Rush: "If We Can't Get Judges Now, We Never Will"

RUSH: If we can't even control who is appointed to the Supreme Court when the Republicans have the presidency and the Senate, then we never will. If we can't control who gets on the Supreme Court when we have the White House and the Senate, we never, ever will.

Let me ask you this: If the Democrats had the White House and the Democrats controlled the Senate, do you think that they would be surrendering their power for judiciary appointments? Hell no!

We are, because of seven renegades, six of whom I can't begin to explain other than questioning their gray matter. The other one I know the motivation.

This is supposed to be the least controversial and most reliable way to influence the court. You go win elections. You win elections. You campaign saying, "Okay, here's why I want to be president. One of the reasons is I want to appoint certain people to the court." Bammo! You get elected by four million votes, and you increase your margins in the Senate by three votes.

You still can't get the people you nominate confirmed? What good is winning it? If we can't stop 45 Democrats from obstructing these appointments, then we'll never rein in the judiciary by appointing originalists, we'll never rein in the Democrats whatsoever.

It's just that simple, and the fact that that is of no concern to these seven nitwits is what's really troubling.

None of this is of any concern to them, and they're the ones that are said to be apolitical.

That's the thing that really frustrates me. These moderates are as partisan as anybody.

They're just getting away with being called moderates because they're doing what the mainstream press and liberals want them to do.

George W. Bush has about 2-1/2 years remaining to make a difference on the courts.

The last year of every second-term president's presidency is historically very slow in the appointment process. It's institutionalized, the last year of a president's presidency. It happened to Clinton. It happened to Reagan. It's institutional, because the president is going out so the opposition party will delay and not appoint his judges in the hopes their party will win the White House, that's institutionalized.

So he doesn't have three and a half years, he's got two and a half when you get down to brass tacks and reality.

In eight years as president of the United States, George W. Bush will have 2-1/2 years to make a difference on the US Supreme Court. Now, that's because there haven't been any resignations and I'm sure some of these people are hanging on because they don't want Bush to appoint their placements, but so what, so be it. That's what it is.

Two-and-a-half years and this cockamamie, asinine sellout of a compromise that was engineered by these 14 so-called moderates only gums up the works even more.

I just repeat myself. There is an option or an opportunity that Senator Frist has if he wants to use it, because he's saying he hasn't signed onto the deal. He's not a signatory. He didn't sign this memorandum of understanding on judicial nominations as it's called. So he can do what he wants. He's the leader of the Senate. He can bring all these names up for nomination, up for vote. He can bring all ten of them up, because where we are right now, the judicial filibuster is still alive. The nuclear option theoretically dead.

Three of Bush's nominees will be voted on, that's the compromise -- and we run the Senate. We have the White House. We have the Senate, and we have the House and for the first time in my lifetime the party that won elections does not have the power because there's some renegades in its own party, does not have the power to do what is constitutionality proscribed.

Now, according to this memorandum of understanding, the president has to consult with these 14 moderates, he has to suggest to them who his nominees will be and let them decide whether they're okay, whether they are extraordinarily unqualified, extreme, or what have you.

When you say out of eight years George Bush will have two and a half years to shape the Supreme Court makes this even more loathsome what happened.

END TRANSCRIPT http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_052405/content/cutting_edge.member.html

Read the Articles... (Washington Times: 7 Republicans abandon GOP on filibuster) (NRO: Senator John Cornyn: The filibusters were unfair, Dems admit) (NYDN: Filibuster deal averts 'Armageddon')

McCain-Feingold Sequel: "McCain the Middle Finger"
May 24, 2005
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_052405/content/the_deal_they_hope_we_ll_forget.member.html

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: We had McCain-Feingold, this is McCain the middle finger. It took less than one election cycle to demonstrate the failure of McCain-Feingold, right? Took less than one election cycle. McCain-Feingold is supposed to take the money out of politics. What did it do? It opened the floodgates to George Soros and others to gin up those 527 organizations. So now, how long will it take to demonstrate the failure of McCain the middle finger? I wouldn't be surprised if it's as soon as the next circuit judge nominee. His or her name doesn't matter. The code name will be EC, extraordinary circumstances. I can't believe this. I can't believe it. The filibuster of judicial nominees is still solidly in place, the Democrats get to decide who the nominees are that are going to be filibustered, and how anybody wants to run around and try to portray this as some kind of a win-win is either too Inside Baseball, too Inside Politics, or just hasn't been paying attention. I know a lot of you are confused, and I'll do my best here to un-confuse you. And, by the way, those of you saying, "Well, Frist can still implement the nuclear option." Let me read paragraph B of part 2: commitments for future nominations.

[]Are you ready? "Rules changes. In light of this spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress." Now, that's got a year and a half to go, folks. So we have just pledged here, these seven wimp moderates have just pledged no nuclear option for the next year and a half. That's what the rules change is. They define it this way, "which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule 22." And then get this. This is these 14, I don't know what, dwarfs, moderates, whatever these guys are, "We believe that under Article 2, Section 2 of the US Constitution the word advice speaks to consultation between the Senate and the president with regard to the use of the president's power to make nominations. We encourage the executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democrat and Republican prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration." They actually accepted Sheets Byrd's proposal! This is Sheets Byrd's idea. So now Bush has to call up the senators to the White House and say, "Okay, these are the names I'm thinking about." So the appointment process granted to the president by the Constitution has just been usurped by this stupid asinine deal and no nuclear option for a year and a half, if the deal is held. There are ways around this. I'm just spelling out for you right now where we are here. I've got some proscriptions of what needs to happen here or what I would like to see happy, let's put it that way.

I tell you, I've read all your e-mails. I've read subscriber e-mail. I've read general inbox e-mail, and I hear your anger, folks, and I hear what you people are saying, that you're never voting Republican. It's not really so much that is, "I'm waiting for McCain to be on the primary ballot and I'm going to move to Arizona if I have to, to vote against him. I don't care, Lindsey Graham, any of these guys want to be the presidential nominee of their party, they can forget it." I can't tell you how many thousands of e-mails echoing that sentiment that I have received. I'm sure these moderates thought about it but you know what they're banking on, folks? They're banking you'll forget all this by 2008 because other issues will come along and supersede this, and you will forget it. The problem is, this is something the Democrats will not allow people to forget because they're going to keep filibustering nominees by calling them extraordinary. And you wait till the first Supreme Court nominee is named. The rumors are going around, you know, Rehnquist had to go back to the hospital yesterday so rumors are going around that the next nominee will be Alberto Gonzales, the current attorney general, and that's why he's lying low, that's why he's not said anything about the Schiavo case, you don't see him anywhere in the news. But I'll tell you what, and this may surprise you, but if that rumor is true, if Gonzales is the first Supreme Court nominee, the liberals may love the guy because he is lib. He's okay for attorney general, but he's going to divide the Republican Party if he's a Supreme Court nominee. I'm just putting a lot of things here on the table for you to consider. Now, what happened here in one sense, what really happened here is President Bush is going to get up-or-down votes on three of his nominees. All the rest of it is BS, all the rest is Barbra Streisand. He gets up-or-down votes on three of his nominees and that's it, that's it. For all practical purposes, folks, that is it.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

Some people are saying, "Well, Rush, you're really wrong here. This nuclear option is still there." Yes, yes, my friends, I know. But lets be practical for a moment, can we? I just cannot believe the filibuster is still alive. We're going to get three of ten nominees confirmed, and people are going to go dancing in the streets? Of course the nuclear option is still there, after we wait a year and a half. But that is if they can muster a majority to end it. But as a practical matter here, we gotta put these events in context here, my decent and good friends. These seven nitwits on the Republican side are now committed to anything but changing the rule. I mean, these nitwits are all over the media stating how they helped avert disaster by preventing the vote today. They saved the Senate from the precipice. Now, these guys are being hailed, and these ladies, they're being hailed, they're being regaled, they're being lauded up, they're being hoisted up. The mainstream press is portraying these people to be heroes. You know what I've told you about the dominant DC political culture. You think these seven nitwits are going to give up this vaunted status of being loved by the New York Times, the Washington Post, after all of this praise, to go back and vote for the nuclear option should the Democrats exercise this extraordinary circumstances BS? You got another thing coming. The aphrodisiac of power has now been conferred to these people. They matter. They saved the Senate. I would love to see the day that one of these seven decides to throw all that away. I can't see it.

You know, they weren't going to vote the right way anyway. That's what this means, and they all wanted cover, as did the moderate Democrats, several of whom would otherwise be vulnerable as the hail falls in the red states. So here's the bottom line. McCain is the de facto leader now, because McCain controls these six other nitwits. And, I'll tell you what this is, folks, mark my words, this is pay back to Bush for 2000. Got his little South Carolina buddy Lindsey Graham in tow. He slam-dunked Frist. Up until last night everybody was talking about the fact that Frist was going to ace out McCain, the Republican primaries, by exercising the nuclear option, and now McCain, it is said, has aced out Frist. He slam-dunked him, I don't know if he's aced him out, but he slam-dunked him, there's no question. Frist, a decent guy, was trying to do the right thing, and he is the first casualty in what was an early primary fight. I mean, there's no question, and you can't take that aspect out of this, either. These guys all want to be president, every senator up there thinks he should be anyway. McCain's really got it bad because of what happened in 2000. And so we know he's going to run in '08. And telling me that won't take precedence over Senate comity and Senate tradition and whatever else that might be on the agenda? Of course this will take precedence over that, but his dancing like this is going to destroy him with the base and party faithful once primary time comes around and I know he's banking on the fact that by then this will be but a blip on the radar screen.

[]You know, it may be time, folks, I'm just going to throw these things out here for you to consider, it may be time to treat McCain and Graham and Warner and all these others exactly as they would have treated their colleagues, as they would have treated these nominees like Myers and Henry Saad, throw them overboard, because those two nominees are gone, Saad and Myers are gone, that's part of this deal. You're not hearing about the nominees that have been thrown overboard. You've got to include Miguel Estrada, he pulled out because of the filibuster, you've got to include Carolyn Kuhl; she pulled out because of the way Specter treated her in the committee hearings. So those guys are gone, then you add these four, well actually there are four because you've got Myers and Saad, and you've got Kavanaugh and one other. The oral deal that I was referring to earlier, the oral deal the people are talking about that accompanies this written deal is that Kavanaugh, and what's the other guy's name, I'm having a mental block on what his name is. Nevertheless, there's a judge named Kavanaugh and one other that may also have been tacitly thrown overboard in this deal so you're basically stuck with three out of ten. So maybe you treat McCain and all these other people as they would have treated these judges, just throw 'em overboard. And this argument about, "Well, you know, this is going to be a blip on the radar screen and people will forget this by '08." I will admit that's possible, but every time one of our good guy judges comes up and the Democrats try to stop it, it's going to be a reminder, folks, and there's been a great job of hammering this issue the last six months or so, this issue of judges is constant, there's more outrageous decisions in the future. There will be more Supreme Court vacancies.

So it's not altogether certain that this is just going to be blown away as a blip on the radar screen. The one thing we know about the Democrats is that they can be trusted to not be trusted. Meaning they're not going to abide by any deal when they already refuse to abide by the Constitution and 214 years of history. This is another thing; making deals with these people is like making deals with the old Soviet Union. This is nothing different than those old SALT talks; we'll abide by it, they'll break it, and we'll say, "Well, we can't challenge them on that, that might infuriate them." But that much we know about the Democrats and their willingness to accept it.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: A quick telephone call, Amy in Cleveland. Hi, Amy, welcome to the program.

CALLER: Hi, sir. First I just want to thank you for all the good work that you have been doing and are doing, so keep it up.

RUSH: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. And I will.

CALLER: Thank you. And I just wanted to say, Rush, angry is not the right word. I am livid about what happened, and I just was calling to ask you to help us to remember this in 2006, 2008, whenever, because you are the biggest voice, you're the one with the most power, and I don't know. I want you to commit to reminding us so we don't forget so that these seven morons --

RUSH: This doesn't say a whole lot --

CALLER: -- don't get reelected.

RUSH: You know, Amy I'm very flattered, but I have to tell you this doesn't say a whole lot for your anger if you're going to need me to remind you.

CALLER: Well, that was my next step was to be --

RUSH: Mr. Snerdley, make a note in your calendar there in '06 to remind me to remind them to get mad again. Go ahead. What were you going to say out there?

CALLER: (Laughing.) Well, I'm not sure if you're going to bring this up later, but I was just wondering if you did have any thoughts or suggestions because I don't want these guys to get reelected, and I certainly don't want them to even get a nomination.

RUSH: Well, I've got a plan. I've developed some ideas, and I'm getting to those here as we run through the events, but I wanted to get your call because I thought it was so cute, I must tell you, you wanting me to remind you to get angry. My hope would be that that won't be necessary, but I'll do it, I'll be glad to do it. I'll be your wake-up call. That's I think one of the things we do here on a daily basis. Amy, thanks very much.

You notice one other thing, folks, how these 14 nitwits, these moderates are said to be above politics, they're out there saying it themselves. They're above politics, they put politics aside. These people just undertook a brazen political act, which is to zap the majority of its power, and they say they're nonpolitical! Now, it's clear that they think the majority of voters in this country are moderate independents. And that's who these people are trying to appeal to -- and the media, don't forget the Republican side of this is appealing to the media. Now, this notion that -- where did I see it? I guess I saw it in Deborah Orin's column today in the New York Post. She talked to some people that said this is actually a win-win for Bush because this is going to cause a new period of agreement, a new period of cooperation on the domestic agenda. This is going to sweep this judge business aside, we're going to be able to move forward on the domestic agenda. And I am just stunned. How can anybody -- the left, the Democrats have been emboldened to think that they're going to now step aside, "Okay, Mr. President, we're now willing to work with you on Social Security."

In fact, my friends, I'm holding here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers... I hate being right so much, but I can't help it. I am. I wish I weren't right as much. I'd be considered a bit more human than I am. I'm right so often, people think I'm a machine, and I don't want to be thought of as a machine. I want to be thought of as a human being. Listen to this. "Democrats won’t begin negotiating an overhaul of Social Security as long as President Bush insists on private investment accounts because they don’t want to get caught in a 'bait and switch,' says the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. The committee’s Republican chairman, Sen. Charles Grassley, urged Democrats on Monday to negotiate, even if they just say 'no' to a plan with personal accounts. Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, the top Democrat on the panel, said he would negotiate with Grassley only if the president publicly disavows the accounts, which Bush has conceded will not improve the program’s solvency." A little editorial comment added on there by Glen Johnson of the Associated Press. Must be applying for a job at Newsweek.

By the way, our old buddy Olympia Snowe has said much the same thing, and she's one of the Republicans, one of these seven nitwits. So, yeah, folks, Bush really won big time here. We get the nuclear option frozen out, we get three of ten nominees, the nuclear option is frozen out, but the filibuster is still alive and kicking. People say, "You watch Bush's domestic agenda going to sail through." With less than 12 hours, and you've got nitwits from both parties saying it's stalled as long as it's got private accounts. This is how this works. These guys have just been emboldened and they think they've won big. They did. What are they -- 45 votes in the Senate, plus these seven nitwits. They have no intention of relenting, these Democrats. They've been emboldened. They saw weakness, and they relied on McCain to help them with his gamesmanship.

You know, you look at this, and you have to ask, does John McCain have more contempt for his own party than for leftists? Does he? He failed to get the nomination in 2000. He spent four years in various forms of payback. He opposed Bush's tax cuts, he's been a steady critic on the war strategy from the earliest days. You know, it's clear that a little get-even-with-'em-ism has been going on. Now, this deal, this oral deal, this comes from Brad Berenson at National Review Online, he writes, "I've just heard from excellent []sources that a number of Hill reporters believe that there is an oral side deal under which two other very good men have been prospectively thrown overboard by the Republican seven, notwithstanding the extraordinary-circumstances pledge, Kavanaugh and Haynes." That's the name I couldn't remember. "If true, this would be the dirty deal of all time and a disgraceful surrender executed under cover of darkness. It would also be an ominous portent of how the written deal will be implemented in the future." So if there's an oral side deal to make sure that Kavanaugh and Haynes are also thrown overboard -- so it's Kavanaugh and Haynes, Estrada and Kuhn, Saad and Myers, and there's one other that's gone, we get three out of these ten. Pickering, that's it, Pickering is gone as well. He was a recess appointment, but Pickering is gone.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's Lee in Virginia Beach. I'm glad you called. Welcome to the EIB Network.

CALLER: Thank you, Rush. It's great to talk to you. I'm too angry to be nervous. So that's probably a good thing.

RUSH: Yes, it is.

CALLER: I just wanted to let you know you won't have to remind me in 2006 to be angry. I wanted to let you know I did e-mail Senator Warner this morning to express my sincere disappointment in his decision. I called his office several times before this requesting that he act like a senator of the majority, and obviously he decided not to follow that advice. And I also reminded him that, you know, he had made a statement about also representing the minority. But the majority elected Senator Warner, and he did not represent us yesterday.

RUSH: This business about representing the minority, and minority rights, I'll tell you what, I'm about to puke hearing this. This minority rights business. This is the first time in my lifetime that anybody's been concerned with minority rights in the US Senate. I've never remembered the Democrats giving a diddly-squat about it when the Republicans were in the minority, and now all of a sudden it seems to be the guiding principle that we all must have. I found an editorial today in the LA Times. I still don't believe it. I think somebody must have poisoned the editor there, snuck in, wrote an editorial, and got it published while the editor was recovering in the hospital because this LA Times editorial basically says the filibuster in toto ought to go, not just judicial, but everything. And it also makes a great case for how bogus this minority rights issue is based on the way the Senate is structured. It's in the stack here. I will dig it out pretty soon.

END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Articles...
(NRO: Dirty Deal? Bradford Berenson)
http://www.nationalreview.com/benchmemos/064175.asp

Dirty Deal?
[Bradford Berenson 05/24 11:22 AM]

I have just heard from excellent sources that a number of Hill reporters believe that there is an oral side deal under which two other very good men have been prospectively thrown overboard by the Republican 7, notwithstanding the "extraordinary circumstances" pledge: Kavanaugh and Haynes. If true, this would be the dirty deal of all time and a disgraceful surrender executed under cover of darkness. It would also be an ominous portent of how the written deal will be implemented in the future.

At this point, this is only rumor, but it's imperative for the press, the groups, and the Republican leadership to demand a flat, on-the-record confirmation or denial from each of the seven Republican signatories. Immediately. If there are terms of this deal beyond those in writing, the public has a right to know.

(Washington Times: 7 Republicans abandon GOP on filibuster)
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050524-122305-7180r.htm

(NRO: Senator John Cornyn: The filibusters were unfair, Dems admit)
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/cornyn200505240801.asp

(Boston Globe: Deal in Senate averts filibuster showdown)
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/05/24/deal_in_senate_averts_filibuster_showdown/

(Los Angeles Times: A Center Forms to Outflank Left, Right)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-assess24may24,0,7478392.story?coll=la-home-headlines

(Los Angeles Times: Conservative Groups Accuse Senators of Sellout)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-react24may24,0,1789423,print.story?coll=la-home-headlines

(NRO: Andrew C. McCarthy: The deal is no victory)
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200505240945.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_05_22_corner-archive.asp#064087
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200502280746.asp

(NYDN: Filibuster deal averts 'Armageddon')
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/312504p-267374c.html

(NY Post: Deborah Orin: President Could End Up The Big Winner)
http://www.nypost.com/commentary/47116.htm

(NRO: Is "extraordinary circumstances" a Fraud?)
http://www.nationalreview.com/benchmemos/064149.asp

"Nuclear Option" Disarmed: 7 Nitwits Will Never Give Up Aphrodisiac of Power
May 24, 2005

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

[] RUSH: I was up pretty late working last night. I've looked at this a thousand ways, and I just don't see an upside. I know there are a lot of conservatives out there -- well, not a lot – saying there are some really good upsides here. One of the most useless arguments I'm hearing, "Well, hey, Rush. Look at the judges that we're going to get confirmed. We're going to get Rogers Brown and Pryor and Priscilla Owen, and the left was out there saying they were extreme and unacceptable and they're going to get 'em. The left is intellectually dishonest." That's new? The left is intellectually dishonest? This whole thing is intellectually dishonest. The whole filibuster is intellectually dishonest. These people are not out of the mainstream. These people are not wacko extremists. The Democrats are going to say that about everybody! So big deal, the Democrats are going to sign off on three of Bush's ten judges. That's how you look at this. Three of Bush's ten judges. I don't care how the Democrats characterize them; I don't care what they called them. It's just like trying to nail the Democrats on hypocrisy. That's not the way to look at this. Let me ask you: Are you confused? Are you angry? Are you mad? Because if you are, you've come to the right place. Your all-seeing and all-knowing Maha Rushie will explain it all.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: The filibuster has been preserved. It has not been ended. It has been punted. Frist is on the floor of the Senate talking about how he can implement it when he wants to. Harry Reid is talking about "it's gone forever." These guys can't even agree amongst themselves on the deal that they made. Now, it's been punted. It is an option, but not on this Congress. It does remain viable, the nuclear option does, but the dignity of the Senate has not been preserved; it's been befouled. I mean, the most deliberate body -- no, this is the most craven body. If a decision can be avoided they will avoid it and then they'll go congratulate each other and take their kudos from the Washington Post and the New York Times. Comity, everybody getting along? That's not returned. Anybody out there think that the man who put commie into comity, Ted Kennedy, will change his tone? You think the left is going to drop its hunger for power and control? I've also read that people are saying, "You know what, this is going to really assist Bush in getting his agenda through now; Social Security reform and all these things, because the pressure will be on these Democrat moderates." Folks, I don't understand how people on our side can be thinking that. The left has been emboldened by this. Now, some of the wacko libs are upset because they hate Bill Pryor. They despise Pryor and they despise these three nominees, but on balance they've been emboldened. Look at what they are: a minority. They control the judicial nomination process. They just got it changed so the president has to consult with them. They've got a bunch of Republicans that, privately, they have to be laughing their asses off at. In the back rooms they've got to be saying, "We've got McCain and Lindsey Graham wrapped around our little finger." You know they're saying that. Now, publicly they're not gloating yet. Harry Reid is trying hard not to, but you know damn well they're emboldened.

They've just shown they can stop anything. Why should they move forward with Social Security now? "Well, Rush, because of the goodwill of the deal." Goodwill? What goodwill? It continually amazes me, folks, how people do not understand we're in a war. Some people are saying to me -- and I've been battering back and forth all day with people about this.

"Rush, uhhh, you know, you don't understand how politics works."

"The process here is not what's important. Getting things done is."

"Process? I'm not talking about process."

"Yes, you are. All your right-wing guys and all those left-wing guys, all you care about is process. You want ideology to triumph."

"No, I want the Constitution to triumph here. Ideology shmideology; it's not about this at all. It's about far, far more than that."

You know, Republican leadership is now under fire. In both showdowns -- McCain-Feingold and McCain the middle finger -- the left marched in lockstep and they had an ace up their sleeve, and the ace up their sleeve is McCain. McCain-Feingold is that 527 loophole that gave the left a 2-1 fundraising edge with those 527s. In this case, the ace up their sleeve is they think they'll give us three bodies to block Supreme Court nominations. We'll take these three but we're going to be able to block Supreme Court nominations. That's what they think. The minority voice argument here is exposed as a fraud. The whole nonsense about the minority expressing their will is exposed. The minority will was to block votes on Patricia Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William Pryor. The minority of 45 was thwarted by a minority of the gang of 14. So a sub-minority here is actually ruled. All of this is just smoke and mirrors. You got seven Republican senators that are happy today; 45 Democrats are happy. The left-wing media is thrilled. But there will be tomorrow. We have yet to see what tomorrow will bring, but there will be one.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

Now, here's what needs to happen. This is what needs to happen. The 48 Republicans who did not participate in this thing need to say, "No deal." They need to say, "Nobody consulted with us. How in the world can seven members of our party dictate what we do? No one consulted with the president, whose powers the moderates have sought to diminish here. What ought to happen is they ought to vote on the constitutional option and let the chips fall where they may." Let the seven moderates stand on their compromise. They ought to bring to the floor for up-and-down vote all the Bush nominees and again let the chips fall where they may. The moderates seek political cover from this deal and they ought to be exposed. Bring 'em up, bring those nominees up one right after another, bam, bam, bam, []bam, bam, and let's just find out right now what extraordinary circumstances are. Let's just make them define them. Let's get this out in the open right now. You bring them up, Senator Frist. Bam, bam, bam, bam! "Owens is going to be voted on today," then bring somebody else up, and bring somebody else, and you make them obstruct it -- and let's see when they invoke this extraordinary circumstances bit. Here's the deal. Even if Rogers, Owen and Pryor were voted down, the president should give them recess appointments -- and here's why. We already have 62 senators who say they're qualified to be on the bench, 48 real Republicans and the 14 Senate moderates. Remember, this deal says there's 62 votes for these three judges. If they're voted down, if they were voted down, it has nothing to do with their qualifications, so recess appoint them. Furthermore, the president will be sending a signal to the Senate, and that is, "Don't mess with my authority as president and then lecture me about how I need to bow at the foot of 14 renegade senators and come have a meeting with these guys on who my next nominations are going to be." Because that's what this deal says.

So it would be real simple if the Republicans -- well, it's real simple. It'll never happen, but if these 48 Republicans say, "You know, we're not part of this. We're simply not going along with this. We weren't consulted, the president wasn't consulted. The president's powers have been diminished here." Just vote on the constitutional option. Vote on it; bring it up. Frist, bring it up. Bring up the constitutional option. "But the deal says he can't do it for a year and a half." Well, he doesn't have to agree to the deal. Here's another thing, folks -- another reason why these 48 ought to distance themselves right now. If you go back and remember recent history of this, Bill Frist had offered a compromise. The compromise was we want all nominees out of committee. We'll give you a hundred hours of debate on the nominees, but no filibusters, and they turned that deal now. Remember that deal was a great deal in terms of exposing who the Democrats are. They've been talking about we need unlimited debate, hundred hours. "We'll give you a hundred hours but no filibusters," and they said, "No." Now, here's the real problem with this. These seven Democrats that are part of this moderate gang of 14. They are now the real heroes to Harry Reid because with their moral superiority and their open-mindedness and the fact that the press loves them and the fact that they're above politics and all this, they now become the arbiters of "extraordinary circumstances". They can say, "I was the one. We were the ones who got along. We were the ones who were reasonable. We didn't trigger the option. We saved the Senate from falling over the precipice!"

So the next time a nominee comes up that the Democrats don't like, they can trigger the extraordinary-circumstances clause, if you will, by having these guys do it, by having one of these seven moderates do it -- and that takes Harry Reid out of the picture. Reid doesn't have to be the one saying it; Kennedy doesn't have to be the one saying it; Schumer doesn't have to be the one saying it; Leahy doesn't have to be the one saying it. You have these seven Democrats. This is another horrible end result of this deal, because when you get one of these seven now self-protected from any criticism whatsoever, these 14 have been inoculated against any media criticism whatsoever, and that's what they love most so you can have these seven Democrats say, "Ah, that guy is too extreme for me. That's too extreme." McCain says, "No, they can't do that. They've got to come talk to me. They've got to talk to us." Right, what good does that do us with them coming to talk to you? So the face of the Democrats throughout all this has been Reid, pretty ugly. Schumer, pretty ugly. Pat Leahy, pretty ugly. These seven moderates loved by everyone can now become the new face of opposition, and if these moderates, why, if these reasonable people who avoided this crisis find somebody extraordinarily unqualified, it must be so! It must be so. Why, if Ben Nelson doesn't like them, if Joe Lieberman doesn't, if Robert Byrd doesn't like, it has to be so. That's the thing to watch for, folks, and that's where I think one of the biggest snookers in this whole deal took place.

END TRANSCRIPT
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_052405/content/the_deal_they_hope_we_ll_forget_2.member.html

Frist: It Ain't Over Yet
May 24, 2005

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: And just to stipulate: the office of Bill Frist, we spoke with them just before the program began, and the senator's office says, "We have not ratified this deal," and we were told that Senator Frist has not altered his position, that every nominee deserves a vote on the floor, and the option is still on the table, meaning the constitutional option, and he's going to press for every nominee to get a vote.

Now, Brad Berenson also thinks as I do, as I mentioned here moments ago that we need to expose the fraud that this "extraordinary circumstances" is. He writes this: "Let's find out. Before the ink is dry on this deal, the White House and Senate Republican leadership should work together to bring to the floor as quickly as possible all the remaining circuit court appointments, including those of nominees such as Brett Kavanaugh and Jim Haynes." Now, those two names are important, because there's rumor floating around that they are part of an oral side deal, not part of this written memorandum of understanding on judicial nominations, that these two guys would also be thrown overboard, just not mentioned on paper. So the theory is, the idea of bring all these nominees to the floor as quickly as possible -- and especially guys like Kavanaugh and Haynes -- when the Democrats would have previously had on their list to filibuster.

"If any of those nominees draws a filibuster, we will know that the deal is a fraud, the Republican moderates who cut the deal will look ridiculous, and the pressure will be back on to implement a permanent, institutional solution."

Which is what should have happened. This is just unreal. You have to look at this and say, "Is there an attempt to sabotage somebody here?" I think there's no question that you wanted to sabotage Frist for the Republican []primary race and I don't think there's any question -- well, there probably is question. Let's put it this way: It would be reasonable to suspect that there was an attempt to sabotage the president here. This could not have happened without the Republicans going along with this. This could not have happened without these seven Republicans going along with it, folks. It's just that simple. Now, Frist is again saying he hasn't signed onto this. Fine, let's bring all these people up for votes. Let's just bring them all up and let's make the Democrats trigger this extraordinary circumstances thing. Make them filibuster some of these. Let's just blow it up.

I know: "But, Rush! But, Rush! The Republicans will be accused of breaking the deal!" Frist wasn't part of this. He says he hasn't ratified the deal. You know, what you've just had here is 14 renegades basically take over the Senate. That's what's happened, and if the Senate leadership doesn't stand up to it and fight it, then it's going to become official.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: E-mail wants me to explain this sabotage business again. Let's look at McCain. He just sabotaged Frist for the Republican nomination -- I mean, that's clear -- or tried to. Actually Frist was trying to upstage McCain on this. McCain has held that off, but I think McCain has more contempt for his own party than he does for leftists. He failed to get the nomination in 2000, spent the last four years on payback. He's opposed Bush's tax cuts, steady critic on the war strategy, not sure where he is on Social Security and so forth. It can be no other conclusion than sabotage. This could not have happened without these seven Republican nitwits.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

Let me explain this "sabotage" business in a little bit more detail for those of you joining the program late, because I did mention this toward the end of the first hour within the context of the entire first hour. Some of you may have missed the first hour and think "sabotage" is a rather strong word. There's all kinds of contexts going on here, and one of the larger issues that's underneath the surface is the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. Now, John McCain wants it. He has so stated. He's bitter over what happened to him in 2000. He thinks that he was mistreated, maltreated, skinned alive, conned, dirty-tricked or what have you by the Bush people, and Lindsey Graham was McCain's chairman in South Carolina and a number of other places. So Lindsey Graham is going to be with McCain, because he's McCain-in-waiting, and he wants to be the next "maverick."

Chuck Hagel. We love Chuck Hagel here; he's not part of this nitwit seven. You want the Republican presidential nomination, I mean, there are things you do. To get the nomination, you have to appeal to the base and you have to get them on your side. That's the dangerous space occupied by McCain right now. He does not have the base. The base is livid at him; make no mistake about this. But I'm sure the way that McCain was looking at this within the context of the presidential nomination was, "I've got to keep something from happening here," and that is Frist, by virtue of the nuclear option being triggered and decisive leadership in the Senate shown by Frist. Frist would have vaulted to the putative lead at this stage of the presidential sweepstakes in '08 among the GOP base simply because there's no clear-cut person there that owns it.

There's no clear-cut preference, and the base is looking for somebody to finally do battle with the Democrats. The way the Democrats have been shafting Republicans for 40 years with all kinds of dirty tricks and lies and smears, here it's time we finally got the majority. We can wipe them out, and we can stop them from behaving in an unconstitutional fashion, thwarting decent people to the federal judiciary, making up lies and destroying people's lives.

That was what was possible here for the first time in a long time. Since Robert Bork, this was the first opportunity really, to stop this kind of personal destruction that the Democrats have been employing to make sure that they can institutionalize liberalism on the courts. Let's put it this way. Had this compromise failed, Frist would have pulled the trigger. The Republicans would have had the votes, and the base would have loved Frist.

McCain can't let that happen. Within the context of the presidential nomination, of '08, McCain can't let that happen. So the first thing to do is take care of Frist. How to do that? Do something that illustrates Frist as a powerless leader, somebody who doesn't understand how the Senate works, somebody who can't get anything done. Destroy his image among the base.

So how do you do it? Easy. You join the Democrats! You join the Democrats. You get seven of your nitwit buddies who want to be just like you. You call seven Democrats; get 'em in a room, and you come up with a deal that basically allows votes on three of Bush's nominees, cans seven others, and maintains the judicial filibuster while eliminating the nuclear option through the rest of this Congress, the next year and a half.

That's the sabotage of Frist, and it had nothing -- if I'm right about it -- nothing to do with this issue. It had nothing to do with the judges, it had nothing to do with the filibuster. It had everything to do with making sure Frist didn't look good. Now, there's nothing inherently unusual about that. I don't want to be misunderstood. This is politics. It's a rough game. This kind of stuff happens all the time. It's not unusual, and it's not really extraordinary. It is frustrating in this case because this is an issue the Republican base really cares about, and the man who wants the Republican nomination basically said (raspberry) to what you care about.

Folks, this is a defining issue out there. It is approaching the same status as immigration is. Now, I don't care what the latest Gallup poll says or any other poll about who looks more like children or who doesn't or how many people aren't paying attention. I don't care about any of that. I know who the Republican base is. I know what's necessary to win elections in this country and you don't win elections by listening to the Gallup poll, you don't win elections by reading the ABC News/Washington Post poll or the New York Times/CBS poll. You win elections by being conservative. You win elections by following your principle. You win elections by you see who the people voted for last night, George W. Bush, four and a half million votes. He campaigned on specific issues. Among them was: Certain kind of people nominated to the federal bench.

He's just been sabotaged. The president's been sabotaged.

This deal put together by McCain allowed the Sheets Byrd rule again, which now says that the president has to consult with these 14 nitwits for any future nominations. That's not in the Constitution -- and these guys claim that they're not political. They're above politics. This is brazenly political, usurping presidential executive power from the Constitution and bringing over a bunch of nitwits in the Senate, all because of ideology, all because the libs cannot stand fact that they're losing.

Now, as for the sabotage of Bush even further on this, it's no secret McCain is still with hurt feelings over what happened in 2000. You know, you have to put yourself in his shoes. Imagine yourself on the bus, the Straight Talk Express. You have Chris Matthews, Judy Woodruff, you name 'em, licking your boots every day, begging you to go on your bus, talking about you as the "straight-talking maverick." You have got love from the quarters that Republicans never get. You've got love, adoration and respect from the mainstream media and the Washington political establishment, and you get caught up in all this, and you think you own it.

That's what you think you need to win. You don't need conservative voters. You need the mainstream press. You need Chris Matthews loving you, and you need CNN and CBS, and all these other people loving you -- and then you go to New Hampshire and you win so big that even you are surprised, and then that Straight Talk Express is really rolling, and you have to get two or three more buses to handle all the Chris Matthewses and Judy Woodruffs that want to get on your bus and go with you.

So you really get full of yourself. You get full of yourself and very heady, and you think, "By God, I've pulled it off! I own them." And then this thing called the South Carolina primary comes along, and in the South Carolina primary, politics becomes what it is.

It gets vicious, and your opponent, George W. Bush, mounts a campaign against you that your Judy Woodruffs and Chris Matthews and all the other people on the bus can't defeat, and you lose South Carolina and then you go on in Michigan and then your campaign is reduced to having Democrats in the primary cross over and vote for you on the Republican side.

Don't forget that had happened. That was McCain's big strength. That's why the press loved him. "Democrats are crossing over to vote for him against Bush!"

So here's your hatred for Bush. It starts because you had it all. You had it all. You were throwing Budweiser beer parties at all of your rallies in South Carolina and New Hampshire. It was [] the biggest political party we've had in a long time. The press hadn't been happier in I don't know how many years -- and along comes George W. Bush and Karl Rove and whoever else you want to blame for sabotaging you in South Carolina because it was yours.

This is McCain's mind-set I'm talking about.

Now, Bush goes ahead and gets elected but you as McCain, you know it was yours. (McCain impression) "I was entitled! It was mine. It was mine! I had it! I had it right there! It was in the palm of my hand, sailor." What ended up in the palm of his hand was a bunch of marbles that he was juggling, and ever since he's been seething. Ever since, he's been plotting revenge and taking every opportunity, oppose Bush tax cuts, join the Democrats on every issue, where it would be the last thing you'd think a Republican would do, campaign finance reform, biggest boondoggle and attack on the First Amendment in my lifetime. Pledge to get the money out of politics and all do you is open the floodgates to people like George Soros and MoveOn.org and all the others.

Money doubled in politics. It did not come out of it.

It took one election cycle for that to be shown.

Oppose Bush at varies stages along the way on the Iraq war, withhold your support on such things as Social Security. "But, Rush, McCain was out campaigning." Well, yeah, of course he wants Bush as a lame duck the second term. It's better for McCain to have a Bush in the White House when you're running in '08 than a first-term Democrat seeking reelection in '08.

I remember for the longest time McCain flirted back and forth with Kerry and Bush. He wasn't on Bush's team early, but he did join when it was necessary. But it was for the most part self-serving. Because, again, if you want the nomination in '08 the last thing you want is a first-term Democrat running against you for reelection. So, voila, sabotage. There you have it.

Now, as I say I've got a plan here. The plan is Bill Frist has not signed onto this deal, has said so, called our office here before the program started. He's not signed onto this; he's not ratified it. He's not agreed to it. He can bring all these nominees that supposedly have been thrown overboard in this deal, bring them up for a vote and force the Democrats, force them to enact their extraordinary circumstances clause in this memorandum of understanding and then bring the nuclear option up because the nuclear option survives-- the whole point is that's got to go, as an institution the judicial filibuster has got to go. It's got to be tossed out. It's never been done for 214 years. My face is blue talking about all this.

So the bottom line with all this is that there is a plan; there is a way around this, but it's going to require Bill Frist to do something very unconventional -- and that is not abide by the so-called deal, but he wasn't a part of it.

He wasn't included in it. He's not one of the seven nitwits -- and he's still saying publicly he wants every nominee to get a vote on the floor. We've had 14 senators here divvy up which nominees get votes and which ones don't. He doesn't have to abide by that.

He can say, "They're all going to get a vote. I'm going to bring them all up, let the chips fall where they may, but I'm going to make these Democrats show themselves as who they are, and I'm going to make my seven nitwits show themselves as who they are. I run this place on the Republican side," he could say.

If he doesn't do it, then here's where we are. Up to now the face of the Democrat opposition has been ugly. It's been Harry Reid. It's been Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, Joe Biden. They're the ones out there saying these people are extreme, they're out of the mainstream, but now these seven Democrat moderates can become the face of the party, and they are loved by the press, and they are said to be above politics and very reasonable, they are moderates, and if one of them comes up and says, "That nominee is extreme," the press will say, "How can that nominee not be extreme?

A moderate above-the-fray Democrat has just said that nominee is extreme." Harry Reid doesn't have to say it anymore, Ted Kennedy doesn't have to say it anymore, Chuck Schumer doesn't have to say it anymore. If they don't have a plan to get around this somehow, that's going to be the end result of this, and once you have... Let's put it this way. The press is going to treat these people as Jesus Christ.

So when Jesus Christ says, "The nominee is too extreme," it's over, right? Harry Reid says it; it's an arguable matter. These guys say it... and that's one of the things that people are not factoring here yet which is why I wanted to emphasize it again.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Snerdley is reporting that he just got off the phone with Senator Frist's office and -- that was James in Jacksonville; is that right? Okay. James in Jacksonville told us that he'd talked to somebody in Frist's office and they said, "The fight's over. Three people are going to get confirmed and that's it." Mr. Snerdley just spoke with Frist's office, confirmed again they plan on bringing all nominees up for a vote as stated this morning. It is not over. The constitutional option is on the table. Mr. Snerdley said that the person James might have spoken to could have been an intern that gave the caller wrong information. Frist's office said they were being flooded with calls. They have not changed their position that they stated to us this morning. They plan on bringing all nominees up for a vote as they stated this morning, and it's not over, the constitutional option is still on the table. That's the latest from the office of Senator Frist.

END TRANSCRIPT bttt

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_052405/content/truth_detector.member.html

"The Constitution is essentially meaningless."

Let's not forget that the Dems and the RINOs just tried to change the Constitution by "suggesting" that the President "consult" with the Dems before nominating any more court nominees.

43 posted on 05/25/2005 7:41:28 AM EDT by Noachian
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1410037/posts?page=43#43

Beldar Blog has posted a legal analysis that shows that regardless of the language that the Republicans think is in the agreement, in fact Republicans have committed to not breaking the agreement unless they believe that the Democrats have broken it. Furthermore, the language is so loose that no matter what the Dems do, they haven't broken the agreement.

He says Senator Ted will have these guys for lunch if they break it, waving around the document that they signed.

Read here for the details, but it's a compelling piece. http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2005/05/liveblogging_th.html [ I copied and pasted it in full below ]

I think that all seven of these Republicans failed strategy, negotiating and management 101. How can these people even imagine any career advancement if they have demonstrated so overwhelmingly the fundamental inability to find good counsel and to drive a hard bargain? Why not just bend over and stop the pretence?

40 posted on 05/25/2005 7:39:25 AM EDT by saveliberty
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1410037/posts?page=40#40

===

Belder Blogs - Legal Analysis: http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2005/05/liveblogging_th.html

Seven gutless suckers in the Senate | Main | How the Republican MOA signers can defend voting for the nuclear option
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Live-blogging the Senate floor debate (ostensibly on Owen)

At 9:00 a.m. (Central): Harry Reid just accidentally told the truth on the floor of the U.S. Senate. After saying that he supports the Memorandum of Agreement (the document supposedly calling the Dems on the carpet for routinely filibustering judicial nominees), he said, "Every filibuster is extraordinary." Yes, read that direct quote to yourself again, then look at the document. The Democratic Leader believes that the Democratic signers of the MOA have grounds to filibuster every previously filibustered nominee (except, presumably, Pryor, Owen, and Brown).

He also said, "The nuclear option is dead for our lifetimes." Thankfully, that cannot be true. First, the document only contains a commitment of no rules changes for the 109th Congress, which will end in January 2007 when the 110th Congress is sworn in. Second, at least some of the signers of the MOA won't be back in January 2007 anyway, by their own choice; and the voters may well have reactions that will change the scorecard lineup as well.

At 9:30am: Bless his boozy, craven, liberal, lawyer-like heart, there's a reason that the senior senator from MA (in contrast to its junior senator) still keeps his law license intact. He just performed the first preemptory cross-examination of any Republican signer of the MOU who might waiver and claim he/she's off the hook if the Dem signers are vaguely naughty. He didn't quite use the word "iron-clad," but that's the concept and that's the language, and yes, Teddy absolutely gets both. The message to Graham and DeWine is clear: "Change your mind about voting for the nuclear option, or even claim that you have the right to, and we'll shove this signature of yours up your wazoo sideways on national TV every day for a month running." (He also understands that the commitment only runs through January 2007, avoiding Reid's overstatement.)

Meantime in the blogosphere, Edward Whelan writes:

Any agreement must be read against background contract principles. One of the most elementary principles of contract law is that a material breach by one part excuses continued performance by the other. So there is, I submit, no question that a Republican signatory is not bound to his promise to oppose cloture reform if the Democrat signatories do not live up to their end of the bargain.

That's absolutely right, and that's where Mr. Whelan stops his analysis. Some staff advisor to the Republican signers could and should have insisted that this proposition be expressly written into the MOA. The Dems couldn't have opposed such a demand with a straight face "No, we insist that we can breach and you're still bound!" isn't something you can say. But I agree with Mr. Whelan that the common law, and public common sense out of which this common law developed, both give the Republican signers this "right" whether the agreement says so explicitly or not.

But that's not where the analysis or the action will stop when the Dem signers refuse to support cloture. My whole point (which others, e.g., Bradford Berenson and Andy McCarthy are also arguing, more succinctly than I have) is that would-be wafflers on the Republican signers' commitment have to say why the "Democratic signatories [have] not live[d] up to their end of the bargain." Because of the subjective "good faith" standard built into the agreement, no such argument could ever be proved, or even persuasively argued, even in the loosey-goosey court of public opinion.

At 9:45am: Back on the Senate floor, Lindsey Graham is still insisting that he reserves the right to vote for a rule change in the 109th Congress if he thinks the Dems are misbehaving. Well, great, Lindsey except that's not what the document that you signed says. The document takes that discretion to grade the Dems' sincerity away from you, and expressly gives it to the Dem signers themselves. Plain English, short words, fits on one page. Teddy's gonna eat your lunch on this, Lindsey, and that's awfully pathetic.

At 10:00am: Cornyn invokes Rosanne Rosannadanna's line from the old SNL Weekend Update skits: "Never mind!" (Actually, he meant Emily Litella, another Gilda Radner character whom I've had frequent occasion to quote, proving again that the blogospheric debate rivals that of the World's Greatest Deliberative Body, except with hyperlinks.) I think at first he's going to use that line on behalf of Graham and DeWine, to invite them to begin eating crow for signing something so catastrophically drafted, so they can start "walking things back." (Cornyn's own mouth still has crow feathers hanging from its corners.) [Now it's Beldar's turn to use an old SNL line, this one from Steve Martin:] But nooooooooo! Cornyn means that the Dems are saying "Never mind" now about Owen.

At 10:15am: Leahy is annoyed that Frist is insisting on getting a record vote on cloture, just as Reid was at the beginning of the morning. Not content to reinterpret the AG's insistance that he hasn't trashed Owen, Leahy now insists on reinterpreting John Cornyn's insistance that he hasn't trashed Owen, not ten minutes after Cornyn left the microphone. But Leahy's mostly sticking to his pre-MOA script, which I think is canny on his part.

At 10:40am: Back to Reid: "The nuclear option is off the table, and we should stop talking about it after today." No suggestion that the Dems have to do anything specific to keep the nuclear option "off the table" on the MOA. But then back to his pre-MOA script as well.

I'm thinking Frist is making a mistake by getting a record vote on cloture. It will only create a clean precedent showing that the seven Dems who signed the MOA are "living up to their commitment," setting up their future arguments of "treachery!" and "deal-breaking!" when/if any Republicans try to walk back on their commitment not to support a rules change.

Now Reid says it explicitly, after directly quoting the "his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether extraordinary circumstances exist" language: "This [MOA] of course is a subjective test, as it always has been." Is Reid reading BeldarBlog? Naw, Beldar just read the Dems' plan (now becoming more clear, from Reid's and Kennedy's arguments) from the language the Dems suckered the seven Republicans into signing.

Oh my gosh, now he's quoting Caro's Master of the Senate ... maybe he is reading BeldarBlog!

At 10:45am: Specter (hoarse and looking very sick) seizes upon Reid's statement that the filibuster will be "occasional" and "very infrequent." (Yeah, right.) The term "extraordinary circumstances," says Specter, "does not lend itself to easy interpretation," so the "occasional" and "very infrequent" words are comforting to him. (Well, except the MOA expressly says who gets to do the interpreting.) But sheesh, Specter now says the MOA maintains the delicate "constitutional check and balance, the very important constitutional separation of power." The nuclear option, sez Specter, would have "materially affected the delicate separation of powers," giving any President greater power; or if defeated, the Dems would have been "emboldened to go further in the use of the filibuster." (Half right; the attempt to change the traditional checks and balances came from the Dems when they started judicial filibustering as a regular party-led matter in 2001.)

At 11:00am: And now the surreal: After a conventional and rambling defense of Owen, Specter concludes with a bizarre anecdote about former Sen. D'Amato singing on the Senate floor while wearing a pig suit, Specter turns the floor back over to Frist. Frist says it's time (noon Eastern) to vote on cloture, and he's right.

At 11:25am: It's sounding to me like virtually the entire Democratic Party contingent in the Senate has jumped aboard the MOU bandwagon. "Obstructing? Moi?" Only a very few "no" votes (e.g,.Corzine & Boxer). "Ayes" from lots of hard-left take-no-prisoners Dems if I'm hearing this right, although it sounds like some are switching back to "no" now near the end.

At 11:30am: 81 to 18, announces the presiding officer ... cloture is approved, and the Senate is in recess (as am I).

Posted by Beldar at 10:23 AM in Law, Politics | Permalink

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.