Filibuster Compromise
May 23, 2005
Posted by Laura Curtis at May 23, 2005 06:56 PM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/922
John "Amnesty for Illegals" McCain is announcing the latest Republican failure to acknowledge that they won the last election. Surrounded by Dummocrats and RINOs, including my state's excuse for a Senator, faux Catholic Mary Landreiu, he said that the agreement averted a "crisis" that would have lasting, damaging impact on the Senate. Myers and Saad will be sacrificed to the tyranny of the minority. They may not have passed a vote, but they should at least have had the chance. The Democrats agree not to filibuster except in extraordinary circumstances - like in the case of Supreme Court nominations, for example? No, I'm sure they'll be models of restraint when the time comes. You betcha.
Posted by Laura Curtis at May 23, 2005 06:56 PM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/922
| Trackback Entries |
Comments
| # May 23rd, 2005 7:28 PM BurbankErnie |
| The RINO's are putting their trust in Sen. Byrd (D-KKK)!! Let's see, any extreme Judicial Nominee will be anyone put forth who is Right of Sen. Kennedy (D-DRUNK). This deal sucks, sells out Saad and Myers, and makes the Republicans look as weak as they really are. Snatching defeat from Victory again. Not One Dime! Disgusting. |
| # May 23rd, 2005 7:52 PM crazya |
| So what was the filibuster when you thugs used it during the Clinton years to block *his* nominees?
Are you really that transparent? Do you try hard to be this stupid, or does it come naturally? To quote your own crowd (from soon after November 2nd) : "America has spoken". Have you clowns forgotten that these senators actually work for the people in their state, and not you crazy, wild-eyed fundies? |
| # May 23rd, 2005 7:57 PM TheUnabrewer |
| I never filibustered a Clinton nominee. |
| # May 23rd, 2005 7:58 PM Daddy |
| The filibuster was: Republicans had the opportunity to do it--with a MAJORITY in the Senate--and didn't, because they didn't want to set a bad precedent.
See the difference? Had a MAJORITY? And didn't want to abuse their power, so as not to set a bad precedent? And "America" HASN'T spoken, jackoff. A small minority OF THE MINORITY has spoken. Now put it back in back in your pants and go back to DU. |
| # May 23rd, 2005 9:58 PM TheUnabrewer |
| "Have you clowns forgotten that these senators actually work for the people in their state, and not you crazy, wild-eyed fundies?"
No, and that's why my crazy wild eyes wonder if they haven't seen the polls showing that 57% of people think judges deserve an up or down vote. |