Frist smokes out Dems, It is not about debate, it is about obstruction

Washington Times:

Majority Leader Bill Frist publicly offered a compromise to Democrats yesterday in a last-ditch effort to avoid a "nuclear" showdown in the Senate over judicial nominees.
However, the Senate's top Democrat immediately expressed doubt about the proposal, calling it "a big wet kiss to the far right."
Mr. Frist's proposal would end the current blockade of nominees by Democrats but also prevent future nominations from being stymied in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Republicans once blocked some of President Clinton's nominees.

...

Mr. Frist's proposal, which Republicans are calling the "fairness rule," would allow for up to 100 hours of floor debate on any nominee and require that the Judiciary Committee act on every nominee submitted by a president within a given period of time. It would do nothing to curtail filibusters against legislation.

...

In his floor speech, Mr. Reid called Mr. Frist's proposal a "slow-motion nuclear option."
"After 100 hours, the rights of the minority are extinguished," he said, acknowledging that the purpose of the filibusters hasn't been to continue debate on nominees, but simply to stop them.
"This has never been about the length of debate," Mr. Reid said. Rather, it's about constitutional principle of sharing power with the minority in the Senate, he said. (Emphasis added.)
Where in the constitution does it say the minority has the right to share power?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t...
Read more

Is the F-35 obsolete?

Headline USA: Pentagon Fires Back after Musk Calls Its Most Expensive Project ‘Obsolete’ 'Yeah, as I'm sure you can appreciate, Mr. Musk is, currently, a private citizen, I'm not going to make any comments about what a private citizen may have to say about the F-35....'   ... ... Drones appear to be replacing jets for many operations.  The Russia-Ukraine war is an example of that.  Drones are often hard to detect and can be used for intelligence operations as well as for attacking enemy targets.  It would not surprise me to see drones engaging other drones in combat.  They also cost much less than manned fighters.  
Read more