Posted on 05/25/2005 9:55:14 AM PDT by no dems
Coulda, shoulda, woulda ... A judge has been confirmed, more will follow. That advances the ball.
You gotta get Mccain. I think we can all admit we don't want him for the nominee in '08. If we can admit that then can we agree that the best thing is to get the guy out of his senate seat? What harm would it do to publically admit that the party is going after the guy. Let the MSM write what they want. They will anyway. Hell, we could even have Bush campaigning for a conservative now that he doesn't have to run again. Strike the shepard and the sheep will scatter.
You know, I was very disappointed in the GOP for not running a good campaign against Harry Reid here in Nevada. The state went Bush but also reelected Reid. I never saw one ad for whoever the GOP ran. It's South Dakota and Dashle all over again. What's worse is that every year more Californians cross over to Nevada and the chances to rid ourselves of Reid diminish.
Aye Aye.
Kumbaya it is, m'lord.
:)
They are not compromisers, they are traitors.
I don't know anything about the son, but, I have always heard that the acorn don't fall far from the tree. Therefore the father is all I need to know about the son.
" Did we not get 3 of the most conservative judges through? "
No, we did not.
There seven that won't even be voted on. All seven are probably more conservative that the three that will [may] be approved.
Look guys, it's human nature. If a kid does something bad, very bad as in this case! and you don't discipline him, then don't expect respect or adhearance to anything you say next time. Same thing here: If these WEASELS, get away with this, then what is there to keep others in line? BUT we go after them, and some of them lose their seats... then, they will see what I hope its a fact, that the rules of the game really changed and that due to communications we, the people, will NOT FORGET this time... Even if it takes years, but we must the resolve to go after them. I will simply switch my contributions from the NRC to the PACs willing to do the job for us. Money is a fantastic incentive. If these PACs get some of this money, believe me, they will make sure to remind us for the next 6 years, there is a job to do.
I worry that McCain would go third-party.
I don't know what to do about him.
I am back east, where it's all Dems and RINOs. But nationally I thought we had more voices.
Oh well . . .
You know, in the past I have said that same thing to lots of people. I don't know about now. The democrats were handed a very big victory when the Republicans were supposed to have the majority. There was absolutely no reason for this compromise other than to undermine the President. If that is the case, why bother to keep people like McCain in? I guarantee that I am going to everything I can to help whomever his opponent is.
I have not voted for a democrat since 1960. In 1964, I spent every spare minute I had working in Barry Goldwater's Tucson office. I was twice elected Republican precinct committeeman in Tucson. I am livid over what Mcain and the other 6 rinos did.
The way I see it, the dems are doing pretty darn good anyway on the most important issue of this congress. It doesn't really matter what letter the seven senators have after their name if they vote D.
There's a very easy way for the seven R senators not to split the party by their precipitous actions. Renounce the compromise and vote to end the judicial filibuster when the Dems raise it again.
If they persist, there needs to be a bloodletting in the party and Republicans need to decide whether they stand for a continuation of the imperial leftist judiciary or not. Those that do should be invited to leave and, if they do not, they should be starved of funding, volunteers, primary support and pork.
The issue is too fundamental a difference for us to continue as one party. The imperial judiciary is a cancer on every aspect of our lives, business, moral, racial etc. Those who want to continue it belong someplace else.
Better that we lance the boil now. It will be lanced eventually whether we want it or not.
I hope the voters in R.I., Maine, S.C., Va. etc. have the pleasure of getting to vote twice in an election season (once in the primary and again in Nov.) against their very own traitors. I do so enjoy the years when Arlen Specter runs so I can vote TWICE against him. Even though he always thwarts the efforts to get rid of him, I still enjoy it as much or more than having voted for candidates who win.
Sorry about that. I rec'd it from NewsMax.com. I think the two are closely related somehow; same church different pew.
Good point, if McCain goes third party we lose the white house. I have no doubts that he could pull enough votes to deny a Republican and rerun 1992 as Perot.
What if he loses the nomination and runs as a third party candidate anyway?
Without some form of consequence he will continue his behavior.
It's depressing to think about.
But a lot can change by 2008.
He apparently had no choice about the POW camp as he now enjoys in the Senate, and that "service" does not automatically qualify him to be a senator...if it did there are plenty of others out there to choose from who think more clearly and are less self centered. I'm tired of him riding the POW horse. Enough already.
Your statement is simply incorrect. The compromise is unconstitutional. Judicial filibusters are unconstitutional. A Senate rule providing for filibustering judicial nominations does not trump the Constitution.
The Senate IS required to perform its Advice and Consent function. It is not optional.
The logic of this is quite simple and inescapable. The President is required to fill these vacancies ("...he SHALL nominate, and ...SHALL appoint..."). Now, those who try to dissemble and deny that the Senate's role in this process is mandatory by asserting that Article 2, Section 2 does not specifically say "the Senate SHALL" fail to grasp (or more likely deliberately ignore) that this contingency is covered by the Senate members' Oaths of Office. Again, the logic is simple and clear. If the Senate fails or refuses to perform their Advice and Consent function, then they are preventing or obstructing the President from fulfilling his mandated duty. Obstructing a Constitutional Officer, e.g. the President, from carrying out his duty is itself a violation of the Constitution.
Furthermore, the phrase "Advice and Consent" in constitutional law means simply that the Senate must vote (or whatever other procedure they decide to use - they can read chicken entrails if they wish) to either approve to reject the President's nominee. That is ALL it means.
One other point needs to be addressed. Many people incorrectly use the term "Consent" by implying that it means that the Senate is commanded to "approve" the nomination. That is not the case. The phrase "Advice and Consent" is a term of art that in the accepted constitutional usage of 200 years means to vote. The Senate is free to either approve or reject the nominee. What they are not free to do is to avoid or refuse to participate in the process which the Constitution specifically outlines and requires, since by refusing to perform their Advice and Consent function in the Constitutionally mandated process for filling vacancies, they are, as stated above, obstructing another Constitutional Officer, in this case the President, from fulfilling his constitutionally mandated duty.
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.