Cat Killer Frist and VOLPAC want YOUR comments on the Dems and Scalito

NOTE: There's an e-mail form on the link below asking for your comments:

http://www.volpac.org/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.Comment&Blog_id=45





Drawing The Line In The Sand
09:56 AM - November 9th, 2005

Last week's absurd, unwarranted and disingenuous call for a closed session of the United States Senate sent me a clear message: Many Democrats have decided to mock the Senate's rules in the name of partisan advantage. For more than three years, the Democrats have abused Senate rules to impede the judicial nomination process. To do this, they used a technique called the filibuster--a refusal to end debate and vote.

I am concerned that they may use the filibuster to block President Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito Jr., of the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Court of Appeals, to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Don't get me wrong: The Senate is not a rubber stamp. All senators should take a careful look at Alito's record, contemplate it, debate it, and finally, use that information and their judgment to vote on his nomination. As a body, the Senate needs to debate and deliberate but, ultimately, it exists to vote. If Alito has enough votes for approval, he should take his place on the bench. If he does not, the president will have to find another nominee. It's that simple. The filibuster has no place in the judicial nominating process.

When considering legislation, it's true that the filibuster has great value in protecting the minority party's rights. Starting during the last Congress, however, Democrats threw 214 years of Senate tradition out the window and used filibusters to stop the Senate from voting on 10 judicial nominees. The minority party subjected five others to filibuster threats and four nominees ultimately withdrew their names from consideration.

Because of the Democrats' interference, the Senate could not do its duty. I'm willing to consider any reasonable proposal on debate: If the Democrats believe that each senator should have a full hour to speak uninterrupted about Alito's nomination, I am open to the idea. But I will not negotiate about the Senate's constitutional duty to vote on the president's judicial nominees.

In the recent past, it has taken 60 votes to shut off debate and end a filibuster. The rules governing filibusters have changed a number of times, and the Constitution gives the Senate a clear right to modify them by simple majority vote. While serving as majority leader in the 1970s and 1980s, my Democratic colleague Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) altered Senate precedent with support from a simple majority of senators on four occasions in order to alter Senate procedures and end filibusters. Republicans disliked his use of this "constitutional option," but we know that he stood on firm ground.

If members of the Democratic minority persist in blocking a vote on Alito's nomination, the Senate will have no choice but to do what. Byrd did: exercise its constitutional rights and bring Alito's nomination up for a vote.

I hope that the Senate will conduct Alito's confirmation process with customary courtesy and civility. The process should move toward a January vote in an orderly manner. But if the Democratic minority chooses to obstruct the confirmation process, abuse Senate rules and violate the Constitution, I will not hesitate to put the constitutional option before my colleagues.

Written by Bill Frist, M.D.

I put "my" in quotes because he's never represented me - at all - even though I'm a Tennessean.

him out? He is not king although he probably thinks he is. If I write him he will send out the feds to arrest me because of what I say to him.

However, I'm sure he's going to foist himself on the rest of the country by running for president.
:puke:

Oh yeah, go f*ck yourself you insider-trading cat-killer!!

on the Comment Section......obivous that with only 13 responses that perhaps many comments have been deleted.....

spell check! Submittal is spelled wrong.

that a monitor must approve a message before it is posted!
LOL
emdee

to read it. Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

in one I asked if dissenting comments would be allowed or censored. Only slobbering-agreements are being added thus far.
emdee

"I find it interesting that the Republicans are crying and bellyaching over the closed door session, but the Republicans used the same tactics to attack President Clinton's penis during his administration. And if I remember correctly, there were numerous closed door sessions.

This seems to be another case of you want to use the rules when they benefit you, but you want to change them when they don't. Sort of like the spoiled child that takes his toys and goes home when things do not go his way!"



I wonder if this will put me on that FBI list of people being watched! haha Do you think if they are watching me, maybe they will walk my dog when I am running late?!



Added this on edit:
I will check back in a few minutes to see if it is posted. So far nothing.

Left one anyway. :shrug:

Comment counter now says 15, but only 13 displayed on the page.