Brokered a deal
oh cripes. CNN breaking news.
Ok, 7 republicans and 7 democrats “brokered a deal” on the filibuster scenario. Spineless butthead democrats. It would be a lovely show of bipartisan wonderfulness if you didn’t look at what the deal means. It means they won’t have to invoke the filibuster change in rules because there probably won’t be anyone with the bags to actually filibuster.
The CNN article even went on to quote the President’s lying repetition:
“My job is to pick people who will interpret the Constitution, not use the bench from which to write law,” Bush said.
Yes, that’s true. That is your job. And that’s exactly what you are not doing with these nominees, who have already been rejected once for being just the kind of weasly “activist judges” that you claim to be against. It’s just that they will be writing laws exactly in line with the agenda, constitutional or not. What next? Is this the USA?
Will there be someone who says – hey! you didn’t “broker a deal” for me, and I’m continuing to discuss this unacceptable person for this position! The argument isn’t over! It would be nice to see who might even make one wee objection to all this.
This little warmup to the Supreme Court nominations bodes ill. The deal is that filibusters will pretty much not be used. (Mc)Cain said the group of 14 (who?) pledged to vote for cloture — an end to debate — for three judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor and Priscilla Owen and made no commitment to vote for or against cloture on two nominees, William Myers and Henry Saad. Great, just great.
“We will try to do everything in our power to prevent filibusters in the future,” McCain said.
Yes, I’m sure you will, Senator How-did-they-get-to-you. Not much of a compromise. What did the democrats get? NOTHING. If the republicans had invoked the option to change the rules and get rid of the filibuster, we were ready. It was NOT a popular move. There was the leverage point right there, and now they have let it slip away.
Spineless spineless spineless.
Can we count on these guys at all? Why shouldn’t the judicial branch require a 2/3 majority vote on presidential nominations? Wouldn’t that better serve the people and be closer to what the Constitution says?
(deeeeeeeeeeeeeeep breath…..visualize Scully
……..compassion……………..oh brother….)
While I share your upset over the terms of the compromise, the important thing is that the filibuster is preserved. Removal of the filibuster would have set the GOP up with a true oligarchy. First and foremost is that all bets are off with any Supreme Court nominations.
I think all is will do is postpone that debate, and meanwhile we let through three of the worst with no debate. Then, who will filibuster the others anyway? I don’t think we have gained anything at all.
Again, my question is — why does it have to be 51 votes to win something such as a life long position? Why can’t it be a 2/3 vote?