Are you cool with Republicans changing the law to get what they want?

this is irrelevant. He chose them. He needn't choose others because the bitter, losing power aqnd votes by the day minority want their pound of flesh.

You dopey liberals <snip>
And because you've been fed so much liberal horse shit,

you don't even understand what a conservative judge is. Its someone who doesn't invent law but abides by the constitution and when there is doubt, respects the will of the people.

Republicans are not trying to set the judiciary up to respect the will of the people, they want to force the will of a slight minority on the rest of the country... you know, the nearly 1/2 of it that you think should have no say since they "lost" in 2004 and are just being bitter.

They have a new name for those southern conservative democrats now, they call them "republicans".

.all those who voted for them deserve exactly what they get.

Same thing happened in Texas where I am originally from. I love how the dumb middle class and lower hillbillies in the south actually think the republican party acts in their best interest...all those who voted for them deserve exactly what they get.

Same thing happened in Texas where I am originally from. I love how the dumb middle class and lower hillbillies in the south actually think the republican party acts in their best interest...all those who voted for them deserve exactly what they get.

yes, they got good government.

your slanting of the facts regarding a slight majority is silly.
during the entire clinton years, dems continually were voted out of office. this continued thru the Bush years. This is not the work of a slight majority. this is the work of a vast majority. it is a sea change. On top of that, Bush won his second term with more votes than anyone in history.

so please, enough with the slight lies.

To be more precise what actually happened is that in the past 10 years or so, alot of people in the south realized they didn't have to vote democrat just because their dads and their dads voted democrat. Southerners like me are no longer one issue-blind voters.

The irony of the democrats calling all the southerners dumb hillbillies

Good government? Have you seen the latest approval ratings the Republican controlled government?

Only 33 percent of those surveyed approved of the job being done by Congress, according to an NBC News-Wall Street-Journal poll released Thursday.

An Associated Press-Ipsos poll released earlier this month found 35 percent approval.

That sounds like people are really happy with what they voted for.

And Kerry received more votes than anyone in history. Are you suggesting that Bush won by more than the publicly announced 51%?

As far as the work of a vast majority, bullshit. It's the work of the neocons who have honed the art of hooking the gullible and stupid (who unfortunately roam abundantly). I received some of the RNC literature, I know what it said and I witnessed first-hand how people stupidly swallowed it, and defended it.

Until the country votes 100% Republican the courts do not need to be 100% Republican controlled. Period.

Anyone who thinks Gore should have been in office needs to explain to me how Boston got passed the Yankees to get to the World Series when Boston got 47.7% of the runs and New York got 52.3% of the runs in their series.

Game 1: BOS 7 @ NYY 10
Game 2: BOS 1 @ NYY 3
Game 3: NYY 19 @ BOS 8
Game 4: NYY 4 @ BOS 6
Game 5: NYY 4 @ BOS 5
Game 6: BOS 4 @ NYY 2
Game 7: BOS 10 @ NYY 3

If you don't like the rules you have to change them before they are used not after the fact.

you're wrong. if kerry recieved more votes than anyone in history he'd be president.

The Constitution gives the President the power to nominate judges which can only be blocked by a vote in Congress. One could argue that screening judges in judicial committees or fillubustering is unconstitutional since it deprives the President's nominees a vote defined in the Constitution.

Filibuster and Cloture

Using the filibuster to delay or block legislative action has a long history. The term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s, when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill.

In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew in numbers, however, revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.

In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, he threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate.

Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as "cloture." The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, until cloture was invoked after a fifty-seven day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or sixty of the current one hundred senators.

Many Americans are familiar with the filibuster conducted by Jimmy Stewart, playing Senator Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra's film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but there have been some famous filibusters in the real-life Senate as well. During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers." Long once held the Senate floor for fifteen hours. The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

I love it when people out of touch with society want to explain how millions of people are gullible and stupid.

The Constitution gives the President the power to nominate judges which can only be blocked by a vote in Congress. One could argue that screening judges in judicial committees or fillubustering is unconstitutional since it deprives the President's nominees a vote defined in the Constitution.

The question to that is: Is depriving a judicial nominee a vote only unconstitutional when Democrats do it?

Then you also believe that Bush should have to re-nominate all of Clinton's judges who were blocked from a vote by Republicans (more than Bush's)? Also, we would have to go back 200 years to find all of the judges that have been blocked from a vote and re-nominate them all, right? Or does this new theory of yours only apply to right wing judges?

Does your theory have any consistency, or are you just repeating what you heard on Rush?

I'm not aware of a fillubuster being used to block any judical nominee ever.