Filibuster Deal Puts Democrats In a Bind

Thanks, KenH!

Maybe there is some rational thought in Washington!

 

Perhaps Bush will turn the screw and nominate Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen.

 

I suppose that the comment is correct, but not accurate. Of course from of the 14 Senators are poised to keep the democrats from filibustering... they would be the 7 Republicans. But if you really think that at least most of the 7 democrats won't join in with the rest of the left to block any good judge, you live in a dream world. I will be SHOCKED if there isn't a filibuster.

 

I agree. If the democrats do choose to filibuster I hope that Frist forces a floor filibuster, not the gentlemans filibuster that has become common in recent years. Then if the Democrats filibuster a Supreme Court nominee they may be fouling their own foul nest.

 

No politician is going to be held to an agreement if there is a political gain at stake. The dems will likely say this agreement is not binding. Or they will just ignore it.

Appoint a conservative and see if they want to hold it up. If they do, make them filibuster ... I mean actually take the floor and hold it by speaking, and make them shut down the Senate over it.

 

I agree. However, if the democrats do choose to filibuster I hope that Frist forces a floor filibuster, not the sham filibuster that has become common in recent years. Then if the democrats filibuster a Supreme Court nominee they may be fouling their own foul nest.

 

I think that you are correct. McCain is liable to cooperate with the Democrats and the Democrats are liable to get under the wing of the Mormon cultist Reid. It is Frist that will be unable to deliver once again. McCain thinks that he can get the GOP nomination in 2008 and he wants to marginalize Frist early.

Bush may select the one of the three judges that just got through because the Senate would more likely than not pass on them.

The Democrats are trying to prop up O'Connor in hopes of getting another like her--liberal when it matters to liberals.

The abortion industry is so high-paying that the Democrats have a vested interest in keeping abortion legal.

 

The devil is in the details. The agreement says that they won't fillibuster except in cases of "extreme circumstances". They never really defined that though. I will tell you, appointing a conservative to the SC will be an extreme circumstance for the extremist fundamentalist liberals, and they will fillibuster. I say, go nuclear and get rid of the fillibuster. Nobody should be allowed to fillibuster. The Communists liberals of the world call democracy the tyranny of the majority. I call the fillibuster the tyranny of the minority.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I'll believe it when I see it.

The truth is you just can't trust democrats to keep their word. That includes the 7 "moderates" that are party to the compromise.

Believe me, any disagreement with a nominee's judicial record or ideology will be considered "extraordinary circumstances".

 

I'll believe it when I see it.

The truth is you just can't trust democrats to keep their word. That includes the 7 "moderates" that are party to the compromise.

Believe me, any disagreement with a nominee's judicial record or ideology will be considered "extraordinary circumstances". </font>[/QUOTE]Then the GOP can argue effectively that the 7 Dems backed out on an agreement, which makes them look like a pack of liars.

 

The only problem is the seven liberal RINOS who are helping them obstruct the party's agenda.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Then they can shut down the gov't.

 

I'll believe it when I see it.

The truth is you just can't trust democrats to keep their word. That includes the 7 "moderates" that are party to the compromise.

Believe me, any disagreement with a nominee's judicial record or ideology will be considered "extraordinary circumstances". </font>[/QUOTE]Then the GOP can argue effectively that the 7 Dems backed out on an agreement, which makes them look like a pack of liars. </font>[/QUOTE]Republicans are political cowards and afraid to hold democrats to their word. If they weren't, this issue would already be resolved and their definition of "extraordinary circumstances" wouldn't matter.

 

First, the deal is uninforcable.

Second, I suspect that it doesn't make any difference. The judges probably take turns being the bad guy.