[zarf]

I'd like to announce this not the last time I will type: blah, blah,blah ....

[labette]

Does this mean the next time that Hatch appears on Meet the Press with Biden, Schumer, Kennedy, etc, that they won't be holding hands and gazing lovingly into each others' eyes?

Save the words. We're interested in deeds.

[Paul_Denton]

Well if it is still on the table PRESS THE F*****G BUTTON!

[mowkeka]

It's not one of these freepers that calls Hatch or Lott a RHINO. They are good men.
The GOP is acting like a minority, not cause of these men, but because of John McCain.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Who would have ever dreamed that it was possible for a male Republican Senator to have such teenie weenie testicals , that by comparison, Orrin Hatch's pair borders on bowling ball dimensions?

[Recovering_Democrat]

Yeah right. Tell me another one. This one is approaching the realm of "three biggest lies", the first one of which is "The check is in the mail."

I sent TWO postage paid envelopes back to the Republicans this weekend. One to the RNC and the other to the Republican Senatorial Committee. No money inside, just a lot of writing about how disgusted I am with the RINOs in the Senate.

I'm a pretty good giver, too.

Oh, don't worry, DU Lurkers--I'm still going to GIVE, but instead of giving to the party (until I'm satisfied with their progress), I'll give to individual candidates to make sure you socialist anti-capitalist liberal infanticide enthusiasts STILL LOSE! BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! You can't stop me from funding conservative Republicans! BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

[Bush gal in LA]

Unless Frist can peel away a few of those 7 idiots I don't see it happening. McCaine is going to keep all of them together. so they can avoid looking like idiots......Or as McCaine says'' We have to preserve the great traditions of the senate'', and Byrd'' We have saved our Republic''............Excuse me while I go puke!

[Modok]

Of course the nuclear option is still on the table. McCain and the 6 gollums stole the detonator so it couldn't be used.

[CMailBag]

If McCain had been in the Senate 150 years ago the Mason/Dixon
Line would probably also be the Mexican Border.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

On May 23, 2005, a group of 14 senators, seven Democrats and seven Republicans, issued a “Memorandum of Understanding on Judicial Nominations.”

Since when does a group gather in a room and tell Frist what to do? Frist must be impotent to allow the tail to wag the dog.

[ken21]

the dems must take joy in that a handful of their ilk can run circles around the republicans.

[solo gringo]

I don't Know of one senate bill that Mc Cain has had anything to do with that was not a screw up.Either he is stupid and dumb but for sure a screw ball.

[SkyPilot]

Don't count your Hatches before they've Chickened.

[Logical me]

Frist must announce the McCain does not speak for the party. The way things are now McCain is speaking as he is the majority leader. Frist must be a jacka@@ to let that nut get away with it.

[El Oviedo]

I believe 4 of the seven RINOs hold chairmanship on a committee and all that Leader Frist should do is have a talk with them that if they don't fall in line, their chairmanships will be taken away.

He did that to that RINO from PA and it worked!

[Antoninus]

You know, I used to think that the "nuclear option" was like a sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of the Democrats. I no longer believe that. I now think it's more like a carrot on a stick hovering just out of the reach of the conservative base of the GOP. It's meant for us, not for the Dems. Hence, it will continuously threatened but never used.

Third party is starting to look tempting in 2006. What's the point of continuing to vote for bozos like this?

[AFPhys]

I wish Hatch, and all the Republicans, would simply DISCUSS THE CONSTITUTION when talking about the "constitutional option". The case is easily made in, for example, Breaking the Rules: The Framers intended no more than a Senate majority to approve judges.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1404953/posts


This article contains a side-by-side comparison and the dates that the judicial appt's question was brought before the Constitutional Convention.
Excerpt:

On June 13, 1787, it was originally proposed that judges be “appointed by the national Legislature,” and that was rejected; Madison objected and made the alternative motion that appointments be made by the Senate, and that was at first approved. Madison specifically proposed that a “supermajority” be required for judicial appointments but this was rejected. On July 18, Nathaniel Ghorum made the alternative motion “that the Judges be appointed by the Executive with the advice & consent of the 2d branch,” (following on the practice in Massachusetts at that time). Finally, on Friday, September 7, 1787, the Convention approved the final Appointments Clause, making the president primary and the Senate (alone) secondary, with a role of “advice and consent.”

Obviously, this question is something that the Framers carefully considered. The Constitution and Supreme Court decisions are quite clear that only a majority is necessary for confirmation. Neither the filibuster, nor a supermajority vote, is part of the Advice and Consent role in the U.S. Constitution. Until the past four years, the Senate never did otherwise.

After discussion, the Framers of The Constitution clearly intended majority advise/consent approval of the Senate in this case to be sufficient, and wrote it that way, and ratified the document in this form.

Up until now (two years or so ago), that was always understood (recall the 52-47 approval of Justice Thomas instead of some successful filibuster) and it was the only provision ever voted on in the history of the country regarding this issue. If they wish to change that, the Senate and House must muster a 2/3 majority to start to AMEND the Constitution.

All Hatch needs to say is that the Framers explicitly considered requiring a supermajority approval for judges, and explicitly rejected that.

[JCEccles]

I'm thinking that from the beginning we should have called this the "Democrat option," not the nuclear option, not the constitutional option. Democrats have used it repeatedly in the past and are world class hypocrites for feigning shock and dismay over Republican promises to invoke it in this very narrow and special circumstance.

Calling it the "Democrat option" or perhaps the Robert Byrd option would have brought the focus back to the Democrats and placed their hypocrisy under a very bright light. As it is, the Democrats have bamboozled many people into believing this is a new and underhanded tactic about to be sprung on the tender and precious Senate by a conspiring and evil Republican cabal.

[gorush]

Talk is cheap Orrin ol' buddy!