Rick Santorum and 30 hrs in the Senate

fellowshipfellowship
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
The Senate is pulling a 30 hour "debate" due to partisan politics. The democrats are rats. Santorum made the case for a Justice in CA that was re-elected by 76% of the vote. She that's right "she" is "African American and the democRATS will not accept a vote offered by Santorum. It is a simple up or down vote and the democRATS will not work for the people.



Thank you Rick Santorum. Thank you... Thank you.





Your thoughts are welcome.



Also Sen Norm Coleman of Minnesota impressed me.



I am still watching.



I don't get my news from CNN or FOX... I Ask Americans to know their government better.



Forget what you think of Bush... That is one issue.. The Senate is another.



Participate, understand, and put people over special interests.



C-Span2



Fellowship
«134567

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 128
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

    The democrats are rats



    Hey it worked!
  • Reply 2 of 128
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    Hey it worked!



    I usually do not lose my temper. I have little respect when a party pulls deals as to avoid their responsibility. The Democratic party is sickening to me to the core at this point.



    They say what is and is not "mainstream" and the voters of California vote 76% to re-elect a justice and Senate DemocRATS will not hold a simple up or down vote.



    They make me SICK........



    Fellowship
  • Reply 3 of 128
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Senator Jon Corzine DemocRAT from New Jersey....



    SICK.. I can not believe some in our government.



    Fellowship
  • Reply 4 of 128
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Meh.



    Backs. Wall. Against.



    You do what you can.



    Sometimes you have to fight tooth and nail not to confirm judicial appointees. Sometimes you have to shut down the government.



    And usually, you've been positioned so that you don't look good while you're doing it.



    Cheers

    Scott
  • Reply 5 of 128
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    heh.



    Corzine: "I don't know, except that we're gonna have tax cuts every hour on the hour."



    hehe.
  • Reply 6 of 128
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    midwinter nice that you tuned in



    Fellows
  • Reply 7 of 128
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

    midwinter nice that you tuned in



    Fellows



    I'm grading frantically at the moment, and I need something really, really, REALLY boring to let me focus.



    Feel free to chat me if you want to rant/comment while it's on. IM is in my profile.



    Cheers

    Scott
  • Reply 8 of 128
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

    midwinter nice that you tuned in



    Fellows



    Corzine moans over un-employment while out levels are not bad compared to some countries in Europe. What is he going to do do increase jobs? Notice he never said??? Did you notice that?



    I would love to see him reduce unemployment.



    Of course this night is neccessary only because Democrats in the senate will not stand up and vote.



    Fellowship
  • Reply 9 of 128
    kirklandkirkland Posts: 594member
    Yes, because the Republicans NEVER blocked appointments to the courts by Bill Clinton... oh wait, I forgot to apply the Right Wing Groupthink Double Standard.



    And as for Rick Santorum, there hasn't been such a worthless bucket of scum and puss in the US government since John Ashcroft... oh, wait, he's still in the government, too. Damn those idiots in Florida who couldn't mark a ballot properly.



    The Democrats haven't said squat about 168 out of 172 appointments to the court by Bush. That's nearly 98 percent... find me another issue where 98 percent of the time the party out of the White House backs down and lets the White House have its way. The Democrats have identified these jurists as being sufficiently to the fringe that they do not want them on the bench -- and they have the power and right to block them if they so wish.



    How power hungry is the Republican Party? It's planning on rewriting the 230 year old rules regarding filibusters just to ensure it can always get its way. If the GOP isn't deposed soon America will become a one-party fascist police state. Just like they want it to be.
  • Reply 10 of 128
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kirkland



    I respect your views. I differ with your opinion.



    Diversity is America



    Fellowship
  • Reply 11 of 128
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

    I have little respect when a party pulls deals as to avoid their responsibility. The Democratic party is sickening to me to the core at this point.



    I think that's because you're not astute enough to realize that it's all politicians and not just one party.
  • Reply 12 of 128
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

    The Senate is pulling a 30 hour "debate" due to partisan politics. The democrats are rats. Santorum made the case for a Justice in CA that was re-elected by 76% of the vote. She that's right "she" is "African American and the democRATS will not accept a vote offered by Santorum. It is a simple up or down vote and the democRATS will not work for the people.



    Thank you Rick Santorum. Thank you... Thank you.





    Your thoughts are welcome.



    Also Sen Norm Coleman of Minnesota impressed me.



    I am still watching.



    I don't get my news from CNN or FOX... I Ask Americans to know their government better.



    Forget what you think of Bush... That is one issue.. The Senate is another.



    Participate, understand, and put people over special interests.



    C-Span2



    Fellowship



    What on earth are you ranting about now?
  • Reply 13 of 128
    naderfannaderfan Posts: 156member
    The filibuster is an important part and integral part of the Senate and for Republicans to suddenly want to scrap it just because it's being used against them is worse than one side refusing to vote on judges. The reason why the filibuster is in place is so that the minority view can still fight a vote/bill/confirmation that they think isn't in the best interest of the state. Strom Thurmond filibustered for a little over 24 hours against a civil rights bill. I don't agree with his reasoning or his view, but it is his right, and his duty, to represent what he believes are his constitutent's views. The democrats have the same duty if they feel that their constitutents do not want these four judges. I still don't understand the Republicans' reasoning for why they need to pull this 30 hour stunt, but whatever. This is just the way politics in this country work.



    On a side note, I prefer Nader's term "Rebulicrats" since there are no real differences anymore between the parties. Just a different slant.
  • Reply 14 of 128
    kirklandkirkland Posts: 594member
    But there are true, substantive differences between the parties. If Gore were president and Democrats in control, we wouldn't see bills being signed into law which turn women into mere vessels for the procreation of children like the recent life-of-the-fetus-is-more-important-than-the-health-or-life-of-the-woman bill Bush just signed.



    The Democrats would not have cashed out America's economic well being by pouring $90 billion into the pockets of the wealthiest Americans over the last three years and sending the deficit skyrocketing to historic levels.



    The Democrats would not have rebuked multilateralism and gone it alone against the entire world.



    The Democrats would not be, like the piece-of-crap Senator Santorum and his klan are, moving to amend the Constitution to forever proclaim America's hatred of gay people.



    Make no doubt about it, the Green party is mightily culpable for the horrors of the Bush administration. A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush.
  • Reply 15 of 128
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    This is nothing but a huge waste of time and money. The Republicans need to give up these 4 nominees. They are trying to portray the Democrats as people who don't want to compromise, but that's all they have done with Bush's judicial nominees. This is a campaign/re-election ploy, plain and simple.



    In the last 2 years of Clinton's Presidency, only 62% of his judicial nominees were approved, yet 98% of Bush's nominees have been approved, almost rubber stamped by the Democrats.



    Guess what? The Democrats object to 4 nominees at the moment. They've approved 168. The Republicans have to let these 4 go and get on with the business of the nation. Spending 30 HOURS of time that could be put to much better use is unacceptable.



    Again, Democrats block judicial 4 nominees (2%) under Bush while the Republicans blocked 38% of nominees under Clinton. You don't notice the hypocrisy?



    The GOP has to realize you can't always get what you want. They have to realize that they need to compromise as much as the Democrats do. They got 168, they should be happy. Putting on this display is pathetic, and I hope the Republicans *do* fall asleep at the switch so Democratic Legislation can be passed (such as an increase of the minimum wage).
  • Reply 16 of 128
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Fran441

    This is nothing but a huge waste of time and money. The Republicans need to give up these 4 nominees. They are trying to portray the Democrats as people who don't want to compromise, but that's all they have done with Bush's judicial nominees. This is a campaign/re-election ploy, plain and simple.



    In the last 2 years of Clinton's Presidency, only 62% of his judicial nominees were approved, yet 98% of Bush's nominees have been approved, almost rubber stamped by the Democrats.



    Guess what? The Democrats object to 4 nominees at the moment. They've approved 168. The Republicans have to let these 4 go and get on with the business of the nation. Spending 30 HOURS of time that could be put to much better use is unacceptable.



    Again, Democrats block judicial 4 nominees (2%) under Bush while the Republicans blocked 38% of nominees under Clinton. You don't notice the hypocrisy?



    The GOP has to realize you can't always get what you want. They have to realize that they need to compromise as much as the Democrats do. They got 168, they should be happy. Putting on this display is pathetic, and I hope the Republicans *do* fall asleep at the switch so Democratic Legislation can be passed (such as an increase of the minimum wage).





    Ding Ding Ding.



    Post of the week. Thanks fran.
  • Reply 17 of 128
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    What on earth are you ranting about now?



    I don't know something about folks who don't really prove anything, but just question the motives of others repeatedly.





    Nick
  • Reply 18 of 128
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    What I think ironic is how venomous the Democrats were toward Ashcroft, declaring that he was a racist for standing against the nomination of a black judge. Meanwhile the Dem's are standing against women and nominees that are black and hispanic as well.



    Of course when Ashcroft did it, he claimed it was because of the politics of that judge while confirming other black judges. However the left claimed (and still do) that this was proof of racism.



    Of course when reversed none of the obstructionists on the left are sexist, or racist, or anything else.



    Double standards sure are nice, aren't they?



    Nick
  • Reply 19 of 128
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Naderfan

    The filibuster is an important part and integral part of the Senate and for Republicans to suddenly want to scrap it just because it's being used against them is worse than one side refusing to vote on judges. The reason why the filibuster is in place is so that the minority view can still fight a vote/bill/confirmation that they think isn't in the best interest of the state. Strom Thurmond filibustered for a little over 24 hours against a civil rights bill. I don't agree with his reasoning or his view, but it is his right, and his duty, to represent what he believes are his constitutent's views. The democrats have the same duty if they feel that their constitutents do not want these four judges. I still don't understand the Republicans' reasoning for why they need to pull this 30 hour stunt, but whatever. This is just the way politics in this country work.



    On a side note, I prefer Nader's term "Rebulicrats" since there are no real differences anymore between the parties. Just a different slant.





    But we don't have real filibusters these days. We have no-filibuster filibusters with the dual track that the Senate is using these days. Go educate yourself on that issue and then post back.
  • Reply 20 of 128
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    From Salon:



    Republicans denied confirmation to more than one-third of Clinton's nominees for the Court of Appeals, and in many instances the Republican-controlled Senate during the Clinton years refused to even hold hearings on judicial nominees. Yet by effectively blocking four appellate court nominees -- Miguel Estrada (who has now withdrawn), Charles Pickering, Priscilla Owen and Bill Pryor -- the Democrats have put the Republicans into a tizzy, so they're determined to provide Americans with a 30-hour C-SPAN tantrum.



    Notwithstanding the finger-pointing by the Republicans for filibustering four Bush nominees, this practice started in 1968 with Republicans, with the help of Southern Democrats (who now come to the Senate as Republicans), filibustering President Lyndon Johnson's nominee for Chief Justice, Abe Fortas. Republicans blocked Fortas so Nixon could get the chief justice appointment, assuming, correctly, he would be elected.



    It was pure politics, and it began the game that is now being played out. Indeed, Frist, the mastermind of this stunt in the Senate tonight, voted against cloture (and for filibuster) during the battle over one of President Clinton's court appointees. But what is a little hypocrisy when wasting the Senate's time pointing fingers?



    We need to move beyond the game of playing politics with the federal bench, deliberately trying to influence the philosophical bent of justice. The judiciary was to be the nonpolitical branch, yet for the last four decades both presidents and Congress have worked to politicize it. Studies show that the outcome of lawsuits and prosecutions can be increasingly predicted by the political affiliation of the judges.





    http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...les/index.html
Sign In or Register to comment.