Rulles...Rules...Rules...

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Jan 7, 2004
5,849
384
48
Columbus, OH
<center><h1><font color=330066>Don't like the rules...? Just Change 'em</font></h1></center>

With the battle over the filibuster heating up in the Senate, understanding a few of the Senate rules that Senator Frist's, and the Republican leadership, will be breaking in the "nuclear option" in its implementation.

<blockquote><a href=http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=18761>Senate Rules and Precedents That Would be Broken Through Exercise of the Nuclear Option</a>

Violation # 1. Rule V: The Senate must follow its Rules to amend its Rules
Paragraph 2 of Rule V states expressly that “Rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these Rules.” (emphasis added). The proposed nuclear option is a deliberate end-run around the Senate’s regular process (discussed below) for amending its own Rules because Senator Frist does not have the strong bipartisan support he needs in the current Senate to follow the regular order.

Violation # 2. Rule V: Suspending the Rules without amending them.
The Senate Rules provide expressly for the sole mechanism to suspend the Rules without amending them. Under Rule V, paragraph 1, the Senate may only suspend its Rules either by unanimous consent or by adopting a motion to suspend the Rules. Adoption of such a motion requires a 2/3 vote of Senators present.3 The nuclear option, by relying on a simple majority vote to change the Rules without changing the text (arguably a kind of suspension), clearly violates the 2/3 vote requirement.

Violation # 3. Rule XXII: Violating the process for changing the Senate’s Rules.
Paragraph 2 of Rule XXII establishes the requirements for ending debate on a proposed change to the Senate’s Rules. Under Rule XXII, a cloture petition signed by sixteen Senators must first be submitted to the Senate. The vote to invoke cloture (end debate) on amendment to the Rules cannot be held until 2 days after the cloture petition is filed, and the rule provides that 2/3 of Senators present and voting must consent to end debate.

Violation #4. Failing to submit a constitutional Point of order to the Senate.
Proponents of the nuclear option purport to justify their unprecedented approach by invoking the U.S. Constitution – to the point of trying to rename the nuclear option the “constitutional option.”4 Some have even argued that the filibuster of judicial nominations is unconstitutional, and that the Senate can therefore ignore its process for amending the Rules to eliminate it.5 Under long-established precedents of the Senate, when a point of order with an asserted constitutional basis is raised, the Chair does not rule on the point of order but instead submits it directly to the full Senate.6 However, such a point of order is debatable and it would take 60 votes to end debate on the constitutional point of order and bring it to a vote. Because it is not clear that Senator Frist has 51 votes for the nuclear option – much less 60 – it is likely that Vice President Cheney will rule directly on Frist’s “constitutional” point of order, violating Senate precedent.

Violation # 5. Rule XXII: Ending debate on a nomination.
The text of Paragraph 2 of Rule XXII expressly requires 60 Senators (3/5s of Senators duly chosen and sworn) to vote to end debate on “any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate,” including a judicial nomination. If the nuclear option is successful, and for the first time in our history Senators’ right to debate is ended by simple majority vote, this will constitute an express violation of Rule XXII’s 60 vote requirement. In essence, Rule XXII would be changed, but not in a manner provided by the Rules of the Senate.

Violation # 6. Overriding the Senate’s Parliamentarian
The Senate Parliamentarian is the officer charged with keeping the precedents of the Senate and advising the presiding officer of the Rules and precedents of the Senate if a point of order is raised from the floor. The current Parliamentarian, Alan Frumin, has worked for that office as either Parliamentarian or assistant Parliamentarian since 1977 under both Democratic and Republican majorities. It has been widely reported that the Senate Parliamentarian will advise the chair that any point of order to force a simple majority vote to end debate on a nominee would violate the Rules and precedents of the Senate. Therefore, for the nuclear option to succeed, the presiding officer, most likely Vice President Cheney in his role as President of the Senate, would have to ignore the advice of the Parliamentarian in ruling on a point of order. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, such an action would “constitute an extraordinary proceeding involving peremptory departure from the established system of Senate procedure.”7

Vice President Cheney will need to ignore the Parliamentarian to invoke the nuclear option because Republicans must engineer a scenario where, as stated above, nuclear option opponents appeal a ruling of the chair endorsing the nuclear option. Frist must ensure that opponents appeal because the appeal itself is debatable, while a motion to table (kill) the appeal is not debatable. If Republican leaders try to overturn an adverse ruling by the chair through their own appeal (which would occur if the chair follows the parliamentarian), opponents could simple filibuster the appeal and a motion to table the appeal would set the opposite precedent than Frist wishes to achieve.</blockquote>

It <i><b>should</b></i> be apparent to all by now, that the Republican leadership in Congress and the White House consider themselves to be above and beyond any rule or law. Those that they find inconvenient or obstructive to their agenda, they try to change. In the House, the Republican leadership tried to change the ethics rules to benefit Tom DeLay, given the possibility of his indictment in Texas. The Republican leadership in the Senate is attempting to change rules which allow a principled minority to stand up to the tyranny of the majority. The Administration has changed rules on air and water quality, workplace safety, Medicare, bankruptcy, etc. because they were inconvenient to campaign contributors, thus to the money flowing into Republican pockets.

The Republican leadership in this nation preach about the virtues of ehtics and values. The reality, however, is that they lack any ethics and value only that which tightens their grip on power. They are the greatest threat the Republic now faces...not from terrorists...not from "activist judges"...not from permitting the marriage of same-gender couples. They, not some outside enemy, will be the death of the Republic.

<blockquote>We have met the enemy...And he is us! - Pogo</blockquote>
 
Bullypulpit said:
.... The Administration has changed rules on air and water quality, workplace safety, Medicare, bankruptcy, etc. because they were inconvenient to campaign contributors, thus to the money flowing into Republican pockets.

The Republican leadership in this nation preach about the virtues of ehtics and values. The reality, however, is that they lack any ethics and value only that which tightens their grip on power. They are the greatest threat the Republic now faces...not from terrorists...not from "activist judges"...not from permitting the marriage of same-gender couples. ...
You know, it PAINS me to say, I pretty much agree with that.
 
Not too much argument from me about the ethics of either party, but there is no doubt in my mind that both parties try to skew the rules in favor of enabling their agenda. Portraying the Republican party as unique in doing this is just downright deceitful.
 
Mr. P said:
You know, it PAINS me to say, I pretty much agree with that.

What is really scary is that even with all of these faults , the Republicans look like virgin boyscouts compared to the likes of such wonderful Democrat celebrities as the KKK Grand Wizard , The drunk that drowned his date years ago , and the rapists /liar that inhabited the Oval Office between the years 1992 and 2000 .But then again , you weren't talking about them , are you ever critical of Dems? :wtf:
 
CSM said:
Not too much argument from me about the ethics of either party, but there is no doubt in my mind that both parties try to skew the rules in favor of enabling their agenda. Portraying the Republican party as unique in doing this is just downright deceitful.
True...What pains me is the Republican party seems to have become
the pandering for votes party. Not what I support at all..Excluding the WOT, what have they really done for the Country in the last 5 1/2 years vs what they have done for big business?
 
sitarro said:
What is really scary is that even with all of these faults , the Republicans look like virgin boyscouts compared to the likes of such wonderful Democrat celebrities as the KKK Grand Wizard , The drunk that drowned his date years ago , and the rapists /liar that inhabited the Oval Office between the years 1992 and 2000 .But then again , you weren't talking about them , are you ever critical of Dems? :wtf:
Of course I am..I'm talking about how this party that I supported for years is, IMO, killing itself.
 
Mr. P said:
True...What pains me is the Republican party seems to have become
the pandering for votes party. Not what I support at all..Excluding the WOT, what have they really done for the Country in the last 5 1/2 years vs what they have done for big business?

Lower taxes?

Booming economy?

More jobs?

Just to name a few. The GOP is certainly not perfect but they are doing a decent job, IMO.
 
gop_jeff said:
Lower taxes?

Booming economy?

More jobs?

Just to name a few. The GOP is certainly not perfect but they are doing a decent job, IMO.
Lower taxes..we'll see how long that lasts..My guess is it can't with all the spending.

Booming economy...where? Sure it's moving along, but I'd hardly call it Booming.

More jobs...Yep for India, Mexico and China.
 
Mr. P said:
Of course I am..I'm talking about how this party that I supported for years is, IMO, killing itself.
Although I quoted your post , I wasn't refering to you P, I was speaking to Bully.
I do have to say that in a Capitalistic society , helping business prosper is helping the country prosper . You will need to go to the Democrats for vote buying handouts , that is what they specialize in . Jeff's list states the major contributions the Republicans have made in the last 5 years , what have the Democrats done but obstruct everthing the Republican administration proposes ?
The problem with the system we have is that the Dems will get in control , run down our defense by cutting spending , put regulations on business that makes it less competitive in the world market , and innact numerous social programs that kill incentive to progress in life by stealing money from the producers and giving to the dependers (in other words screwing up everything that makes this country work ). . . . then Republicans get into power and are forced to waste time fixing everything the Dems messed up . On top of that , the idiots in the Dem party , the ones with the most power and biggest mouths , fight the fixes every step of the way , all the while telling you how much they care for you the individual and are fighting the evil Republicans , the pro business jerks . I am amazed that you have fallen for their bullshit P , don't tell me you are a Buchannan follower . I think that idiot should have realized it long ago that he only appeals to the Aryans in this country , he is so far right that if he appears with anyone they immediately become unelectible .
 
Mr. P said:
Lower taxes..we'll see how long that lasts..My guess is it can't with all the spending.

Booming economy...where? Sure it's moving along, but I'd hardly call it Booming.

More jobs...Yep for India, Mexico and China.

As tax rates fall, tax revenues rise. It was proven in the 1980s, and it's beginning to be proven again.

Every economic indicator is at just about the same level as it was in the middle of the 1990s boom.

And here are your outsourced jobs.
 
gop_jeff said:
As tax rates fall, tax revenues rise. It was proven in the 1980s, and it's beginning to be proven again.

Every economic indicator is at just about the same level as it was in the middle of the 1990s boom.

And here are your outsourced jobs.


Jeff...you keep going back to your original post on 11mil jobs...well it only says 11mil created...not where they went....kinda a oxymoron...IMO!
 
archangel said:
Jeff...you keep going back to your original post on 11mil jobs...well it only says 11mil created...not where they went....kinda a oxymoron...IMO!
True. But at least now they are being created in REAL jobs and not just jobs that are part of a bigger scam as it was in the late 90's with the tech boom/bust. People were investing millions into nothing more than ideas and hiring hundreds. Eventually when their ideas didn't pan out, all those folks were put on the street. Somehow though, that has become this president's fault even though it was under Clinton's watch when it developed and occurred. People are so nearsighted it is PATHETIC.
 
freeandfun1 said:
True. But at least now they are being created in REAL jobs and not just jobs that are part of a bigger scam as it was in the late 90's with the tech boom/bust. People were investing millions into nothing more than ideas and hiring hundreds. Eventually when their ideas didn't pan out, all those folks were put on the street. Somehow though, that has become this president's fault even though it was under Clinton's watch when it developed and occurred. People are so nearsighted it is PATHETIC.



However,the average worker in the US sees no benefit from either...real jobs overseas does not contribute to the "Workers"economy... just CEO's and the top ten percent of investors!
 
<center><h1><a href=http://mediamatters.org/items/200505180004>The Top 10 filibuster falsehoods</a></h1></center>

A look at the misrepresentations and outright lies being put forth by the supporters of the "nuclear option".
 
gop_jeff said:
Yes, the concept of "majority rules" will be the death of America... :rolleyes:

Majority rules work when the majority is rational and have the best interests of the nation front and foremost in their considerations. But that's not the case here. The Republican leadership is focused solely on the consolidation of power in the hands of the party, and profiting from it.
 
Bullypulpit said:
<center><h1><font color=330066>Don't like the rules...? Just Change 'em</font></h1></center>

With the battle over the filibuster heating up in the Senate, understanding a few of the Senate rules that Senator Frist's, and the Republican leadership, will be breaking in the "nuclear option" in its implementation.

<blockquote><a href=http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=18761>Senate Rules and Precedents That Would be Broken Through Exercise of the Nuclear Option</a>

Violation # 1. Rule V: The Senate must follow its Rules to amend its Rules
Paragraph 2 of Rule V states expressly that “Rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these Rules.” (emphasis added). The proposed nuclear option is a deliberate end-run around the Senate’s regular process (discussed below) for amending its own Rules because Senator Frist does not have the strong bipartisan support he needs in the current Senate to follow the regular order.

Violation # 2. Rule V: Suspending the Rules without amending them.
The Senate Rules provide expressly for the sole mechanism to suspend the Rules without amending them. Under Rule V, paragraph 1, the Senate may only suspend its Rules either by unanimous consent or by adopting a motion to suspend the Rules. Adoption of such a motion requires a 2/3 vote of Senators present.3 The nuclear option, by relying on a simple majority vote to change the Rules without changing the text (arguably a kind of suspension), clearly violates the 2/3 vote requirement.

Violation # 3. Rule XXII: Violating the process for changing the Senate’s Rules.
Paragraph 2 of Rule XXII establishes the requirements for ending debate on a proposed change to the Senate’s Rules. Under Rule XXII, a cloture petition signed by sixteen Senators must first be submitted to the Senate. The vote to invoke cloture (end debate) on amendment to the Rules cannot be held until 2 days after the cloture petition is filed, and the rule provides that 2/3 of Senators present and voting must consent to end debate.

Violation #4. Failing to submit a constitutional Point of order to the Senate.
Proponents of the nuclear option purport to justify their unprecedented approach by invoking the U.S. Constitution – to the point of trying to rename the nuclear option the “constitutional option.”4 Some have even argued that the filibuster of judicial nominations is unconstitutional, and that the Senate can therefore ignore its process for amending the Rules to eliminate it.5 Under long-established precedents of the Senate, when a point of order with an asserted constitutional basis is raised, the Chair does not rule on the point of order but instead submits it directly to the full Senate.6 However, such a point of order is debatable and it would take 60 votes to end debate on the constitutional point of order and bring it to a vote. Because it is not clear that Senator Frist has 51 votes for the nuclear option – much less 60 – it is likely that Vice President Cheney will rule directly on Frist’s “constitutional” point of order, violating Senate precedent.

Violation # 5. Rule XXII: Ending debate on a nomination.
The text of Paragraph 2 of Rule XXII expressly requires 60 Senators (3/5s of Senators duly chosen and sworn) to vote to end debate on “any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate,” including a judicial nomination. If the nuclear option is successful, and for the first time in our history Senators’ right to debate is ended by simple majority vote, this will constitute an express violation of Rule XXII’s 60 vote requirement. In essence, Rule XXII would be changed, but not in a manner provided by the Rules of the Senate.

Violation # 6. Overriding the Senate’s Parliamentarian
The Senate Parliamentarian is the officer charged with keeping the precedents of the Senate and advising the presiding officer of the Rules and precedents of the Senate if a point of order is raised from the floor. The current Parliamentarian, Alan Frumin, has worked for that office as either Parliamentarian or assistant Parliamentarian since 1977 under both Democratic and Republican majorities. It has been widely reported that the Senate Parliamentarian will advise the chair that any point of order to force a simple majority vote to end debate on a nominee would violate the Rules and precedents of the Senate. Therefore, for the nuclear option to succeed, the presiding officer, most likely Vice President Cheney in his role as President of the Senate, would have to ignore the advice of the Parliamentarian in ruling on a point of order. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, such an action would “constitute an extraordinary proceeding involving peremptory departure from the established system of Senate procedure.”7

Vice President Cheney will need to ignore the Parliamentarian to invoke the nuclear option because Republicans must engineer a scenario where, as stated above, nuclear option opponents appeal a ruling of the chair endorsing the nuclear option. Frist must ensure that opponents appeal because the appeal itself is debatable, while a motion to table (kill) the appeal is not debatable. If Republican leaders try to overturn an adverse ruling by the chair through their own appeal (which would occur if the chair follows the parliamentarian), opponents could simple filibuster the appeal and a motion to table the appeal would set the opposite precedent than Frist wishes to achieve.</blockquote>

It <i><b>should</b></i> be apparent to all by now, that the Republican leadership in Congress and the White House consider themselves to be above and beyond any rule or law. Those that they find inconvenient or obstructive to their agenda, they try to change. In the House, the Republican leadership tried to change the ethics rules to benefit Tom DeLay, given the possibility of his indictment in Texas. The Republican leadership in the Senate is attempting to change rules which allow a principled minority to stand up to the tyranny of the majority. The Administration has changed rules on air and water quality, workplace safety, Medicare, bankruptcy, etc. because they were inconvenient to campaign contributors, thus to the money flowing into Republican pockets.

The Republican leadership in this nation preach about the virtues of ehtics and values. The reality, however, is that they lack any ethics and value only that which tightens their grip on power. They are the greatest threat the Republic now faces...not from terrorists...not from "activist judges"...not from permitting the marriage of same-gender couples. They, not some outside enemy, will be the death of the Republic.

<blockquote>We have met the enemy...And he is us! - Pogo</blockquote>


When the rules are CHANGED the previous rule no longer matters. They will merely pass a rule change THROUGH THE USUAL PROCESS disallowing filibuster of judicial nominees. Constitutionally, the senate is REQUIRED to give advice and consent, a filibuster unconstitutionally keeps the senate from this constitutionally required function. The republican argument is quite solid. Dems are just pretending that mere senate rules are set in stone somehow. They're not. They're changed often and are not even SPECIFIED in the constitution. They could redo the whole process of how exactly the senate GIVES This advice and consent on judicial nominess, if they wanted to. Dems just need to grow up and tell the truth for once. Their stream of lies on this topic is astounding.

Minority rights in the senate? That's just trash.
 
Bullypulpit said:
<center><h1><font color=330066>Don't like the rules...? Just Change 'em</font></h1></center>

With the battle over the filibuster heating up in the Senate, understanding a few of the Senate rules that Senator Frist's, and the Republican leadership, will be breaking in the "nuclear option" in its implementation.

<blockquote><a href=http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=18761>Senate Rules and Precedents That Would be Broken Through Exercise of the Nuclear Option</a>

Violation # 1. Rule V: The Senate must follow its Rules to amend its Rules
Paragraph 2 of Rule V states expressly that “Rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these Rules.” (emphasis added). The proposed nuclear option is a deliberate end-run around the Senate’s regular process (discussed below) for amending its own Rules because Senator Frist does not have the strong bipartisan support he needs in the current Senate to follow the regular order.

Violation # 2. Rule V: Suspending the Rules without amending them.
The Senate Rules provide expressly for the sole mechanism to suspend the Rules without amending them. Under Rule V, paragraph 1, the Senate may only suspend its Rules either by unanimous consent or by adopting a motion to suspend the Rules. Adoption of such a motion requires a 2/3 vote of Senators present.3 The nuclear option, by relying on a simple majority vote to change the Rules without changing the text (arguably a kind of suspension), clearly violates the 2/3 vote requirement.

Violation # 3. Rule XXII: Violating the process for changing the Senate’s Rules.
Paragraph 2 of Rule XXII establishes the requirements for ending debate on a proposed change to the Senate’s Rules. Under Rule XXII, a cloture petition signed by sixteen Senators must first be submitted to the Senate. The vote to invoke cloture (end debate) on amendment to the Rules cannot be held until 2 days after the cloture petition is filed, and the rule provides that 2/3 of Senators present and voting must consent to end debate.

Violation #4. Failing to submit a constitutional Point of order to the Senate.
Proponents of the nuclear option purport to justify their unprecedented approach by invoking the U.S. Constitution – to the point of trying to rename the nuclear option the “constitutional option.”4 Some have even argued that the filibuster of judicial nominations is unconstitutional, and that the Senate can therefore ignore its process for amending the Rules to eliminate it.5 Under long-established precedents of the Senate, when a point of order with an asserted constitutional basis is raised, the Chair does not rule on the point of order but instead submits it directly to the full Senate.6 However, such a point of order is debatable and it would take 60 votes to end debate on the constitutional point of order and bring it to a vote. Because it is not clear that Senator Frist has 51 votes for the nuclear option – much less 60 – it is likely that Vice President Cheney will rule directly on Frist’s “constitutional” point of order, violating Senate precedent.

Violation # 5. Rule XXII: Ending debate on a nomination.
The text of Paragraph 2 of Rule XXII expressly requires 60 Senators (3/5s of Senators duly chosen and sworn) to vote to end debate on “any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate,” including a judicial nomination. If the nuclear option is successful, and for the first time in our history Senators’ right to debate is ended by simple majority vote, this will constitute an express violation of Rule XXII’s 60 vote requirement. In essence, Rule XXII would be changed, but not in a manner provided by the Rules of the Senate.

Violation # 6. Overriding the Senate’s Parliamentarian
The Senate Parliamentarian is the officer charged with keeping the precedents of the Senate and advising the presiding officer of the Rules and precedents of the Senate if a point of order is raised from the floor. The current Parliamentarian, Alan Frumin, has worked for that office as either Parliamentarian or assistant Parliamentarian since 1977 under both Democratic and Republican majorities. It has been widely reported that the Senate Parliamentarian will advise the chair that any point of order to force a simple majority vote to end debate on a nominee would violate the Rules and precedents of the Senate. Therefore, for the nuclear option to succeed, the presiding officer, most likely Vice President Cheney in his role as President of the Senate, would have to ignore the advice of the Parliamentarian in ruling on a point of order. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, such an action would “constitute an extraordinary proceeding involving peremptory departure from the established system of Senate procedure.”7

Vice President Cheney will need to ignore the Parliamentarian to invoke the nuclear option because Republicans must engineer a scenario where, as stated above, nuclear option opponents appeal a ruling of the chair endorsing the nuclear option. Frist must ensure that opponents appeal because the appeal itself is debatable, while a motion to table (kill) the appeal is not debatable. If Republican leaders try to overturn an adverse ruling by the chair through their own appeal (which would occur if the chair follows the parliamentarian), opponents could simple filibuster the appeal and a motion to table the appeal would set the opposite precedent than Frist wishes to achieve.</blockquote>

It <i><b>should</b></i> be apparent to all by now, that the Republican leadership in Congress and the White House consider themselves to be above and beyond any rule or law. Those that they find inconvenient or obstructive to their agenda, they try to change. In the House, the Republican leadership tried to change the ethics rules to benefit Tom DeLay, given the possibility of his indictment in Texas. The Republican leadership in the Senate is attempting to change rules which allow a principled minority to stand up to the tyranny of the majority. The Administration has changed rules on air and water quality, workplace safety, Medicare, bankruptcy, etc. because they were inconvenient to campaign contributors, thus to the money flowing into Republican pockets.

The Republican leadership in this nation preach about the virtues of ehtics and values. The reality, however, is that they lack any ethics and value only that which tightens their grip on power. They are the greatest threat the Republic now faces...not from terrorists...not from "activist judges"...not from permitting the marriage of same-gender couples. They, not some outside enemy, will be the death of the Republic.

<blockquote>We have met the enemy...And he is us! - Pogo</blockquote>

Yes, heaven forbid those evil Republicans from changing the Senate Rules which is the basic right of the Senate to do to restore a Senate tradition that has been around for the past 200 years where Senators actually debated and voted on Judicial nominations. How dare they!
 
Avatar4321 said:
Yes, heaven forbid those evil Republicans from changing the Senate Rules which is the basic right of the Senate to do to restore a Senate tradition that has been around for the past 200 years where Senators actually debated and voted on Judicial nominations. How dare they!

Oh goodness me! Have you so quickly forgotten? The rules the Republican leadership in Congress seek to change are <i><b>THE VERY SAME RULES</b></i> they used so masterfully when they were the minority party in Congress.

And to think, it only took them 10 years to sink to the same level of corruption that the Democrats took 40 years to reach. Actually, I think, at this point anyways, they've surpassed the corruption of the Democrats at the apex of their majority rule in Congress.

Oh, and in case you haven't noticed the Republican leadership seems to want to skip the debate over judicial nominees, or any other issue for that matter, and go straight to the rubber-stamp
 
Bullypulpit said:
Oh goodness me! Have you so quickly forgotten? The rules the Republican leadership in Congress seek to change are <i><b>THE VERY SAME RULES</b></i> they used so masterfully when they were the minority party in Congress.

And to think, it only took them 10 years to sink to the same level of corruption that the Democrats took 40 years to reach. Actually, I think, at this point anyways, they've surpassed the corruption of the Democrats at the apex of their majority rule in Congress.

Oh, and in case you haven't noticed the Republican leadership seems to want to skip the debate over judicial nominees, or any other issue for that matter, and go straight to the rubber-stamp

you seem to have forgotten that the republicans were the majority party for 6 of the 8 Clinton years when the dems got appox 80% of their judges approved...splain that
 

Forum List

Back
Top