Deal would allow vote on 5 Bush judicial picks - CNN Inside Politics

[Nevilledog]

Just saw this story on CNN.... WTF???

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A bid to end the Senate standoff over President Bush's judicial picks would let five nominees advance to a final vote while preserving the right of a minority of senators to block two others.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/19/filibuster.fight/index.html

[Erika]

1. All of Bush's nominees had been rejected

because of extremism by the last senate. Now we're supposed to stomach the radicals? Go for the nuclear option instead. Let's shut Congress down.

[Nevilledog]

2. I totally agree. This proposal would let Owens through.

More from the article:

A draft of the deal, which CNN obtained Thursday, would allow confirmation votes on five of the seven nominees Democrats have blocked -- including Priscilla Owen, whose nomination to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals faces debate in the Senate this week.

[Erika]

6. Owen is an extremist

as are the rest of W's picks. He better understand that if he rams them down Americans throats that they will never be seen as anything other than right wing fanatics in their rulings. They will only further divide this country. They will have no credibility.

[saracat]

3. only good thing is , they haven't accepted the deal yet.

I hope they don't do it. It looks like the Frist doesn't have the votes. Time for us to play hardball, not deal!

[wtmusic]

4. Interesting -- no mention of who floated the proposal

however, there is a quote that Reid was "confidently optimistic" that six Republicans would buck Frist and vote to preserve the filibuster.

That would seem to indicate the proposal was from Frist -- getting it out to the media as a PR play.

[Disturbed]

7. Will the Dems wimp out as they usually do?

I hope not. Bring it on Rethugs! Dems should finally be the Oppostion to Fascism.

[wtmusic]

9. I don't know any fight that Reid has backed down from

That doesn't mean he can't compromise. But Harry draws a line in his own mind, and he doesn't cross it. Is the line is where I would want to see it? Probably not. But I've met him, and I've talked with him. I trust him to get the best result out of this mess we possibly can.

[saracat]

13. I don't.Anyone who voted for the Bankruptsy Bill can't be trusted.Sorry.

He is a louse, and that was not "negotiable".What reason is there to trust him? I hope he gets us out of this but just the fact that he would consider a "deal" under these circumstances pisses me off.What good is a filibuster if you can't use it? We gave them over 200 appointments. That was enough of a compromise.If we let them have Owens and others to save the jusdicial filibuster, we don't need the filibuster! We are supposed to use it to block these people.

[Mojambo]

5. You don't make deals when you're standing on principle

It would look very bad.

Either we're right or we're not. And WE ARE RIGHT.

Make Frist push the button.

[Chomskyite]

8. We cannot allow Owens to be promoted

Her record as a jurist is so bad that to allow her onto a federal bench would render all previous stands we've taken meaningless. Owens and Rogers Brown are the worst of the worst. No deal if either of those two must get up-down votes.

[ck4829]

10. It used to be two

[Horse with no Name]

11. Yup.

It started out as allowing 2.
Of course the pigs wanted more more more more.
I hope our Dems stand strong.

[Nevilledog]

12. A kick to see if anyone has an update on this story....

I don't want any deals. Give me one good reason we'd want to compromise? C'mon.... just one.