Well, it looks like the 'so called' mavericks within the Democrats and Republicans have reached a compromise over the judicial appointments. Under it, the three most contentious ones will be allowed through. But two will be scratched. The two to be scratched are really not the ones under the fire.

Personally, I think that this is a cave-in on the part of the Republicans and McCain is the one who should get the majority of the credit, or if you are like me, the majority of the blame.

I know this. McCain has just ruined his chances of ever gaining the nomination for President in 2008. Too bad! Anyway, this is a total cop-out, and it only fortifies my opinion that the Republicans are nothing but a bunch of Pusseys, and couldn't govern with strength if they had to.

Any other opinions?

I think this is a cave as well, but meaningless. The compromise really doesn't do much. I hear that two are not going to get a vote. The moderate Reps screwed up there. But, the rest of the agreement says things like "other judges will only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances." If these moderate Republicans feel like one is being filibustered unfairly, they can then vote yes to the nuclear/constitutional option.

I think the Dems got the worst of it. The three that they were the most pissed over got a go-ahead. Now, future judges can't be called "out of the mainstream" because these extremely conservative judges will be appointed.

But, as you know I can't stand McCain. I wish whoever was in charge of the boot would kick him out of the party. Reps had the votes they needed, and McCain stole the victory from them.

If I was in Washington, I would not have compromised because the Constitution is very clear that judges only need 51 votes to be confirmed. Filibustering judges, whether from Reps or Dems is totally wrong.

I would post a comment that is, as is standard fare from me, witty, insightfuly, and bitingly intelligent all at once.

However I cannot force myself to be interested in this issue, so I'll settle for a strong dose of "charmingly arrogant" instead.

"other judges will only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances."

What a friggen cop out. And who's going to define that phrase? Harry Ried, Barbara Boxer, and Ted (hic) Kennedy. This crap is going to start all over again with the first Supreme nominee. I watched the news conference and all these stuffed shirts said this agreement was based on trust. Yea right. Trust the likes of the aforementioned senators and a wimp like McCain? Bend over GOP and get ready for the big one.

Where did you read that "two will be scratched"? And what does "scratched" mean? Seems to me there isnt any agreement other than that the Democrats wont filibuster the three. I dont see anything that the Republicans agreed to do in return.
" There is "no commitment to vote for or against" the filibuster against two other conservatives named to the appeals court, Henry Saad and William Myers. "
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politic...usterfight.html

MARK

Never mind, just read this-
"In exchange, the seven Republicans said they would vote against efforts this year or next to do away with the filibuster altogether on judicial nominations."
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/n...cs/11720200.htm

I'm not sure if that last part is accurate. I listened to the speech too. One of the shorter Republicans clearly said that they remained free to cast a yes vote to the constitutional option if democrats began to unfairly filibuster. It was the guy who said he was prepared to cast a yes vote today.

I'll say again that I think the agreement is just talk. People want to say "look I brought people together!" This is exactly what McCain wants to do. His McCain Feingold is an utter failure, and this compromise is just hot air.

McCain is so full of it.

Yes, I heard that as well. Both parties would be free to disregard the agreement if the other did not fulfill their obligation.
It sounds like if the Democrats decided to filibuster Henry Saad and William Myers, and there were not the 60 votes to end the debate, then these 7 Republicans would not vote to change the rules and end the filibuster. MARK

I agree McCain lost his credibility long ago with the McCain Feingold shenanigan.
I don't think he ever was a contender for 2008. My money is on Condoleeza Rice. What we need are fewer politicians and more leaders! I think people are getting real tired of the politician's BS.

I have to go puke now!

Bob,

McCain has so poisoned the well of Republican good will that he is now the most reviled Republican in the country. And the more adulation and drooling over him that all the Judy Woodruffs, and Chris Matthews do, the more he will be hated, even by Independents such as myself.

As I have stated before, we Individualists can learn to live with Federalists, we just have to keep them on a short leash. And clearly, McCain is no on a short leash. He needs to go, the sooner the better.

I'm still convinced that he received too many blows to the head while staying at the Hanoi Hilton.

While I don't like the man John, that last comment was a little harsh. I don't know all the info about him being a POW, but geez.

(no im not offended, just saying...)

Well, the Senate is on again to debating Bolton. Aready rumors circulating that the Democrats may filibuster to prevent a vote. Some of that congressional advice and consent in the form of endless debate. Kind of like the UN. Lots of talk, no action. MARK