looks like mccain sold the republicans down the river

[gardenweasel]

a deal has been struck on the filibustering of judicial nominees....

the republicans had the dems by the short hairs...

frist was ready to impose the "nuclear option"....clearing the way for republican appeals court and supreme court nominees to be confirmed....

and mccain and warner and a few others undercut their leader....

mccain has presidential aspirations...he`s not a party guy....

further,fracturing the republicans...making frist look like he has no power....

mccain is for mccain... opening the door for hillary in 2008....

i wish their were a prop on the 2008 presidential election...on hillary...

the agreement is based on "trust"......???????

mccain just sold the party down the river...he`s the ring leader....

i`ve always said the dems are much shrewder than the republicans...

they can`t win an election....but they can out-manuever the republicans...out "in-fight" them....

now they are saying that warner and robert byrd(choke)are setting up a commission to send nominees for the supreme court to the president?????

that`s ass-backwards.....

mccain.....wow.....he just stabbed the president squarely between the shoulder blades....

mccain is the republican judas...

 

[smurphy]

McCain is a great American. I knew he couldn't stomach the modern Republican antics forever.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[kosar]

Oh please. For one thing, Frist isn't McCains 'leader.' He didn't betray anything. I thought that the fact that he isn't bought and paid for by a party was a trait that made him appealing to both parties. There aren't many like that on Capitol Hill.

The 'nuclear option' would have made the Republicans look as bad as when they changed the ethics rules to protect Delay, only to change them back because of how bad they looked. Same exact thing. If anything, McCain saved the Republicans from yet another embarrassment.

I haven't heard anything about Warner and Byrd leading some commitee for Supreme Court nominees, but i'll assume that's correct. Who cares? The Republicans have the House, the Senate and the White House. They will get any nominee confirmed who isn't hell bent on trying to overturn Roe V. Wade.

Although, if correct, I definitely question wtf Byrd is doing on any commitee like that.

 

[gardenweasel]

i wasn`t making a judgement.....frist is the majority leader....i thought you knew that,kosar..... ..and he wasn`t happy about the deal....understandably..he was undercut..

i understand that you guys are happy....and as loyal democrats,you should be...your balls were nailed to the wall...

republicans ...real hardcore republicans... have every right to be pissed at mccain..they are getting pushed around despite controlling every governmental body.....

but they can`t get a grip on the judiciary...and the judiciary isn`t afraid to thumb it`s nose at the politicians....as we saw in the shiavo case....

..mccain`s angling for a run at hillary in 2008...and he just flexed his muscles...

of course,he won`t beat hillary....not in this lifetime....actually,i like hillary`s platform better right now,anyway...i`ll never vote for mccain...i don`t trust him as far as i can throw him.......

never,ever thought i`d say that...


i`m not sure if it`s a good thing or not....as i`ve said many times,i`m don`t think that i`d like to see roe v. wade overturned....

and if you peel off all the bullshit,that`s the carrot....that`s what this war is all about...at it`s core...

 

[kosar]

i wasn`t making a judgement.....frist is the majority leader....i thought you knew that,kosar

lol- yes, I know what Frist's role in the government is. That still doesn't make him McCains 'leader.' WTF? It might be hard to fathom, but even though W is everybodys 'leader', there is still room for dissenting or alternative solutions. My God.

but they can`t get a grip on the judiciary...and the judiciary isn`t afraid to thumb it`s nose at the politicians....as we saw in the shiavo case....

You know better than this. Although you and I were on the same side of the Shiavo case, we both have to realize that there is a separation between the executive and judiciary branches for a reason. A very good reason.

of course,he won`t beat hillary....not in this lifetime....actually,i like hillary`s platform better right now,anyway...i`ll never vote for mccain...i don`t trust him as far as i can throw him.......

Hillary would have a hard time beating him. Very hard. But why don't you trust him, now. Because he broke party lines?

i`m not sure if it`s a good thing or not....as i`ve said many times,i`m don`t think that i`d like to see roe v. wade overturned....

and if you peel off all the bullshit,that`s the carrot....that`s what this war is all about...at it`s core...

Yes, I agree. That's what this is ALL about. If there weren't all these potential open seats on the Supreme Court, I can pretty much guarantee that this BS filibuster on these appeals courts judges would not be happening. By most accounts, most of these judges are well regarded on both sides of the aisle.

But I guess I don't understand that *if* you really are against Roe/Wade being overturned, why you are getting kind of hysterical about this. :shrug:

 

[StevieD]

The last thing we need is activist judges hand picked by the same Neocons who have presided over the death of over 1600 American Soldiers in Iraq because of WMD's that didn't exist. Hard core Republicans should be very happy about this. It might be first step in getting their party back from the Neocons.

 

[dr. freeze]

the only thing i can distinguish between Bush and Kerry is judicial nominations

i want conservative judges to bring back the Constitution to the court and eliminate judicial activism

if anyone has been activist in the courts, it has been the leftists, and Roe vs. Wade is one example

 

[kosar]

the only thing i can distinguish between Bush and Kerry is judicial nominations

i want conservative judges to bring back the Constitution to the court and eliminate judicial activism

if anyone has been activist in the courts, it has been the leftists, and Roe vs. Wade is one example

And where in the constitution is abortion addressed? Nowhere.

But of course you're not talking about the constitution at all. You're talking about your interpretation of the bible, where again, of course, it's not addressed. That's obvious as allegories cannot be that specific. That's why they're allegories.

So, much like this admin, you would like policy to be created based on religious beliefs.

 

[kosar]

now they are saying that warner and robert byrd(choke)are setting up a commission to send nominees for the supreme court to the president?????

Ok, just like I figured. You made it sound much more dramatic than it is. Those two are simply part of a 14(7/7) member commttee to try to identify appropriate potential Supreme Court nominees. Big deal.

 

[smurphy]

If the democrats were attempting the same coup that the repubs were trying - essentiially changing the rules of government that have worked well simply to suit their short term desires, then i would have just as much of a problem with it.

It was nice to see some moderates from each side come together, in spite of Frist.

Remember when Bush said he was "reaching out" to Dems, and wanted to "work together". Well - this is an example of that. Frist and his fundamentalist friends are dividers. McCain and his moderate friends are uniters.

 

[Englishman]

McCain is a great American, just not a great Republican.

That's why we in the GOP need to get him out of office.

 

[smurphy]

Why doesn't the GOP want a great American in office?

 

[dr. freeze]

And where in the constitution is abortion addressed? Nowhere.

But of course you're not talking about the constitution at all. You're talking about your interpretation of the bible, where again, of course, it's not addressed. That's obvious as allegories cannot be that specific. That's why they're allegories.

So, much like this admin, you would like policy to be created based on religious beliefs.

????

i am not sure where you get your assumptions, but you are correct in that Roe V Wade has nothing to do with Constitutional Law, which is the point of my post

 

[dr. freeze]

If the democrats were attempting the same coup that the repubs were trying - essentiially changing the rules of government that have worked well simply to suit their short term desires, then i would have just as much of a problem with it.

It was nice to see some moderates from each side come together, in spite of Frist.

Remember when Bush said he was "reaching out" to Dems, and wanted to "work together". Well - this is an example of that. Frist and his fundamentalist friends are dividers. McCain and his moderate friends are uniters.

but you dont see the use of a filibuster to block nominees as anything out of the ordinary huh

 

[smurphy]

The filibuster has always been a tool for the minority party to negotiate with. If the law has always required 2/3 majority for something like judicial nominees - and the filibuster has been a way for the minority to gain compromises - and that's the way it has always been without all this whining - why would TRUE CONSERVATIVES want to change that law?

I'm thankful the filibuster is there FOR BOTH SIDES. Do you have a problem with the way our congress has been running for over 200 years?

 

[gardenweasel]

the schiao bill instructed the court to look at the case in a "de novo"manner.....or,with new eyes........

it went back to federal district court where the schiavo`s were previously denied...that decision required deference to the fact finding of the state court...the schiavo bill permitted federal courts to review the facts "de novo"....the thinking was that that fact would be pivotal..


not a procedural review....not checking to see if judge greer crossed all of his T`s and dotted all of his I`s...the actual merits of the case were tobe reconsidered...

they chose not to......they ignored the law....they went through the motions...

that`s judicial activism,imo.....

all i`m saying about mccain is that he`s not really all that conservative...except on bush`s decision to invade iraq....

i thought you guys disagreed with bush..vehemently...on iraq.......if so,you disagree with mccain,also.....he was very pro iraqi invasion...

right?


mccain...like bush...is pussyfooting around the border issue....

i don`t like the fact that his own party can`t trust him...and the fact that he won`t take a stand on the border....imo,the most important issue facing the country right now...on many fronts....

economically...strategically......i believe that a country that can`t enforce it`s immigration policy is heading for real trouble.....particularly,considering that it`s known that al qaida has been actively pursuing wmd`s recently....

his home state is having real problems with the issue....but he doesn`t have the backbone to do anything....

i don`t care about the war hero crap....he`s a politician now...a politician that`s acting in his own best interests..party be damned...

he`s becoming zell miller-like...

i don`t trust mccain....i think he`s out for mccain...

a grandstand play...

hope that answers the question

 

[dr. freeze]

The filibuster has always been a tool for the minority party to negotiate with. If the law has always required 2/3 majority for something like judicial nominees - and the filibuster has been a way for the minority to gain compromises - and that's the way it has always been without all this whining - why would TRUE CONSERVATIVES want to change that law?

I'm thankful the filibuster is there FOR BOTH SIDES. Do you have a problem with the way our congress has been running for over 200 years?

no and they havent ever used it to block nomination of judges...

why must the Senate break tradition and start filibustering judges based on differing political views after 200 years of giving them up or down votes?

after all, it takes 50 Senators to confirm...for some reason we have people now trying to make it 60 just because they have been losers as of late

 

[Nosigar]

????

i am not sure where you get your assumptions, but you are correct in that Roe V Wade has nothing to do with Constitutional Law, which is the point of my post

In the Constitution it's mentioned just below the paragraph where it allows men to marry men, especially if there is a liberal supreme court judge who wants to legislate from the bench.

Also mentioned in that paragraph is the "choice" to take 8 month old fetuses and hammer a chisel through their skull.

Now, don't nobody come telling me I'm some nut case religious zealot. Haven't been to church or seen a Bible in ages. That I leave up to the good Dr.

And, Stevie, be very scared of those neo-con judges :mj07: that kill 1600 american troops. The jujdges that have already killed 30 million babies are cool dudes. And BTW, I'm kinda pro-choice, :scared

 

[dr. freeze]

i'm pro-choice too

i believe women have lots of choices they can make responsiby before they put themselves in the position to kill a baby in its most vulnerable state

 

[gardenweasel]

kosar...question 53 on the U.S. CITIZENSHIP TEST.....

Q: Who nominates the Supreme Court justices?
A: They are appointed by the president

are you kidding?....bi- partisan committee to suggest nominees?....nooooo

that`s bass-ackwards...

maybe that`s how reid,mccain and the dems would like it.....lol

the president nominates...the congress votes..that`s how it goes...

mccain gave away the farm in a grandstand play....

the chris matthews` and keith olberman`s of the world are calling mccain "masterful"....

nuff` said.. :lol: