hilarious- during a commercial break, there's harry reid denouncing senate republicans and Bush over judges and the filibuster!
"Under the agreement, Democrats would pledge not to filibuster any of Bush's future appeals court or Supreme Court nominees except in "extraordinary circumstances."" http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050523/ap_on_go_co/filibuster_fight_139 I guess now someone has to define "extraordinary circumstances."
Somehow I get the feeling we'll see this same situation again as soon as the next Supreme Court opening.
They don't have anything on Griffin or McKeague on the cnn website. If anyone was watching, did they mention what was going to happen with them? Is the senator from Michagan still going to filibuster all 6th circuit nominees in protest?
Both sides are bitter about the compromise, so it might be a good thing thing. Here are some quotes Focus on the Family Action Chairman Dr. James C. Dobson: This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats. Only three of President Bush's nominees will be given the courtesy of an up-or-down vote, and it's business as usual for all the rest. The rules that blocked conservative nominees remain in effect, and nothing of significance has changed. Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist would never have served on the U. S. Supreme Court if this agreement had been in place during their confirmations. The unconstitutional filibuster survives in the arsenal of Senate liberals. and Senator Feingold: This is not a good deal for the U.S. Senate or for the American people. Democrats should have stood together firmly against the bullying tactics of the Republican leadership abusing their power as they control both houses of Congress and the White House. Confirming unacceptable judicial nominations is simply a green light for the Bush administration to send more nominees who lack the judicial temperament or record to serve in these lifetime positions. I value the many traditions of the Senate, including the tradition of bipartisanship to forge consensus. I do not, however, value threatening to disregard an important Senate tradition, like occasional unlimited debate, when necessary. I respect all my colleagues very much who thought to end this playground squabble over judges, but I am disappointed in this deal. http://www.crooksandliars.com/ has more quotes.
As I said somehow I get the feeling we'll see this situation all over again the next opening on the supreme court.
Ahhh, a Fox Newscaster Freudian slip really does end the day on a good note. MediaMatters catches Fox News David Asman in this exchange with our man Trent Lott ... "So, Senator, if we should have done it and if we had the votes to do it in the Senate -- if you guys in the Republican Party did -- then why did you need a compromise?" We, indeed ... -- Josh Marshall
Senator Feingold: ... I do not, however, value threatening to disregard an important Senate tradition, like occasional unlimited debate, when necessary. [/B][/QUOTE] Too funny: umlimited debate
Too funny: umlimited debate [/B][/QUOTE] You do know that they didn't even have a cloture vote until about 80 years ago. The Senate was meant to be a brake and not an accelerator.
