Now, let's get to work.

http://prochoiceaction.org/campaign/sen_nucleardeal_052305

:hi:

*Deleted original message due to misunderstanding*

Or else they think the Republicans already have won everything, and we'd look better going down in a phyrric victory.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

more than the "3" were voting on now.

Off to enjoy the weather. :hi:

The Repubs still have the ability to change the rule, and now there can be no filibuster of judicial nominees, unless "extraordinary"
circumstances are evident.

Did anyone here get the memo on what the definition of "extraordinary" is? Because I'm sure that the rest of us would like to know. And who gets to define "extraordinary", anyway?

This isn't a win for the Dems and it's not a loss for the Repubs, this is a tie. Until the Democrats control the Senate, Frist can always fall back on the threat of using the "Nuclear Option". So it
isn't over by a long shot.

Bush still gets the three most controversial judges confirmed, and the Appellate Court is just a skip away from the SCOTUS. Maybe I'm
just not seeing the long term benefits of this "deal".

Could someone who has a handle on the whole thing please PM me and explain it so that I can have a better understanding of how the Dems
won, and didn't just tie.

Thank you

constituents and changed his vote because of that. The proposed measure was not popular with middle America. I don't think they'll try this again, I think they saved face?

peace.:patriot:

What planet have you been on? :evilgrin:

;)

complete power. It seems to have more emotional charge.

literally YEARS... it will take that long for this to play out.

Last night I possited this was starting to feel like 1936 redux when the connies stopped FDR from packing the courts (other things happened later on but still)

But just as 1936 we will NOT know the results of this, the true effects, for years... my gut feeling, it is far more complex than just a victory or defeat for either side, for both sides got something out of this, hence why it is a compromise. But the Right Wing is going absolutely batshit... which means I think we got more out of this than they did... but it will take time... and this long view is what is missing

:hi:

I'm with you: "Now, let's get to work." :hi:

Isn't that what it was all about?

:hi:

And it would have gotten uglier.

I'm not convinced she'll be confirmed.

Lindsey Graham claims: that of the three who will get votes (Brown, Owen, and Pryor), one will end up getting defeated on a bipartisan basis.


Even if it is Owen, I'm willing to bet the sky will continue to fall anyway.

If one does get voted down with Bipartisan measures, will it have been worth it then?

I would think that is a small victory, if she is thrown out on her ass.

Shutting down senate would have brought attention to the fact that radical bullies were changing longstanding rules to further a power grab against reasonable dems. Pugs in senate are in free fall poll wise...this would not have gone well for them. Dems had a way out. I hope they used this strong position to negotiate votes on these poor judicial nominations.

We have kids at war KWIM?

With the media in his control this would be spun to make the dems nothing but obstructionist and sore loosers. No dem would ever be elected again. The public that doesn't already know what is going on would not learn anything but the 'dems are hurting america in a time of war by acting like children'

:crazy:

If Rove controls the media as much as you say, then dems have no hope of election anyway, which is pretty much the way it is.

We are way behind. We have to change our strategy, upset the apple cart, do the unexpected, take principled stands, fight dishonesty, push for discourse and issue exposure.

Shutting down senate does all this and risks...what? What is there to lose? Input on committees? Respect of the majority? Access to the white house? Losing the majority in congress? The fillibuster? Input on calling for investigations into 9/11, WMD, Abu Ghraib, Medicare lies, Plame, energy task force, Edmonds gag, torture memo and the rest?

We play politics as usual while the GOP is playing a different game...we lose because the deck is stacked against us.

The Senate only needs a simple majority to proceed. the 60 members only applies if there is a filibuster. The Demo's agreed not to filibuster. Therefore the Repub's only need 51 votes. The Dem's can only filibuster if it is extreme case. If Brown, Owen, and Pryor aren't extreme then what is? As Frist made perfectly clear, the nuclear option will be dropped at the first sign the Demo's break the agreement. I think that means any filibuster Frist can say the agreement is broken. Therefore, no filibuster, therefore only simple majority is needed not the 60 votes you state.I would have preferred to see if 51 Senators would have changed the rule. Now we have nothing. They got Brown, Owen, and Pryor and we got nothing. Having the filibuster isn't worth anything if you can't use it.

I was channel hoping a bit, so I am not positive who said it. It may have been in one of the speeches on the floor. But what you said is just to get a vote. And we agreed to give 3 of them a vote. Giving them a vote is not a guaranteed approval. And no matter if Frist decides to bring up the nuke option, the signees of the agreement said they would not support it unless the dems broke their side, without the 7 there is not enough votes to make it happen. The senate just split a new faction, the middle.

lemme know.

What would have stopped the Dems from filibustering the vote to change the rules?

Allowing a vote by a simple majority. What may have happened is there were not enough votes to table the motion for discussion forcing a compromise. Also there may not be enough votes to appoint the judges when it comes up for a vote by the Senate.

Like I said I am not very familiar with Senate rules, it just seems strange to me that to change the rules requires less votes than to stop a filibuster.

I don't quite understand the ins and outs but that's the deal we were up against apparently.

that said that what was happening was that they were going to have to break a rule to change the rule, if that was true, then surely there were ways to fight this without compromising?

Can the courts rule on breaches of Senate or House rules? Or does the Senate have the ultimate say? I mean if one side decides to break the rules then nothing can be done about it?

I am certainly not an expert in the Constitution, however.

For hundreds of years the filibuster has protected the rights of the minority, when all the majority had to do was vote to get rid of it? Why didn't anyone think of this earlier?

And if it is so easy to get rid of then what is stopping them from doing it next time its used?

They look for anyway they can to Ram their agenda down the throats of America, regardless.