The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!
Hi, (not you?) | Member Center | Sign Out
Posted: 1:00 a.m. Tuesday, May 24, 2005
By Neal Boortz
| Today's Nuze: May 24, 2005 | ||
![]() | ||
Tuesday -- May 24, 2005
Fourteen Senators, seven Republicans and seven Democrats, have reached an agreement to prevent today's scheduled showdown on judicial filibusters. We'll make this simple. Without these seven Democrats there can be no filibusters, and without these seven Republicans there can be no vote to change the rules to end filibusters. These seven Democrats pledged to allow an up or down vote on at least five of the seven Bush appeals court nominees the Democrats have been blocking. It's a bit hard to say who won here. Democrats clearly backed down. They had the votes to block all of Bush's nominees, and agreed to allow those nominations to go forward. Republicans, on the other hand, had the votes to change the Senate rules to prohibit filibusters on judicial nominees, and have set such a rule change aside. Both sides can point to both a victory and a loss, and that seems to be the preferred way of doing business in the Senate. But let's talk more about the Republicans. They had total and complete victory in their hands, and they gave it up. Would the Democrats do that? Of course not! Democrats play for keeps. They know that when you have your opponent on the ropes, you don't feel sorry for them, worry about their "minority rights" and offer them something they're not entitled to. You put your foot on their throat and defeat them by the widest margin of victory possible. The Republicans gained seats in the Senate in the last election. They defeated the sitting Democratic leader over this very issue. They should have voted to change the rules on the first day of business back in January. Now that they have the votes, it should have been simple. Slam the door on the Democrats obstruction, just as voters elected them to do. Reverse the rolls here. How many of you really believe that the Democrats wouldn't have changed the Senate rules if it had been Republicans filibustering Democratic nominees? Maybe we should address this in terms of whether the Constitution won or loss. Here I would call it a loss. The Constitution has been losing for some time in Washington. There is no clause anywhere in the Constitution that gives a minority in the Senate any power at all to block a vote on a judicial nomination. This is a power that was created by Senators, not established by the Constitution. The Republicans had a chance to stand up for the Constitution, and they passed. Some people will look at the glass as half-full. There will be at least five appeals court judges out there who make Democrats uncomfortable. Anything that makes Democrats uncomfortable is a good thing. But ... what do you think will happen when Bush makes his first Supreme Court nomination? Question for Jamie Dupree today ... where does all this leave Miguel Estrada?
The much-ballyhooed agreement says that the Democrats will only block judicial nominees under extraordinary circumstances. There is nothing in the agreement, however, which sets forth just what these extraordinary circumstances might be. Well ... remember, we're dealing with Democrats here; the party of big government and soak-the-rich taxes; the party that has openly declared war on the concept of the individual. So .. might I humbly suggest a few circumstances that Democrats would call "extraordinary" and thus lead to a filibuster: An "extraordinary circumstance" would arise with the nomination of a judicial candidate who:
The time will come when the Republicans are going to have to stand up to yet another Democratic filibuster. The Republicans will make noises about resurrecting the so-called nuclear option, and the Democrats will be saying that they are sticking to the agreement and that they are only filibustering because of extraordinary circumstances. I guarantee that the extraordinary circumstances will be among those listed above. One thing hasn't changed. The loony left still must depend on the judiciary to enact much of its anti-individualist agenda. We will see the filibuster again.
REDNECK SCRAP BOOK Happy Birthday to you! Happy Birthday to you!
Happy Birthday dear
redneck. Happy Birthday to you! The ever growing
Redneck Scrap Book. Morning Sickness: Filling fluorescent light tubes with gasoline and lighting them to make your own lightsabers is a bad idea. Most people know that instinctively. These people...did not. The FDA is reviewing a new drug to help men with premature ejaculation. Neal has his own remedy. | ||
WHAT THE HECK ARE THOSE POINTY HAND THINGS? BOORTZ BLAST NEWSLETTER
NEAL'S FANS GET TOGETHER
Belinda Skelton, Ken Rogers, Laura Nunemaker and Brian Ganey assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze! |
© 2013 Cox Media Group. By using this website,
you accept the terms of our Visitor Agreement and Privacy Policy, and understand your options regarding Ad Choices
.
Already have an account? Sign In
{* #registrationForm *} {* traditionalRegistration_displayName *} {* traditionalRegistration_emailAddress *} {* traditionalRegistration_password *} {* traditionalRegistration_passwordConfirm *}Already have an account? Sign In
{* #registrationFormBlank *} {* registration_firstName *} {* registration_lastName *} {* traditionalRegistration_displayName *} {* traditionalRegistration_emailAddressBlank *} {* registration_birthday *} {* registration_gender *} {* registration_postalZip *} {* traditionalRegistration_passwordBlank *} {* traditionalRegistration_passwordConfirmBlank *} {* agreeToTerms *}We have sent you a confirmation email. Please check your email and click on the link to activate your account.
We look forward to seeing you frequently. Visit us and sign in to update your profile, receive the latest news and keep up to date with mobile alerts.
Don't worry, it happens. We'll send you a link to create a new password.
{* #forgotPasswordForm *} {* forgotPassword_emailAddress *}We have sent you an email with a link to change your password.
We've sent an email with instructions to create a new password. Your existing password has not been changed.
To sign in you must verify your email address. Fill out the form below and we'll send you an email to verify.
{* #resendVerificationForm *} {* resendVerification_emailAddress *}Check your email for a link to verify your email address.


You're Almost Done!
Select a display name and password
{* #socialRegistrationForm *} {* socialRegistration_displayName *} {* socialRegistration_emailAddress *} {* traditionalRegistration_password *} {* traditionalRegistration_passwordConfirm *}Tell us about yourself
{* registration_firstName *} {* registration_lastName *} {* registration_postalZip *} {* registration_birthday *} {* registration_gender *} {* agreeToTerms *}