You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Democrats Still Refuse To Accept Minority Party Status
2005-03-16
Democrats threatened Tuesday to slow or stop most Senate business if Republicans unilaterally change the rules to assure confirmation of President Bush's controversial court appointments... "The Democrats have it backwards," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "They broke with a long-standing tradition of giving judicial nominations that reach the Senate floor an up or down vote, and we simply want to restore that tradition." Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the Judiciary Committee chairman, has declined to express support for a change in the rules but said Reid moved prematurely. "Since there's no imminent move by the majority leader to move to reduce the filibuster number from 60 to 51, it seemed a little untimely for Senator Reid to make his statement," Specter said. "My focus is to proceed to try to get these judges confirmed and try to work it out, without coming to the confrontation on the constitutional or nuclear option."
No half measures or compromise will work, any more than compromising with Iran to let them make nuclear weapons.
Posted by:Anonymoose

#7  Terpsboy has a little fun with the DhimmiDonks - Safe For Work and Everything, who'da thunk it?
Posted by: .com   2005-03-16 7:03:58 PM  

#6  I suggest a "Buy A Republican Senator A Cane" program...
Posted by: mojo   2005-03-16 12:24:53 PM  

#5  Sarge, actually they DO address why, they just speak in tongues. They have code phrases that they toss around. All the looney left-progressives know the words but we're just sheep ya know, we can't possibly know better so it's best that we just do as we're told.

The real fears? Most of the appointments are anti-abortion and would probably vote to uphold state/fed laws that restrict abortion -- e.g., parental notification, partial-birth abortion, etc. Many of these appointments also tend to be stricter constructionists who read the Constitution as it's written, rather than as a 'living document'.
Posted by: Steve White   2005-03-16 10:46:18 AM  

#4  "President Bush’s controversial court appointments." Funny how none of the Demospeak ever addresses WHY these nominees are "controversial" that's because the can't state their stupid reasons out loud. If they Said "We can't let him sit on the bench because he is Catholic or conservative" it would fall on deaf ears. I think the Republicans should run with the 'Constitutional Option' TODAY, THIS MORNING. Then listen to the whine from the left for the next two years. People would tire of them and they would lose even more seats.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2005-03-16 10:16:29 AM  

#3  If they are so 'controversial', then what are the Dems so afraid of? Surely there's just no way they could get even 51 votes.
Posted by: eLarson   2005-03-16 9:16:08 AM  

#2  ... if Republicans unilaterally change the rules to assure confirmation of President Bush’s controversial court appointments...

Shouldn't that read, "If Republicans put to a free and open vote a proposed rule change that would end unprecedented and unconstitutional Democratic obstructionism and allow judicial nominees a floor vote as mandated by the Constitution of the United States?"
Posted by: AzCat   2005-03-16 2:06:10 AM  

#1  The Democrats are every day in every way coming to resemble a bad Saturday Night Live sketch. It's hard to tell who is more pathetic, Reid or Pelosi. When Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton are the best you have, it's time to start thinking about a third party.
Posted by: RWV   2005-03-16 12:27:25 AM  

00:00