How does the famous Democratic Filibuster Compromise affect Roberts

[rhett o rick]

nomination? Sorry if this is a repeat, but I can't find anything out about the famous (i thought) filibuster compromise. Where 14 Senators got together and said they would decide if a candidate was radical enough to allow a filibuster. Some people said this maneuver was being saved for the SC nominee. Well here we are. What do the Compromise 14 think about Roberts? Will there be a filibuster or not? Sort of looks like the Democrats are showing token resistance and will once again bow to the wishes of the WH. Are there really two parties? Or just the illusion?

[Poppyseedman]

1. Roberts is going to be confirmed.

The compromise is 7 from each side of the asile. Roberts is not nearly radical enough to cause the democrats to filibuster. If they do the other 7 will vote to confirm and the 60 vote majority will be overturned.

What will you do when Byrd votes for him as I think he will???

[rhett o rick]

3. I agree but wonder what the purpose of the compromise was

Will the 7 repub's ever side with the Democrats? This looks like another sham to make us think our Demo Senators were on our side.

[iamjoy]

2. Hard To Paint Roberts As Extreme

When I look at some of the judicial nominees they let through 'cos of the compromise, I can't believe Roberts would be considered an extremist.

Think about it for a minute, aside from his judicial philosophy being anethema to every decent liberal, has he ever said or done anything really outrageous? I mean, Leon Holmes said women should be subservient to her husband and that God's law should trump U.S. law. I think it was Pryor who dismissed a cross burning on the home of a mixed race couple as a "drunken prank"

I hope Democrats vote against him, but I do not think we can win a filibuster fight over Roberts

[Racenut20]

4. Olson's protege. You won't see it til you see it.

[corbett]

5. That's Right - WH Sitting On Smoking Guns

PFAW and the Alliance for Justice have uncovered several smoking guns but the White House is sitting on even more. What really gets me, though, is that we shouldn't need any smoking guns to block his nomination now that he's up for Chief Justice! No president of any party should nominate a neophyte to leapfrog over the surviving justices. Doing so is disdainful of the constitution and a slap to all justices currently serving. My guess is that Reid will make that point clear during Tuesday's closed-door caucus session and will throw up procedural roadblocks to slow things down, at least for a while.

[pushycat]

6. Your point about 8 current SC justices is important. Is this a way

to avoid Scalia getting the job?

[corbett]

10. Since Scalia And Cheney Are Hunting Pals, I Don't Think So

In my opinion, * told Gonzales that he wants a nominee who is GUARANTEED to give him a legacy which he can use on the speech circuit for a very long time.

[Mr. Blonde]

9. I believe it is uncommon for a new CJ to come from within the court

Generally, a new CJ comes from outside the court. I just did a quick look at the members of the SC and it appeared to me that only two AJs were later elevated to CJ.

[corbett]

11. Interesting! If History Disproves My Assertion, So Be It

I stand by my position, though. If previous presidents have nominated chief justices of the United States who didn't sit on the Supreme Court at that time, they were wrong to do so.

[zanne]

7. When he refuses to answer questions....

And the government is barring access to his earlier papers, you can only surmise that they are HIDING what his judicial philosophy is. How big of a red flag do you need to tell you this man has radical views?

[Dr Fate]

8. We could paint him as anything we want. He will not answer any questions.

"We can assume that he is for over-turning Roe v. Wade- since he will not answer any questions about it.

If he wants to prove us wrong, then he can plainly tell the American people whether he is for it or against it.

You make it sound harder for the Democrats to do the right thing than it is.

[genius]

12. Which part of child abuse, military tribunals and extermination of species

do you not consider extreme?