvesters load turnips on
the back of a truck at the first turnip
gleaning event at Marker-Miller Orchard.
This year’s crop is ready for the picking.
(Courtesy Society of St. Andrew)

[TLBSHOW]

Its still interesting to note those that would shut down this discussion and why they want to protect the democrats in the senate and their socialist goals to destroy this country and The Bush Presidency..

[Political Junkie Too]

You'll get no argument from me on this.

-PJ

[Howlin]

You can say it till the end of time; you can paste all the articles you want; you were still wrong.

[deport]

Again..... how does cloture post 1917 with a requirement of 41 Senators become worse than the original requirement prior to 1917? Come on 'gifter' .... step up and explain

DING.......... DING....... DING

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

,

[cyncooper]

Its still interesting to note those that would shut down this discussion and why they want to protect the democrats in the senate and their socialist goals to destroy this country and The Bush Presidency..

Who are you referring to here?

(I can guess, but why don't you state clearly so we can all see)

[TLBSHOW]

Post the link that Fox News says they retracked their story?? Please........

[pogo101]

I largely disagree about recess appointments as a cure for filibusters. Judicial recess appointees, if not confirmed by the Senate, serve only until the close of the Senate term following the recess in which the appointment occurred.

Perhaps worse, as a practical matter from the viewpoint of many would-be recess appointees: to discourage recess appointments, Congress enacted 5 U.S.C. § 5503, which prohibits (with three limited exceptions) recess appointees from receiving ANY compensation from the federal government for their services.

Although Estrada may have some money banked, most would-be Bush judges can't just take 1-2 years of not-gettin'-paid. Maybe we could start a fund. :)

[Howlin]

Its still interesting to note those that would shut down this discussion and why they want to protect the democrats in the senate and their socialist goals to destroy this country and The Bush Presidency..

Nobody's trying to shut down any discussion; we're just trying to counter all the fraudulent reports you post.

If I were you, I wouldn't be insinuating that others are trying to do harm to this presidency. We've all seen your very words in regard to George W. Bush.

[TLBSHOW]

reversing 17th amendment is a mission of freerepublic

We call for the repeal of the 17th amendment, which will reverse the independence of the Senate and reestablish the Senate as a representative of the State governments, as intended by the Founding Fathers. This arrangement was intended to be a critical check against illegal federal expansion over the States, and the people residing in the various States, and will act to return the powers not granted to the federal government, as enumerated in the Constitution, to the states.