Republicans: We Will NOT Tolerate blocking Bush's Nominees, The End of Fillibusters?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ned
Vel, the wanton use of the filibuster by Dems is an abuse. Everyone agrees on that. Everyone.

Everyone? What world do you live in?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ned
Lawrence, what you are saying, in effect, is that the Dems will block all of Bush's appointees and the Republicans will block all of the next Democrat

Ned please start listening. Bush has got 201 out of 211 nominees through. How does that equal getting all of his nominees blocked?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Ned please start listening. Bush has got 201 out of 211 nominees through. How does that equal getting all of his nominees blocked?

Nedaverse math. Please keep up Oerdin.

[Dinner]

I guess so...

[Ned]

Question Dems, do you disagree that the bulk of those 10 would have been confirmed had the Senate actually voted?

If you concede this point, you will also agree that the Dems in the Senate are twarting the will of the majority of the Senate.

Which means,

they are defying the will of the American people.

Now, however you would like to strecth the truth, it is manifestly clear which party here is being anti-democratic.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ned
Question Dems, do you disagree that the bulk of those 10 would have been confirmed had the Senate actually voted?

If you concede this point, you will also agree that the Dems in the Senate are twarting the will of the majority of the Senate.

Which means,

they are defying the will of the American people.

Now, however you would like to strecth the truth, it is manifestly clear which party here is being anti-democratic.

a part of the american system used to involve looking out for all americans. 55 out of a 100 senators does not constitute the will of the american people.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Question Dems, do you disagree that the bulk of those 10 would have been confirmed had the Senate actually voted?

(Not a Dem, but answering anyway)
It's possible, Ned, it's possible. However, if you look at several of those prospective judges, you would have to agree that they are clearly unfit to sit on the Federal bench.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


(Not a Dem, but answering anyway)
It's possible, Ned, it's possible. However, if you look at several of those prospective judges, you would have to agree that they are clearly unfit to sit on the Federal bench.

Maybe. IIRC, one of the judges, I believe the black lady, wanted to bring back Lochner, perhaps on the theory that "freedom of contract" substantive due process cannot be as bad as everyone thought since it is now commonplace for the court to declare laws it disagrees with unconstitutional using "right to privacy" substantive due process. I personally have a great deal of difficulty with the whole concept of substantive due process. While there is some logic to it, the end result is the court substituting its judgment for that of the people of the various states.

Democrats have discovered the value of States Rights in this era of expanding gay rights, but have long sought to use substantive due process to advance their social agenda. It is strange that they would not confirm a jurist who is fond of substantive due process, so fond of it, in fact, that she wants to apply it to all protected liberties.

[Ned]

PAX, how else can we determine the will of the people except through elections? I don't get your point?