So Does Pryor Make The Cut? (From a 'Bama DUer)

[BamaLefty]

I've been out tonight and haven't been able to follow what went on.

So will Bill Pryor of Alabama (I apologize, yes... that's where he is from) get a vote?

PLEASE NO!!! You guys don't realize how extreme he is. This nation does not know!

[Goldeneye]

1. I think he does.

I'm pretty sure that's what Malloy just said. But Lindsey Graham said republicans may vote against some of the nominees...so its not completely a done deal yet.

[sasquatch]

4. If a republican even entertains that idea they will be crushed by Rove

[Goldeneye]

9. I can't really keep track of what's accurate anymore,

but I just read a thread that claimed Graham said one of the 3 nominees would not make it through the up or down vote.

[BamaLefty]

11. Holy Shit!

Then what is all this "We won! Yay! Drink the happy go lucky Kool-Aid" bullshit!!!!

If Pryor gets a vote (which will surely be a "yes") THEN WE DID NOT WIN!

Oh yay we won!!! Yippeeee oh hoorah Sen McCain oh yay clap clap clap jump skip hop clap yaaayyy for you! Oh, we won and here's why. Oh yippee yi yi yo!!! :sarcasm:

Don't you people see. This compromise (from what I can tell) just watered down the rights of the minority. Oh yaaaayyyy! WTF!

[TnDem]

13. EXACTLY

WHo gives a rats ass if "Frist frowned and made a face" or "McCain makes Frist look bad and that makes it all worth it".

It's BULLSHIT people, can't you see?

If Owens, Pryor and Brown get a vote, they get a seat..PERIOD.

And if they get a nod from Dems now, how can we filibuster them later?

Please explain..

[BamaLefty]

18. Thank You!

At least you can see the light w/ me.

BFD if Frist frowned, peed his pants, jerked off on national TV--- semantics!

When Pryor, Owen, and Rogers Brown get that damn vote--- they everybody will see who "won." Damn, its obvious.

[Goldeneye]

19. The only thing I can think

is that possibly as few as 2 judges will get through the up or down vote, where as all of them would have gotten through without the deal.

[housewolf]

2. Yes, his approval for a vote was part of the deal

it doesn't automatically give him the nomination, it gives him a vote

[TnDem]

3. Yes, but everyone on here thought we "won"

Pryor makes it...Owens makes it. They are a stepping stone away from SCOTUS.

Do you people not understand what just took place? The Democrats "keep" the filibuster as long as they don't abuse it. They already had it before with NO restrictions. they gained nothing except for what they were about to lose.

Priscilla Owens will be confirmed tomorrow for Appellate court justice. The very FIRST opening for a SCOTUS justice and it will be her. She is RADICALLY anti-choice, anti-worker. Pryor is right behind her in his views.

There is NO way on this earth that the Democrats will be able to filibuster her for SCOTUS when they passed her for an appellate position. She will be the next SCOTUS justice. Google her name and "abortion" or "pro-business" and see what you get. The same six "moderates" that helped pass her for Appeals judge will help them both as SCOTUS justices. Remember, its all part of the "agreement" to only filibuster the most extreme candidates. Tell me this...How can both of these people be acceptable to be on an Appeals seat but suddenly unacceptable to be a SC justice. They will be IMPOSSIBLE to filibuster.

And you think this was a victory? Most of you were so used to the idea that we had lost the filibuster that by simply keeping it with the same restrictions as before seems like a victory.

Pathetic...

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

20. Exactly.

A reduced filibuster. :woohoo:

Owens, Pryor and Brown? :woohoo:


:patriot:

[TaleWgnDg]

5. Yes, Pryor will get an "up or down vote" in this agreement . . .

.
Yes, Pryor will get an "up or down vote" in this agreement . . . as it is reported by AP (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Filibuster-Fight.html?hp&ex=1116907200&en=5f454e05fdcd1189&ei=5094&partner=homepage).

The agreement is:

1.) The Dems give up three off-the-wall Bush federal appellate court nominees, namely, Owens, Brown, and Pryor . . .

2.) In exchange, the Republicans promise not to change the Senate rules regarding filibuster.

A compromise.



.

[TnDem]

7. Explain this

How can the Democrats give a green light to people like Pryor and Owens and then turn around and filibuster those same candidates in a month when they are nominated by Bush for SCOTUS? Who's gonna go along with that in our party not to MENTION the Pugs?

Explain that to me...

[TaleWgnDg]

10. Simple. What you are saying . . .

.

Simple. What you are saying is not a part of the agreement to prohibit an action by the Democrats; however, since the Republicans have agreed not to change the rules of filibuster down the road, any nominees other than Owens, Brown, or Pryor for their present nominations, may be filibustered.

Step back and analyze it. Devoid of emotions, that is.

Read it here----> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Filibuster-Fight.html?hp&ex=1116907200&en=5f454e05fdcd1189&ei=5094&partner=homepage





.

[TnDem]

16. I did read it...You need to read it again..

Let me quote it here:

"...In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement,'' Republicans said they would oppose any attempt to make changes in the application of filibuster rules -- a pledge that Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio said at the news conference was conditional on Democrats upholding their end of the deal.."

We only hold on to the filibuster as long as we agree to not "abuse" it. That is what Dewine said. The agreement depend on how they feel we are conduction ourselves regarding the filibuster.

One more time...Explain to me how we can now filibuster Owens and Pryor once we have them confirmed for an Appellate position? Explain that very simply please.

You need to lose the emotions and read this agreeement for what it is.

[TaleWgnDg]

22. I suggest you go to Black's Law Dictionary and look up the

.
I suggest you go to Black's Law Dictionary and look up the legal term "discretionary." Then report back.

[Gothmog]

6. Pryor gets a vote

This and Janice Brown are the two parts of the compromise that I do not like but understand why the deal was reached.

[Hippo_Tron]

8. Yea but he would've been on the bench with the nuclear option

The difference is about the politics now.

[TnDem]

12. On the bench?

HE'LL BE ON THE BENCH ANYWAY WHEN THE FULL SENATE VOTES ON HIM!!!!

Am I in a parallel universe?


Good grief..

[Hippo_Tron]

15. Sorry, forgot that he was the one that he used the recess appointment on

Which to be honest, is something that I can't complain about. The recess appointment IS written in the constitution unlike the "guaranteed up or down vote".

[TaleWgnDg]

17. Exactly. Pryor would have been seated if there was no compromise . . .

.
Exactly. Pryor would have been seated on the federal appellate bench if there was no compromise . . . however, the Dems would have "lost" the ability to filibuster too. Thus, all the nominees -- now and in the future -- would have a majority vote, not a 60-40 clouture vote option to break a filibuster.

However, with this compromise, Pryor gets his majority vote which most likely will seat him as well. And the Dems retain the filibuster for any nominees other than Pryor, Owen, and Brown for these appellate court seats now before the Senate.

Yes, it was a political compromise = politics.


_____________________________________


edited to add: Pryor was a "recess appointment" by President Bush in November 2004; however, Pryor MUST BE CONFIRMED by the "advice and consent" of the Senate as any other judicial nominee. Why is that so? Because a presidential "recess appointment" which is allowed in our federal constitution is a temporary appointment and in order to be permanent must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=87

.

[TnDem]

26. filibuster

No, they only get to filibuster if they don't abuse their filibuster power. That's what Dewine said man...Read it.

Pryor, Owen and Brown are seated on the Appellate court. One more time....EXPLAIN to me how this same body can and will filibuster these same candidates for SCOTUS and who will support that filibuster?

Please explain this so I can understand.

[Hippo_Tron]

28. We won political points

Which is extremely important not only for 2006, but for the upcoming battle over the SCOTUS nominees. We now look reasonable because we compromised this time. They look unreasonable because they didn't even endorse the compromise. Frist WILl talk about the nuclear option when we fillibuster the SCOTUS nominees but we will look reasonable in the eyes of the American people and he will look like a pandering extremeist fool. The political ramifications will be so severe that Frist won't be able to use the nuclear option for the SCOTUS nominees and we will keep the extremeists from where they are REALLY dangerous, which is the SCOTUS.

Brown, Owens, and Pryor are god awful judges, there's no doubt about that. But the only way to keep all of the extremeists off of the bench was to get Kerry elected in November and unfortunately we failed to do that. We had to give a little to win where it counts, the SCOTUS.

[TnDem]

29. You don't get it

Maybe I am on AM and everyone else is on FM. Here's how it is...

We won nothing. By the time the elections roll around, this little event will have been forgotten. Two weeks is a lifetime in an election, much less two years.

One more time I'll ask this....HOW can the Democratic members of the Senate essentially approve Owen, Pryor and Brown TODAY for an Appellate judgeship and then filibuster them tomorrow for SCOTUS? Explain how they can do that and be credible and more importantly, who in our party is going to go along with it?

All 45 Democrats? What about the 7 that had the "agreement". How can they all of a sudden say "We were right to make Owen an Appellate justice but we are going to filibuster her for SCOTUS"? What will that do to the "agreement" if they did?

Please someone explain this to me?

[markus]

14. He's in, sorry to say

He's the one of the Terrible Three that I knokw the least about.

[mountainvue]

21. My feeling is Pryor is the one who doesn't make it.

But you're from Alabama. What do you think?

[kbm8795]

23. If Pryor ends up on the SCOTUS

I will definitely be packing my bags. No gay American would have any hope for a future here.

[BamaLefty]

24. Oh He Makes It!

They'll vote him in on partisan lines... except maybe Collins, Chafee, and Snowe.

Were really screwed... not just gays its all of us. He will be a warrior for tort reform and limiting the rights of average Americans in the courtroom. He is radical. Period!

Mark my words. Sadly, mark my words.

[dajoki]

25. yes he does

owen, brown and pryor are in.http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=784360

[EndElectoral]

27. To confirm Pryor is a defeat for the country