Looks like they reached a compromise.  The republicans are going to get Brown, Owen, and Pryor confirmed.  Democrats can continue to filibuster only in "extreme cases."  Democrats will make "no promise" on Saad and Myers, saying they won't say if they'll filibuster those two judges or not.  All details not fully out yet.

What a crock.  The democrats will call anyone "extreme" when it comes to the supreme court.  Especially if it's a pro-life judge.  The democrats played the moderate republicans like a dumb violin....again.  >:(

http://www.webdelsol.com/The_Potomac/issue2/crybaby.jpg

Wah, wah, wah! Pity the poor Republicans! They're entitled to get everything they want all the time and they're not getting it tonight! (stamp floor, pound fists on table)

Owens the corporate shill, Pryor the fundamentalist zealot, and Brown, the only Black lady jurist to the right of Mussolini are gonna get an up or down vote.  That is a crying shame!  They have no business on ANY bench, let alone the federal circuit courts!  The Democrats have also made a deal with the devil.  They are dealing with a party that honors a crook like Tom DeLay.  The Dems better not turn their backs even for a second.  When they do, the butcher knife will get plunged right between their shouldr blades!

Owens the corporate shill, Pryor the fundamentalist zealot, and Brown, the only Black lady jurist to the right of Mussolini are gonna get an up or down vote.


They obviously ain't that bad, since the democrats are going to let them be confirmed over Saad and Myers.

Myers was obvious.  The democrats refuse to let the 9th circuit court of appeals in San Francisco even moderate.

From the Drudge report:

"In a Senate that is increasingly polarized, the bipartisan center held," Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman said Monday night. ... The two-page memorandum of agreement said it is "based upon mutual trust and confidence."... Dems pledge not to filibuster any of Bush's future appeals court or Supreme Court nominees except in 'extraordinary circumstances'...

A bipartisan group of 14 senators on Monday averted a historic and potentially debilitating Senate showdown over judicial nominations by agreeing to retain Senate rules that give extra power to political minorities.

The deal, struck in the offices of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., permits votes on three of five of President Bush's nominees to federal circuit courts of appeal that Democrats have blocked, including Priscilla Owen of Texas. Democrats had already agreed to grant votes on two other blocked judges. The deal also would retain the use of extended debate against judicial nominees - a tactic that requires 60 out of 100 votes in the Senate to overcome and which Democrats have used to prevent votes on 10 of Bush's nominees for appellate courts.

Full story: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/11720200.htm

Some "Republican" you are!

A Republic is supposed to protect the interests of both the majority and the minority. It is about the rule of law. There are certain things that are guaranteed to be in place no matter how much a majority disagrees(one of those things is equal rights, which is why denying it to gays is anti-republican).

When the Founding Fathers created the Republic, they intended for the House of Representitives to protect the interests of the majority and for the Senate to protect the interests of the minority. Part of this tradition in the Senate is the filibuster, which is supposed to be a tool the minority can use to protect itself from a majority that may be running rough shod over them. To remove the filibuster, weakens the very mission of the Senate itself, and endangers our republican form of government.

You fail to realize the principles of the very philosophy your political party is named after. You are a mindless slave to an agenda that has a total lack of respect or understanding for the rule of law. I suggest you go back and re-take High School government, sir. As well as millions upon millions of other so-called "Americans" who are voting our form of government out of existence.

"So this is how liberty dies? With thunderous applause". The Nazi government was elected, remember that.

Some "Republican" you are!

A Republic is supposed to protect the interests of both the majority and the minority. It is about the rule of law. There are certain things that are guaranteed to be in place no matter how much a majority disagrees(one of those things is equal rights, which is why denying it to gays is anti-republican).

When the Founding Fathers created the Republic, they intended for the House of Representitives to protect the interests of the majority and for the Senate to protect the interests of the minority. Part of this tradition in the Senate is the filibuster, which is supposed to be a tool the minority can use to protect itself from a majority that may be running rough shod over them. To remove the filibuster, weakens the very mission of the Senate itself, and endangers our republican form of government.

You fail to realize the principles of the very philosophy your political party is named after. You are a mindless slave to an agenda that has a total lack of respect or understanding for the rule of law. I suggest you go back and re-take High School government, sir. As well as millions upon millions of other so-called "Americans" who are voting our form of government out of existence.

"So this is how liberty dies? With thunderous applause". The Nazi government was elected, remember that.




http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/happy/1074.gif





Cat

Now if these so-called "moderate" Republicans would put their pants on and stand up against the rigfht wing radicles...  Fat Change.

Some "Republican" you are!

A Republic is supposed to protect the interests of both the majority and the minority. It is about the rule of law. There are certain things that are guaranteed to be in place no matter how much a majority disagrees(one of those things is equal rights, which is why denying it to gays is anti-republican).

When the Founding Fathers created the Republic, they intended for the House of Representitives to protect the interests of the majority and for the Senate to protect the interests of the minority. Part of this tradition in the Senate is the filibuster, which is supposed to be a tool the minority can use to protect itself from a majority that may be running rough shod over them. To remove the filibuster, weakens the very mission of the Senate itself, and endangers our republican form of government.

You fail to realize the principles of the very philosophy your political party is named after. You are a mindless slave to an agenda that has a total lack of respect or understanding for the rule of law. I suggest you go back and re-take High School government, sir. As well as millions upon millions of other so-called "Americans" who are voting our form of government out of existence.

"So this is how liberty dies? With thunderous applause". The Nazi government was elected, remember that.


Let's not confuse lower case "republican" and uppercase "Republican."  
The fascists would not be able to gain control in our non-parliamentary two-party system by way of a third party.  Thus, they took over the Republican Party.  That's why I call it the American Fascist Party.  
They didn't deliberately set out for Fascism, they arrived at it.  They determined to grant as much dominion to the "corporatists" of the big corporations as possible and to satisfy the as much as they could the agenda of the Christian Right.  The party itself is rife with members of both groups, and both groups are thoroughly co-mingled.  I am loathe to call the Christian Right "Christian."  They are better served with title "Biblical Armageddonists."
These American Fascists used their infinite cash flow to disseminate a faux populist propaganda.  It consists of sloganeering about "freedom," "faith," and "patriotism."  Like all Fascists before them, they exploit social, ethnic, and religious fears of the "others" and accuse political rivals of sedition, treason, perversion, and stealing the fruits of victory from the fatherland (crapola like that).  This is a garden-variety fascist ploy.
Religion is useful to the fascists.  It is not necessary for faith to conflict with reason or lead to absolutist thinking, but in the hands of fascists, that's exactly what it does.  Enough FOX News and Focus on the Family distracts the lowing herds from the contradictions between the corporate agenda and Christian principles.  The Republican talk of "freedom" means only freedom for corporations and multi-millionaires, and the only freedom for the little guy will be to do what the true recipients of "freedom" tell them.  Again, enough propaganda prevents this blatant hypocrisy from stirring the American collective unconsciousness!
The first American Fascist president was Ronald Reagan.  He is the Great White Father.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) today needs to compare himself to a leader from Great Britain's past, one who also had some Fascists to deal with:

http://www.exordio.com/1939-1945/photos/chamberlain1.jpg
PM NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN
"Peace for our time"

"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time...
Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."

Ladies and gentlemen, appeasements have been made!
:o

Some "Republican" you are!



I'm a conservative first, and a republican second.

What the democrats have been doing is a new one.  Filibustering judges who have majority support in the US Senate.  The fact is I am doing what is conservative.  The Constitution of the United States of America in 6 different cases says it takes a super-majority to do something.  Things like ratifying treaties and overriding presidential vetoes take super majorities.  But the Constitution does not require a super majority to confirm judges nominated to the federal courts, only a majority, meaning in this day in age 51 out of 100.  If the democrats want to defeat a judge, then they are suppose to get the votes and stop it on a fair up or down vote.  But the democrats think they have veto power just like the president, and are basically saying they are vetoing a judge unless republicans can come up with a super majority of 60 senators is not what the constitution allows.  I've heard of majority rule, but never minority rule.  The democrats with this filibuster have more power over which judges get confirmed then the republicans.  The republicans are simply trying to do what's been going on for 214 years, allowing judges a fair up or down vote.  We know this is a new thing by the fact the democrats didn't filibuster Thomas for the supreme court.  They voted, and he was confirmed by a vote of 52-48.

And spare me the "it's what the founding fathers wanted."  The filibuster for the senate wasn't created until the early 1900's, and between then and today it's been changed five different times.  It's not some great tradition.

I'm a conservative first, and a republican second.

What the democrats have been doing is a new one.  Filibustering judges who have majority support in the US Senate.  The fact is I am doing what is conservative.  The Constitution of the United States of America in 6 different cases says it takes a super-majority to do something.  Things like ratifying treaties and overriding presidential vetoes take super majorities.  But the Constitution does not require a super majority to confirm judges nominated to the federal courts, only a majority, meaning in this day in age 51 out of 100.  If the democrats want to defeat a judge, then they are suppose to get the votes and stop it on a fair up or down vote.  But the democrats think they have veto power just like the president, and are basically saying they are vetoing a judge unless republicans can come up with a super majority of 60 senators is not what the constitution allows.  I've heard of majority rule, but never minority rule.  The democrats with this filibuster have more power over which judges get confirmed then the republicans.  The republicans are simply trying to do what's been going on for 214 years, allowing judges a fair up or down vote.  We know this is a new thing by the fact the democrats didn't filibuster Thomas for the supreme court.  They voted, and he was confirmed by a vote of 52-48.

And spare me the "it's what the founding fathers wanted."  The filibuster for the senate wasn't created until the early 1900's, and between then and today it's been changed five different times.  It's not some great tradition.

You can be sure the Founding Fathers didn't want no negro ladies on the federal bench neither!

And spare me the "it's what the founding fathers wanted."  The filibuster for the senate wasn't created until the early 1900's, and between then and today it's been changed five different times.  It's not some great tradition.


Actually, filibusters were used in the 1800s as well.  And I refuse to "soare" you the "Founding Fathers" argument, because they intended the Senate to be a check on the unbridled passions they expected to be voiced in the house.  Thats why the entire house is elected every two years, while only 1/3 of the Senate is.  The filibuster is one tool that checks the unbridled passions of the majority.  And concidering that it has only been used on, what., 10 nominees, while over 100 have been passed, it seems the Republicans (Note capital R) are making a mountain out od a mole hill.  Maybe if Lil' Georgie would be less divisive - be the "uniter" he claimed to be, and consult with the Democrates on the judiciary committee, or (as was the tradition) with the American Bar Association, this wouldn't be an issue.

or (as was the tradition) with the American Bar Association, this wouldn't be an issue.


Owen (who was confirmed today) has the highest rating possible from the American Bar Association.

So the American Bar Association is not just a leftist shill for liberal Democrats and trial lawyers?
???

When a liberal judge would receive a "Well-Qualified" rating from the ABA, then the ABA was bashed as a liberally-biased, conservative-hating organization.  Now that Judge Owned has received a WQ, they're A-OK?
As Media Matters points out, the Republicans blocked ten ABA WQ-rated judges nominated by Clinton, they never even got out of committee.  So it's OK to block a "well qualifed" moderate or liberal judge, but an outrage to block a conservative one?
???

I mean, gimme an effing break! It all comes down to right-wing idealogues in the Senate wanting to insure corporate dominance of the judiciary, that's all.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200505100002
http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/dara/priscilla_owen_050805.htm

As Media Matters points out, the Republicans blocked ten ABA WQ-rated judges nominated by Clinton, they never even got out of committee.  So it's OK to block a "well qualifed" moderate or liberal judge, but an outrage to block a conservative one?


Those Clinton judges never made it out of committee, they were not filibustered.

Those Clinton judges never made it out of committee, they were not filibustered.

No sh*t Sherlock!
::)

The point is there's a double standard with conservatives when it comes to judicial ideology.  Anyway...

http://www.conservativecartoons.com/2005/nuclear.gif

http://www.conservativecartoons.com/2005/nuclear.gif

You know, some right-wingers were bellyaching earlier this year about the paucity of conservative cartoonists winning journalistic prizes.  What conservative cartoonists have trouble with effective use of irony, poignancy, parody, satire, and so forth.  This tends to dampen their chances.  Like I always say, the Right understand humor the way a potted plant understands calculus!
::)