Look Who Wants 'Compromise' Now

[Annie]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...4&e=1&u=/nm/20050424/ts_nm/congress_judges_dc

Republicans Say Have Votes to Ban Filibusters

Sun Apr 24, 7:22 PM ET Top Stories - Reuters


By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Republicans have the votes to ban any more Democratic procedural roadblocks against President Bush's judicial nominees, a top Republican said on Sunday.


A spokesman for Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada promptly questioned the claim, while another Democrat, Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record) of Delaware, floated a possible compromise to avert a fight that could bring the Senate to a near halt.


There was no immediate response from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. But a spokesman for the Tennessee Republican reiterated that Frist planned to present Reid with a "comprehensive proposal" within a week to 10 days.


The key question is whether Republicans can muster the support needed to change Senate rules to ban procedural roadblocks known as filibusters against judicial nominees.


"There's no doubt in my mind, and I'm a pretty good counter of votes ... that we have the votes we need," Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell of Kentucky told CBS's "Face the Nation."


Sen. Christopher Dodd (news, bio, voting record), a Connecticut Democrat appearing with McConnell, said conservative Republicans including former Senate leader Bob Dole "have urged the Republican leadership today to think long and hard about doing what they want to do."


Democrats blocked 10 of Bush's judicial nominees during his first term while they helped confirm about 200 others. Bush renominated seven of the filibustered nominees after winning re-election in November.


Biden, appearing on ABC's "This Week," said, "I think we should compromise and say to them that we're willing to -- of the seven judges -- we'll let a number of them go through, the two most extreme not go through and put off this vote" to end the filibuster.


Fifty-one votes would be needed in the 100-member Senate to ban judicial filibusters.


While there are 55 Senate Republicans, about a half dozen or so have been seen, at least publicly, as undecided. Many have voiced fear such a rule change could hurt them in a future Democratic-led Senate.


"No one knows for sure what the vote will be, other than that it will be very, very close," said Jim Manley, a Reid spokesman.


Reid has vowed to retaliate by invoking other procedural measures that would tie the Senate into knots....

 

[KarlMarx]

Karl Marx's advice to the Republicans.....

DON'T compromise

Be unapologetically conservative

Be unapologetically patriotic

Realize that we are in the majority and it's payback time in the Big City, baby! Time to kick those Demo-rats' asses all the way from here to the South Pole.

Realize that the Democrats are our enemy and treat them as such, relegate them to no power committees such as "Capital Hill sanitation" (especially that Hillary Rat Fink Clinton --- if possible make her clean all the toilets on Capitol Hill too. Not that I'm being vindictive, but a good dose of humility is good for the soul!).

President Bush --- you're a nice man, and that's your problem ---- don't be nice, resist the urge to have Ted Kennedy over to watch movies and ask Bill Clinton for foreign policy advice. It just makes you look weak and indecisive and makes them look like they know something you don't and the will use that to their advantage ..... I'd say f*** those m************s, kick their ass, make them kiss yours and stand on their necks... that is what a conquerer does to the vanquished, that's what they'd do to you. Once you and the Republicans get your major goals accomplished, then show some token mercies that don't cost you anything.

Carry out the same campaign of smear tactics, demonization as the Democrats and turn the tables on them. Call them what they are .... a bunch of Neo-Communist, Dictator loving, elitist snobs that have a contempt for the average American. A thieving bunch of liars that will sell out national security (play up the Clinton and the Sandy Berger thing really big!), their mothers and the Lord Jesus Christ himself for a campaign contribution. After doing that, then focus on their bad qualities (if you didn't get it, that's supposed to be a joke -- ok, ok, can't be funny all the time!)

After 40 years of servitude to these bastards, why did we vote you into office? To be Democrat lite? No! To reverse the blind policies of these hooligans! To bring back decency and morality and responsible government to the American people! To kick out and eviscerate the special interests, the Labor Unions, the NOW, the ACLU and their tyranny of oppression against us the working people of this country! Bring down those judges who hold Judeo-Christian values in contempt! Impeach them! Throw those neo-socialist-commie intellectuals into prison! Show the rest of the world that no one is above the law!


There! I feel better already!

 

[Annie]

Karl Marx's advice to the Republicans.....

DON'T compromise

Be unapologetically conservative

Be unapologetically patriotic

Realize that we are in the majority and it's payback time in the Big City, baby! Time to kick those Demo-rats' asses all the way from here to the South Pole.

Realize that the Democrats are our enemy and treat them as such, relegate them to no power committees such as "Capital Hill sanitation" (especially that Hillary Rat Fink Clinton --- if possible make her clean all the toilets on Capitol Hill too. Not that I'm being vindictive, but a good dose of humility is good for the soul!).

President Bush --- you're a nice man, and that's your problem ---- don't be nice, resist the urge to have Ted Kennedy over to watch movies and ask Bill Clinton for foreign policy advice. It just makes you look weak and indecisive and makes them look like they know something you don't and the will use that to their advantage ..... I'd say f*** those m************s, kick their ass, make them kiss yours and stand on their necks... that is what a conquerer does to the vanquished, that's what they'd do to you. Once you and the Republicans get your major goals accomplished, then show some token mercies that don't cost you anything.

Carry out the same campaign of smear tactics, demonization as the Democrats and turn the tables on them. Call them what they are .... a bunch of Neo-Communist, Dictator loving, elitist snobs that have a contempt for the average American. A thieving bunch of liars that will sell out national security (play up the Clinton and the Sandy Berger thing really big!), their mothers and the Lord Jesus Christ himself for a campaign contribution. After doing that, then focus on their bad qualities (if you didn't get it, that's supposed to be a joke -- ok, ok, can't be funny all the time!)

After 40 years of servitude to these bastards, why did we vote you into office? To be Democrat lite? No! To reverse the blind policies of these hooligans! To bring back decency and morality and responsible government to the American people! To kick out and eviscerate the special interests, the Labor Unions, the NOW, the ACLU and their tyranny of oppression against us the working people of this country! Bring down those judges who hold Judeo-Christian values in contempt! Impeach them! Throw those neo-socialist-commie intellectuals into prison! Show the rest of the world that no one is above the law!


There! I feel better already!

I have to agree with you on this! There are times for compromise, this isn't one of those times.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

now why wouldn't we be making a big stink about THIS little quip. :read:

But don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't think deserves to be on the circuit court because I am going to continue to do it at every opportunity I believe a judge should not be on that court. That is my responsibility. That is my advise and consent role, and I intend to exercise it. I don't appreciate being told that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States. I swore to uphold that Constitution, and I am doing it now by standing up and saying what I am saying." (March 7, 2000) Bill Frist

 

[dilloduck]

now why wouldn't we be making a big stink about THIS little quip. :read:

The rule change that is being suggested will benefit ANY party that is in power--not just Republicans. Who ever is in power in 06 and 08can use this to thier advantage too.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

The rule change that is being suggested will benefit ANY party that is in power--not just Republicans. Who ever is in power in 06 and 08can use this to thier advantage too.

absolutely F'ing brilliant. Now, no matter what party has power, close to half the US population can be oppressed by the majority using the constitution. Brilliant F'ing plan assholes.

 

[musicman]

absolutely F'ing brilliant. Now, no matter what party has power, close to half the US population can be oppressed by the majority using the constitution. Brilliant F'ing plan assholes.

The minority party can solve that problem by doing better at the polls. Strange how that answer sufficed for so many years; NOW it's a problem.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

The minority party can solve that problem by doing better at the polls. Strange how that answer sufficed for so many years; NOW it's a problem.

that doesn't 'solve' anything MM. If the minority party then becomes the majority, we still have a minority that gets oppressed. All it does is change the sides. Where does that equal a solution?

FYI, its only sufficed for the extremists and radicals, its always been a problem for the mainstream in the middle.

 

[dilloduck]

absolutely F'ing brilliant. Now, no matter what party has power, close to half the US population can be oppressed by the majority using the constitution. Brilliant F'ing plan assholes.

If the majority is so oppressive that they lose favor the will be the minority the next time around. It's how the people keep things balanced.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

can anyone see whats happening here? I liken it to the chef making a souflee and as he's seperating the egg whites from the yolk eventually you have three seperate pieces......the white, the yolk, and the shell. Only one gets to stay. I'd say thats completely against what the USA has been all these years, but hey...what do I know. Im just an american.

 

[musicman]

that doesn't 'solve' anything MM. If the minority party then becomes the majority, we still have a minority that gets oppressed. All it does is change the sides. Where does that equal a solution?

FYI, its only sufficed for the extremists and radicals, its always been a problem for the mainstream in the middle.

What do you suggest?

 

[dilloduck]

that doesn't 'solve' anything MM. If the minority party then becomes the majority, we still have a minority that gets oppressed. All it does is change the sides. Where does that equal a solution?

FYI, its only sufficed for the extremists and radicals, its always been a problem for the mainstream in the middle.

I don't see the oppression you speak of---- exactly who is being suppressed?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

What do you suggest?

Until the filibuster becomes a tool of abuse (which right now it is not) the only thing that needs to be done is actual cooperation and compromise. If a party gets 95% of their justices nominated, is that a bad thing? 10 people who are considered extreme, despite their 'highly qualified' rating from an extremely liberal organization(that should have some people thinking) should not receive an up or down vote, in the spirit of bipartisanship. just my opinion anyway.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I don't see the oppression you speak of---- exactly who is being suppressed?

of course you don't, it hasnt happened yet because these exremists are not on the bench. But even if they were, i'd have to wonder would you even care? As long as issues are decided according to the beliefs of a political bent, those people won't give a damn about the oppression of those who don't agree with them. Thats what we call tyranny.

 

[dilloduck]

of course you don't, it hasnt happened yet because these exremists are not on the bench. But even if they were, i'd have to wonder would you even care? As long as issues are decided according to the beliefs of a political bent, those people won't give a damn about the oppression of those who don't agree with them. Thats what we call tyranny.

The dems used the filibuster to stop civil rights for blacks-now THATS oppression

 

[musicman]

Until the filibuster becomes a tool of abuse (which right now it is not)

Just hide and watch, Smarter; it won't be long now.

the only thing that needs to be done is actual cooperation and compromise.

What, in the behavior of the Democrat Party, has led you to believe that's a reasonable hope? Theirs is a scorched earth policy; do you deny it? Are THEY looking for compromise?

10 people who are considered extreme...

Considered "extreme" by whom - JOE BIDEN? If we're going to toss harmful terms around, let's at least employ some objective standard!

 

[SmarterThanYou]

The dems used the filibuster to stop civil rights for blacks-now THATS oppression

and we fixed it eventually, didnt we?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Just hide and watch, Smarter; it won't be long now.

maybe, maybe not. one thing I know is that it won't matter a damn to those sitting in those seats as long as partisan electors consider a third party vote a waste.

What, in the behavior of the Democrat Party, has led you to believe that's a reasonable hope? Theirs is a scorched earth policy; do you deny it? Are THEY looking for compromise?

confirming 95% isnt compromise? It would be nice to take in to account the number of nominees the republicans held up in committe during clintons term, but why play the blame game?

Considered "extreme" by whom - JOE BIDEN? If we're going to toss harmful terms around, let's at least employ some objective standard!

considered extreme by me, as well as others. although I don't see brown or griffith that big of an issue. the others though... :fifty:

 

[dilloduck]

and we fixed it eventually, didnt we?

LOL My point is that using the flibuster to stop legislation or nominations can be tyrannical.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

LOL My point is that using the flibuster to stop legislation or nominations can be tyrannical.

I understand that, but civil rights issues were fixed without removing the filibuster. The same can be done about judicial nominees.