Specter to head Judiciary Committee--gives away the store
 

This seems to be a good reason to discuss whether the rep.s are really going to screw things up, not just talk about it. They were able to exact from Senator Specter a written statement of loyalty and potential rules changes involving judges, tort reform, and the filibuster. Anyone else concerned or is this not a big deal?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/19/po...rint&position=

I'ld go with not a big deal just because, while it's a written statement, It's certainly not a legally binding contract. Even if Specter votes the party line more than in the past, there's still not a big enough R. majority for them to push legislation or appointments without them being impeded.

mee no spel gud.
-fibber

Heaven forbid the Republican party would do what the voters elected them (for the third election in a row) to do eh?

Heh when you need to worry is when the Minority party leader signs a contract saying he won't oppose any new legislation. ;)

-fibber

And I hope that this Republican does what his voters elected him to do. He needs to remember he was elected by a state that continually voted for a Republican who professed his dedication to womens rights.

We're not supposed to be electing parties to our Government. We're electing individuals who will work for America.

There are lots of ways to construe election results. I find it hard to see how anyone can claim the voters wanted to limit the independence of the senators from their state or wanted the Senate to change the way it does business to allow a states' rights president to supercede their state law to limit their recourse if they are ever injured in an accident or to eliminate the filibuster to push through any judge no matter how qualified.

I would think if the voters wanted to end the filibuster, they would have elected 60 rep.s instead of 55.

Come on guys--lets just cut some taxes, cut some government waste, and roll back some bureaucratic bullshit.

Unless Frist follows through with his proposal to change those Senate rules as well.

That rules change involves the historical rule re: filibusters. If the dems don't go along with the proposed rule change, the nuclear option involves Dick Cheney ruling the filibuster unconstitutional and then having the senate chair uphold that ruling. http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/041116b.asp

Even though I've felt the D's have abused the filibuster the last few sessions, to change the rule would be a true moment of asshattery.

/emote fibber goes off to lament the death of comprimise in the US political system.

-fibber

Representatives and senators needs to do what they were elected by their constituents to do, not follow political lines.