Rep. Jon Kyl vows to filibuster Obama's possible Supreme Court nominees
I forgot to post this the other day, but I think it's important. Jon "nuclear option" Kyl shot off his mouth the other day to the Federalist Society and threatened to block Supreme Court nominees of Barack Obama only a few days after the election.
Jon Kyl, the second-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate, warned president-elect Barack Obama that he would filibuster U.S. Supreme Court appointments if those nominees were too liberal.
Kyl, Arizona's junior senator, expects Obama to appoint judges in the mold of U.S Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer. Those justices take a liberal view on cases related to social, law and order and business issues, Kyl said.
"He believes in justices that have empathy," said Kyl, speaking at a Federalist Society meeting in Phoenix. The attorneys group promotes conservative legal principles.
Kyl said if Obama goes with empathetic judges who do not base their decisions on the rule of law and legal precedents but instead the factors in each case, he would try to block those picks via filibuster.
Steve says: "Think about that. The second highest ranking Republican in the Senate, just a few days after the election, is already talking about blocking Supreme Court nominations that haven't been named, in response to Supreme Court vacancies that don't exist."
And Howie Klein ads:
...according to CNN exit polls, those who claimed that the Supreme Court was a factor in their decision in the presidential election, broke for Obama 53-45% and voters who called future Supreme Court appointments the most important factor went for Obama even more strongly-- 57 to 41%.
The more Republicans talk, the more irrelevant they become.
Thank God I do'nt live in Arizona,
or any other RED state
I live in Indiana. F*ck Jon Kyl.
Filibuster? Bring one on.
Look up Kyl's record.
John Kyl is an idiot.
And with Begich, Franken and (R) Senators in Ohio and Pa - plus a few other states up for re-election in 2010, I don't think the old filibuster is gonna be what it use to be for the repukes.
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
Thank "gawd" I don't live in Amerikkka.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
looks like its time for obama to start nominating conservative psycho republicans so it can be denied! See if he will hold to this vow...then once thats done go back to reality.
So much for the ol' "Up or down vote" mantra the neocons used to pull out when THEY had a nominee for the Court........
You know,
We should have let the republicans pass the nuclear option back in 2005, but we didn't, and now we can't pass anything in the senate
I say, it's time the Nuclear option is implemented. It's what the republicans wanted after all.
The way these babies behaved during their majority's tenure deserves some sort of payback. If it weren't for prudential and political considerations (i.e. that it would come back to bite us in the ass), I'd have the Senate take away the filibuster option for judicial nominees.
Come on, Kyl. While I agree that judges should interpret laws objectively (which, in my opinion, conservative "original intent" jurists do not actually practice), empathy and objective jurisprudence are not mutually exclusive.
I do long for textualist judges who will actually abide by the Constitution's words, for they do not mean what crazy conservatives would like them to.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
If we went by the letter of the constitution there would be no rights to own guns since the second amendment says nothing about owning anything, only bearing, and doesn't refer to guns but arms.
And how can you have a well-regulated militia without regulations?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Can I get an "Amen" from the congregation?
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
ysbaddaden:
If we went by the letter of the Constitution, judges would not be able to hold that a right is not protected merely because it is not listed. That's the essence of the Ninth Amendment, and it demands that unenumerated rights not be denied or disparaged through a construction of the rights that are.
As to the Second Amendment, it seems specious to say that "guns" are not included in "arms." Whether the Second Amendment itself protects an individual right to bear arms (as opposed to the collective right of the states to protect themselves via militias), while the Supreme Court now says it does, I would argue that the Ninth Amendment protects that right anyway.
In order to avoid construing the enumerated rights in a manner that denies or disparages unenumerated rights, courts should instead ask whether governments actually have the power to enact the law being challenged. Force government to justify its powers, instead of citizens to justify their rights, and the Constitution will work as written.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
I've argued the penumbra amendment with righties, but they cite that as part of their not in the language argument, and judges interpreting.
They also hate the penumbra argument because it counters their 10th amendment view, even though the 10th amendment refers to state rights and rights of the people both.
As for the guns, if one went strictly by the constitution it would only be for old fashion muskets and cap-and-ball pistols. You know conservatives have used similar arguments for radio, TV, movies and the internet, that they weren't invented yet at the time the Constitution was written. To them press means press only.
I would also suspect the recent court decision declaring there is a constitutional right to own guns is based on a "liberal" interpretation of property rights.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
ysbaddaden:
:) I'm not really arguing penumbras, though. I'm arguing the plain meaning of the text of the Ninth Amendment, which conservative jurists --- the same ones who keep screaming about objective interpretations of the law --- so conveniently ignore when it comes to unenumerated rights.
Their Tenth Amendment intepretation is equally silly. Indeed, they do omit the "or to the people" clause, which itself belies their understanding, namely that states have plenary powers to do just about anything not delegated to the federal government. That interpretation is off limits under the Fourteenth Amendment, and even if it weren't, counters the very essence of the American revolution, which says that governments' just powers are to secure our equal rights.
I disagree. That would mark, in my opinion, an argument from "original intent" or "original understanding," (i.e. the framers could not conceive of the weapons and arms we have today, and thus, did not intend to cover the weapons and arms we have today.)
First, we can't actually know that they weren't considering technological advances when they wrote what they wrote. More importantly, though, that would conflict with the objective meaning of the word "arms." Textualism would abide by the objective meaning of the words, not the subjective intent of the people who wrote them. Of course, the "original meaning" of the word would apply in the case of ambiguities and semantic metamorphoses, but it's the "meaning" that counts, not the intent.
I know all too well. :) And they're wrong there too. ;)
Alas, I haven't had time yet to read the entire Second Amendment case. I'm sure I'll find it highly interesting.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
I've been wanting to read the case, but do not know the name, do you?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I do not find that the full opinion has been published yet. At least not on Lexis. ;o}
Syllabus is here in pdf format, 157 pages.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploa...
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising liberty and justice for all
Does Lexis charge for their information? I believe Westlaw does.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Lexis is not free. I bet you can access it at your local college campus library though.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising liberty and justice for all
The San Francisco charter calls for a free law library system. We can actually go in and access Westlaw free.
Not all the nifty features. Just the basics. But still, it makes legal research that much easier for laypeople.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
Michelle,
Heh, yes, I've seen that. Thanks for the link. When the syllabus is 157 pages, I know I won't really have time to sift through the entire thing. At least not soon. :)
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
Geeze, all that small print and no
http://dl8.glitter-graphics.net/pub/392/39201...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Part of their problem with the penumbra amendment, besides it actually claiming an overall right to privacy, is that it comes from the Griswold v Connecticut case that involved a married couple claiming they had a right to birth control. This was also the precedent for Roe v Wade. Both cases are incredibly enough still hot button, although I was surprised when palin couldn't cite the Griswold case as one she is presumably against.
And as for the privacy rights the Constitution, as you said earlier, is to limit the federal government's power, not the citizens, and with all the 10 amendments taken at once, from grand juries, warrants, probable cause, freedom from self-incrimination, due process, extremely limited definition for treason etc., it seems like a general right to privacy is a no-brainer.
However, of course, it wouldn't cover spousal or children abuse etc. And the police more than likely would be trying to quiet the disturbance, which is in their police power, or would be serving a warrant.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
ysbaddaden:
True. Part of their problem is also that they want words narrowly construed. As narrowly as possible. They call it "strict construction." I call it "linguistic constriction." Hell, even Scalia rejects narrow, strict construction.
If memory serves, Griswold actually attempted to deal with the Ninth Amendment, but its reasoning never quite stuck. Because they didn't ultimately go with the Ninth Amendment, which would have made sense, and they crafted "substantive due process" from the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process clause, conservatives ridicule the turn of phrase.
I can't say they're entirely incorrect. Substantive due process is largely an oxymoron. But after conservatives had largely gutted the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities clause, judges who wanted to get back to protecting individual rights tried to be clever.
In any case, no one has yet really tackled the Ninth Amendment, whose plain meaning rule of construction is basically ignored.
Sad, isn't it? At this point, I'd be willing to bet that she's never even thought about the Supreme Court at all --- what it does, what it's supposed to do, or any of the decisions it has rendered.
I don't disagree with that. Though, I do think the Ninth Amendment is a more solid place to go for unenumerated rights.
No, it wouldn't cover abuse. It's in our founding document: Governments are formed to secure our equal rights. Of course we can delegate the power to our state governments to arrest people who abuse others. It's part of protecting the equal rights of the abused. ;)
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
What honked my cheese off was when the Rehnquist court used the XIV amendment as a precedent for bush v Gore. They used an amendment to protect the minority vote to protect a debatable majority vote, despite the Constitution clearing spelling out what to do when the votes too close to call. It goes to the senate.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
ysbaddaden,
No kidding! The Equal Protection argument in Bush v. Gore has merit. The arguments by which the Court stopped the vote count are intellectually bankrupt.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
In case you're wondering what I'm doing is playing Devil's Advocate on the original intent argument to play up it's speciousness.
Actually, I find some liberals who do use the cap-and-ball/musket argument with a serious mien while arguing quite liberal freedom of speech interpretation.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
ysbaddaden:
A very worthwhile endeavor. :)
Indeed. Here on C&L, people have argued that the Second Amendment really can't be taken seriously in today's age, and that modern dangers make government action necessary when it comes to gun ownership, even if they would violate the Second Amendment.
When I ask whether they would then agree with the argument the Bush Administration uses vis-a-vis terrorism and the Fourth Amendment, they immediately switch gears. They talk about how the Constitution's text is sacrosanct in that regard, and how Bush can't invoke modern dangers to abrogate the Fourth Amendment, all apparently with no sense of the contradiction.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
What everyone needs to remember is the French Republic is civil law, which is based on the Justinian Codex,not Common Law, and they tried to write specific constitutions covering all foreseeable eventualities, and ended up having 16 or 17 of them over the years.
The only thing that has kept their government running smoothly with two post-revolutionary monarchs, two emperors, back and forth between Catholic and Republic interests, and of course Vischy, and always writing up new constitutions was the Napoleonic code setting up an efficient bureaucracy.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
... intelligent marine mammals, now would we?
Because that bastard reich-wing Roberts signed their death warrant today with his Navy-sonar ruling.
F--k off, Sen. Kyl. We're going to put empathetic, intelligent people on the high court, not ideological Federalist Society hacks.
Conservative Judicial Philosophy = let the super rich and mega corporations devour everyone else, without any government intervention!
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
... we have to be on our best behavior with these people. Lest we offend the sensitivities of the precious conservative folk.
Weren't we supposed to sway these people into reason with kindness?
Because that would be something Jesus would do.
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_bMFVDu9yo
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
That law system is threatening to criminals. Of course, they want corporate shills instead of good legal minds. The people who vote these crooks into office ought to be ashamed of themselves.
.
So,
It's not Country first if it's not Republican Party fist, then?
Or,
It's not partisan interests when it's the Republican Party's interests first?
Look, I may not agree with some positions Obama has taken, some of which concern me, however, I find it extremely and intentionally divisive for members of Congress to state emphatically that they will rail against an Administration that isn't even up and running. Just how does Jon Kyl(R-Az) think cooperation is going to be achieved if he's busy drumming up an opposition to an Administration that isn't even up and running yet, let alone plotting a way to block certain appointments that aren't even being made.
.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
And that's what keeps tickling my wtf-o-meter. The fact that President ELECT Obama still has several months before he is even sworn in.
Then there's the fact that no vacancies currently exist. Followed by no one has been appointed by anyone for anything yet.
I think some of these reps. need a long nap and a fresh diaper.
Don't forget the pacifier and the Binky. Because, after all, you can't cry Whhhaaapublican without shedding a tear.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4phupuutqxE
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Fuck this little turd.
It's time the Democrats used their numbers. This little prick wants some sewage waste plant funded in his state...tell him to suck your dick...and pray to God for it. When he wants a new road...tell him...suck your balls...and pray to God for it.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
Get some. Please.
Not that I don't share your opinion, but I know a lot more appropriate ways of expressing mine.
"Courtesy is owed. Respect is earned. Love is given." --Unknown author, found in Guide to Texas Etiquette by Kinky Friedman
I completely agree with you Mary. People on the left have logic on our side, we don't need to indulge in name calling and posturing.
I can't figure these guys out. Are they all insane? Here we have a president-elect who isn't even in office yet, and assholes like this are already screaming like a bunch of idiots. I like how Limpballs stated that Obama is to blame for the economic meltdown, while bush still sits in office. Unreal. I guess they will never be able to accept reality.
Hmm...what...someone saw his "member" in the Congressional lavatory?
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
Try as I may to find any redeeming qualities in these right wing Republicans- there is *nothing* positive about them.
I have a feeling if they can't be the ones in power, then theyy will try and destroy this country...
They not only try but have been very successful in destroying the country. But of course it is all Obama's fault according to Limbaugh. They will go to their graves saying Bush was the best president ever! Bush will bear none of the blame for the past eight years. The repugs have had their way for too long and are now in fear it will come back to haunt them.
Remember the golden rule of politics...don't get mad...get even.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
I just want to see these right wingers declawed and shunned.
Ive seen many right wing posts onlin from right wing Republicans who want every measure Obama ever puts out to be blocked by the Republicans- It leaves me to believe Republicans couldn't give a rats ass about America or the American people, all they want is to get back in power in 2012...
One way of getting even is to encourage them to nominate the religious nut Sarah Palin in 2012- because no way in hell could she win the election...
I am so sick of this partisan bickering. I'm already tired of the GOP's hissy fits over Obama's win. For crying out loud, the guy's not even in office yet and they already want to put the brakes on anything close to a decision/compromise. Why do we keep reelecting these self appointed lords of the playpen?
If these fools were a football team they'd still be on the field running plays all by themselves 12 hours after the game was called for their opponents.
Feel the reaching across the aisle!
Oh, that's right - only WE have to be bipartisan. Only WE have to reach across the aisle.
Sorry; I forgot.
it's what the GOP is best at...playing with themselves.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
LOL!
DING
Wrong answer. American jurisprudence is based on British jurisprudence, and where questions of the law are concerned they went to courts of chancery, but when the case involved is guided primarily by equitable doctrine they went to Courts of Equity. These were Common Law Courts.
Article III Section 2 of the US constitution reads, "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and EQUITY, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority..."
The courts duty is to balance rival rights. If such were not the case we wouldn't need judges, only administrators.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
so its bad when the dems do it, but riteous when they do
just as spending is bad when dems do it, but good for the country when they do
hope america is paying attention
"nuke" the filibuster. Now it's our turn. How can the Cons argue against it? They tried it, only they failed.
the filibuster is an important tool...it protects the minority
also, while the dems are in control now, that could change in a heartbeat
The filibuster protects a determined minority, not a dem minority.
Assuming that republicans remain asses and democrats remain spineless, republicans will filibuster roughly a million times more often than democrats.
Leave it to repukes to threaten to filibuster over Democratic judicial appointments, than fault Democrats when judicial positions remain open for years.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
So much for unity. Are we even surprised at the republicans?
I'm not surprised one bit. In fact I expect more of this.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
What ever happened to straight up and down vote? Let the people speak!
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
Liberal AND Proud:
It's pretty clear to me that they believe that Democrats, by definition, do not represent "the people." Only Republicans do. In their minds, only Republicans have the rightful authority to do anything in government.
Listen to them drone on about how America is "center right," and how Obama better not do what he promised to do to get elected, because "the people" don't actually want it. That the people elected him doesn't matter to them. They have their idea of "the people," and it means Republicans.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
The fact that all the people who voted for Obama don't really matter to them to begin with. And we are all stupid especially us women folks. Hell, they still think Palin is the right choice for their VP pick. nuff said there.
I love it, the repugs are all running scared and Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet. Just wait, once Obama moves into the white house and reality finally sinks in, then what are they really gonna do???
...they're going to be trying again. That's all they have before the next Senatorial election. Of course, all the seats in the House will be up as well.
Newt Gingrich is maneuvering to be the next head of the RNC and he DID make it happen in 1994. We can't let our guard down.
"Courtesy is owed. Respect is earned. Love is given." --Unknown author, found in Guide to Texas Etiquette by Kinky Friedman
Yea, very true. Well lets make it a very long two years for them.
It was bad enough when the scary black dude was just running for office. Now he's the president-elect, and they're going to have to choke down all their platitudes about how it's patriotic to support the president.
They've got one card left in the deck, and they'll use it again and again and again: FEAR.
I wish Obama wouldn bring in a new puppy when he's president.
I'd rather he have a pet duck.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Or a pet moose.
Pet mousse
Does he have enough hair?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I get the message.
Geeez...I guess I should have said fuck. ; 0 )
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
Maybe only related in the wilds of my own mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jO1EOhGkY0
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
A few days ago, back when everyone was positively giddy about having won one (and not for The Gipper), I cautioned that the long knives were already being sharpened by the right-wingers. This Jon Kyl supreme court bullshit is but one example (of many) to substantiate my assertion. To the extent the progressives get cocky, comfortable or complacent, they will get mowed down.
Again, these fuckers are not going away and will stop at nothing to reacquire their power base. Accordingly, they must be called out harshly at every turn - daily, hourly, whatever it takes. They cannot be permitted to get a toe hold, not after this much progress has been made. The more high-profile the ridicule and discrediting, the more effective. Do not let up. Ever.
Remember when Groucho Marx sang "Whatever it is, I'm against it" in Horse Feathers?
I don't know what they have to say,
it makes no difference anyway -
whatever it is, I'm against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I'm against it!
Your proposition may be good,
but let's have one thing understood -
whatever it is, I'm against it!
And even when you've changed it or condensed it,
I'm against it!
I'm opposed to it.
On general principles I'm opposed to it.
For months before my son was born,
I used to yell from night to morn -
"Whatever it is, I'm against it!"
And I've kept yelling since I first commenced it,
"I'm against it!"
Steve says: "Think about that. The second highest ranking Republican in the Senate, just a few days after the election, is already talking about blocking Supreme Court nominations that haven't been named, in response to Supreme Court vacancies that don't exist."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PY7N4iRgLQ
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Time to bring fairness and balance into the mix.
No plea for the crooks and liars; that infiltrated our government (House of Congress, Judicial Branch and the White House-exec branch).
Time to restore defeat to lawlessness; forebare the laws that granted immunity to the criminals that THOUGHT could getaway with murder and an unprecedented abuse of our government and economic system; by brown-nosing the new majority into a graceful transition in hopes that all wrong is 'let gone be by gones'.
Until our government has restored their loss of credibilities and win the hearts and minds and TRUST of its people; CONFIDENCE will not feed the ECONOMIC POWERFUL. We the people CAN as collective UNIT still control the POCKETS that brought our nation and the world into our current demise.
WE CAN START CLEANING UP installing those WE CAN ENTRUST to do the right for the PEOPLE in the SUPREME COURT and judicial system.
BECAUSE WE are a Nation of LAWS; we need the brightest mind in our LEGAL SYSTEM to up-hold and enforce the LAWS and not legislate and advocate at the JUDICIAL BENCH.
POLITICAL INFLUENCE INTO THE COURT SYSTEM must be removed. IT MUST BE INDEPENDENT for it to WORK FOR ALL.
This has probably been suggested before, but Reid should make Kyl, Cornyn, McConnell do a real filibuster instead of the teaprty type that's become accepted lately.
Filibusterers stand and talk ad nauseum 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No breaks except to yield to another Senator willing to continue the filibuster.
"Dadblasted uppity black fella, comes in an offers to mow my lawn! I'll show him! I'll tear up my front lawn! Hah! That'll get him!"
Kyl is talking about a position that hasn't opened yet from a President who hasn't taken office yet, while the USA is falling apart.
Let's hope Senator Kyl has not been involved in any of the crimes committed over the pass 8 years or he might be complaining from his livingroom and not the Capital.
Can we say:
1. Cloture (no WAY you get moderate Republicans to vote with you after this last landslide and;
2. Nuclear option. =
A little OT, but not really....
I am so livid at the thought of that slimy mother-fucker Lieberman getting off scot-free that I wrote this to Harry Reid:
"I have been a loyal Democrat since I first voted in the midterm elections of 1974 when I turned 18 and lived in the city of Chicago. Being raised in Chicago, I live, eat and breathe politics. I busted my ass to try to get Barack Obama and the Democratic Congressional majority elected. And how am I and millions like me being repaid for our efforts? We are being told that the Senate is seriously considering letting that traitorous, slandering, McCain/Palin loving non-Democrat Joe Lieberman keep his chairmanship at Homeland Security. Do not tell me that Lieberman has not done any harm. He basically called Obama and progressive Dems terrorists for not agreeing with him, McCain and the Republicans. He needs to be PUNISHED! Obama did NOT say that he should keep his chairmanship, only that he should be allowed to caucus with the Dems. Give him a chair with some other committee, but do NOT give him the power to subpoena the Executive Branch, because Joe cannot be trusted as far as you can spit, and he will do great harm to the Obama presidency and the Democratic Party. A great majority of Dems are truly infuriated by the very thought of Lieberman going unpunished. Get rid of him, and if you are worried about Republican filibusters, then either eliminate the filibuster or force the Republicans to filibuster the old -fashioned way: in full view of the public, so the American people can see them trying to block much needed and popular legislation. JOE MUST GO! He is a traitor to the Democratic Party. Grow a spine, Senator Reid, or give your leadership position to someone else. Lieberman is no friend to the Dems, and he deserves to be kicked out as soon as possible. Let Mitch McConnell have him!"
I only hope everyone else does the same by writing their Dems Senators. It took nearly every fiber of my progressive Democratic being to keep the words "fuck", "prick", "dildo" and "douchenozzle" out of my letter, but next time I may not be able to.
It was strongly worded though. Harry knows that much.
Comeon Harry.. GROW A PAIR! Obama is correct. Strip Holy Joe of any chairmanships and let the chips fall where they may. Probably be easier to turn a couple of moderate GOPers anyways. Joe has committed the unforgivable sin. Ill be nice.
Aren't Republicans known for working in mysterious ways? I guess Kyl divulging their great plan does away with the mystery part.
When, not if, but when these clowns start filibustering, I want people speaking from sun up to sun down. I want CSPAN to be filled with Republican nonsensical noise. Let Republican's filibuster and let them talk. The more they talk the more fodder the press, TDS, and Stephen Colbert will have. The longer the filibuster the more silly these people look when there are serious issues that need to be addressed. A true filibuster, Henry Clay style, that is broadcast on CSPAN will show America how silly and irrelevant the Republicans are. After the first true filibuster, Republicans won't have the political power to do it again.
Re: Rep. Jon Kyl vows to filibuster Obama's possible Supreme Co
Wed, 11/12/2008 - 12:38 — Lizzy Bennet
Aren't Republicans known for working in mysterious ways?
I thought that was Gosh.
When I go belly-up I wanna go to the Land O'Goshen.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
And Kyle will be caught shoving his foot under a toilet stall.
Or collecting pictures of little boys.
Or his favorite hooker will go on Oprah.
Why are these people like this? Was he denied mother's milk?
Saucy instant messages with male pages.
Is this any surprise? When the right wing held all the cards they were narrow-minded, self-righteous and doctrinaire. Now that they're becoming marginalized, those never exactly endearing characteristics are being converted to pure bile (yet another unpleasant word rhyming with Kyl) and the mindless hate is evidencing itself in irrational statements. (Like the one by the congressman yesterday about Obama's Marxist regime.)
Once these jerks realize that the sky isn't going to fall because a President who isn't ashamed to acknowledge liberal credibility holds office, they're likely to shut up - or at least keep their comments to other narrow-minded, self-righteous and doctrinaire schmucks.
skipped his lithium today. Guess he's really upset.
What happened to Republicans' whining about having "up or down" votes on Supreme Court nominees? Did they forget that along with their "small government" philosophy?
Make him talk 24/7 til he drops, then the next 'Thug can take his place and SUSPEND ALL BUSINESS AS THE RULES REQUIRE 'til they ensure that not a one of them ever sees the Senate floor again after their next election.
This is why the Obama administration should STOP trying to pacify, coddle and be fair with republicans. They are snakes, every last one of them. You can not tame a rattlesnake. The effort should be to defeat them mercilessly until they are completely broken and totally ineffective. Force them to reformulate their thinking and if they can not become "human beings", then continue the unforgiving decimation of whomever is left. My hate for them was instigated by their relentless destruction of anything good. Their hate is simply part of their DNA.
The Dear Senator, should we ever get real Democratic Senate Leadership, would find that nobody who cares about their own legislative agendas will be willing to co-sponsor any of his bills which never get called to the floor, nor will they allow him to attach his cosponsorship to any of their bills.
Then we'll see if he gets re-elected with zero legislative record for this term and a massively funded opponent.
what a Maverick!
than desperate whooped Republicans like Kyl. Blowing and stewing and threatening. I love it!
Bruce C Johnson
I still have election elation and this asshole is not bringing me down. I'll think about their right wingnut shit later. For now I'm basking in the glow of them having their asses handed to them.
Rightwingers get on my nerves with their, "rule of law" and "activist judges" crap. What about the misuse of the Equal Protection Clause, used to select Bush as president? That was activism of judges at it's worst.
...if and when the Democrats made such statements.
Tough shit! We need to toss all their ranker asses out of Congress and get this country back. I am so frustrated and pissed off with these political partisan hacks.
Go to hell where you belong kyl.
Let him open his big mouth. He will just look as irrelevant as the rest of the GOP.
Don't start screaming that the dems lack a sense of bi-partisanship. This little stunt disqualifies you from being a WATB about that, poo for brains.
me-oww!
was there any doubt about it ? The majority of the Republicans will do nothing but try to obstruct every step of the way , they haven't changed and won't change , turds are turds . Should be obvious by now to all but the mentally challenged that they don't give one damn about the country or about " we the people " , their ideology and their party come first. It's a damned shame we couldn't get sixty (or more )into the Senate . We'll get there next time !
Franken and Begich are going to win! With repukes up for re-election in blue states in 2010, Old Mitchy ain't gonna have such an easy time busterin' now!
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
Once again another example of how dem’s will always be the repubs bitches. The Dem’s must always ask themselves the question what would the repubs do and then grow a spine
the "NUCLEAR OPTION" that the Republicans threatened over Dems not rolling over and handing them every appointment they wanted. Dems in the senate HAVE THE RIGHT to make the rules and doing away with the filibuster is their right. If Republicans want to play dirty, I say, give as good as you get.
Just a few years ago the Dems were considering maybe entertaining notions of talking in theory about possibly filibustering some of Chimpy McFuckwit's worst nomination. Kyl was the one who was beating the drum for the "Nuclear Option". Anything but a straight up and down vote was un-American.
Where you stand depends on where you sit, I suppose.
There is nothing stopping the dems from using the "nuclear option" of banning the filibuster. If the republicans could do it, we can do it. That being said, I doubt Harry Reid has the balls to do it. The man is a serious wimp. I hope we can get some new leadership in both the House and Senate.
Obama touted breaking down political barriers all throughout his campaign, but now we're seeing this type of flamboyant smugness? I suppose Barack is just another US politician...
Read more on this topic at:
http://politic.ology.com/2009/01/23/obama-woe...
Comments are closed on this entry