Deal Reached on Filibuster

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: loki8481
how can it be a huge loss if they haven't announced the terms of the compromise yet?

I do have to wonder how all the Republicans who were saying that the filibuster is immoral and needs to be outlawed will spin this, though.

What Republican said filibusters are immoral? Quote please.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: gallivanter

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: gallivanter

Originally posted by: conjur
This is actually a big win for the Democrats.

For one, Mitch McConnell was adamantly saying they "had the votes". He was lying through his goddamn, hypocritical, self-righteous, lying fvcking teeth! :laugh:

Second, this preserves the filibuster for future nominees, esp. the Supreme Court where Rehnquist's days on the bench are surely numbered.

Third, Owens (as bad of a judge as she is) is going to a court already filled with Republicans. She won't do much more damage there.

Fourth, the Fristians will eat Sen. Dobson-Frist alive now. You can fully expect James Dobson and his Out-of-Focus on the Family to be leveling some pointed rhetoric his way. :laugh:

Fifth, seven Republican Senators said the nuclear option was bad.

You really don't understand what is going on here, or what is going to happen, do you?

The GOP had the votes. If a deal had not been reached all of the seven compromise Republicans would have voted for the Constitutional option. Two of them even stated as such at the press conference, and two is all they needed. So you are wrong about the potential tally.

Moving on, this in no way preserves the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. A deal was reached in the spirit of good faith and compromise. It will be utter political suicide for the Dems to use something they claim they wouldn't against a nominee to the most important Court in the land.

More importantly, where the hell do you think the next Supreme Court nominees are going to come from? It is going to be one of these newly appointed judges, perhaps even Justice Owens. The Democrats can not oppose them after they just admitted they were perfectly acceptable. If they didn't meet 'extraordinary' circumstances now, they won't be able t claim that later. And if the Dems go back on their word, it will be a certainty that the Republicans would instantly use the Constitutional option, would have 55 solid votes, and would have public support.

I won't comment on Mr. Dobson because I don't care about him. However, claiming that the Constitutional option wasn't supported by everyone is meaningless. Almost nobody wanted it, but simply wanted an up or down vote.

Can't the Dems fillibuster anybody they want? Just because they let a judge onto a lower court in no way shape, or form means he can get to the Supreme Court woithout a fight.

This compromise is just that, a compromise. More detail later

I am not saying that it would be completely impossible for them to filibuster, but I am saying that it will be realistically and politically impossible for them to later filibuster one of the nominees now accepted. The Democrats realise this as well. For many reasons, the President will nominate one of his new appointees, and they will go through without much opposition. I believe the first Supreme Court nominee will be Ms. Brown, and if she were to be filibustered, the Democrats would lose all credibility. Simply, they won't do it.

Then you must think this is a complete and total victory for the GOP. I disagree, it's a compromise, and one they both save face with. There is absolutley no reason they can't fillibuster any nomination they want, The Dems may lose credibility in your eyes but somehow I don't think that will matter to them.

 

[Jadow]

While, I would have preferred the nuclear option, I think overall this is a win for republicans. It'll make it easier to get supreme court judges through (just nominate Owens and Brown...) and 5 of the 7 judges will get through.

I hope the moderates (Mccain, the two Maine women, etc...) and the leadershop (Frist, Lott, Hatch...) can come together and mend fences and get over this. Let the dems self destruct and fight amongst themselves...

 

[gallivanter]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: gallivanter

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: gallivanter

Originally posted by: conjur
This is actually a big win for the Democrats.

For one, Mitch McConnell was adamantly saying they "had the votes". He was lying through his goddamn, hypocritical, self-righteous, lying fvcking teeth! :laugh:

Second, this preserves the filibuster for future nominees, esp. the Supreme Court where Rehnquist's days on the bench are surely numbered.

Third, Owens (as bad of a judge as she is) is going to a court already filled with Republicans. She won't do much more damage there.

Fourth, the Fristians will eat Sen. Dobson-Frist alive now. You can fully expect James Dobson and his Out-of-Focus on the Family to be leveling some pointed rhetoric his way. :laugh:

Fifth, seven Republican Senators said the nuclear option was bad.

You really don't understand what is going on here, or what is going to happen, do you?

The GOP had the votes. If a deal had not been reached all of the seven compromise Republicans would have voted for the Constitutional option. Two of them even stated as such at the press conference, and two is all they needed. So you are wrong about the potential tally.

Moving on, this in no way preserves the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. A deal was reached in the spirit of good faith and compromise. It will be utter political suicide for the Dems to use something they claim they wouldn't against a nominee to the most important Court in the land.

More importantly, where the hell do you think the next Supreme Court nominees are going to come from? It is going to be one of these newly appointed judges, perhaps even Justice Owens. The Democrats can not oppose them after they just admitted they were perfectly acceptable. If they didn't meet 'extraordinary' circumstances now, they won't be able t claim that later. And if the Dems go back on their word, it will be a certainty that the Republicans would instantly use the Constitutional option, would have 55 solid votes, and would have public support.

I won't comment on Mr. Dobson because I don't care about him. However, claiming that the Constitutional option wasn't supported by everyone is meaningless. Almost nobody wanted it, but simply wanted an up or down vote.

Can't the Dems fillibuster anybody they want? Just because they let a judge onto a lower court in no way shape, or form means he can get to the Supreme Court woithout a fight.

This compromise is just that, a compromise. More detail later

I am not saying that it would be completely impossible for them to filibuster, but I am saying that it will be realistically and politically impossible for them to later filibuster one of the nominees now accepted. The Democrats realise this as well. For many reasons, the President will nominate one of his new appointees, and they will go through without much opposition. I believe the first Supreme Court nominee will be Ms. Brown, and if she were to be filibustered, the Democrats would lose all credibility. Simply, they won't do it.

Then you must think this is a complete and total victory for the GOP. I disagree, it's a compromise, and one they both save face with. There is absolutley no reason they can't fillibuster any nomination they want, The Dems may lose credibility in your eyes but somehow I don't think that will matter to them.

All fourteen of these compromise Senators lost credibility in my eyes, (only three of them had it to begin with, not all Republican either), but that is irrelevant. I guess I don't know what else to say if you believe that the Democrats could get away with passing through one of these judges now to the second highest court in the land, based upon good faith and compromise, and then filibuster the same individual mere months later. It can not happen. The will end up losing the filibuster fight altogether, lose any input to judicial nominees, and lose more elections.

And it is most certainly not a complete victory. The legislative filibuster, in their eyes, is saved, and the two most personally despised justices, maybe three of them, will not receive up or down votes. I agree it is a compromise, but I simply acknowledge it is one that recognises the reality of the situation, a reality where the Republicans control the Senate and the White House. They got a good deal.

 

[gallivanter]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: gallivanter

Originally posted by: conjur
This is actually a big win for the Democrats.

For one, Mitch McConnell was adamantly saying they "had the votes". He was lying through his goddamn, hypocritical, self-righteous, lying fvcking teeth! :laugh:

Second, this preserves the filibuster for future nominees, esp. the Supreme Court where Rehnquist's days on the bench are surely numbered.

Third, Owens (as bad of a judge as she is) is going to a court already filled with Republicans. She won't do much more damage there.

Fourth, the Fristians will eat Sen. Dobson-Frist alive now. You can fully expect James Dobson and his Out-of-Focus on the Family to be leveling some pointed rhetoric his way. :laugh:

Fifth, seven Republican Senators said the nuclear option was bad.

You really don't understand what is going on here, or what is going to happen, do you?

The GOP had the votes. If a deal had not been reached all of the seven compromise Republicans would have voted for the Constitutional option. Two of them even stated as such at the press conference, and two is all they needed. So you are wrong about the potential tally.

Moving on, this in no way preserves the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. A deal was reached in the spirit of good faith and compromise. It will be utter political suicide for the Dems to use something they claim they wouldn't against a nominee to the most important Court in the land.

More importantly, where the hell do you think the next Supreme Court nominees are going to come from? It is going to be one of these newly appointed judges, perhaps even Justice Owens. The Democrats can not oppose them after they just admitted they were perfectly acceptable. If they didn't meet 'extraordinary' circumstances now, they won't be able t claim that later. And if the Dems go back on their word, it will be a certainty that the Republicans would instantly use the Constitutional option, would have 55 solid votes, and would have public support.

I won't comment on Mr. Dobson because I don't care about him. However, claiming that the Constitutional option wasn't supported by everyone is meaningless. Almost nobody wanted it, but simply wanted an up or down vote.

Why do you say that the future nominees will most likely be one of the newly appointed judges? Those judges were test cases, used to further the filibuster fire.

It's really not that the Repubs wanted an up or down vote. That's the public face of their campaign. What they really want to do is get rid of the filibuster to eliminate any and all resistance the democrats can put up.

They weren't simply test cases. This is how it works, how it will work. There will not be a large Appellate Court record for the Democrats to point to. This was always the plan, Ms. Brown and Ms. Owens were always on the very short list for Supreme Court nominees. That is assuming there is a vacancy, something I am growing less convinced of as time goes by. Besides, if the Chief Justice were to step down, appointing a conservative does nothing whatsoever to change the makeup of the Court. The Dems will not waste political capital on that one.

 

[dannybin1742]

my point is the pubs still got what they wanted a simple majority vote on those three dumbass judges, if you haven't noticed all the gopies fall in line with the party, for some reason they have lost the ability to think for themselves, fnck party lines, most people know whats right, these judges are not right (see reasons above, along with countless other posts about this topic).

what happened to commonsense? doesn't anyone see the problem with a judge that sides with companies, the same companies that give her money to re-elect herself in texas? and on more than one occation?

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: gallivanter

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: gallivanter

Originally posted by: conjur
This is actually a big win for the Democrats.

For one, Mitch McConnell was adamantly saying they "had the votes". He was lying through his goddamn, hypocritical, self-righteous, lying fvcking teeth! :laugh:

Second, this preserves the filibuster for future nominees, esp. the Supreme Court where Rehnquist's days on the bench are surely numbered.

Third, Owens (as bad of a judge as she is) is going to a court already filled with Republicans. She won't do much more damage there.

Fourth, the Fristians will eat Sen. Dobson-Frist alive now. You can fully expect James Dobson and his Out-of-Focus on the Family to be leveling some pointed rhetoric his way. :laugh:

Fifth, seven Republican Senators said the nuclear option was bad.

You really don't understand what is going on here, or what is going to happen, do you?

The GOP had the votes. If a deal had not been reached all of the seven compromise Republicans would have voted for the Constitutional option. Two of them even stated as such at the press conference, and two is all they needed. So you are wrong about the potential tally.

Moving on, this in no way preserves the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. A deal was reached in the spirit of good faith and compromise. It will be utter political suicide for the Dems to use something they claim they wouldn't against a nominee to the most important Court in the land.

More importantly, where the hell do you think the next Supreme Court nominees are going to come from? It is going to be one of these newly appointed judges, perhaps even Justice Owens. The Democrats can not oppose them after they just admitted they were perfectly acceptable. If they didn't meet 'extraordinary' circumstances now, they won't be able t claim that later. And if the Dems go back on their word, it will be a certainty that the Republicans would instantly use the Constitutional option, would have 55 solid votes, and would have public support.

I won't comment on Mr. Dobson because I don't care about him. However, claiming that the Constitutional option wasn't supported by everyone is meaningless. Almost nobody wanted it, but simply wanted an up or down vote.

Why do you say that the future nominees will most likely be one of the newly appointed judges? Those judges were test cases, used to further the filibuster fire.

It's really not that the Repubs wanted an up or down vote. That's the public face of their campaign. What they really want to do is get rid of the filibuster to eliminate any and all resistance the democrats can put up.

They weren't simply test cases. This is how it works, how it will work. There will not be a large Appellate Court record for the Democrats to point to. This was always the plan, Ms. Brown and Ms. Owens were always on the very short list for Supreme Court nominees. That is assuming there is a vacancy, something I am growing less convinced of as time goes by. Besides, if the Chief Justice were to step down, appointing a conservative does nothing whatsoever to change the makeup of the Court. The Dems will not waste political capital on that one.

Can you give me a link? Proof?

Are you Karl Rove?

The Dems would sure put political capital into any Supreme Court nominee. There is no guarantee that when the next left-leaning Justice steps down a Democrat president will be in office.

 

[gallivanter]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: gallivanter

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: gallivanter

Originally posted by: conjur
This is actually a big win for the Democrats.

For one, Mitch McConnell was adamantly saying they "had the votes". He was lying through his goddamn, hypocritical, self-righteous, lying fvcking teeth! :laugh:

Second, this preserves the filibuster for future nominees, esp. the Supreme Court where Rehnquist's days on the bench are surely numbered.

Third, Owens (as bad of a judge as she is) is going to a court already filled with Republicans. She won't do much more damage there.

Fourth, the Fristians will eat Sen. Dobson-Frist alive now. You can fully expect James Dobson and his Out-of-Focus on the Family to be leveling some pointed rhetoric his way. :laugh:

Fifth, seven Republican Senators said the nuclear option was bad.

You really don't understand what is going on here, or what is going to happen, do you?

The GOP had the votes. If a deal had not been reached all of the seven compromise Republicans would have voted for the Constitutional option. Two of them even stated as such at the press conference, and two is all they needed. So you are wrong about the potential tally.

Moving on, this in no way preserves the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. A deal was reached in the spirit of good faith and compromise. It will be utter political suicide for the Dems to use something they claim they wouldn't against a nominee to the most important Court in the land.

More importantly, where the hell do you think the next Supreme Court nominees are going to come from? It is going to be one of these newly appointed judges, perhaps even Justice Owens. The Democrats can not oppose them after they just admitted they were perfectly acceptable. If they didn't meet 'extraordinary' circumstances now, they won't be able t claim that later. And if the Dems go back on their word, it will be a certainty that the Republicans would instantly use the Constitutional option, would have 55 solid votes, and would have public support.

I won't comment on Mr. Dobson because I don't care about him. However, claiming that the Constitutional option wasn't supported by everyone is meaningless. Almost nobody wanted it, but simply wanted an up or down vote.

Why do you say that the future nominees will most likely be one of the newly appointed judges? Those judges were test cases, used to further the filibuster fire.

It's really not that the Repubs wanted an up or down vote. That's the public face of their campaign. What they really want to do is get rid of the filibuster to eliminate any and all resistance the democrats can put up.

They weren't simply test cases. This is how it works, how it will work. There will not be a large Appellate Court record for the Democrats to point to. This was always the plan, Ms. Brown and Ms. Owens were always on the very short list for Supreme Court nominees. That is assuming there is a vacancy, something I am growing less convinced of as time goes by. Besides, if the Chief Justice were to step down, appointing a conservative does nothing whatsoever to change the makeup of the Court. The Dems will not waste political capital on that one.

Can you give me a link? Proof?

Are you Karl Rove?

The Dems would sure put political capital into any Supreme Court nominee. There is no guarantee that when the next left-leaning Justice steps down a Democrat president will be in office.

I don't feel like finding a link now, but this is exactly what happened with Clarence Thomas, leaving the whole sex thing out. Thomas, along with Scalia and Ginsburg, first served on the D.C. Circuit Court, just as Justice Brown is now nominated for. Further, only one current Supreme Court justice did not serve on an Appellate courts, that being Ms. O'Connor. Justice Souter, like Justice Thomas, was appointed to the Appellate court where he spent only a very little time before getting the nod to the Supreme Court. This is the same path being possibly undetaken by the nomination of Ms. Brown. Frankly, I always thought her inclusion on a very short list of Supreme Court candidates was common knowledge.

The White House is simply going to follow what has been the recent history of Supreme Court nominations. The real battle will come if and when a liberal member of the Court steps down. I honestly do not see that happening in the next three years though.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: gallivanter

Originally posted by: conjur
This is actually a big win for the Democrats.

For one, Mitch McConnell was adamantly saying they "had the votes". He was lying through his goddamn, hypocritical, self-righteous, lying fvcking teeth! :laugh:

Second, this preserves the filibuster for future nominees, esp. the Supreme Court where Rehnquist's days on the bench are surely numbered.

Third, Owens (as bad of a judge as she is) is going to a court already filled with Republicans. She won't do much more damage there.

Fourth, the Fristians will eat Sen. Dobson-Frist alive now. You can fully expect James Dobson and his Out-of-Focus on the Family to be leveling some pointed rhetoric his way. :laugh:

Fifth, seven Republican Senators said the nuclear option was bad.

You really don't understand what is going on here, or what is going to happen, do you?

I understand perfectly. I don't think you do, though.

GOP had the votes. If a deal had not been reached all of the seven compromise Republicans would have voted for the Constitutional option. Two of them even stated as such at the press conference, and two is all they needed. So you are wrong about the potential tally.

What "Constitutional option"? You just gave away your ignorance of the situation. There was nothing constitutional nor unconstitutional about this whole thing. It deals with the Senate's own rules, not the Constitution. There were 49 votes as of this morning to defeat the nuclear option. That's only 4 Republicans. Three more considered it to be bad. Therefore, McConnell was lying his fvcking ass off when he blabbered they had that votes. If they had the votes, why compromise? Because they didn't. It was a ploy and it failed.

Moving on, this in no way preserves the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. A deal was reached in the spirit of good faith and compromise. It will be utter political suicide for the Dems to use something they claim they wouldn't against a nominee to the most important Court in the land.

Where's that wanking-off smiley when you need it? :roll:

More importantly, where the hell do you think the next Supreme Court nominees are going to come from? It is going to be one of these newly appointed judges, perhaps even Justice Owens. The Democrats can not oppose them after they just admitted they were perfectly acceptable. If they didn't meet 'extraordinary' circumstances now, they won't be able t claim that later. And if the Dems go back on their word, it will be a certainty that the Republicans would instantly use the Constitutional option, would have 55 solid votes, and would have public support.

A judge newly appointed to a Circuit Court is going to get fast-tracked to the SCOTUS in a year or two? mmm hmmm.

I won't comment on Mr. Dobson because I don't care about him. However, claiming that the Constitutional option wasn't supported by everyone is meaningless. Almost nobody wanted it, but simply wanted an up or down vote.

Of course you won't comment on Dobson because you know I'm right.

As for the up-or-down vote, it depends on how the poll questions have been worded. The majority polled did NOT want to see the nuclear option enforced. And, again, what's with this "Constitutional option"??



And, just look at the right eat their own:
http://www.lucianne.com/threads2.asp?artnum=215639

:laugh:

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: conjur
This is actually a big win for the Democrats.


Fifth, seven Republican Senators said the nuclear option was bad.

yes, this is a HUGE defeat for the repubs , if they can't get their way when they have a majority then they can't lead

see my sig

 

[conjur]

Traitors? :laugh:


Wow...sad.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: gallivanter

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: gallivanter

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: gallivanter

Originally posted by: conjur
This is actually a big win for the Democrats.

For one, Mitch McConnell was adamantly saying they "had the votes". He was lying through his goddamn, hypocritical, self-righteous, lying fvcking teeth! :laugh:

Second, this preserves the filibuster for future nominees, esp. the Supreme Court where Rehnquist's days on the bench are surely numbered.

Third, Owens (as bad of a judge as she is) is going to a court already filled with Republicans. She won't do much more damage there.

Fourth, the Fristians will eat Sen. Dobson-Frist alive now. You can fully expect James Dobson and his Out-of-Focus on the Family to be leveling some pointed rhetoric his way. :laugh:

Fifth, seven Republican Senators said the nuclear option was bad.

You really don't understand what is going on here, or what is going to happen, do you?

The GOP had the votes. If a deal had not been reached all of the seven compromise Republicans would have voted for the Constitutional option. Two of them even stated as such at the press conference, and two is all they needed. So you are wrong about the potential tally.

Moving on, this in no way preserves the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. A deal was reached in the spirit of good faith and compromise. It will be utter political suicide for the Dems to use something they claim they wouldn't against a nominee to the most important Court in the land.

More importantly, where the hell do you think the next Supreme Court nominees are going to come from? It is going to be one of these newly appointed judges, perhaps even Justice Owens. The Democrats can not oppose them after they just admitted they were perfectly acceptable. If they didn't meet 'extraordinary' circumstances now, they won't be able t claim that later. And if the Dems go back on their word, it will be a certainty that the Republicans would instantly use the Constitutional option, would have 55 solid votes, and would have public support.

I won't comment on Mr. Dobson because I don't care about him. However, claiming that the Constitutional option wasn't supported by everyone is meaningless. Almost nobody wanted it, but simply wanted an up or down vote.

Can't the Dems fillibuster anybody they want? Just because they let a judge onto a lower court in no way shape, or form means he can get to the Supreme Court woithout a fight.

This compromise is just that, a compromise. More detail later

I am not saying that it would be completely impossible for them to filibuster, but I am saying that it will be realistically and politically impossible for them to later filibuster one of the nominees now accepted. The Democrats realise this as well. For many reasons, the President will nominate one of his new appointees, and they will go through without much opposition. I believe the first Supreme Court nominee will be Ms. Brown, and if she were to be filibustered, the Democrats would lose all credibility. Simply, they won't do it.

Then you must think this is a complete and total victory for the GOP. I disagree, it's a compromise, and one they both save face with. There is absolutley no reason they can't fillibuster any nomination they want, The Dems may lose credibility in your eyes but somehow I don't think that will matter to them.

All fourteen of these compromise Senators lost credibility in my eyes, (only three of them had it to begin with, not all Republican either), but that is irrelevant. I guess I don't know what else to say if you believe that the Democrats could get away with passing through one of these judges now to the second highest court in the land, based upon good faith and compromise, and then filibuster the same individual mere months later. It can not happen. The will end up losing the filibuster fight altogether, lose any input to judicial nominees, and lose more elections.

And it is most certainly not a complete victory. The legislative filibuster, in their eyes, is saved, and the two most personally despised justices, maybe three of them, will not receive up or down votes. I agree it is a compromise, but I simply acknowledge it is one that recognises the reality of the situation, a reality where the Republicans control the Senate and the White House. They got a good deal.

Time has a way of changing things. People forget fast and I don't think the majority of the American people pay that much attention to politics at this level. Judge, smudge, you know what I mean? I expect the "unusal circumstance" to come up much sooner then expected.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur
This is actually a big win for the Democrats.

For one, Mitch McConnell was adamantly saying they "had the votes". He was lying through his goddamn, hypocritical, self-righteous, lying fvcking teeth! :laugh:

Second, this preserves the filibuster for future nominees, esp. the Supreme Court where Rehnquist's days on the bench are surely numbered.

Third, Owens (as bad of a judge as she is) is going to a court already filled with Republicans. She won't do much more damage there.

Fourth, the Fristians will eat Sen. Dobson-Frist alive now. You can fully expect James Dobson and his Out-of-Focus on the Family to be leveling some pointed rhetoric his way. :laugh:

Fifth, seven Republican Senators said the nuclear option was bad.

What was that I was saying about Dobson???

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=47847

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., May 23 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Focus on the Family Action Chairman Dr. James C. Dobson today issued the following statement, upon the announcement by members of the U.S. Senate that a "compromise" had been reached on the filibuster issue:

"This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats. Only three of President Bush?s nominees will be given the courtesy of an up-or-down vote, and it's business as usual for all the rest. The rules that blocked conservative nominees remain in effect, and nothing of significance has changed. Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist would never have served on the U. S. Supreme Court if this agreement had been in place during their confirmations. The unconstitutional filibuster survives in the arsenal of Senate liberals.

"We are grateful to Majority Leader Frist for courageously fighting to defend the vital principle of basic fairness. That principle has now gone down to defeat. We share the disappointment, outrage and sense of abandonment felt by millions of conservative Americans who helped put Republicans in power last November. I am certain that these voters will remember both Democrats and Republicans who betrayed their trust."

LMFAO!!!



WAAAAHHH!!! Poor, poor pitiful me. FVCK YOU, Dobson and the high horse of the apocalypse you rode in on!!


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:



Trent Lott is going after Dobson, too
http://coloradopoliticalnews.blogs.com/...ical_news/2005/05/trent_lott_goes.html

:laugh:

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: loki8481
how can it be a huge loss if they haven't announced the terms of the compromise yet?

I do have to wonder how all the Republicans who were saying that the filibuster is immoral and needs to be outlawed will spin this, though.

What Republican said filibusters are immoral? Quote please.

Frist's whole point was that senators have a moral obligation to vote. wasn't that what the whole "justice sunday" thing was about?

 

[gallivanter]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: gallivanter

Originally posted by: conjur
This is actually a big win for the Democrats.

For one, Mitch McConnell was adamantly saying they "had the votes". He was lying through his goddamn, hypocritical, self-righteous, lying fvcking teeth! :laugh:

Second, this preserves the filibuster for future nominees, esp. the Supreme Court where Rehnquist's days on the bench are surely numbered.

Third, Owens (as bad of a judge as she is) is going to a court already filled with Republicans. She won't do much more damage there.

Fourth, the Fristians will eat Sen. Dobson-Frist alive now. You can fully expect James Dobson and his Out-of-Focus on the Family to be leveling some pointed rhetoric his way. :laugh:

Fifth, seven Republican Senators said the nuclear option was bad.

You really don't understand what is going on here, or what is going to happen, do you?

Originally posted by: conjur
I understand perfectly. I don't think you do, though.

Okay.

GOP had the votes. If a deal had not been reached all of the seven compromise Republicans would have voted for the Constitutional option. Two of them even stated as such at the press conference, and two is all they needed. So you are wrong about the potential tally.

Originally posted by: conjur
What "Constitutional option"? You just gave away your ignorance of the situation. There was nothing constitutional nor unconstitutional about this whole thing. It deals with the Senate's own rules, not the Constitution. There were 49 votes as of this morning to defeat the nuclear option. That's only 4 Republicans. Three more considered it to be bad. Therefore, McConnell was lying his fvcking ass off when he blabbered they had that votes. If they had the votes, why compromise? Because they didn't. It was a ploy and it failed.

Sigh. At least half of the compromise Senators at yesterday's press conference refered to the nuclear option as the Constitutional option, just as law professors from such places as Yale and Harvard have as well. You may not like that term, but it is just that, a term, and an appropriate one as well, since the whole issue of Senate rules is in the Constitution. You continue to illustrate your very shallow knowledge of almost every subject you engage in.

As for the vote, do a count. There was possibly one Senator not involved in the compromise whose vote was somewhat iffy, though he indicated he would vote for the rule change, with that being Senator Specter. That gives the Republicans 48 votes. Senators Graham and DeWine stated at the press conference that they would have also voted for the rule change if a compromise had not been reached. That is fifty votes, all that was needed. Further, it is almost certain the Senator Warner would have voted with his party, and it was expected that Senator Collins would have as well. That would be fifty-two votes. Senator McConnel was absolutely correct. The deal was struck not because the votes were not there, but because this bloc of Senators did not have to listen to anybody else. Once they got enough of themselves together, it was fully up to them. The leadership of neither party got what they wanted.

Moving on, this in no way preserves the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. A deal was reached in the spirit of good faith and compromise. It will be utter political suicide for the Dems to use something they claim they wouldn't against a nominee to the most important Court in the land.

Originally posted by: conjur
Where's that wanking-off smiley when you need it? :roll:

Agreed.

More importantly, where the hell do you think the next Supreme Court nominees are going to come from? It is going to be one of these newly appointed judges, perhaps even Justice Owens. The Democrats can not oppose them after they just admitted they were perfectly acceptable. If they didn't meet 'extraordinary' circumstances now, they won't be able t claim that later. And if the Dems go back on their word, it will be a certainty that the Republicans would instantly use the Constitutional option, would have 55 solid votes, and would have public support.

Originally posted by: conjur
A judge newly appointed to a Circuit Court is going to get fast-tracked to the SCOTUS in a year or two? mmm hmmm.

Again, you really should learn more about what you speak. You do a disservice to this forum. Read what I posted, read what happened to both Justice Souter and Justice Thomas. They were both fast-tracked in exactly the same manner. You make a silly statement as if this is just an impossibility, but in fact it is recent precedent, and always what has been discussed by those aware of the situation. Sorry, but there will be nothing the Democrats can do about it either. I hope that you comprehend that one. This deal very likely puts Judge Brown on the Supreme Court. Make sure you all vote for these Democrat Senators in the future.

I won't comment on Mr. Dobson because I don't care about him. However, claiming that the Constitutional option wasn't supported by everyone is meaningless. Almost nobody wanted it, but simply wanted an up or down vote.

Originally posted by: conjur
Of course you won't comment on Dobson because you know I'm right.

I won't comment because I am not religious and I don't care. I don't have this fascination with any group, make any entity out to be some evil repsonsible for all of the ills of the world. Go play that game with somebody else.

Originally posted by: conjur
As for the up-or-down vote, it depends on how the poll questions have been worded. The majority polled did NOT want to see the nuclear option enforced. And, again, what's with this "Constitutional option"??



And, just look at the right eat their own:
http://www.lucianne.com/threads2.asp?artnum=215639

:laugh:

 

[conjur]

The Right is enraged! :laugh:

Blog Round-up of Reactions to the Compromise
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/05/23.html

Frist immediately went on the floor to give a speech. He's definetly not happy. Video

Aww...poor Sen. Dobson-Frist.

Political Wire says Instant analysis: McCain is the big winner; Sen. Bill Frist is the loser.

Steve Gillard: This is a major defeat for the theocrats. This is what happens when amateurs play at politics. Dobson was under the delusion that he could control the Senate with his money and Bill Frist's dick in his pocket. This didn't work.

AmericaBlog: (From Joe) - But, in the long run, this forces the White House to think differently about the Supreme Court. That seemed to be the message from the gang of 14, most notably Lindsay Graham who said as much during the press conference. Still processing...but those are initial thoughts

James Dobson via AmericaBlog: This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats. Only three of President Bush?s nominees will be given the courtesy of an up-or-down vote, and it's business as usual for all the rest. The rules that blocked conservative nominees remain in effect, and nothing of significance has changed. Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist would never have served on the U. S. Supreme Court if this agreement had been in place during their confirmations. The unconstitutional filibuster survives in the arsenal of Senate liberals. read on

The Therapist: Date Rape :Republican Senators Willingly Date-Raped By Democratic Senators

Confirmthem.com: This deal is a load of cr@!` It is not compromise, but capitulation. And I say that as somebody who did agree that a certain form of compromise was acceptable. But this comrpomise treats a couple of nominees, Saad and Myers, as pawns. It makes them not people, but expendable objects. And that is unconscionable.

Here's some comment: A complete f****?en outrage. Not another dime, I?ve had it.

Hugh Hewitt of course doesn't have a clue: It is impossible to say whether this is a "terrible" deal, a "bad" deal, or a very, very marginally "ok" deal, but it surely is not a good deal. Not one dime more for the NRSC from me unless and until the Supreme Court nominee

Scared Monkeys puts it succinctly: Compromise reached! Republicans screwed!

Michelle Malkin: My two cents: Ditto to all of the above. The GOP parade of pusillanimity marches on. With this pathetic cave-in, the Republicans have sealed their fate as a Majority in Name Only.

And, some of the Freeper's comments:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/23/201133/386

:laugh:

 

[Ozoned]

Recess appointments for William Myers and Henry Saad?

That would probably ruffle a few feathers, huh? Heh.

Both vacancies are considered judicial emergencies.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: gallivanter

Sigh. At least half of the compromise Senators at yesterday's press conference refered to the nuclear option as the Constitutional option, just as law professors from such places as Yale and Harvard have as well. You may not like that term, but it is just that, a term, and an appropriate one as well, since the whole issue of Senate rules is in the Constitution. You continue to illustrate your very shallow knowledge of almost every subject you engage in.

No need to be condescending.

The only thing the Constitution says is that the house and senate will set their own rules. The Constitution sets no directive on filibusters. They didn't even exist for about a 100 years after the Constitution was written.

There is nothing Constitutional about it, it has to do purely with procedural precedence in the Senate.

There is no "whole issue of Senate rules". There is actually one single sentence in the Consitution:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

The Constitutional option is just a political term to make it sound like the filibuster is against the Constitution. It's not.

As for the vote, do a count. There was possibly one Senator not involved in the compromise whose vote was somewhat iffy, though he indicated he would vote for the rule change, with that being Senator Specter. That gives the Republicans 48 votes. Senators Graham and DeWine stated at the press conference that they would have also voted for the rule change if a compromise had not been reached. That is fifty votes, all that was needed. Further, it is almost certain the Senator Warner would have voted with his party, and it was expected that Senator Collins would have as well. That would be fifty-two votes. Senator McConnel was absolutely correct. The deal was struck not because the votes were not there, but because this bloc of Senators did not have to listen to anybody else. Once they got enough of themselves together, it was fully up to them. The leadership of neither party got what they wanted.

It's not as black and white as you make it seem. Graham and DeWine could easily have said that to make it seem like theyre still with the Republican party.

The truth is that you do not know how they would have voted, since everything they say now is skewed by the need to portray themselves in a good light.

Again, you really should learn more about what you speak. You do a disservice to this forum. Read what I posted, read what happened to both Justice Souter and Justice Thomas. They were both fast-tracked in exactly the same manner. You make a silly statement as if this is just an impossibility, but in fact it is recent precedent, and always what has been discussed by those aware of the situation. Sorry, but there will be nothing the Democrats can do about it either. I hope that you comprehend that one. This deal very likely puts Judge Brown on the Supreme Court. Make sure you all vote for these Democrat Senators in the future.

I agree with most of what you have said, but I think you are underestimating the political spin the democrats can put on it. They can still easily say that the approval of these conservative judges with respect to SCOTUS is an extraordinary circumstance, especially since these Judges were only recently appointed to Appeals Court positions. However, they will be slightly handicapped by writing in the compromise.

But, remember that when I say "they" I only mean the Democrats involved in the compromise.

 

[Tom]

I see this as a victory for the institution of the Senate over both political party's abuses.