Skip to comments.The Base is Wrong About the Gang of 14
Posted on 01/30/2008 7:19:07 AM PST by ECM
click here to read article
ah i see your rationale
i thought you meant in terms of policy or something
I’d say something....but we’re within the free speech blackout period.
Every judge deserves a vote. Conservatives rightly do not typically filibuster judges. McCain preserved the leftist tool to block conservative appointments. And, it worked, unfortunately.
True, but I can't see handing this election to liberal creeps in the other party, who we disagree with more. Remember that. This is going to be a hold your nose and pick your poison election. Sending messages to the Republican party has always cost us in the long run. They don't respond to threats.
Where we can have the biggest impact is supporting real conservatives in primaries for House and Senate seats and carrying it thru to the general election. This will work to move the Republican party back to the right of center.
On the positive side, our left wingnuts will probably appoint some of their buddies in the house and senate to cabinet spots and other jobs causing them to have to find replacements (through appointments and special elections). Those are the spots we have to go after to ensure we get real conservatives.
New tagline bump.
Looks like me and the Maytag repair guy will be pretty lonely on November 4 as we both sit home with nothing to do.
No, you’ll probably have a lot of company. I may leave briefly to vote for other things on the ballot, but will definitely skip the top spot if McCain is on it.
There are toooo many purveyors of deceit and deception to number these day.
Speak for yourself...no wait, you are, and yes indeed you are [wrong]. Did you read the article? How about the last three paragraphs? Do you really think, that if the Republicans had pushed to change Senate rules, over-riding any chance for a minority party (which the Republicans are now) to filibuster a nominee which they loathed enough, that the Democrats would agree to change the rules back, when they hold the majority?
The only difference is, Republicans rarely in the past blocked appointments by filibuster. The Jack-ass party did it all the time.
What if we lose the White House? It's possible this election cycle. Would you really want nominees selected by the Marxist witch to, each and every one of them, need only face a "Party line" dominated, up or down vote?
That's what this is about, in part. The other part, the first part, has already been accomplished!
We got some (many of them significant) of the nomineees seated as judges.
Meanwhile, the Rat party dominated Senate, has been dragging their feet on Circuit Court level nominees, throwing the U.S. Courts into scheduling turmoil, while they wait for her thighness to be coronated...
Should we pin that one on McCain, too?
Same policy all around.
I’d rather the enemy be clear and obvious. It makes them weaker.
The traitor is far more dangerous.
I’m a NASCAR dad too. Got my Bristol (spring race) tickets this week.
They don’t have enough votes; at least not yet.
>>If we get Hillary or Obama nominating Supreme Court Justices I think we will be glad we still have the fillibuster option.
At least until the Dems go with the nuclear option. Do you honestly expect them to play fair?
They don’t have enough votes to end a fillibuster. Not yet anyway.
oh i dont know about that
true Amnesty and aversion to tax cuts but McCain gets it with the war (for the most part), better with gun rights, better on abortion, better with spending cuts (in theory we shall see if he can actually do this if elected), and i do think he would appoint better justices. not GREAT justices mind you but a heck of a lot better than Clinton/Bama would.
Again i am saying BETTER than Clinton/Bama not great or stupendous but better than the alternative two on the Dem side.
How could anyone with a regard for truth “spin” the gang of fourteen as positive accomplishment for conservatives?
I wish it were that simple, then I could join you in blaming McCain...
I sure don't remember ongoing filibuters over each of the appointees, after this so-called "gang of 14" agreement. Am I missing something?
It's a bit more complicated than that, isn't it? [not that I prefer it to be that way]
If we wanted to exercise a 'nuclear option', perhaps it would be best to have done it earlier on, after Republicans had regained a Senate majority, or if not that far back, then at least a few years earlier...
As it was, we would have been stinking up the joint, on our way out!
He ain't my candidate and the party that nominates this traitorous bastard is no longer my party.
Talk all you want about keeping Hillary or Obama out, but I don't see any benefit to ruining what's left of the country under the guise of pretending to be conservative. Ruin is Ruin. Let the liberals have the credit for it because the result is the same.
The GOP nominates this man for President and my entire family will change our registration from GOP to independent.
Anyone that thinks the Republican Senators will filibuster an ultra-liberal judge is just whistling in the wind.
The RINOS will cave in and let the judges go to a vote.
This writer is caught up in the appeasment strategy of John McCain.
Screw McAmnesty, and screw the media that continually props him up.
Damn, this guy sounds like Medved.
This guy has been reading my posts. The “Gang of Fourteen” was a masterpiece.
The rats never knew what hit them.
That said, McCain is still a Democrat scumbag and there are no vice grips in the world strong enough to put on my nose so I could ever vote for him.
“Looks like me and the Maytag repair guy will be pretty lonely on November 4 as we both sit home with nothing to do.”
I was going to sit home but now I believe that for POTUS I will vote third party, and following that, down-the-line Repub. I just WILL NOT EVER vote for Juan McAmnesty.
Yup... The President is supposed to make appointments. The Senate is supposed to approve/dissaprove them by majority vote. THAT is what the constitution requires... and, we were ABOUT To establish that principle once and for all... Until McCain, Graham, and their group of squishy fish jumped in to keep the sham going.
I know using the "Nuclear Option" meant the same process would apply when Dims were in power.... That's fine. It's the way the process is SUPPOSED to work.
Elections matter. And, winning Presidents get to pick judges... NOT a minority cabal in the Senate.
Nope. Sorry. I disagree with the article.
Pleasing the base matters. Pleasing the evangelical base in 2005-2006 would have mattered a lot.
Got to know when to compromise and when to play hardball. I will agree that the Republicans in the Senate need to play hardball should a Demonrat be elected President in 2008, whether or not they have a majority. Of course, with McCain, Snowe and Voinovich this is not likely.
Yes, you forget how many judicial nominees had been blocked by the democrats. This created a huge log jam of time and effort to get the nominees subsequently through. The left still had the threat of filibuster available, even if not utilized, and this also caused more delay. So, a trickle of them went through and then the democrats came in power. The left did not need to filibuster judges any more once in power.
The nuclear option would have opened the flood gate of nominees prior to 2006. It should have been utilized years ago.
Masterpiece for whom.... how many judges have been placed upon the benches since President Bush was elected, compared to Clintonism dark days of judicial appointing? The Republicans backed US into a corner with the leadership of all things call a GANG? Oh my, statesmanship has reached the muddy bottom.
Two words, Bull S***.
Wonder what our punishment will be for refusal to join this new wonder GANG??? Maybe GITMO?
I’m not a McCain fan, but this is exactly what a conservative Hill staffer working on judicial nominations told me when the deal was announced.
You may oppose him for many reasons, but Baehr is right—the Gang of 14 worked to the advantage of the conservatives.
President Bush asked the Senate the other night for them to get on with their duty of up or down votes on appellate vacancies.... He did not beg for more GANG lead deals because the gangsters are now in control.
Has it really been alone, the [implied] threat of Democrat filibuster that had held up all the Bush nominees? Is it that simple? I wish it were, for then it would all be easier.
What about now, or the near future --- after the next presidential election? Do we want to not be able to filibuster a Shrillary nominee? We need not do it each and every time. In fact, we should negotiate from what strength we have [close to half the seats] and filibuster enough against the Ruth Ginsberg types, that they know we mean business.
Of course, when Republicans do it, then the media gets critical of them, while conveniently ignoring that the Democrats have long proven themselves to be the obstructionists, when it comes to to judicial nominees nominated by the opposition Party's President, regardless of how doing that reflexively, Jack-ass party style, can be even worse news for this country, then appointing a judge one hold ambivalence for...
Fools Logic! The nuclear option would have removed the filibuster, so these judges would have been confirmed anyway. It is the 4 or 5 that got thrown overboard that were lost by McCain's actions. McCain sold out! Put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig!
There is no argument for the Gang of 14. If it is right (and constitutional) for nominees to have a filibuster free up or down vote, it doesn't matter which party is in power. Right, Wrong and constitutionality are not determined by which party is in power. Right is Right, Wrong is Wrong and the constitution is written in plain, simple, clear, understandable English.
I did that with Bush 41 and he lost to Clinton. I did that with Bob Dole. And he lost to Clinton. I did that with Bush Junior, and the Republican Party as well as the country lost.
I'm not holding my nose and picking poisons anymore. I'm done with that.
They don't respond to threats.
Maybe they'll respond to not being elected.
You have got to be kidding.
It was a direct undercutting of the Presidents authority to appoint judges.
He joined with the Democrats specifically because he didn’t like the appointments. He wanted to make the appointments himself.
That is Politics over principle.
Why would anyone vote for the synthetic when you can get the genuine in Mrs Clinton? At least you know she is going to run the country down the drain, and they will not blame Republicans.
So the gang of 14 which got 4 judges approved as opposed to the nuclear option which would have garnered many more?
I think not.
All judges nominated deserve a vote, either negative or affirmative, after a fair hearing. That includes the Democrat nominees. It does not benefit the judicial system to have nominees languish for years on end and possibly lose their law practices if they are not confirmed. Fundamental fairness and a working political system dictates that all nominees should receive a vote.
I was so angry at the Democrats at that time for holding up those appointments that I wanted Frist to use the nuclear option on them. But now that the shoe is very likely to be on the other foot next year with a Democrat president appointing judges and Justices I'm glad that he didn't set a precedent by doing so.
Of course that doesn't guarantee that Reid won't go nuclear anyway if a Democrat president's appointments are filibustered or otherwise held up, but I can't see our wimpy Repub Senators filibustering anything. And anyway the Dems may have well over 60 Senators seated next year if the Democrats win the whole enchilada by a landslide, which appears quite possible now after Republicans are left with a gang of four liberal losers to choose our nominee from. After seeing the GOP voters rejecting every conservative candidate and embracing RINOs in every primary held so far, I don't believe the Republican's 12 year run of Congressional control that ended in '06 will resume for a long, long time, if ever.
I've been fooling myself since Barry Goldwater in '63.
Enough is enough.
I cannot disagree, but then you and I don't run the U.S. Senate! That said, they can be pressured.
It will be a about full year, before there will be a newly elected President sworn in. That's a long time [more] to have Circuit Court seats sitting empty. Meanwhile, justice delayed, is justice denied, as the saying goes.
Maybe, like starting right now, the Republicans should put their heads together, and figure out how to PUSH the nominees to a vote, even if many of the nominees would get voted down? That would releave the "left hanging" aspect. Still to be addressed, would be filling the seats. So Bush would get another round of nominees, which he and other Republicans should then push? Push it all out into the open. Make people look at the nominees, and have the Democrats explain to everyone, on a case-by-case basis, just exactly why they won't vote for them.
It’s time for the media to make McCain a conservative. This should be good.
Don't feel lonesome, I am firmly resolved to never again vote for a RINO at any level of government. If the majority of the party's voters want to reject every conservative on the primary ballot and leave us with a gang of four liberals to choose a nominee from, then the GOP doesn't represent me any longer and is no longer my party.
There is no candidate on the present list who I can vote for in November. I could possibly vote for Huckleberry because of his strong stands on abortion, 2nd Amendment rights, "gay" marriage, and other social issues, but he has too many negatives on other issues to be an acceptable choice. And even if the incredible happens and he is nominated against all odds, he would be buried ten feet deep by either Hildebeast or Sheik Barack Hussein Obama.
I have voted Republican in every national level election since Nixon vs JFK in 1960, and I had to hold my nose in most of those elections in order to do it. But enough is enough and that 48 year string has now come to an end. I still want to vote at every opportunity, and I will soon be looking around for an acceptable 3rd party candidate who I can vote for next November without a clothespin on my nose.
Actually the Constitution gives Congress the power to make it's own rules and procedures, see article 1, section 5, clause 2.
The filibuster has long been recognized as a legitimate tactic in Senate proceedings in accordance with that clause. You had better hope it's not done away with, because it may well be the only restraint on the Democrat Senate for the next 8 years of Democrats controlling both houses of Congress and the White House.
Not yet, but wait until after the landslide of '08 and see how the count stands.
GOP primary voters appear to be stupid enough to only offer conservatives a choice between four certified liberal RINOs for nomination, and that's how it stands now that Fred was forced to drop out after he was soundly rejected in supposedly conservative SC by Pubbies who preferred three RINOs over him.
IMHO a Democrat landslide is almost certain now, and Democrats will defeat several of the current Pubby Senators who hold weak seats and also elect Democrats to some of the seats left open by retiring Pubbies. I think it's possible that they could even gain a 2/3 majority in both houses that could pass constitutional amendments, and that's just too scary to even think about.
The Gop congress critters should campaign against the “do nothing Congress” of Reid and Pelosi.