What ending the filibuster is really for

[RB TexLa]

As we get closer to the GOP trying to end this, we need to remember the importance of what is going on.

They are not wanting to get rid of it for these few judicial nominees that are currently there, it is to prevent a filibuster on Scalia being elevated to Chief Justice.

[Avalux]

1. And to set the stage for vacancies

there could be several over the next few years.

[RB TexLa]

3. True

But the one comming over elevating Scalia has precedent and they want to get rid of it over these judges.

[Nickster]

2. Not that really....but who will fill the vacant seat, that's what they

are hoping to use the Nuclear Option for.

[earthside]

4. Right Idea, Wrong Guy

The "nuclear option" is about the Supreme Court.

But Bush is not going to nominate Scalia for Chief Justice ... that will go to Clarence Thomas. And I doubt the Dems would filibuster on the Chief Justice nomination, anyway.

However, the open seat is where the Dems want to keep the filibuster option available.

Clarence Thomas is what the Bushites want. The New York Times Magazine had an article a couple of weeks ago about these "Constitution-in-Exile" right-wing fanatics that want there to be an activist, 'conservative' court that will seek out cases to make decisions rolling back all of the New Deal and all regulation of big business and environmental rules, etc. Thomas is part of that group; Scalia is not even that radical. Besides, Thomas as the Chief Justice nominee is a perfect Bush "stick to the liberals" choice. Old man Bush put him on the court, as an African-American it wil again put Dems in an uncomfortable spot, and the corporate media will not lay a glove on Clarence for fear of being accused once again of running a "high tech lynching."

Then if the radical Republicans change the rules, it will ony take 51 votes to put another one of these "Constitution-in-Exile" types on the court.

That's what this is all about. In any event, even if Frist fails to get the rules changed, I think Bush will pick Clarence for Chief Justice.

[mmonk]

9. Yes, this is about the "Constitution-in exile"

movement. I think many Americans are going to be surprised at the results once they have these type of judges in. Those who haven't really been thinking this is the issue that will most change our country will soon find out and there won't be a recourse for a generation unless the government is taken over by more progressive people that will impeach them.

[jojo54]

5. I don't understand why they are insistent on this!?

There are several old sayings: "History repeats itself"; "The more things change, the more they stay the same." The Dems WILL gain back control of the House and Senate (hopefully next year) and these judges WILL pass away. There will come a time when the Repugs will look back and cuss the present ones for pushing this legislation.

[BlueEyedSon]

6. To create a Theocracy.

[Lerkfish]

8. correction: to create a "controllable" theocracy.

they don't really care about religion, they only salivate at the thought of controllable masses of religious people. That's their wet dream.

[Lerkfish]

7. here's how to figure out republican strategy: whatever they accuse

others of, is what they intend.

If they rail against "activist judges", then that is damn well what they intend, to secure their own activist judges.

If they rail against big government and out of control spending...then that is what they intend: to grow government with out of control spending, for "their" agenda.

they're amazingly transparent.