so in the future the Democrats will still have the threat of a filibuster to block nominees, which in theory should keep Bush from nominating a total crank to be on the Supreme Court when the time comes.
7. What's to keep the Republicans from re-opening the fillibuster debate
in the future, the first time the Democrats raise the issue of "extreme circumstances"? To me, this is just delaying the inevitable, while continuing to give ground and giving the Republicans some political cover with the average voter.
what would you have preferred the Democrats do, sit back and lose the filibuster all together, then have to sit there with their thumbs up their asses when John Ashcroft or some other nut is ramrodded on to the Supreme Court?
9. First, I'd rather go down fighting and force the Republicans' hands
But more importantly, the American people were beginning to see the lock-step extremism in the Republican Party and question whether it is wise to have a one-party system in America.
There is nothing that would preclude the Republicans from using the "nuclear option" anyway again tomorrow and I won't put it past them at all. What are we going to do when that happens? Cut another deal to make the Republicans look like moderates?
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.