Talent Solves Democrat Judge Obstructionism

rushlimbaugh.com ^ | May 6, 2003 | Rush Limbaugh

[SwinneySwitch]

It takes a super-duper pooper scooper to get anywhere in DC!

[GOPJ]

bump

[FirstFlaBn]

Passing bills doesn't require a super-majority either.

Exactly, and appropriating money is a Constitutional responsibility just like approving judges. When I sit and wonder how we got to the point where emotion overrules the Constitution ("well, he had to do something..."), I see this suggestion and I understand.

As frustrating and maddening as it is, the only hope to restoring the Constitution is to use logic in evaluating propoals. Logic agrees with you.

Just like cops have to be the good guys all the time, conservatives have to be principled at every turn. Alternative analogy: to be a virgin, you have to be a virgin everday, but to be a slut you can take a day off. Thus, conservatives have to be pure all the time, liberals can take a principled stance when it suits them.

[Political Junkie Too]

It's amazing what can be accomplished when a state votes a live Senator to go to Washington.

-PJ

[Libloather]

Estrada bump...

[Howlin]

I'd love to read this article, but I jsut cannot get past this first line:

"If it weren't for you out there leading the charge, whatever Bush wants to do domestically would be DOA.

[Sonny M]

The Senate has always had the power to amend its rules. The filibuster is purely a concoction of the Senate. It has no constitutional basis.

Whats scary, is that you seem to be one of the very few people who understand this, thats my opinion after having been reading about this for awhile. Its not even a law, its a senate rule, why is it so hard for people to understand that?

[Dog Gone]

I sincerely doubt if 1% of Americans have read the Constitution. A few more have read parts of it, and around here the percentage is probably higher, but I wonder by how much.

I'm not trying to put anyone down, but in a nation where millions of people don't even know where the Pacific Ocean is, I'm not surprised by anything anymore.

[Bigun]

Its not even a law, its a senate rule, why is it so hard for people to understand that?

ABSOLUTELY and NO senate rule can trump the Constitution ever! I have always said so!

The SAD fact is that the republicans are playing politics with this because it IS hurting the dims politically! IMHO they could stop this tommorrow if they really wanted to!

[75thOVI]

Why would this be an advantage for republicans? Sure, the president will nominate a minority, but, then will not fight for his pick. The republican (un)led senate will not support the nominee. The democrats may be activly fighting the appointments, but the republicans, president included, are passively allowing them to do so.

[BallandPowder]

Powder..patch..Ball FIRE!

Thanks, MO, for giving us Jim Talent

YOU'RE WELCOME!!!!!!!!

[TLBSHOW]

I can't find the Republican leadership anywhere." Sadly, I know what he means. It's best illustrated on judges.

The GOP leadership is whining away about how they just don't have any power to get the judges confirmed, and yet they do. They are in the majority - by one vote.

Rush Limbaugh

I know what you mean Rush......Sad really.

[gcruse]

By rights, 2004 should yield a supermajority Republican Senate.
Without it, this bunch is too gentlemanly to blow their nose.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Bump!

[Restorer]

It takes a "super-duper" majority to change Senate rules. Three-fourths, I believe.

I rather doubt that would hold up. It certainly is not in the Constitution.

Any rule requiring this would mean that a majority of some past Senate would be overruling the present Senate.

I'm quite sure that the rule requiring a super-majority to change Senate rule could itself be changed by a simple majority.

Doesn't really matter, since the GOP senators won't have the cojones to do it.