Coincidence...?

Immediately after Specter switches parties, Souter announces his retirement - to
be effective as soon as a replacement is in place. Unfortunately, Specter
switching sides eliminated him as the necessary potential vote to get an iffy
nominee out of committee, and it is, um, "speculated" (in the DC sense - IOW,
Specter's people first "speculated" it...) that if any midstream rule-bending is
attempted by Dems, Specter will vote "no" on principle (or at least to avoid
looking like a complete servile hypocrite, whatever one's leanings suggest to
them).

And as an aside to Ken, guess whose wisdom, fairness, bi-partisanship, good
looks, and all-around gosh-darned-wonderfulness the Dems are praising as a R
who'll vote for the best nominee regardless...? Here's a hint - it's not Phil
Graham...

HTH,
R

On May 2, 1:38*am, wrote:
Immediately after Specter switches parties, Souter announces his retirement - to
be effective as soon as a replacement is in place. *Unfortunately, Specter
switching sides eliminated him as the necessary potential vote to get an iffy
nominee out of committee, and it is, um, "speculated" (in the DC sense - IOW,
Specter's people first "speculated" it...) that if any midstream rule-bending is
attempted by Dems, Specter will vote "no" on principle (or at least to avoid
looking like a complete servile hypocrite, whatever one's leanings suggest to
them).

And as an aside to Ken, guess whose wisdom, fairness, bi-partisanship, good
looks, and all-around gosh-darned-wonderfulness the Dems are praising as a R
who'll vote for the best nominee regardless...? *Here's a hint - it's not Phil
Graham...

HTH,
R


You rarely see a post with such innuendo and unspoken implications as
this. Nice job saying something without actually saying it, rdean! (or
is that too transluscent?)

--riverman
(BTW, what are you talking about?)

riverman wrote:
On May 2, 1:38 am, wrote:
Immediately after Specter switches parties, Souter announces his retirement - to
be effective as soon as a replacement is in place. Unfortunately, Specter
switching sides eliminated him as the necessary potential vote to get an iffy
nominee out of committee, and it is, um, "speculated" (in the DC sense - IOW,
Specter's people first "speculated" it...) that if any midstream rule-bending is
attempted by Dems, Specter will vote "no" on principle (or at least to avoid
looking like a complete servile hypocrite, whatever one's leanings suggest to
them).

And as an aside to Ken, guess whose wisdom, fairness, bi-partisanship, good
looks, and all-around gosh-darned-wonderfulness the Dems are praising as a R
who'll vote for the best nominee regardless...? Here's a hint - it's not Phil
Graham...

HTH,
R


You rarely see a post with such innuendo and unspoken implications as
this. Nice job saying something without actually saying it, rdean! (or
is that too transluscent?)

--riverman
(BTW, what are you talking about?)

The minority on the judiciary committee can, in effect, "filibuster"
a nominee. For a vote to be taken the committee must first vote to
end debate. Under the current Senate rules, that is without any
"mid-stream rule bending", at least one member of the minority must
vote to end debate. Before Specter became a Dem it was considered
likely that he would be the member of the minority who would vote
to end debate and take a vote. Now that Specter is a Dem, his vote
is just another Dem vote and one minority vote is still needed before
they can take a vote on the nominee. The GOP members of the judiciary
committee reads like a who's who of whackjob morons: Orrin Hatch,
Charles Grassley, Jon Kyl, Jeff Sessions, John Cornyn, Tom Coburn,
Rick's true love, Lindsey Graham and a player to be named later.
Of all those whackjobs the one who is most likely to be fair-minded,
according to speculation on the Hill, is Rick's true love, Lindsey
Graham.

At least that's what I *think* he's talking about. With Rick it never
pays to assume that what is written is what he's actually talking
about. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Fri, 1 May 2009 10:45:08 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote:

On May 2, 1:38*am, wrote:
Immediately after Specter switches parties, Souter announces his retirement - to
be effective as soon as a replacement is in place. *Unfortunately, Specter
switching sides eliminated him as the necessary potential vote to get an iffy
nominee out of committee, and it is, um, "speculated" (in the DC sense - IOW,
Specter's people first "speculated" it...) that if any midstream rule-bending is
attempted by Dems, Specter will vote "no" on principle (or at least to avoid
looking like a complete servile hypocrite, whatever one's leanings suggest to
them).

And as an aside to Ken, guess whose wisdom, fairness, bi-partisanship, good
looks, and all-around gosh-darned-wonderfulness the Dems are praising as a R
who'll vote for the best nominee regardless...? *Here's a hint - it's not Phil
Graham...

HTH,
R


You rarely see a post with such innuendo and unspoken implications as
this. Nice job saying something without actually saying it, rdean! (or
is that too transluscent?)

--riverman
(BTW, what are you talking about?)

Much of the media was all aflutter (or maybe a-twitter...) over Specter
switching parties, but he votes nay on Obama's budget, and then, he's the
possible/probable go-to guy for a yea vote on getting an iffy nominee of Obama's
for SCOTUS out of committee - by current rules, at least one R must vote yes to
get a nom out of the committee. Specter certainly knew that and I'm pretty sure
Souter would have, too. I've heard, um, "speculation" (again, DC style) that
most middle-of-road types of both parties intend that any potential noms need to
be, well, middle-of-the-road types - they better be somewhere between Souter and
Roberts, and another Sandra Day O'Connor-type would be OK, but some half-assed
Ruth Ginsburg-wannabe (I'm not sure even an actual RBG clone would fly) would
not.

TC,
R

And this just hit my in-box:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/cap...l?hpid=topnews

On Fri, 01 May 2009 13:17:29 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

riverman wrote:
On May 2, 1:38 am, wrote:
Immediately after Specter switches parties, Souter announces his retirement - to
be effective as soon as a replacement is in place. Unfortunately, Specter
switching sides eliminated him as the necessary potential vote to get an iffy
nominee out of committee, and it is, um, "speculated" (in the DC sense - IOW,
Specter's people first "speculated" it...) that if any midstream rule-bending is
attempted by Dems, Specter will vote "no" on principle (or at least to avoid
looking like a complete servile hypocrite, whatever one's leanings suggest to
them).

And as an aside to Ken, guess whose wisdom, fairness, bi-partisanship, good
looks, and all-around gosh-darned-wonderfulness the Dems are praising as a R
who'll vote for the best nominee regardless...? Here's a hint - it's not Phil
Graham...

HTH,
R


You rarely see a post with such innuendo and unspoken implications as
this. Nice job saying something without actually saying it, rdean! (or
is that too transluscent?)

--riverman
(BTW, what are you talking about?)

The minority on the judiciary committee can, in effect, "filibuster"
a nominee. For a vote to be taken the committee must first vote to
end debate. Under the current Senate rules, that is without any
"mid-stream rule bending", at least one member of the minority must
vote to end debate. Before Specter became a Dem it was considered
likely that he would be the member of the minority who would vote
to end debate and take a vote. Now that Specter is a Dem, his vote
is just another Dem vote and one minority vote is still needed before
they can take a vote on the nominee. The GOP members of the judiciary
committee reads like a who's who of whackjob morons: Orrin Hatch,
Charles Grassley, Jon Kyl, Jeff Sessions, John Cornyn, Tom Coburn,
Rick's true love, Lindsey Graham and a player to be named later.
Of all those whackjobs the one who is most likely to be fair-minded,
according to speculation on the Hill, is Rick's true love, Lindsey
Graham.

At least that's what I *think* he's talking about. With Rick it never
pays to assume that what is written is what he's actually talking
about. ;-)

Anyone from the left throwing stones at the GOP members, even with Sessions, of
the Committee is automatically negated by the presence of Schumer and Feinstein.
In fact, in a top-ten list of Congressional "whackjob morons," Chucky and Diane
take up a least 4 spots.

HTH,
R

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
The GOP members of the judiciary
committee reads like a who's who of whackjob morons: Orrin Hatch,
Charles Grassley, Jon Kyl, Jeff Sessions, John Cornyn, Tom Coburn,
Rick's true love, Lindsey Graham and a player to be named later.

Anyone from the left throwing stones at the GOP members, even with Sessions, of
the Committee is automatically negated by the presence of Schumer and Feinstein.
In fact, in a top-ten list of Congressional "whackjob morons," Chucky and Diane
take up a least 4 spots.

Uh huh, and that would mean Cornyn and Sessions occupy
spots 1 through 6.

--
Ken Fortenberry

wrote:
Much of the media was all aflutter (or maybe a-twitter...) over Specter
switching parties, but he votes nay on Obama's budget, and then, he's the
possible/probable go-to guy for a yea vote on getting an iffy nominee of Obama's
for SCOTUS out of committee - by current rules, at least one R must vote yes to
get a nom out of the committee.

That's not technically true. One member of the minority must
vote yes to end the debate before a nomination can be listed for
Committee consideration during an Executive Business Meeting.
Once the nomination is listed for consideration a simple majority
vote determines whether the nomination is ordered reported to the
full Senate.

Specter certainly knew that and I'm pretty sure
Souter would have, too. I've heard, um, "speculation" (again, DC style) that
most middle-of-road types of both parties intend that any potential noms need to
be, well, middle-of-the-road types - they better be somewhere between Souter and
Roberts, and another Sandra Day O'Connor-type would be OK, but some half-assed
Ruth Ginsburg-wannabe (I'm not sure even an actual RBG clone would fly) would
not.

The Republicans wouldn't dare hold up a Supreme Court nominee in
committee by refusing to allow the Judiciary Committee to hold a
vote. That's a non-starter, more deancounter wishful thinking, and
I'm sure the thought never crossed Souter's mind.

But, having said that, I sure do wish they'd try. Talk about a PR
nightmare for the GOP in the mid-terms.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Fri, 01 May 2009 15:41:41 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Much of the media was all aflutter (or maybe a-twitter...) over Specter
switching parties, but he votes nay on Obama's budget, and then, he's the
possible/probable go-to guy for a yea vote on getting an iffy nominee of Obama's
for SCOTUS out of committee - by current rules, at least one R must vote yes to
get a nom out of the committee.

That's not technically true. One member of the minority must
vote yes to end the debate before a nomination can be listed for
Committee consideration during an Executive Business Meeting.
Once the nomination is listed for consideration a simple majority
vote determines whether the nomination is ordered reported to the
full Senate.

Specter certainly knew that and I'm pretty sure
Souter would have, too. I've heard, um, "speculation" (again, DC style) that
most middle-of-road types of both parties intend that any potential noms need to
be, well, middle-of-the-road types - they better be somewhere between Souter and
Roberts, and another Sandra Day O'Connor-type would be OK, but some half-assed
Ruth Ginsburg-wannabe (I'm not sure even an actual RBG clone would fly) would
not.

The Republicans wouldn't dare hold up a Supreme Court nominee in
committee by refusing to allow the Judiciary Committee to hold a
vote.

Oops, nope - there's no "refusing" to allow the committee to vote. As I
shorthanded it, but you expounded upon, they simply can vote to continue the
debate - they would not be voting to "refuse" to do anything, except, if one
wants to phrase it as such, "refusing to vote yes to end the debate." IAC, they
wouldn't be voting to refuse to allow the committee to vote and if a
questionable nominee is presented, there should be plenty of debate (and given
the Dems past history with such, they'd be hard-pressed to claim otherwise). And
the Rs have no real incentive to allow a nominee too far to the left out of
committee - there's little chance to get hurt by it.

That's a non-starter, more deancounter wishful thinking, and
I'm sure the thought never crossed Souter's mind.

Um, well, you were sure Phil Graham is a US Senator, too...

But, having said that, I sure do wish they'd try. Talk about a PR
nightmare for the GOP in the mid-terms.

Actually, it could be worse for the Dems - well, certain Dems, anyway.

HTH,
R

wrote in message
...
Immediately after Specter switches parties, Souter announces his
retirement - to
be effective as soon as a replacement is in place.


Coincidence, yes, absolutely. Was either event unexpected or unpredicted?
Nope.
Tom

wrote in message
...
I've heard, um, "speculation" (again, DC style) that
most middle-of-road types of both parties intend that any potential noms
need to
be, well, middle-of-the-road types - they better be somewhere between
Souter and
Roberts, and another Sandra Day O'Connor-type would be OK, but some
half-assed
Ruth Ginsburg-wannabe (I'm not sure even an actual RBG clone would fly)
would
not.

it doesn't take 'inside Washington' types to make that sort of speculation.
That would largely be the expected range of nominees from this President,
and I've heard similar speculation from way outside the Beltway all day.
Tom