User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/9/2003 8:42:48 AM EDT
[#1]
No fucking way. If we cannot nominate judges who can garner enough support to break a filibuster, then they should not be nominated.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2003 8:45:52 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: No fucking way. If we cannot nominate judges who can garner enough support to break a filibuster, then they should not be nominated. OK, so we should throw out that whole 50% is the majority thing? This is a PARTISAN issue! Liberal dems are making sure the courts don't become CONSERVATIVE. A conservative court only quotes the constitution. Libs prefer as court that rewrites and interprets the constitution. Are you a fan of the 9th circuit court? I am not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2003 8:46:36 AM EDT
[#3]
Another thing, watch your language. This is a respectable establishment.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2003 8:47:39 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: No fucking way. If we cannot nominate judges who can garner enough support to break a filibuster, then they should not be nominated. The amount of votes needed to break a filibuster is arbitrary. It's set by the majority. There's nothing in the Constitution that says anything about needing 61% of the Senate to approve a judicial nominee. Where in the world are you coming from!????? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2003 8:52:12 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: No fucking way. If we cannot nominate judges who can garner enough support to break a filibuster, then they should not be nominated. Uh, are you aware as to why they are blocking this guy? Some of the quotes from Dems are downright racist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2003 8:53:03 AM EDT
[#6]
The only reason this is an issue is due to Senate Rule 22, and is not based in the Constitution.
According to the Constitution, a judicial nominee only needs a simple majority. A Constitutional Amendment, a veto, and a legislative veto need a super majority to pass. This is a partisian issue, abd the liberals don't want Constitutional judges (such as the judge from Mississippi, or Estrada) appointed. THey want judges who make laws from the bench, such as the 9th Circus Court. And we need to end this BS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2003 8:54:50 AM EDT
[#7]
Good for them!
I hope thay ram it down the Democrats' throats! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2003 9:02:45 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: No fucking way. If we cannot nominate judges who can garner enough support to break a filibuster, then they should not be nominated. They know they cannot win. Therefore, they have merely set themselves to torpedoeing every Republican plan or idea that comes up. [b]You cannot garner support from people who hate you and are trying to eliminate you from the political stage.[/b] Now, the greatest fears of the Democrats is that Roe V Wade is going to get overturned, and all the poor women are going to get coathanger abortions again while the rich women are going to get their tracks covered by the powers that be. Remember what happened after RvW? Abortion went from STATE to FEDERAL control. It isn't about making abortion illegal! It's about which level of government has control. I haven't tried it yet, but I bet you could make a Democrat's head explode by explaining that women can be served better by having RvW overturned, and why. Next is the right of Blacks to vote. I understand that the NAACP is quite worried that whitey is going to take their right to vote away - and only the Democrats care for them. Right. Next is gun control. They desperately want it, even though it's a loser's position. They can't stay away from it. So it isn't about garnering support. That's clearly impossible. It's about loser's torpedoeing the winners at all cost. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2003 6:52:44 PM EDT
[#9]
Not to hijack this thread, but DF, you look kinda like Wille Nelson!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2003 7:15:33 PM EDT
[#10]
The Republicans won't change the rules 'cause they are chicken. It must be h... to be a democrap and have as your elected representatives Hillary, Schumer, Pelosi, Kennedy, Boxer, Feinstein, Rangel, Daschle, Murray, Shelia Jackson Lee, Maxine Walters, Kerry, etc. I would change parties before I would acknowledge them as my representatives.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2003 7:29:21 PM EDT
[#11]
I don't sing as good as he does though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2003 7:42:55 PM EDT
[#12]
There has never been a filibuster of a judicial nominee by the party in the minority. Judicial nominees have never been filibuster solely on their perceived conservative or liberal slant. The Democrats obviously do not give a damn about tradition. There is NO Constitutional requirement for judges to be confirmed by 60%.
This maneuver is within Senate rules it has never been done but is allowable. The Republicans will probably not go that far and that is a real shame because when the shoe is on the other foot and the Democrats will not hesitate to do this to get around any filibuster on judicial nominees. The Democrats have NOW change the historical ground rules on how judges are approved. When next in the minority the Republicans will have no choice but to do likewise and filibuster. And this option will then be open to the Democrats and you can bet you butt they will not hesitate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2003 7:44:05 PM EDT
[#13]
This will be a good change. I like it. About fricking time something sensible is done in congress.
Quoted: I don't sing as good as he does though. Either you sing real horrible or you need a new stereo DF. [BD] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2003 7:59:17 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: There has never been a filibuster of a judicial nominee by the party in the minority. Judicial nominees have never been filibuster solely on their perceived conservative or liberal slant. The Democrats obviously do not give a damn about tradition. There is NO Constitutional requirement for judges to be confirmed by 60%. This maneuver is within Senate rules it has never been done but is allowable. The Republicans will probably not go that far and that is a real shame because when the shoe is on the other foot and the Democrats will not hesitate to do this to get around any filibuster on judicial nominees. The Democrats have NOW change the historical ground rules on how judges are approved. When next in the minority the Republicans will have no choice but to do likewise and filibuster. And this option will then be open to the Democrats and you can bet you butt they will not hesitate. The rules used to be unlimited debate. Wilson asked for a 2/3 cloture and eventually cloture became it's present 3/5. Only "use" previously of filibuster on a court nominee was for Abe Fortas, already a sitting Supreme Court Justice, to replace Warren as Chief Justice, not exactly the same thing as we have here. Southern Dems and Republicans considered him too liberal and "threatened" filibuster and that was enough for Fortas to remove his name from consideration and in fact he resigned not long after IIRC. I say put em up for a vote. There are many ways to influence Senator's votes and new ones will be invented if the old ones don't work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2003 8:01:40 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Another thing, watch your language. This is a respectable establishment. [ROFL2] Now that's funny! (WGAFF) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2003 8:07:18 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: No ... way. If we cannot nominate judges who can garner enough support to break a filibuster, then they should not be nominated. I would agree, if the votes were based on judicial qualification. Unfortunately, the democrats have openly declared that they will not support people who don't hold their views on a number of issues--abortion being the biggest of those. [b]The democrats have made this into just another political issue rather than what was visibly intended by the writers of our constitution.[/b] Reread that last sentence several times, if necessary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2003 8:41:09 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: I don't sing as good as he does though. I wouldn't be to sure about that! Willie is kinda like Bob Dylan in the singing arena. Some like it, and some don't. I just happen to like it!! |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
