Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 5/24/2005 5:57:21 AM EDT
The seven Republican signers were to the agreement that allows the Dems to continue in their filibuster ways (and they will shortly as they cannot help themselves):

Sens. Mike DeWine of Ohio,
Susan Collins of Maine,
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina,
Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island,
John McCain of Arizona,
John W. Warner of Virginia
Olympia J. Snowe of Maine


So, ARFCOM members from OH, ME, SC, RI, and AZ explain yourselves. I really would like to hear the excuses from ARFCOM Maine members. AZ members probably have been explaing McCain for awhile now.

I AM SICK IN TIRED OF HEAR YOUR SHIT ABOUT CA AND CA ARFCOM MEMBERS. I guess you guys enjoy loosing 2nd Amendment cases in the courts.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 6:03:37 AM EDT
Well, I'm not sure about this particular one. The Republicans have used the filibustering tactic with success over the years.

Pretend for a moment that we're 15 years in the future, and the Dems are in control again. What now? The minority (in that case us) are screwed. You have to be careful doing things to the minority when you are in power, it might be you next time.

The filibuster was put in for a good reason, it's just that at the moment we don't like the people using it, but keep in mind we may need it desperately some day.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 6:04:11 AM EDT
DeWine is the poster boy of RINO's. So is our other senator, Voinovich. So is our republican Governor.

At least we delivered on W back in November.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 6:04:40 AM EDT

Collins, Snowe, and Chaffee are all New
England Republicans. The Republican
party is VERY lucky to have those seats
considering that ME and RI are liberal
states.

Their party status only ensures the majority
and, as for legislative vote counting, you
have to assume that they are RINOs.

Link Posted: 5/24/2005 6:04:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:
Well, I'm not sure about this particular one. The Republicans have used the filibustering tactic with success over the years.

Pretend for a moment that we're 15 years in the future, and the Dems are in control again. What now? The minority (in that case us) are screwed. You have to be careful doing things to the minority when you are in power, it might be you next time.

The filibuster was put in for a good reason, it's just that at the moment we don't like the people using it, but keep in mind we may need it desperately some day.



Fillibusters have never been used against judicial apointees.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 6:06:12 AM EDT
I live in Pa, so I retain my right to crack on Kalifornia.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 6:06:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/24/2005 6:06:44 AM EDT by EricTheHun]
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 6:12:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JCKnife:
Fillibusters have never been used against judicial apointees.



Sure it has. By Senator Frist, nonetheless.

Wanting to get rid of filibusters now because we have a few more seats in the Senate is short-sighted. At some point, the pendulum will swing the other way.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 6:15:00 AM EDT
I tried to pencil in SATAN for John McCain, but there was no place for it so I voted for the Dem, who I never saw a campaign sign for. (Why would they, McCain is a Dem)
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 6:17:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

Originally Posted By JCKnife:
Fillibusters have never been used against judicial apointees.



Sure it has. By Senator Frist, nonetheless.

Wanting to get rid of filibusters now because we have a few more seats in the Senate is short-sighted. At some point, the pendulum will swing the other way.



When have the Republicans used a fillibuster against a judicial nomination to prevent an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor?
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 6:18:58 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 6:27:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
When?

Who was the nominee?

Give us the details, please.



Frist voted to filibuster Richard Paez. 1999 or 2000.

Dems needed to be slapped, nothing more. They will play nice with the nominees for a while now, and we keep open the future option of using the filibuster.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 6:51:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

Originally Posted By JCKnife:
Fillibusters have never been used against judicial apointees.



Sure it has. By Senator Frist, nonetheless.


When?

Who was the nominee?

Give us the details, please.

Wanting to get rid of filibusters now because we have a few more seats in the Senate is short-sighted. At some point, the pendulum will swing the other way.

And the DEMOs will, as always, run rough shod over the Republicans AND Our Republic.

What's the point of winning elections IF we don't use the power that winning gives us, WHEN we have it?

Explain that philosophy, if you will.

Eric The(Realpolitik)Hun



In other words "Do unto others before they can do unto you" ? That will make for some nasty things in the future. You think it's bad now, try getting anything done in this government when no one will compromise on anything at all.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 6:54:46 AM EDT
The Constitution shouldn't be a point of compromise.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 6:56:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JCKnife:
DeWine is the poster boy of RINO's. So is our other senator, Voinovich. So is our republican Governor.

At least we delivered on W back in November.



What he said. And if the RNC would put up/endorse some candidates WORTH VOTING FOR (in the PRIMARIES) we'd VOTE! But the Ohio RNC leaves MUCH to be desired, VERY much. Typically the asshats are unopposed.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 7:01:10 AM EDT
Well, Collins and Snowe are definitely RINOs, and we also have a dermorcrat gubernor too. Couple that with the massive influx of people from massachusetts on a daily basis, and it won't be long before we are represented by Ted Kennedy himself.

They will never get voted out of office around here unfortunately. Collins has done alot to save and create jobs around here. And that will secure her position for years to come.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 7:01:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
When?

Who was the nominee?

Give us the details, please.



Frist voted to filibuster Richard Paez. 1999 or 2000.

Dems needed to be slapped, nothing more. They will play nice with the nominees for a while now, and we keep open the future option of using the filibuster.




Paez was ALREADY ON THE COURT. In addition, Paez was filibustered by a BIPARTISAN group of Senators. and last but not least....Paez GOT A VOTE ON THE FLOOR

Someone has been paying attention to the liberal talking points
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 7:29:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Stormtrooper:

They will never get voted out of office around here unfortunately. Collins has done alot to save and create jobs around here. And that will secure her position for years to come.



I'm not so sure. If the proposed BRAC closings go through, the US military presence in Maine will pretty much consist of a couple humvees and a Huey

Snowe and Collins pride themselves on their "independence". Screw that, how about a little teamwork ladies?


Originally Posted By stator:

I AM SICK IN TIRED OF HEAR YOUR SHIT ABOUT CA AND CA ARFCOM MEMBERS.



As far as California, give me a break. We just overwhelmingly shot down an attempt in the legislature to have a state AWB. And when it comes to RKBA issues, Snowe and Collins will do the right thing.
You better worry about YOUR two sorry excuses for solons.

BTW, how are those FAG-10s working out for ya'?
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 7:35:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sydney7629:
Paez was ALREADY ON THE COURT.



Not the 9th Circuit, to which he was nominated.



In addition, Paez was filibustered by a BIPARTISAN group of Senators.



Come on. Now you are grasping at straws. I don't give two shits either way about Paez. The point was to show that filibusters are A) Nothing new and B) Used by both sides. Trying to claim the current situation is the first time that filibusters have ever been used against judicial candidates is BS.



and last but not least....Paez GOT A VOTE ON THE FLOOR



And that vote was how many years after his nomination?



Someone has been paying attention to the liberal talking points



That is the Arfcom equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, "I'M NOT LISTENING!!!!".

If you want to play fast and loose with the facts, go over to DU or some other place. I damned well expect fellow conservatives to deal with facts, and not just make crap up as they go along.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 7:35:55 AM EDT
I am disappointed in Senator Graham. He's usually a pretty solid guy.

The defecrats know how to play hardball.

Also, the libs tend to win the propaganda wars in the media because 1) they tend to have the media's support and 2) they are experts without shame when it comes to spin, vitriolic rhetoric, slander, distortion, and lies. There are some things that an honorable conservative just won't say.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 7:37:12 AM EDT
Since when does the hive accept what is given to us? In the spirit of "get both" and the legendary exploits of Kacer we should field a primary protest cantidate to run against some of the offending office holders. We have hive members in every county, even with the 10/90 rule the support of the productive members of the rest of the hive would be substantial. The return on your primary vote is much higher than during a high turnout general election. How hard would it be to identify a few weak anti freedom offices to challenge, durring the primary.The citizen hive exorcising anti- freedom office holders at the ballot box, the ultimate fire mission!
The FEC is currently is receiving "input" on curtailing this sort of political speach/organising on the internet; they want to restrict it. The deadline for input is 5 June 2005. Google Mccain Finegold Insurection, or check out the blog of musingsofthegeekwitha45.com. We are familiar with the warped logic, since the internet/semiauto was not around at the time of the writing of the first/second amendment it doesn't apply to todays "modern" society.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 7:41:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

Originally Posted By JCKnife:
Fillibusters have never been used against judicial apointees.



Sure it has. By Senator Frist, nonetheless.

Wanting to get rid of filibusters now because we have a few more seats in the Senate is short-sighted. At some point, the pendulum will swing the other way.



Again filibuster has never been used on judicial appointments before. You are listening to the liberal media too much. Filibuster has been around a long time. It is the Democrats changing the rules now not the other way around.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 7:43:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/24/2005 7:45:12 AM EDT by EricTheHun]
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 7:47:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

Originally Posted By sydney7629:
Paez was ALREADY ON THE COURT.



Not the 9th Circuit, to which he was nominated.



In addition, Paez was filibustered by a BIPARTISAN group of Senators.



Come on. Now you are grasping at straws. I don't give two shits either way about Paez. The point was to show that filibusters are A) Nothing new and B) Used by both sides. Trying to claim the current situation is the first time that filibusters have ever been used against judicial candidates is BS.



and last but not least....Paez GOT A VOTE ON THE FLOOR



And that vote was how many years after his nomination?



Someone has been paying attention to the liberal talking points



That is the Arfcom equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, "I'M NOT LISTENING!!!!".

If you want to play fast and loose with the facts, go over to DU or some other place. I damned well expect fellow conservatives to deal with facts, and not just make crap up as they go along.




First, yes the Paez nomination had been on hold for four years, but not by a filibuster threat; in fact, there were only 13 senators that voted to filibuster the nomination, so they gained cloture by a large margin. So they weren't even able to hold up Paez's nomination once it got to the floor, which isn't a filibuster.

Also it should be noted that despite the failure to hold the nomination, Paez only received 59 votes for confirmation. This would show that there were a considerable number of senators that disagreed with filibustering Paez, although they weren't willing to vote for him. With today's filibusters, these are partisan party-line filibusters led by the Senate Minority Leader (Lott did not support filibustering Paez or any other justice).

My fingers aren't in my ears. I see the monumental differences betwen the circumstances that existed then and those that are in place today
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 7:51:10 AM EDT
The Los Angeles Times calls these people centralists, that is because the Times is so far to the left.
=======================================================================
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-assess24may24,0,7478392.story?coll=la-home-headlines
NEWS ANALYSIS
A Center Forms to Outflank Left, Right
By Janet Hook and Ronald Brownstein
Times Staff Writers

May 24, 2005

WASHINGTON — Monday's last-ditch compromise on confirming federal judges was a striking reassertion of the power of the political center in a bitterly polarized environment, pulling the Senate back from the brink of a crisis that threatened to paralyze the institution and dramatically change its character.

The sternest test of the fragile accord will come when the Senate takes up the next nomination to the Supreme Court, possibly as early as this summer, and partisan pressures intensify.

Still, the agreement — in which seven moderate Republicans broke ranks from their party and joined seven moderate Democrats — is an unusual challenge to Bush and GOP leaders who until now have commanded remarkable party discipline on a wide range of issues. It throws a rare obstacle in the Republicans' steady march toward the overarching goal of the Bush presidency: to parlay the party's slim majority in the country into major changes in policy and in government institutions for years to come.

"In a Senate that is increasingly polarized, the bipartisan center held," said Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.).

The compromise apparently will prevent Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) from implementing a ban on judicial filibusters — a Senate rules change known as the "nuclear option" for its potentially explosive political impact. The ban was expected to make it easier for Bush to put more conservative judges on the bench for lifetime appointments.

But the compromise — a middle ground between Republicans who want to ban judicial filibusters and Democrats who want to retain them — includes two big loopholes that could come back to haunt the Senate: Democrats reserved the right to filibuster future judicial nominations in "extraordinary circumstances." Republicans kept the power to revisit the nuclear option if they believe Democrats are filibustering in circumstances that do not reach that standard.

If Bush chooses a very conservative nominee to fill the next Supreme Court vacancy — as is expected this summer, with the likely retirement of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist — Democrats will come under renewed pressure to reassert their filibuster right.

And if that happens, Republicans say, they may resurrect the effort to ban that right.

Frist, who was under heavy pressure from conservative and evangelical groups to brook no compromise, said he was disappointed that the agreement still "fell short" of the principal demand that no nominee should be filibustered.

The compromise calls for guaranteeing votes on three of five contested appellate court nominees Democrats have blocked, some for as long as four years.

Illustrating the pressure on Frist and other Senate Republicans, Gary Bauer, a conservative activist and unsuccessful candidate for president in 2000, immediately denounced the deal as a sellout.

"The Republicans who lent their names to this travesty have undercut their president as well as millions of their most loyal voters," he said. "Shame on them all."

But a Republican strategist familiar with White House thinking said conservatives should look at the bright side of the compromise: It delivers votes on three stalled nominees and leaves open the possibility of returning to the nuclear option.

"You get something you wouldn't otherwise have, and you would not have given away anything on a future Supreme Court nominee when it comes to filibusters," said the strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It's not necessarily a blow we couldn't recover from.''

This is not the first time that Republicans, flexing the muscle that comes from control of Congress and the White House, have been forced to pull back. House Republican leaders had to retreat this year from an effort to rewrite congressional ethics rules, an action seen by critics as an attempt to protect House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas).

For the senators who sought an alternative to the judicial filibuster ban, agreement did not come easily — even though the 14 who negotiated the compromise were among the most accommodating centrists in the upper chamber and included several Republicans who regularly buck their party leaders.

They still had to struggle to overcome the partisan strains and mistrust that have widened the chasm between the parties in recent years. In essence, they tried to codify habits of trust that have been eroded by battles over President Clinton's 1998 impeachment, the divisive 2000 presidential election and the war in Iraq.

"What they are trying to do is memorialize trust," said a Republican congressional aide familiar with the negotiations who asked not to be identified.

Negotiators' success in drafting such an accord is a rare victory for the moderate wing of the GOP, which has increasingly bridled under pressure to hew to the conservative party line on such matters as cutting taxes, overhauling Social Security and confirming Bush's controversial nominee for ambassador to the United Nations, John R. Bolton.

Their success in this case may embolden moderate Republicans to come together and challenge their party's conservative leaders on other issues.

"My hope is this can be a model for us as we go forward," said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), one of the negotiators of the compromise.

Indeed, moderate Republicans in the House are expected to mount an unusual show of force today and vote for a bill liberalizing Bush's policy on stem cell research — despite his veto threat.

The judicial compromise also was a remarkable challenge to both party's leaders — especially to Frist, who believed he had the votes to approve the filibuster ban until the bipartisan compromise was announced.

By spearheading the drive to ban the judicial filibusters, Frist has been applauded by evangelical conservatives whose support he will need if he seeks his party's presidential nomination in 2008. It remains to be seen whether the senator's efforts will translate into strong support for his candidacy in that community — or whether activists will hold it against him for being unable to keep party moderates in line and deliver the ban.

A leading architect of the compromise was Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a potential rival to Frist in 2008. Although McCain was never the darling of religious conservatives, his role in crafting the compromise will probably antagonize them further. Social conservatives in Iowa and New Hampshire have issued letters opposing any compromise on the issue.

For their part, Democratic activists had their own problems with the compromise because it assured votes on three nominees they vociferously opposed. The Alliance for Justice, a liberal group opposed to Bush's contested nominees, said it was "very disappointed with the decision to move these extremist nominees one step closer to confirmation."

That points to a broader political risk faced by both parties: that the compromise will dispirit the activist base they want to mobilize for the 2006 and '08 elections.

"Both parties want their bases to be totally on fire going into next year," Bauer said.

But for voters in the political middle, the compromise could help Congress slow a worrisome trend in public opinion. Recent polls have found that the public's assessment of Congress' job performance has plummeted, mostly because the two parties are seen as bickering over issues that seem far removed from kitchen-table concerns.

Tony Fabrizio, a GOP pollster who worked for Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign, said those opinion trends pose more political risk for Republicans.

"We are the majority, we have the most to lose," Fabrizio said. "We are fighting over 10 judges. Meanwhile, gasoline prices are up, inflation keeps on moving…. It doesn't make sense to the average person."

Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 8:02:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/24/2005 8:08:56 AM EDT by shooter220]
Edit: it has been beaten to death already...I'm slow

shooter
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 8:07:13 AM EDT
Sens. Mike DeWine of Ohio,


I didnt vote for the asshat and have told him in point blank words via email what a piece of shit i thougt he was. No explaining here...
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 8:18:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

Originally Posted By JCKnife:
Fillibusters have never been used against judicial apointees.



Sure it has. By Senator Frist, nonetheless.

Wanting to get rid of filibusters now because we have a few more seats in the Senate is short-sighted. At some point, the pendulum will swing the other way.



I think it has more to do with the fact that it is not a 'one judge' or 'one issue' campaign being led by the Democrats, but a documented and concerted effort to in effect wage war against higher court judicial nominations both at the behest and through the use of special interest groups. It's not a 'last ditch' option to prevent the nomination of certain judges but a planned and premeditated level of obstructionism that is at the very least an insult to the concept of advise and consent.

Check out "Men In Black" by Levin...in the back are copies of a large number of the memos, which show just how premeditated things are on the filibuster front and how certain groups (ACLU, NARAL, etc) are actually driving Democratic policy on that front.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 8:31:53 AM EDT
McCain is being controlled by a microchip implanted in his head by NVA doctors that operated on him during his stay at the Hanoi Hilton.

I voted against his worthless ass.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 8:32:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By stator:
The seven Republican signers were to the agreement that allows the Dems to continue in their filibuster ways (and they will shortly as they cannot help themselves):

Sens. Mike DeWine of Ohio,
Susan Collins of Maine,
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina,
Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island,
John McCain of Arizona,
John W. Warner of Virginia
Olympia J. Snowe of Maine
http://www.ar15.com/forums/board.html?b=5
Handguns

So, ARFCOM members from OH, ME, SC, RI, and AZ explain yourselves. I really would like to hear the excuses from ARFCOM Maine members. AZ members probably have been explaing McCain for awhile now.

I AM SICK IN TIRED OF HEAR YOUR SHIT ABOUT CA AND CA ARFCOM MEMBERS. I guess you guys enjoy loosing 2nd Amendment cases in the courts.



I have voted against John Warner in the previous two electons. Each time for the Libertarian.
Top Top