Deal Struck!

[rlg94086]

rlg94086:

IMHO it is a ****-shoot.

Sorry. I was making a dice-throwing reference, so I wasn’t intending to swear.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Richardols:

Well, you must have been living in a cave the month of September 2001.

But, if you prefer, an inspiration, rather than an actual hero.

No, actually I live in the State of New York.

He did his job, the FDNY and New York Police were the heros.

Really I don’t see anything that he or the Governer did that would qualify as heroic or inspirational. They did their jobs.

Actually Giuliani screwed up royally with his aborted senate run. He locked it up so long with his indecision that there was no way to have a viable candidate to run against Hillary, but then you probably see that as a good thing.

There is no way to call someone who is for killing innocent children a hero or an inspiration, unless you find infanticide especially heroic or inspirational.

I will never understand how people who label themselves catholic could ever support abortion or adultery.

 

[Ren]

. When will people realize that McCain is without a full deck?

McCain is no friend of the Republican party & this deal once again proves it…I’m wondering about McCain/Clinton for 2008? (Hillary, of course)…
The “moderate” team…

 

[Benedictus]

A few points:

1. The term “Constitutional option” is silly. Article II sect. 2 requires the consent of the Senate for judicial nominations. It doesn’t say the Senate must vote up or down on every nomination. Republicans have used lots of procedural tactics in the past to block a vote on nominations. The Senate gets to set its own rules; there is no ambiguity in the Constitution about that. If judicial filibusters are un-Constitutional, then so are many, many, many other Rules of both the House and Senate.
2. Almost everyone here would be defending the filibuster to the death if John Kerry were President and Republicans were filibustering a baby-killer. Admit it: this isn’t a debate about Constitutional principles.
3. We’re going to get three pro-lifers confirmed. That’s pretty good. You can’t reasonably expect all of Bush’s nominees to get confirmed. You just can’t win them all.
4. I’m a bit disappointed that Pryor is going to be confirmed after his handling of the Roy Moore fiasco.
5. Rush Limbaugh is a pompous blowhard and needs to be deflated.
6. Some day there will be a baby-killer in the White House. Some day the Democrats will control the Senate. On that day, the filibuster may come in handy.

 

[Hildebrand]

Benedictus:

We’re going to get three pro-lifers confirmed. That’s pretty good. You can’t reasonably expect all of Bush’s nominees to get confirmed. You just can’t win them all.

Who’s we? Just because someone claims to be pro-life like McCain, does not mean he is actually pro-life.

BTW, I love your pro-abortion Democratic talking points.

 

[Benedictus]

Hildebrand:

BTW, I love your pro-abortion Democratic talking points.

What the…? My pro-abortion talking points!!! I believe I used the phrase “baby killer”. Why would a pro-abort want to use a phrase like that?

I am pro-life. Full stop. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life. I just don’t reasonably expect every pro-lifer to get confirmed.

I do think the filibuster will come in handy either when we have a Democrat President or when the Democrats control the Senate.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Benedictus:

this isn’t a debate about Constitutional principles.

For me, that exactly what this is.

Hate to burst your bubble but I am not a Republican.

And as the filibuster is not found in the Constitution there is nothing wrong with changing the rules to eliminate it especally for something such as this which is spelt out in the Constitution.

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says,

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Advice and Consent of the Senate. Don’t see that anything spelt out saying that the Senate, especially the minority in this case, can hold up that vote.

Read the constitution and tell me where these “Rights of the Minority” that Reid keeps talking about are spelt out.

And it was the Constitution option as the Senate was going to rule that Judical Filibusters are unconstitutional.

You think that the Republicans will get to do this if they ever get the chance? Heck no, the Democrates will be quick in doing this regardless of what they say now.

 

[Benedictus]

ByzCath:

Hate to burst your bubble but I am not a Republican.

Well that makes two of us. I just happen to despise all politicians.

And as the filibuster is not found in the Constitution there is nothing wrong with changing the rules to eliminate it especally for something such as this which is spelt out in the Constitution.

I don’t think it’s wrong per se to change the rules. I do think it’s foolish and short-sighted.

Advice and Consent of the Senate. Don’t see that anything spelt out saying that the Senate, especially the minority in this case, can hold up that vote.

There is a long and proud history of the filibuster in the Senate. Groups will often make use of procedural tactics to block things in the Senate (and the House).

There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate must vote up or down on every nomination. The Constitution says that nominations require the advice and consent of the Senate. The Contitution doesn’t get too specific about the precise form the advice and consent must take.

 

[Brad]

Hildebrand:

It was not the pro-choice Republicans who sold us out. It was two pro-life Senators: Catholic pro-life Senator Mike DeWine and Pro-life Senator Lindsey Graham.

Until this deal which was made with DeWine & Graham, all the Republicans were voting to end debate on every Bush nominee (every previous cloture vote). I agree we need to get the pro-choice Senators out of office where a pro-life senator can win (Alaska/Virginia/Arizona). However, I’ll take the three pro-choice senators from New England, if there is not much of a shot at getting a pro-life Republican. Remember pro-life Democrat means absolutely NOTHING! Pro-choice Republicans are more valuable than pro-life Democrats. I have been listening to Senate candidate Bob Casey and he does not sound very pro-life. Bob Casey is no Governor Casey. I’ll take Specter over Casey in any senate election. Casey is always talking about we have to get beyond the abortion debate and discuss things which we can agree upon. Casey has even attacked Bush’s nominees! Casey appears to be another Harry Reid, pro-life in name only.

On Bob Casey: http://www.grassrootspa.com/2005/03/spectator-casey-comfortable-with.html

We have the votes in the senate! What do we have to get? 60 Republican senators! The Republicans never in their history had the ability to defeat the filibuster on their own. We had the Supreme Court handed to the pro-life movement, but DeWine & Graham took it and gave it back to the Democrats in the Senate.

Which makes them not pro-life in my book. You either mean it or you don’t. You are either willing or you are not.

 

[gilliam]

Benedictus:

There is a long and proud history of the filibuster in the Senate. .

Not for judicial appointments there isn’t.

You really can’t run this arguement on history.

 

[aimee]

I shall remember some of these Sen come election time…especially John McCain and his wannabe friend…Lindsey Graham

 

[Digitonomy]

gilliam:

This really is not an issue of constitutionality. Senate rules on debate are up to the Senate to decide. There is nothing in the constitution that restricts that. If you really want to permanently change that, you need to mak a change to the constitution. But, personally, I don’t think we want to go there.

There is nothing in the advise and consent clause of the constitution that forbids an unrestricted debate on a candidate.

Having said that. Just because it is not unconstitutional, doesn’t make it correct.

Very well stated.

Benedictus, I agree with every one of your points that Hildebrand ludicrously labelled pro-abortion except #4 - I apparently have more respect for Pryor than you.

 

[Digitonomy]

Richardols:

IMO, you Republicans will have a choice between McCain and Giuliani, two very admirable men, and moderates.

They may be admirable, but they’re not going to get the Republican nomination short of a miracle. Giuliani because of his rather spotty personal and political history. McCain because he’s just annoyed too many influential Republicans. I may not be able to predict who the GOP nominee will be, but I think it’s a pretty safe bet that it won’t be either of these two.

aimee:

I shall remember some of these Sen come election time…especially John McCain and his wannabe friend…Lindsey Graham

Unless you’re a voter in Arizona or South Carolina, I have a feeling they won’t be impressed.

 

[rlg94086]

Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

My prediction is that this agreement won’t last. Since each senator decides the “extraordinary circumstances”, one side or the other will get offended, and we’ll be back in the same jam.

One place where it will help republicans is that they now (as soon as they are confirmed) have three decent candidates for the Supreme Court. Democrats will be hard-pressed to cry “extraordinary circumstances” in a SCOTUS nomination of Brown, Pryor or Owen after confirming them for their appeals court seats.

Peace,

Robert.

 

[Benedictus]

gilliam:

Not for judicial appointments there isn’t.

You really can’t run this arguement on history.

Bull.

There have been a lot of procedural moves to block nominations Holds on unanimous consent agreements have been used to block nominations before. Then there’s the “blue slips” that could be used to remove a nominee from consideration by only one or two Senators (the rules on blue slips have changed several times in the last decade).

Did you know the Sen. Frist himself has filibustered judges? He participated in a (failed) filibuster of Richard Paez in 1996. In 1968 there was a (successful) filibuster on one of LBJ’s judicial nominations, Abe Fortas.

 

[aimee]

Digitonomy:

They may be admirable, but they’re not going to get the Republican nomination short of a miracle. Giuliani because of his rather spotty personal and political history. McCain because he’s just annoyed too many influential Republicans. I may not be able to predict who the GOP nominee will be, but I think it’s a pretty safe bet that it won’t be either of these two.

Unless you’re a voter in Arizona or South Carolina, I have a feeling they won’t be impressed.

Well, perhaps they won’t but doesn’t matter… I’ll be happy to campain for their opponents…in fact I do think they might be surpised to find that their early campaining via this judical thing will surely backfire on them

 

[SnorterLuster]

Benedictus:

Bull.

In 1968 there was a (successful) filibuster on one of LBJ’s judicial nominations, Abe Fortas.

It seems to me that the Fortas filibuster was agreed upon by both the Dems and the GOP. I can’t remember all the details, but some bad things had been revealed about Mr. Fortas. For some obscure procedural reason the Senate had to filibuster to prevent a vote until Mr. Fortas could withdraw from consideration.

I am working from memory only, but at least that filibuster was bi-partisan to prevent a wholly sleazy candidate from being sent to the Supreme Court.

 

[Benedictus]

SnorterLuster:

I am working from memory only, but at least that filibuster was bi-partisan to prevent a wholly sleazy candidate from being sent to the Supreme Court.

From Wikipedia:

The nomination set off a four day filibuster led by Republicans and southern Democrats (“Dixiecrats”). A “cloture” motion to end the filibuster failed. At that time, 66 votes were needed to stop debate. The vote was 45-43, with 10 Republicans and 35 Democrats voting for cloture and 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats voting against cloture. The 12 other remaining Democrats were not present. Fortas then withdrew his name from consideration. The next president, Richard Nixon, a Republican, appointed Warren E. Burger as Chief Justice.

 

[gilliam]

SnorterLuster:

It seems to me that the Fortas filibuster was agreed upon by both the Dems and the GOP. I can’t remember all the details, but some bad things had been revealed about Mr. Fortas. For some obscure procedural reason the Senate had to filibuster to prevent a vote until Mr. Fortas could withdraw from consideration.

I am working from memory only, but at least that filibuster was bi-partisan to prevent a wholly sleazy candidate from being sent to the Supreme Court.

Yep your correct:
*When the Judiciary Committee revealed that Fortas received a privately funded stipend, equivalent to 40 percent of his Court salary, to teach an American University summer course, Dirksen and others withdrew their support. Although the committee recommended confirmation, floor consideration sparked the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination. *
On October 1, 1968, the Senate failed to invoke cloture. Johnson then withdrew the nomination, privately observing that if he had another term, “the Fortas appointment would have been different.”
senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Filibuster_Derails_Supreme_Court_Appointment.htm

Again, this was an exceptional event. Not something you can point to to show that for political reasons there is a long history of filibustering a judicial candidate.

Gee, do you think the Democrats will stick to using it only for exceptional events like this one? Time will tell, and pretty soon I suspect.

 

[rlg94086]

gilliam:

Gee, do you think the Democrats will stick to using it only for exceptional events like this one? Time will tell, and pretty soon I suspect.

Well, since their last president argued about what the definition of “is” is, than I have no idea what Dems think the definition of “extraordinary circumstances” is.

Peace,

Robert.