Posted on 05/29/2005 7:04:50 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
As part of the judicial nominee deal made in the Senate this week, the confirmation of Henry Saad (search), whose nomination to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has languished since 2001, has come into doubt.
Aides to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid told FOX News that Democrats will filibuster (search) the nomination of Saad and William Myers (search) to the 9th Circuit Court. Democrats say both nominees are exempt from the "exceptional circumstances" clause in the bipartisan agreement.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist acknowledged on Wednesday that the two nominees remain in limbo.
"The agreement for both Myers and Saad is a little agnostic. And that's why I and our leadership did not endorse this agreement by the 14," Frist said, referring to the 14 Democratic and Republican senators who penned the deal...
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Not to worry, the repubs are the majority in the Senate. They have banded together around a strong leader who will make sure the "R"s vote in unity...../sarcasm
Let's make them do a real filibuster. I'd like to wake up in the morning, turn on my TV, and see Teddy Kennedy rambling on and on about nothing but gibberish, with bags under his eyes because he's been up all night.
Come to think of it, it's a pretty regular occurrence with Teddy anyway.
Saad's a Catholic, so you can be certain that the Dems will not give in.
Question-since these two werent part of the sell-out last week, can the CO be used with Saad?
They cannot make them do a "real filibuster," those rule were changed a while ago.
So are Senators Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), John Kerry (D-Mass.), Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) and Joseph Biden (D-Del.).
What's your point?
What the heck does that mean? What, in the deal, makes them exempt?
Why is there a damned deal in the first place? What the heck are the Republicans thinking? You think there's going to be any deals if/when the Democrats have a majority?
What a bunch of spineless morons. We might as well save everyone a lot of grief and put McCain in charge of the Senate.
I am so angry about this bogus "agreement" - my blood is boiling.
There is absolutely no good reason for this guy not to get a vote.
For God's sake - exercise the g-damn power we elected you to use!!!!!
Here here! If they do this it will go along way to restoring my confidence that our supposedly Conservative leaders are truly fighting the same battle that we are.
And send the rest of them home...McCain's the only leader in the bunch...
Change them BACK...
Frist couldn't lead a pack of Cub Scouts.
SENATE CLUB....
There are plenty of liberal Catholics in office...Kennedy and Kerry are Catholics...
From your fingers on your keyboard to the mind of Bush!
And wouldn't it be great to hear the squealing from the Left? Music to my ears...
I don't recall them even being mentioned in the written agreement. There are obviously some oral parts of the agreement that are being kept secret from us.
For one thing, Lindsey Graham stated unequivocally several times on the Hannity radio program that ALL nominees, including Saad would get up or down votes, but he always qualified that by saying that not all of them would get confirmed and that he would vote against at least one of them.
There would have to be an oral agreement that five or six of the Republican renegades would vote against Saad and the others when they came up for an up or down vote. But if the agreement has already fallen apart, then the Dems may fall back on some theory that since Saad et al were not specifically mentioned, that they are specifically excluded. Just enough for the Old Media to hang its hat on.
Make that a pack of Brownies and I will agree with you. What a total loss that man is.
"The White House has said it will not give the Democratic Senators the highly classified documents they are seeking in connection with John Bolton's nomination as U.N. ambassador. Scott McClellan pointed out:"
"The Democratic and Republican leaders of the Intelligence Committee have had access to this sensitive, highly classified information. The Democrats clamoring for it have already voted against the nomination. This is about partisan politics."
"What I thought was priceless was the Democrats' response:"
"But Democrats said it's not about politics, or even about Mr. Bolton anymore. They said their filibuster is an attempt to protect the institution of the Senate against a strong and overreaching administration. Does this mean we have to listen to Robert Byrd all over again? We just preserved the Republic last week, but I guess the Senate minority is going to have to preserve it again soon. How long do you suppose the American people will buy the line that every partisan dispute is "really" all about the Constitution's checks and balances?"
"I have to say, though, that I really don't understand what the Democrats are doing on Bolton. I can understand that for partisan reasons, to give the administration a black eye and to keep their contributors fired up, they think they need to choose a vulnerable appointee now and then, and pick him off."
"But the U.N. ambassador seems like an odd choice. Normally, such appointments haven't even required a roll call vote. No U.N. nominee has ever had more than a handful of votes cast against him. This isn't because they have all been wonderful nominees, but because this is not a position where any significant power gets exercised. For the Democrats to expend so much capital on it seems odd."
"In any event, with this pretext for delay frustrated, I assume we'll have a vote on Bolton soon."
"SCOTT adds: Don't miss Senator McCain's additional contribution to saving the Republic as reported in today's New York Times: "McCain urging accord on Senate and Bolton documents."
Posted by John at 08:51 AM | Permalink
The Socialists (aka, Democrats) are spinning the truth. Call all the talk shows and set them straight on this.
They do not represent the broad mass of catholics, not even in the east coast cities.
The point is that Catholics are anti-abortion and will not receive any democrats' support.
Not these Catholics-overwhelmingly elected and re-elected with Catholic support:
Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), John Kerry (D-Mass.), Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) and Joseph Biden (D-Del.).
I was under the impression that most dems were Catholic!!!!!!!
Great idea (recess appts for them both), and let's hope the WH is already working on it.
I doubt it but it would be the thing to do.
Now that Bolton has been filibustered, nominees will be sent for a floor vote. Access was previously granted to currently requested files, the denial is obviously partisan. I have inquired as to a recess appointment and was told it was likely. If it does not occur, I am lost. Realize Bolton's term would end at 2008 if not reappointed.
Those so called Cathlics that are named are not true Catholics and should have been ex-communicated long ago.
Now I'm really confused. There must have been an oral agreement too. I'm so pissed at the Repulican party over this entire deal.
Come to think of it, it's a pretty regular occurrence with Teddy anyway.
You nailed it. Teddy is in a perpetual filibuster mode with the only variation being between 80 proof and 100 proof ;-)
I would suspect, Jim, that unlike Kennedy and the rest who are CINO (Catholic in name only), they are probably afraid that Saad may actually be a real Catholic. They can't have that.
But the Catholic Church has a hierarchical form of government, does it not?
It is not up to you or me to say who is a Catholic. It is up to the local bishop, or the Pope.
And, despite daily protests to the contrary on this board, there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that ANY of the above-named senators are in any way not recognized as "true Catholics".
Lets amend that to devote Catholics, I dont think any of them fit into that catagory.
you must mean "practising" catholic (aka Authentic Catholic)
How many times have you seen one of these CINOs photographed while attending mass? Inevitably, they attend black, Protestant churches on Sunday (at least during an election cycle).
And send the rest of them home...McCain's the only leader in the bunch.
Tell me...what color is the sky in your world?!
McStain is the WORST...unless you LIKE self-centered, self-absorbed, corrupt media-whores...wait..they ALL are....it does make it tough, unless you really care to delve deeper in to McStain's dealings!
Never the less, McStain is the Manchurian Republicrat...someone should make up T-Shirts with Queen Cankle Hellary as the Queen of Diamonds and wear them to ALL McStain gatherings!
Personally, I'd LOVE to see him twitch and froth at them!
I watched the committe hearings on Bolton and I came away feeling that I had been watching union negotiations where they defend employees, no matter what their performance. AFSCME and the government employee unions are the dems biggest union supporters. Government employees would love to see Barb Boxer et al defending them against any interferance from political appointees. It was not really about manipulating intelligence, though they tried to make it seem like a proxy fight over intelligence and Iraq war.
there the catholics that dont believe in the church
LOL! Is that photo to prove that Kennedy is a real Catholic?
there has been a systematic effort, led by Schumer, to stop any devout catholics from being confirmed.
and our RINOs have signed onto that.
Not to worry. The process is really just starting, Frist is on our side, Frist is battling a bunch of RINO's, Frist says he will use the Constitutional option -- and you cardinal4 stab him in the back.
What the heck are you thinking. 7 RINO's revolt. 48 don't. Yet you lump them all together. No wonder we lose.
Yes, when we've elected a Republican President, McCain is going to "lead" us over to the Democrats and say we'll let you take over if that'll make you happy. And, by the way, when a Democrat is elected President in the future, we'll let you run things then, too - just to make you happy. Lead = make the other guys happy at all costs and take everything away from those pesky voters. Some one who shows absolutely zero respect for the voters in this country is NOT a LEADER.
Democrats don't mind pro-abort "Catholics," just the kind that take the teachings of their faith seriously.
Frustration has caused me to seek blame where it could probably be applied more efficiently elsewhere. Im willing to admit that Frist has been blindsided by a bunch of RINOs. It has been a very disheartening week..
That's the way, Jim, don't hide your ignorance under a basket, let it shine forth!
They are heterodox, heretics, whatever you want to call them, the point is they are in direct opposition to and denial of the Catholic faith they claim to hold.
But I'm sure you know that and you are just making a point to attack Catholics on FR. Nice guy.
Oh they make sure they get their photo-ops. They are very interested in playing Catholic for the votes while attacking Catholicism and those who advocate its teachings in the political sphere.
I'm not attacking any Catholics, most especially those on FR.
But the truth is that the Catholic Senators I cited are recognized and celebrated in their communities as Catholics, are returned to office over and over again by large Catholic majorities, and as much as you and others say "they aren't real Catholics", if they weren't, they'd be tossed out.
It's not as if they were Unitarians-if their bishop declared them out of communion with him, they would not be real Catholics, but since no bishop has done this, I challenge your assertion that they are not real Catholics.
When the Church, not you, puts them out, they will cease to be real Catholics, until then, they're as real as real can be.
the Catholic Senators I cited are recognized and celebrated in their communities as Catholics
But are they?
are returned to office over and over again by large Catholic majorities
I'm sure you have exit polling numbers for each of those senators
as much as you and others say "they aren't real Catholics", if they weren't, they'd be tossed out.
What makes you think that?
When the Church, not you, puts them out, they will cease to be real Catholics, until then, they're as real as real can be.
If you're talking about excommunication, public declarations thereof are extremely rare. However, actual instances of it in the eyes of God are common. Then, as I mentioned, there is denial of Catholic beliefs. Call "Catholics" who don't believe Catholic truths heterodox or whatever you want, that is what people typically mean by "not real Catholics".
To say that terminology is false is just obstinacy in defense of those who deny Catholic teaching.
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.