Around the Blogosphere
The Lies of the Pseudo-religious Left
Persecution of Christians in Nigeria
Harvard a Theocracy?
Schiavo judges' conflict of interest
Cease fire, Palestinian style
Atheists too intolerant to even look at a cross
Michelle Malkin, Stones Cry Out
Hypocrisy, New York Times style
ABC's lack of fact-checking
Filibusters
Blogs for Bush, Hyscience, Jawa Report
Tony Snow
The Head-in-the-Toilet Test
“There is no Senate rule governing the proper uses of the filibuster. None. This means there is no rule to break or change. Instead, senators traditionally have relied on a quaint little thing called trust...For more than two centuries, honorables granted presidents the courtesy of a vote on major nominations. Not once in the period between 1789 and 2003 did a minority of the Senate deliberately prevent a vote for a judicial nominee who enjoyed the support of a majority of senators. Nobody ever contemplated such a thing. This doesn’t mean senators rubber-stamped nominees; they rejected dozens of judges — but they did so in a fair vote on the Senate floor.”
Sean Higgins
Where Have You Gone, Jimmy Stewart?
“...the film's famous filibuster...has nothing to do with keeping a judicial nominee off the bench. It is all about Smith fighting for his own survival against the entrenched interests in Washington.”
Posted by Danny Carlton at May 23, 2005 07:12 AM