I went and chatted with the students running the UM filibuster and they asked that I pass along the following numbers. These are the DC phone numbers of the Republican Senators that they feel are the most likely to vote with the Democrats when the time comes (in addition to McCain, Snowe, and Chafee, who have already said publicly that they would not follow the lead of Bill Frist). Remember, we just need three of them to stop this blatant power grab, so please make a call.
Susan Collins (ME) (202)224-2523
Lindsey Graham (SC) (202)224-5972
Chuck Hagel (NE) (202)224-4224
Lisa Murkowski (AK) (202)224-6665
Gordon Smith (OR) (202)224-3753
John Sununu (NH) (202)224-2841
Mike DeWine (OH) (202)224-2315
Judd Gregg (NH) (202)224-3324
Dick Lugar (IN) (202)224-4814
Pat Roberts (KS) (202)224-4774
Arlen Specter (PA) (202)224-4254
John Warner (VA) (202)224-2023
And here’s a little script they suggested that you use when making calls:
“Hello. I’m a citizen concerned about the Republican leadership’s attempt to change Senate rules, and I would like to urge Senator [name here] to oppose the ‘nuclear option’ to eliminate the right to filibuster judicial nominations. I believe in fair judges, and checks and balances. Thank you very much.”
10 Comments
It never ceases to amaze me how liberals cry foul now that they have lost power. The reson most social conservatives like myself voted for Republicans is the long range opportunity to put common sense back into the judicial system of this country. This is merely the proving grounds for the Supreme Court replacements. I’m not sure if rule changes are the best strategy, but it’s worth the risk. Political parties change, but the courts have the greatest influence on social policy. I pray Senator Frist keeps his eye on the larger objective. Many of us are hoping he and Sec. Rice will run and win in 2008 to keep the course correction going. If the “limo liberals” in a2 can stop it by their little call in, go for it!
Good site, BTW, I know Chuck admires it.
I don’t know that I’d characterize the calls as “little”, Jim, and, fortunately, I don’t feel as though most Americans share your views. Most Americans believe in the freedom of speech, the minimum wage, the right of privacy, and, yes, a woman’s right to choose. And, most Americans believe we live in pluralistic society, one that doesn’t subscribe to any particular state religion.
I appreciate that you have strongly-held beliefs (as do I), but I don’t think that you should be able to legislate what I should and shouldn’t be able to think, watch, read, etc. This is not a Christian Theocracy, and the rules that our founding fathers built this society around were expressly meant to ensure that no one group could ever exercise total control. But, some people, yourself included, are short-sighted. They don’t see this as a protective device, ensuring that Christians will not be persecuted by others. They see it as an impediment to their total control. Unfortunately, I suspect that it will come back to bite them, just as the destruction of the filibuster will come back to bite the Republicans.
There are no “limo liberals” in Ann Arbor; you must be thinking of someplace else, like midtown Manhattan or Bel Air.
I should have known that sooner or later someone else would start posting to this site with the name “Jim.” If I can’t get Mark to trademark “Jim” for me, I may need to start using my homosexual name (i.e. James).
from boortz.. It just so fits the glass comment
Howard Dean is giving Democrats heartburn. That’s a good thing. His performance on Meet the Press yesterday was less than impressive. He did make some good points; his response to the question about his church-going habits, for instance. But this one statement was, I thought, rather curious. Dean was asked if the Democrats were going to use the Schiavo matter against Republicans in the next election. He said “The Schiavo case will probably be the turning point about our ability to make our case to Americans about the incredible invasiveness of Republicans when it comes to making personal, private decisions,”
Oh really? Republicans are the ones who are invasive about personal and private decisions? Does he mean decisions like how your own money is going to be spent educating your child? Or how you are going to invest your own money for your retirement? Those kind of decisions? How about the decision on whether or not you want to join a union in a non right-to-work state? That’s a personal decision, isn’t it? Here’s a personal decision: Choosing your doctor! Now, let me see. Was it the Democrats or the Republicans who wanted to put a health care system in place where the government chose your doctor, and chose the medical procedures your doctor would and would not be allowed to perform on you. And was it the Republicans or the Democrats who threatened us with jail if we actually made a personal and private decision to chose some other doctor.
Yeah … those Democrats are really champs when it comes to defending our freedom to make personal decisions, aren’t they?
I heart my trolls, even the ones that just cut and paste comments from right wing propagandists. Some people might see it as lazy, but I
Mark you stupid slut.. There is nothing in the constitution which allows a filibuster to stop a vote on a judicial candidate.
e U.S. Constitution was written to establish a general presumption of majority rule for congressional decision-making. The historical reasons for this are clear. A major defect with the Constitution
more from nexus
Senate Is to Advise And Consent, Not Obstruct and Delay
The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence ^ | September 6, 2002 | John C. Eastman and Timothy Sandefur
Posted on 01/08/2003 12:40:10 PM PST by Remedy
This artice appeared in the June 6, 2002 edition of Nexus.
Over a year after President Bush nominated his first group of circuit court judges, only two have been confirmed. Most have not even received a hearing, yet the number of vacancies on the federal bench has grown to crisis proportion. Chief Justice William Rehnquist recently complained of an “alarming number of judicial vacancies,” creating a real strain on the courts.1 Even Senator Patrick Leahy, who, as Chairman of the Senate’s judiciary committee is largely responsible for the current logjam, previously referred to a judicial vacancy “crisis” when the number of vacancies on the bench was about half what it is today, contending that those who delay or prevent the filling of vacancies were “derelict[ in their] duty,” and delaying or preventing the administration of justice.2
More fundamentally, the judicial vacancy crisis is threatening to hamper the ability of the courts to perform their primary role as an important check on the elected branches of government, protecting individual rights against tyrannical majorities, and insuring that the legislative and executive branches do not exceed the scope of authority delegated to them by the Constitution. As James Madison noted two years before the Constitutional Convention, the “Judiciary Department merits every care” because it “maintains private Right against all the corruptions of the two other departments….”3
Of course, Senator Leahy and his Democrat colleagues in the Senate claim that they are simply fulfilling their own constitutional obligation to give “advice and consent” to the President in the nomination process and to insure that those nominees who are “hostile” to their view of what the law ought to be are not confirmed to lifelong seats on the bench. The resulting standoff reveals important differences of opinion over the role of the Senate in the appointment process. But that disagreement in turn masks a profound division over the proper role of government in general, and even the very notion of the rule of law. As is often the case, it is well to begin with a review of the founders’ understanding of the process in assessing this disagreement.
I. The Framers of the Constitution Assigned to the President the Pre-Eminent Role in Appointing Judges.
A. The President Alone Has The Power to Nominate
Article II of the Constitution provides that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the supreme Court [and such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish].”4 As the text of the provision makes explicitly clear, the power to choose nominees
for the above post, I am sorry about the table presentation on this site, Mark’s site wont format tabular data correctly.
A central tenant of the Constitution of the United States is minority rights. Another is the balance of power between the three branches of government. In order to see both of these things accomplished, a system of checks and balances has been developed, ensuring that no one branch, or party, can consolidate absolute power. And, in that context, the filibuster, while not expressly called for the Constitution, came into being over 200 years ago as a means whereby a minority party could have it’s deeply held beliefs considered. I’f you’d like, I could cut and paste several references for you.
hairy facesitting sites
blond amateur facesitting pix naked amateur swingers extreme pornstar orgy blindfolded lesbian femdom hairy femdom pic