Posted on 06/07/2005 4:51:37 AM PDT by Coop
What are you saying, giving up Saad and Myers is "nothing"? Or insignificant from a "tactical" perspective?
Frist wants, and watned, an up or down vote on every nominee. If the constitutional option had gone through, he would have had it. Now it is certain that he won't. Not unless the two of the DEMs somehow, miraculously decide not to filibuster Myers and Saad.
We got what we wanted, albeit not by the stick-it-in-your-face, smash mouth ultimate humilation method, which many wanted.
___________________________________________________
Exactly and you need to do this in a legislature because you have to deal with the other side over and over. You want them to agree with the way you get the judges so they don't delay everything else. Thus it was important that the Dims get cover.
But the deal is still pending. The Dims must back off on Bolton and cooperate in other ways too.
We all agree that all Bush's nominees deserve a Senate confirmation vote.
I *also* state that the nominees deserve confirmation ... because they do.
"You and I agree that all of the president's nominees deserve confirmation (but I've not seen the closed-door reports - so I could be persuaded otherwise) ..."
When the worst the Dems can come up with is that some of these nominees were in the Federalist Society, or (yikes) dared to say something pro-life, I am *sure* they all deserve confirmation and will be assets to the bench.
NOT A SINGLE NOMINEE THAT WAS FILIBUSTERED HAD THEIR COMPETENCE QUESTIONED.
Of course the LibDems will vote against the best conservative Judges, but in a fair world all of these stalled Judges would sail through with 80+ votes in favor.
One of my fears is that our RINO contingent will 'throw' a vote or two to the Dems to avoid a filibuster while taking down a qualified judge. We need to avoid that, hence my statement "these Judges deserve confirmation".
This, I wrote on another thread just today, and though it doesn't completely apply here, it illustrates yet another part of Frist's calculations during this session:
---->
The chances of a majority D senate in 2006 are vanishingly small. A majority D senate in 2008 are at best marginally better, but by then it is probably more likely there will be over 60 R's.
Look at the cost/benefits to a future D-president (a much better 2008 chance than D-Senate) --- Which of the D-candidates would savor allowing the most conservative R-Senators to, in effect, choose their Cabinet by filibuster? --- judges?
The only reason they have allowed it to go this far is because they never in their wildest dreams believed that Frist would go to the NUKE - I suspect they thought that the public would side with them somehow and force him to back down. When Frist hadn't backed down, and the Gallup poll came out saying that 69% thought a president's nominees deserved an up-or-down despite all the spin the media had put on it, they KNOW they've lost.
Now, the best they can do is to try to save face, but if they allow a filibuster of judges, they will be saying that the FORTY MOST CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS will have veto power in perpetuity over D-appointed judges.
Some may not have realized this yet, but when it comes time for any Nuke Option vote, they will reflect long and hard on whether those are the rules they think they want in 2008. I think they already know it, but they're playing to their rabid leftists now.
I have to interject, that if the Dem's had gone through with their stated intentions, there would have had to be a "cloture" vote on everything from nominations for dog catcher to the most "important" legislative action - followed by a nominal (I believe) 30 hours of "debate" as well as whatever "debate" preceded the cloture vote. Typically, these things get done by "unanimous consent" and many things are simple voice vote, often on a whole group of issues or nominations at once.
I disagree that we lost time. If the Nuke had been done, that would have laid to rest for all time the question of whether a President would get an upordown on his nominees, but for this session of Congress, at least, the Dems could very well have ground business to a painful crawl, as they threatened. Who would win then - I dunno...
A reasonable post. I will trust that the Senators (R) will not vote against someone unless there is reason to do so.
I expect all to be confirmed, except possibly one - only one.
Your premise assumes at least two of the RINOs will end up voting to invoke the nuclear option when the Democrats try to filibuster the next Bush judicial nominee. I don't have as much confidence in any of these seven turncoats as you do apparently.
Agreed. Even back when all the bleating about Specter was going on around here it was obvious the GOP couldn't risk embittering Specter - - they had to give him his chair, and along with it they gave him a message: "Play ball." (You'll notice that he was, conspicuously, NOT one of the "gang".)
Plus, I knew Specter would stay cool because he owes Bush and Santorum BIG TIME - - I really believe that Toomey may have beaten Specter in the promary without that support. And Specter knows it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if "playing ball" was part of the deal for that primary support all along.)
Regards,
LH
Not only have Graham and DeWine said that they will not play games on filibusters if the Democrats get silly, but even Susan Collins has indicated that she is getting impatient. I also believe that Warner could flip if the rats get stupid. (Sure, Chafee, Snowe and McCrazy are hopeless scumbags, but that's a given.) Basically, I believe that (at least) two additional votes will be there to provide a winning margin if the time comes to nuke. Now that the rats have walked into the trap and provided cover for blue state GOP Senators, the likelihood of a successful nuke is vastly improved.
Regards,
LH
Just read on Yahoo News that the Senate voted to end the filibuster on Janice Rogers Brown. So, Priscilla Owen was confirmed; there's going to be a vote on Rogers Brown; Pryor is next...Someone tell me again how this "deal" was so devastating.
Let's see...Against the filibuster were McCain, Warner, Snowe, Collins, Chafee (that's five), and a firm "no-commitment" from Specter (that's six). Seems that Frist didn't have the votes for the nuclear option.
(I suspect that most of the screamers have given very little money in the past to the GOP, so much of this is posturing.)
I 100% agree about the Specter support. That thinking is exactly why I keep saying Frist (and with him, Bush) has had this battlefield prepped possibly even BEFORE January. Like it or not, we could not afford to lose that PA Senate seat this session - the contingency of what to do when the RINOs struck was in great jeopardy as it was, without having even one less vote available --- and everyone knew as much as a year ago what the Demodogs were planning for this session.
I misread your intentions. Sorry.
,
In short, we intend to continue to fight for up-or-down votes on each and every nominee.
Now, you obviously feel differently. That's fine. But I'm not taking your opinion over the statement from Dr. Frist's office. Again, I expect a vote on each nominee. If the Dems filibuster Saad and/or Myers, I think they get nuked.
Yes, my premise includes two votes, but it also includes the Dems going through with this.
Is that sarcasm? Because I can't imagine why you're asking me about the deal being devastating.
Never mind. I re-read and saw you addressed that part to "someone."
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.