Skip to comments.
Boxer Blocks Impeachment Congressman
Newsmax ^
| November 30, 2007
| Newsmax Staff
Posted on 11/30/2007 2:05:11 PM PST by Turret Gunner A20
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-88 next last
To: napscoordinator
I hope the Republicans in Congress are the one who learn. They had strayed too far from the platform and needed to be reeled in.
41
posted on
11/30/2007 2:52:47 PM PST
by
Blood of Tyrants
(G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
To: fish hawk
"I'm sorry, Ms. Waters, my time is limited and I cannot yield to you for that purpose."
[blank stare from Waters]
42
posted on
11/30/2007 2:53:52 PM PST
by
1rudeboy
To: Turret Gunner A20
Boxer is related to the Clinton’s by marriage.
Shouldn’t she have stepped away from any influence on this nomination since her interests are tainted by any definition of the law?
43
posted on
11/30/2007 2:55:13 PM PST
by
A CA Guy
(God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
To: Da Coyote
Boxer and Pelosi make Feinstein look good.
44
posted on
11/30/2007 2:58:33 PM PST
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: Remole
His district was Hollywood, if I recallPasadena.
To: 1rudeboy
I missed that. Did she get the Cynthia McKinney look on her face? LOL
46
posted on
11/30/2007 2:59:27 PM PST
by
fish hawk
(The religion of Darwinism = Monkey Intellect)
To: Turret Gunner A20
I wish there was something we could do to Boxer.
There must be something she wants that canbe vetoed or witheld.
47
posted on
11/30/2007 2:59:49 PM PST
by
CPT Clay
(Drill ANWR, Personal Accounts NOW , Vote Hunter in the Primary)
To: XenaLee
Funny, but I dont even recall hearing his name.Wax?
48
posted on
11/30/2007 3:01:09 PM PST
by
Stentor
To: Turret Gunner A20
Well, the “Former Occupant of the Oval Office, 1993-2001” HAD committed high crimes and misdemeanors, it is just that the articles of impeachment were brought for the wrong ones.
Nobody outside the Beltway really thought the impeachment proceedings were serious, when things like passing state secrets to the Chinese Communist government in exchange for laundered campaign cash were overlooked, and the revelations about what happened in the sink at the side of the Oval Office were aired around.
James Rogan was just doing the best he could with what he was given to work with. Pursuit of the Chinese question was off limits.
Al Gore should have been President in 1998. He might have had a shot at winning in 2000.
49
posted on
11/30/2007 3:06:07 PM PST
by
alloysteel
(Ignorance is no handicap for some people in a debate. They just get more shrill.)
To: Turret Gunner A20
Dingy Harry kept the Senate from adjourning over Thanksgiving so the President couldn’t make any recess appointments.
Can he do it again over Christmas?
50
posted on
11/30/2007 3:06:17 PM PST
by
SmithL
(I don't do Barf Alerts, you're old enough to read and decide for yourself)
To: Argus
Barbara Boxer isnt fit to carry Rogans gun cleaning kit. Or... his sweaty jock strap.
51
posted on
11/30/2007 3:11:29 PM PST
by
dearolddad
(Opinions are like rectums: everybody has one.)
To: Turret Gunner A20
Rogan was also a big supporter of FR, he attended and spoke at several FR events in the LA area.
I’m sure the DC Chapter will jump on organizing support for our friend, Jim Rogan.
52
posted on
11/30/2007 3:20:39 PM PST
by
Bob J
(For every 1000 hacking at the branches of evil, there is one striking at its root)
To: Turret Gunner A20
To: CPT Clay
54
posted on
11/30/2007 3:27:12 PM PST
by
Finalapproach29er
(Dems will impeach Bush in 2008; mark my words.)
To: Walkingfeather
Absolutely wonderful book by an amazing man.
I had the honor of working for him for about a year and a half on his reelection campaign for Congress.
To: pogo101
What I fail to understand is why 51 Senators cannot just sign (with some sort of notarization, perhaps by a suitable employee of the Clerk Of The Senate) a letter stating something like, We, the undersigned Senators, having reviewed the nomination of XXXXXXXXXX to the office of XXXXXXXXXX as set forth in XXXXXXX [formal doc whereby the nomination was sent to the Senate], and having exercised our Advise and Consent power as set forth in the Constitution, hereby formally vote to confirm said nomination. If the nominee gets 51 notarized Sens sigs, we just swear him in. Let Reid try to get a court to void the confirmation, I dare him.The Constitution provides that the Senate gets "to determine the Rules of its Proceedings" (Art. I, sec. 5, cl. 2), so nominations have to follow the Senate rules.
To: Clint N. Suhks
“Any word whether the moonbats are going to pull another stunt and keep the Senate in session over Christmas?”
Yes, indeed, they are planning on doing it during the Christmas break also. If I were Bush, I’d call it for what it is, a sham Senate session, and make a recess appointment anyway. Let them fight it out in the courts. That will take a year, and I doubt anyone would or could remove Rogan from the bench.
57
posted on
11/30/2007 3:41:40 PM PST
by
flaglady47
(Thinking out loud while grinding teeth in political frustration)
To: Nuc1
Just when did a Senator get veto power over a judicial nominee? There is no authority for this in the constitution, at least as far as I am aware of. Please advise folks if you know better. About 220 year ago when the Constitution was ratified. Including Article II, Section 2 which contains this part: "...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law..."
58
posted on
11/30/2007 3:47:03 PM PST
by
Non-Sequitur
(Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
To: Blood of Tyrants
Boxer cannot block the nomination if the president decides to nominate him. Clearing it with the senators from the state the nominee comes from is a mere formality and not a constitutional requirement. But it's that formality that will keep the man from ever reaching the bench.
59
posted on
11/30/2007 3:49:15 PM PST
by
Non-Sequitur
(Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
To: Lurking Libertarian
It’s a good point. I’m just dreaming of the days when the Senate would confirm all but the most obviously corrupt or rank incompetents in a day or two, without hearings. Those days are gone, unfortunatley.
60
posted on
11/30/2007 3:49:57 PM PST
by
pogo101
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-88 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson