Sunday, May 01, 2005

Once more, with feeling.

I've said this on at least two other blog comments, and so I'm gonna say it here. I'll try to speak slowly for those whose brains are clouded by images of Chairman Mao and Fidel Castro.

Opposing abuses of the filibuster is...not...the...same...thing...as...dismantling...the...judicial...confirmation...process.

All candidates would still require an up or down, yes or no vote. One more time for the guy asleep in the back row:

All candidates would still require an up or down, yes or no vote.

The Democrats would have us believe that the Republicans want to do away with the filibuster as a tool, and thus give them carte blanche to appoint whomever they want without any input or restraint from the opposing parties. Not only is this a bald faced lie, it's dishonest too.

The TRUTH is that the Republicans offered a 100 hour cap on discussions per nominee, then followed by a mandatory yes or no vote. Up or down. Yea or nay. Sounds pretty reasonable, right?

The Dems turned it down. Why? Because they know they don't have the votes to defeat the nominations, and so want the filibuster to continue indefinitely, or until Bush withdraws the nom.

Oh, did I mention that even without the filibuster, there still has to be a majority vote to confirm the nominee?

Okay, good, 'cuz I didn't want you to leave thinking that without the filibuster, Republicans could appoint just any old buddy, no questions asked, 'cuz well, you know, there...still...has...to...be...an...open...vote...to...approve...any...nominee.