Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Dane
Notice how the the malcontennts on this thread think that the demos throwing out 200 years of Senate precedant is meaningless.

My take is that 100% of the posters on this thread are pissed at the DEMs for perpetrating the travesty, and are frustrated that the DEMs got away with it. Some expressed that the GOP didn't seem to put up much of a fight, considering they were faced with "...throwing out 200 years of Senate precedant."

As I noted above, either the (cloture) rule is broken, or using it is fair play. If one considers that using the cloture rule in a judical appointment context is within the rules, one shouldn't complain just because this is (supposedly) the first time the rule was used this way. BTW, I think the GOP used cloture vs. Abe Fortas.

43 posted on 09/04/2003 3:33:08 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]


To: Cboldt
As I noted above, either the (cloture) rule is broken, or using it is fair play. If one considers that using the cloture rule in a judical appointment context is within the rules, one shouldn't complain just because this is (supposedly) the first time the rule was used this way. BTW, I think the GOP used cloture vs. Abe Fortas

A well reasoned response, which deserves an answer. I beleive that Abe Fortas's nomination actually came up for a vote in the Senate, something the demos denied to Miguel Estrada.

49 posted on 09/04/2003 4:04:25 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson