Below is the Yahoo story about how the Democrats will correctly filibuster Pickering's nomination if necessary to do so to prevent the rightwing nut from reaching the Appeals Court bench. In the article, Fleishcer mentions threats as coming from a few liberal Democrats. Then, Arnie, you got nothing to worry about, ace. Perhaps you need to reread your Constitution but to maintain a filibuster, you need to prevent 60 votes from cutting it off. Thus, that means 41 would have to support the filibuster. Now, most people would not consider 41 out of 100 or more specifically 41 out of 48 Democrats to be a few. Thus, Arnie, you must be home free, right, if only a few liberal Democrats will oppose this clown. However, my guess is almost every single Democrat will oppose him, Jeffords will oppose him, and probably a couple of Republicans unless they are threatened by the party. So, Arnie, looks like you do the same fuzzy math that Sapling does, and can't figure out that almost 100% of Democrats is not a few. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030108/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_judges_7
The filibuster is in the Constitution?!!! Funny, but this is all I can find: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member. http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hal.../constitution/constitution_transcription.html It is, however, in the Senate rules: http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/standingrules.txt \4\ As amended, S. Res. 28, 99-2, Feb. 27, 1986. ``Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?'' And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn--except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two- thirds of the Senators present and voting--then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.
Don't let facts get in the way of Tom's rant! Remember, he NEVER lies, or exaggerates, and he is never wrong.
I notice that the point of my post was NOT even addressed Hey, that's fine -- apparently, you guys agreed with it, and no contrary opinion was to be found. So once again, how can a few Democratic liberals successfully filibuster a nomination? Answer, they can't, and Fleischer just LIED his head off trying to say that those opposing the racist judge Pickering were just a "few liberal Democrats".
Dimwit, I suggest you read the post I said that at least 41 would support the filibuster. Nowhere did I say that ONLY 41 would support it. Making another point, I said that almost every Democrats WOULD support the filibuster. I feel sorry for a mentally-deficient person such as yourself who can't understand two distinct points in a post. Should I make smaller words to help you understand, Major Jerk?
Bush overplayed his hand, just like the rnc did in the senatorial race in la. Pickering has no chance. There are many fine judges out there - find one who didn't drone on and on about race mixing.
Maybe this was part of the deal for lott to resign. The fact that lott was his sponsor, makes it all the more curious, save some sort of deal. Well, no soap again, lott.
