Yo DNC! I am so very frickin' proud of you!

[NETim]

Yeah, I know the GOP played games with Clinton's nominees, but they didn't filabuster them. This is new, unprecendented territory the Dems are charting and constitutes further disfigurement of the Constitution.



Bush's nominees should be allowed an up or down vote in the Senate. A simple majority vote is all that is needed to confirm a nominee. But the Dem's continue to play their games.



I'm sure my post will be followed a litany of past GOP wrongdoing's blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda. Fine but the Dem's actions in the Senate are unprecendented and IMHO unconstitutional.



The bottom line? Well, DNC loyalists, your team is uncouth and I can in no way support them.



Do you guys really expect to gain ground with these tactics?



Oh well, what can ya expect from a party that has Ted Kennedy as one of its' foremost spokesmen?



To hell with the DNC!



Have a nice day.



Tim

 

[WyoJim]

Bunch of Wimps

The Republican Party is made up of a bunch of WIMPS. If they would make the filibusters be real 24/7 fifibusters the Dem's wouldn't be so eager to use this tactic. Bunch of Wimps



Oh, and I am a Registered Republican!!!

 

[dpuckett]

NETim,

I oculdnt agree more. THe Dems cant win by virtue of their stand on issues, so they have to resort to distorting the law to their favor, or make their opponents look worse than the alternative.

WyoJim, I agree, the Reps need to stand up and challenge the Leftist kooks; call them on their running rampant over the law of the land. The Right need to unite and throw these liberals back where they belong- out of power.

Ted Kennedy is one of the biggest, most vile, drunken cowards I have ever heard tell of.



Daniel

 

[loncray]

I'm amused by the outrage of the Republicans on this when they left 40 Clinton nominees hanging out to dry without a hearing. (http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1100nominations.htm) The Republicans are getting exactly what they deserve after years of obstruction. Besides, they're acting as though the Senate ought to rubberstamp every Bush judicial nomination (though of course the Clinton nominations needed to be much more carefully vetted) - this is not at all the Senate's job.

And do you know why the Republicans won't get rid of the filibuster rule, despite all the whining about how unconstitutional it is? Because they might want to use it in the future! They are getting precisely what they deserve! All this talk about "Bring them up for a vote!" - where was the Republican outrage during the Clinton years? If they felt the Clinton nominees were judicial activists, why not bring them up for a vote and turn down the nomination? So much for the Republicans winning on the issues.

 

[NETim]

OK loncray, maybe I wasn't clear enough in my original post. I'll give ya the benefit of the doubt. I do not consider Senate filabustering "unconstitutional". How the Dems are using the filabuster is unconstitutional IMHO.



And as I pointed out in my original post, the GOP sucessfully blocked several Clinton appointees. (Thankfully) That's politics. When one party runs the House and Senate and the other has the White House, that sorta thing happens. Always has, always will. That's the way politics are played.



But what the Dems are doing now is unprecendented and bad for the country. Eminently qualified appointees who would be confirmed with a simple majority as specified by law are being held up by an ethically questionable political maneuver.



It isn't right what the Dems are doing. And thinking people understand it.



Tim

 

[loncray]

Okay, how is a filibuster ethically questionable? It's within parliamentary rules, it's within the Senate rules, and they voted down attempts to change those same rules. If it's unconstitutional, then where's the court case to force the Senate to change it's own rules? How is the Democratic Party using the rules to their advantage unconstitutional? Perhaps they've finally figured out how to be a good minority party and make use of the tools left to them by the majority party.

"Eminently qualified appointees who would be confirmed with a simple majority as specified by law are being held up by an ethically questionable political maneuver. " So why weren't the tactics of the Republicans that left far more unconfirmed (and unheard) nominees questionnable? The Democrats consider those they've kept from a vote to be something other than eminently qualified, and they believe those nominees would in fact be judicial activists as well - ah, but they'd be making law (instead of just interpreting it) in a rightward direction - so I guess that makes them alright to the Republicans. What goes around comes around.