Republicans Cave Again! Huzzah!

[theim]

So if I just heard that press conference correctly:

3/7 judges confirmed
Democrats get fillibuster in "Extreme circumstances"

Perfect. Well that's that. Any good reasons why three should get a vote, and not the other four? And I can only imagine what would constitute "exreme circumstances". Talk about a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. Ted Kennedy: "You didn't buy me a drink! That's an extreme circumstance!"

Well this is why McCain will never get the Republican presidential nomination. I would vote for a Democrat before that idiot, I swear to God. They couldn't just say "no more" could they. I suppose it was too much to hope for anyways.

But I'm sounding so down! This is a happy day! I think I'll tune into the news for more of Bob "KKK" Byrd proclaiming how we just averted disaster!

 

[Mr. P]

The "Extreme circumstances" were going to be the Nuc. option tomorrow from what I heard today..So, to prevent it they gave 3, and you're right the GOP caved..

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I don't see how this is considered caving in. As far as I'm concerned, getting 95% SHOULD have made you all happy. What this 'compromise' has done is kept the senate from bringing the peoples business to a grinding halt by giving the GOP 3 more judges than they should have gotten, unless janice rogers brown is included in the compromise.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Well this is why McCain will never get the Republican presidential nomination. I would vote for a Democrat before that idiot, I swear to God. They couldn't just say "no more" could they. I suppose it was too much to hope for anyways.

not sure WHY I don't believe that.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Unbeliveable. Dealing with the devil once again. McCain can kiss his presidential hopes goodbye.

 

[theim]

not sure WHY I don't believe that.

Okay, maybe that was a little overreacting =)

probly wouldn't vote tho.

I can just imagine, what would Barbara Boxer or Ted Kennedy consider "extreme"?

 

[KarlMarx]

An Oscar Nomination goes to the GOP for "Best impersonation of a minority party by a majority party" ----

You know.... next time, I'm voting Conservative Party, not Republican

Spineless jellyfish....

WTF are these idiots afraid of? That the Democrats won't like them? Oooh what then? Robert Byrd won't invite them to his next cross burning or Hillary's next bra burning? Or perhaps Ted Kennedy might not let them play with his blowup dolls? Gee wiz, Michael Moore might make a film that says terrible and mean things about them and they might get their little ol' feeling hurt, and then they might cry! oh boo hoo hoo! It's so terrible to be a misunderstood Republican on Capital Hill, now that they're a majority party, the Democrats won't let them vote..... Probably what happened was that Hillary Clinton threatened to give them all swirlies and wedgies after Congress let out... that's what happened. She probably made them all give her a quarter too or else she would make them eat a bug....

This has to be one of the sorriest bunch of shitheads I've ever voted for. By caving in to the Democrats, the Republicans are lining their own coffins with lead bricks. If the Democrats come back to power, they will not show one bit of restraint towards the Republicans, just like they did when they were in power.

 

[KarlMarx]

Okay, maybe that was a little overreacting =)

probly wouldn't vote tho.

I can just imagine, what would Barbara Boxer or Ted Kennedy consider "extreme"?

Well in Ted Kennedy's case, spending 20 consecutive minutes sober or not hitting on a member of the opposite sex....

Besides that, anything right of extreme left... like voting to limit a mother's right to an abortion before her baby reaches the age of 21.... like voting to limit the maximum tax rate to under 1,000%.... like pulling all of our troops out of every foreign country including Hawaii and Alaska.... like turning over our government to the UN.... like voting to deny felons, dead people, illegal aliens, your imaginary friend, primates, livestock and household pets the right to vote Democrat, like voting against getting the UN's, the Arabs', the Canadians' and the French's permission to use military force, have elections, teach our kids morals and using the bathroom, like being against the lowering of the age of consent to about 2 or 3 (hours), like being against nationalized healthcare, like being in favor of free enterprise and the right to private property, like being against requiring every child to take sex education, diversity training, feminist theory, queer theory, Marxist socialism, revisionist American history, AIDS awareness, sadomasochistic technique, the history of bondage and discipline, voodoo, Kali worship, pole dancing, and vegetarian cooking classes....

in short, anything that a person who suffers from acute schizophrenic paranoid psychosis finds unreasonable.....

 

[yeula]

It is wonderful to see your reaction to the fuss over the Senate filibuster. Nothing about the history of the Senate, the longevity of the filibuster, the use by both parties over the years of the filibuster nor the thought that in the future the Republicans might need to filibuster troubles your minds. Just nuke the Democrats.

You may be wrong but you are never in doubt.

People behave the way they do because they get a payoff of some kind. I imagine that inside you are afraid and unsure. You project careless bravado and that makes you feel better.

You fear looking honestly at issues and discussing them. You have no need to do that. The facts about issues are beside the point. Playing the role of macho toughs who are certain and who are never wrong is what you need. Rightwing propagandists know precisely what your needs are and they play to them to the hilt. they make fools of you. google Log Cabin Republicans. A verable old group that has been around for years.

Its too bad that you are exposed and that others are aware of what you are doing.

You're not tough. You are vunerable. You are not smart. You are clueless. You wouldn't know the first thing to do or say if you were on the Senate floor. Your big talk about the Republicans caving is just that. big talk.

You have created your own little dogma here and you fiercely protect it because who knows what would happen to you if you were suddenly without it. Uncertainty is very frightening for you.

When a wise person puts forward an idea only to be enlightened by someone else that they are wrong that person CHANGES THEIR MIND. They then are able to move forward smarter and wiser.

When someone shows you people that there are other ways to think of an issue, rather then changing your minds you seek to attack that person and destroy them before their truth destroys your pitiful fragile world.

Thats why you'll remain clueless. Fearful. Insecure. Loudmouthed. Exposed.

 

[theim]

And did you hear those idiots?? "This is an issue of trust". THEY ACTUALLY SAID THAT. Who the hell would trust TED frickn' Kennedy? Any chance of getting another Pro-Life Supreme Court Justice just flew out the fickn' window. Actually scratch that. Republicans shived themselves in the back, then threw it out themselves.

 

[theim]

It is wonderful to see your reaction to the fuss over the Senate filibuster. Nothing about the history of the Senate, the longevity of the filibuster, the use by both parties over the years of the filibuster nor the thought that in the future the Republicans might need to filibuster troubles your minds. Just nuke the Democrats.

You may be wrong but you are never in doubt.

People behave the way they do because they get a payoff of some kind. I imagine that inside you are afraid and unsure. You project careless bravado and that makes you feel better.

You fear looking honestly at issues and discussing them. You have no need to do that. The facts about issues are beside the point. Playing the role of macho toughs who are certain and who are never wrong is what you need. Rightwing propagandists know precisely what your needs are and they play to them to the hilt. they make fools of you. google Log Cabin Republicans. A verable old group that has been around for years.

Its too bad that you are exposed and that others are aware of what you are doing.

You're not tough. You are vunerable. You are not smart. You are clueless. You wouldn't know the first thing to do or say if you were on the Senate floor. Your big talk about the Republicans caving is just that. big talk.

You have created your own little dogma here and you fiercely protect it because who knows what would happen to you if you were suddenly without it. Uncertainty is very frightening for you.

When a wise person puts forward an idea only to be enlightened by someone else that they are wrong that person CHANGES THEIR MIND. They then are able to move forward smarter and wiser.

When someone shows you people that there are other ways to think of an issue, rather then changing your minds you seek to attack that person and destroy them before their truth destroys your pitiful fragile world.

Thats why you'll remain clueless. Fearful. Insecure. Loudmouthed. Exposed.

I'm really not going to waste my time with you. Didn't my Sith Troopers deal with you anways? Master Darth Dubya will not be pleased...

 

[KarlMarx]

It is wonderful to see your reaction to the fuss over the Senate filibuster. Nothing about the history of the Senate, the longevity of the filibuster, the use by both parties over the years of the filibuster nor the thought that in the future the Republicans might need to filibuster troubles your minds. Just nuke the Democrats.

You may be wrong but you are never in doubt.

People behave the way they do because they get a payoff of some kind. I imagine that inside you are afraid and unsure. You project careless bravado and that makes you feel better.

You fear looking honestly at issues and discussing them. You have no need to do that. The facts about issues are beside the point. Playing the role of macho toughs who are certain and who are never wrong is what you need. Rightwing propagandists know precisely what your needs are and they play to them to the hilt. they make fools of you. google Log Cabin Republicans. A verable old group that has been around for years.

Its too bad that you are exposed and that others are aware of what you are doing.

You're not tough. You are vunerable. You are not smart. You are clueless. You wouldn't know the first thing to do or say if you were on the Senate floor. Your big talk about the Republicans caving is just that. big talk.

You have created your own little dogma here and you fiercely protect it because who knows what would happen to you if you were suddenly without it. Uncertainty is very frightening for you.

When a wise person puts forward an idea only to be enlightened by someone else that they are wrong that person CHANGES THEIR MIND. They then are able to move forward smarter and wiser.

When someone shows you people that there are other ways to think of an issue, rather then changing your minds you seek to attack that person and destroy them before their truth destroys your pitiful fragile world.

Thats why you'll remain clueless. Fearful. Insecure. Loudmouthed. Exposed.

Your powers of insight are amazing! You're right, I'm an insecure, pathetic loudmouth who doesn't have a clue about what is going on and lives in a pathetic fragile world, and I should feel ashamed of myself for exercising my First Amendment right to free speech....but you didn't pick up on the fact that I'm an ax murderer.....

So, thanks for the psychoanalysis, Doc. I'll be sure to cure myself by voting Democrat next time....

While you're at it, could read my horoscope too?

Oh, and by the way, most of the Senate was elected by fearful, insecure conservatives like myself, which means that most people voted for a Republican Senate to advance Republican/Conservative policy. That's how a representative form of government works, the rule of the majority. Got it? Thanks to the filibuster, the will of the majority of the people is now being thwarted. We don't elect the President by a 60% majority, legislation isn't passed by a 60% majority (except in the event of a presidential veto, which is mandated as a 2/3 super majority by the Constitution).... but in the wisdom of the Senate, 60 votes is needed to get a vote on a justice nominated by the president that most of your fellow citizens voted for. And the filibustering of judicial nominees is not "time honored tradition in the Senate" .... it's only been around since 2002, when one of my Senators (the Honorable Junior Senator from New York) thought it a great way to maintain her party's grip on power.

That is not the rule of the people but the rule of an oligarchy. Which is probably OK by you, too.

Now, why is filibustering a bunch of justices so important to the Senate Democrats? Because the Democrats advance their agenda through the will of the courts instead of the will of the people. They did it with abortion, they did it with gay marriage, they'll continue to do it. That is why there is an ACLU. And the Democrats know that if conservative justices are put on the bench, they will lose their last chance at getting their agenda passed over the objections of the American voters. The Democrats know that if they showed their true colors to the American people, if they were honest about their agenda, that they wouldn't have a prayer of getting a single piece of legislation passed. That is why the Democrats are losing power, that's why they lose elections.

P.S. And, yes, you're right, I wouldn't know what to say or do on the Senate floor, just like you and most people. That is why I voted for someone to represent me on the Senate floor..... but don't be deceived, I don't subscribe to the notion that judges, Senators and the like know more than I do, nor do they possess more wisdom than I do but they are my servants who have skills that I may lack (i.e. the power to persuade) and when the day comes that I feel they no longer are serving me, I will vote them out of office.

P.P.S. And further notice that many of us were criticizing fellow Republicans which is something that the monolithic thinking automatons of the Left rarely, if ever, do with their leadership.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Isn't it the truth?

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/toons/fuller/fuller1.asp

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Now, why is filibustering a bunch of justices so important to the Senate Democrats? Because the Democrats advance their agenda through the will of the courts instead of the will of the people. They did it with abortion, they did it with gay marriage, they'll continue to do it.

Not true at all.

'Activist Judges' under siege
Recent events have brought the term "activist judge" to the forefront of American politics, but some judicial experts say they believe the label may be nothing more than a smokescreen to taint members of the court.

"There is no such thing as an activist judge," said FOX News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano, who served as a New Jersey superior court judge from 1987 to 1995.

"An activist judge is one whose ruling you disagree with. And if you agree with what the judge has done, you call them heroic and intelligent and honest. If you disagree with them, you call them activists."

Napolitano said the definition of "activist judge" differs from the right to the left side of the political spectrum.

"To conservatives, activist judges are those who permit or compel activity in which the opinion of the conservatives can only be done in the legislative branch," he said. "To liberals, activist judges are judges who prevent the government from doing things that the Legislature wants to do."

The dictionary defines an "activist" as someone who fights in support of or in opposition to one side of a controversial issue.

But members from both sides of the political aisle have been applying the label of "activist judge" to jurists who are believed to be applying their own ideological beliefs to their rulings, rather than adhering to established law.

When the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to prevent gay couples from marrying in that state, President Bush and Republicans blasted "activist judges" for interpreting the state constitution in a way that "redefined marriage."

Republican lawmakers also slapped the "activist" tag on Florida judges who ruled that Terri Schiavo's husband had the right to determine whether his brain-damaged wife's feeding tube should be removed. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay even asked the House Judiciary Committee to look into "judicial activism" at the time.

Now, Democrats are labeling at least two of Bush's judicial nominees, Texas Supreme Court judge Priscilla Owen and California Supreme Court judge Janice Rogers Brown, as "activist judges" in their effort to prove they're out of the "mainstream" of public opinion on hot-button issues.

Owen has been nominated for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, while Brown has been recommended by Bush for the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., fighting for his party's right to retain the use of the filibuster to oppose Bush's judicial nominees, said Thursday that Owen's record in Texas "marks her as a judge willing to make law from the bench rather than follow the language and intent of the Legislature or judicial precedent."

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said Brown's record on the California Supreme Court "makes clear that she's a judicial activist who will roll back basic rights."

"Her record shows a deep hostility to civil rights, to workers' rights, to consumer protection, and to a wide variety of governmental actions in many other areas — the very issues that predominate in the D.C. Circuit," Kennedy said on the Senate floor.

Democrats have specifically charged that Owen was an "activist" when she dissented in a series of decisions in 2000, in which the majority of her colleagues ruled that a judge could allow minors to be exempted from a law requiring parental notification of children receiving abortions.

The law allowed the notification to be bypassed if a judge found it was in the best interest of the minor. But Owen said one of the girls in question was too young to make up her own mind.

"She was simply writing, along with the rest of the court, her interpretation of a rather vague statute the Legislature had passed dealing with parental notification," said John Hill, former chief justice of the Supreme Court where Owen serves. "It had nothing to do, per se, with abortion."

Sen. George Allen, R-Va., noted last week that as former governor, he signed a law requiring parents of girls 17 or younger to be informed if their child was having an abortion.

"Justice Owen has repeatedly demonstrated an adherence to Supreme Court precedent, including Roe v. Wade," Allen said. "This is logical law … when parents, minors, go through this trauma, [parents] ought to know … Justice Owen was correct in applying the statute as she did."

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said approving parental notification is not activist.

"The Supreme Court has said parental notification is constitutional," he said, adding that in this case, Owen's activism "absolutely should not be held against her."

In the past, politicians and others have decried Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that upheld a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, as the epitome of judicial activism. Another suit frequently cited is Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 school desegregation case.

But legal experts said the term "activist judge" is nothing more than political name-calling and that it's a jurist's duty to rule based on his or her interpretation of law.

"Any judge, especially a federal judge, will tell you it's a judge's role, of course, to take the facts of the individual case that's before the judge and apply the law of those particular facts," said Kathryn Monroe, director of the courts initiative at Georgetown University's Constitution Project. "For the idea that judges are somehow attempting to actively [legislate] policy from the bench is really unfounded."

Napolitano agreed that it is wrong to call dissent from a majority opinion "activism," since a dissent does not create policy.

"All dissents are good, because they force the majority to rethink or justify their position," Napolitano said.

"Certainly, someone who is not ruling with the majority cannot be claimed to be effecting some sort of policy from the bench, because they're in the minority in that decision and all they're doing is expressing their discomfort or disagreement with that decision — they're not creating law," Monroe added.

"To the degree that judges feel they cannot make individual decisions in individual cases … [if] they fear that decision is unpopular, they will come under attack … we at that point risk that judges won't do what we need them to do. It's the one thing that distinguishes our country from other emerging democracies," she said.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, told graduates of Brandeis University on Sunday that she was concerned over the recent attacks against the judiciary.

"I worry when people of influence use vague, loaded terms like 'judicial activist' to skew public debate or to intimidate judges," said Marshall, who helped write the Massachusetts 4-3 court ruling in November 2003 that said gays and lesbians have the constitutional right to marry.

"I worry when judicial independence is seen as a problem to be solved and not a value to be cherished."

 

[archangel]

An Oscar Nomination goes to the GOP for "Best impersonation of a minority party by a majority party" ----

You know.... next time, I'm voting Conservative Party, not Republican

Spineless jellyfish....

WTF are these idiots afraid of? That the Democrats won't like them? Oooh what then? Robert Byrd won't invite them to his next cross burning or Hillary's next bra burning? Or perhaps Ted Kennedy might not let them play with his blowup dolls? Gee wiz, Michael Moore might make a film that says terrible and mean things about them and they might get their little ol' feeling hurt, and then they might cry! oh boo hoo hoo! It's so terrible to be a misunderstood Republican on Capital Hill, now that they're a majority party, the Democrats won't let them vote..... Probably what happened was that Hillary Clinton threatened to give them all swirlies and wedgies after Congress let out... that's what happened. She probably made them all give her a quarter too or else she would make them eat a bug....

This has to be one of the sorriest bunch of shitheads I've ever voted for. By caving in to the Democrats, the Republicans are lining their own coffins with lead bricks. If the Democrats come back to power, they will not show one bit of restraint towards the Republicans, just like they did when they were in power.

Read all of your posts on this issue...right on you are...You forgot to post Senator Harry Reid of my state of Nevada though...It really cracked me up watching him make another ass out of himself...at the end of the fabulous 14 comments on why they did what they did...old "Leave it to Beaver" Harry got on the mic and took full credit for this fiasco...even though he was not one of the 14...go figure...
Anyone ready for another "Boston Tea Party"...? :cof:

 

[Avatar4321]

i dont think we have to worry about it yet. this isnt over yet. Senator Frist has not signed on to this so he could still send all 10 nominees up and we will see how willing the Democrats are to "Compromise" We will have them breaking it within the week.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I guess you'd like to redefine compromise as 'STFU and sign off on it'.

 

[Avatar4321]

I guess you'd like to redefine compromise as 'STFU and sign off on it'.

No compromise would be having the Senators do their job and vote on nominees.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

No compromise would be having the Senators do their job and vote on nominees.

so lets reduce advise and consent down to consent. The proverbial rubber stamp.

 

[no1tovote4]

so lets reduce advise and consent down to consent. The proverbial rubber stamp.

That would assume that every vote would be a positive vote. I don't think that this would be the case. Advise certainly doesn't mean "refuse and reject" either.