Larry Gude
Strung Out
Pete...
Orin said yesterdsay that Byd DID it, not tried it.
I'll do some home work...
Orin said yesterdsay that Byd DID it, not tried it.
I'll do some home work...
A dagger to the heart of Frist and Ried
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Pete
Repete
My only problem with accepting your brief above is that I do not know why they object to some of these judges, maybe I would too.Bruzilla said:
The 1 damning fact is that 208 judges have been confirmed, these 10 were not. I understand from what I have heard and what I have read that that some of these were not that bad some had real problems.
I am a reasonable person. If the Democrats are blocking these 10 for legitimate reasons, even if I disagree I understand. If the are just doing it to avoid being played as wussies, to make a stand or be contrary just for the sake of contrary then
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
I agree with you about compromise. The system works when neither side gets everything it wants and both sides yield a little ground to get some of what they want.Pete said:
Your example is
. The flip side of your example would be if the Senate was controlled by the religious right, and they voted on a judge who wanted mandatory teacher-led Christian prayer in public schools and who wanted to make homosexuality a felony. The issue isn't about a judge being gay or fundamentalist. The issue is whether the judge is so extremist that he or she would ignore legal precedents and issue judgments based nothing more on their own beliefs.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Bruz...
That's right and that what should have happend without the 'nuke' option but in the climate today, the Democrats HAVE to fight. Their supporters demand it.
I agree here as well but they still look like crap. Reid had his legs chopped off by this. Kennedy is a loser on this. Hillary gained nothing. Leahy came off as an ass as did Biden. The only Democratic winners are newbees, outcasts like Joey L and Byrd who does not count to the DNC.
The facts about these nominees were starting to come to light and I think the media, through their boy McCain, had to save the Democrats from the limb they crawled out on.
W got the three big names, the three the left hate most. That's a win.
Here is what I think you are really missing; The Big 7 D's are now outcasts
from the hardcore left. They will have a hell of a time obstructing Rush Limbaugh at this point after agreeing to Pryor, Owens and Brown. If anything, this opens the flood gates.
Also...
I say again, the names that were all over the place were Owens, Pryor and Brown.
They are anethema to the hard left which is most of the party. They are in.
A win for the Democrats would have been to gove up the ones no one know in exchange for blocking these three.
Nothing is settled. The option remains on the table. McCain can always say the other side broke the agreement if the filibuster ANYONE because he'll have the fact that these three were deemed accetable.
That's right and that what should have happend without the 'nuke' option but in the climate today, the Democrats HAVE to fight. Their supporters demand it.
I agree here as well but they still look like crap. Reid had his legs chopped off by this. Kennedy is a loser on this. Hillary gained nothing. Leahy came off as an ass as did Biden. The only Democratic winners are newbees, outcasts like Joey L and Byrd who does not count to the DNC.
The facts about these nominees were starting to come to light and I think the media, through their boy McCain, had to save the Democrats from the limb they crawled out on.
W got the three big names, the three the left hate most. That's a win.
Here is what I think you are really missing; The Big 7 D's are now outcasts
from the hardcore left. They will have a hell of a time obstructing Rush Limbaugh at this point after agreeing to Pryor, Owens and Brown. If anything, this opens the flood gates.
Also...
I say again, the names that were all over the place were Owens, Pryor and Brown.
They are anethema to the hard left which is most of the party. They are in.
A win for the Democrats would have been to gove up the ones no one know in exchange for blocking these three.
Nothing is settled. The option remains on the table. McCain can always say the other side broke the agreement if the filibuster ANYONE because he'll have the fact that these three were deemed accetable.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Pete...
The real reason is that Owens, Pryor and Brown are openly religious.
Biden yesterday claimed that one of them (Brown, I think) is dangerous because she stated somewhere in her career that Social Security is a socialist program. He acted like this was the end of the world.
Of course, it is socialist as they come but Joe had the job of jumping up and down like an organ grinder monkey.
The bottom line is that the Democrats crossed a new line in filibustering in committee judicial nominees.
This will give you a feel for it:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505180004
The real reason is that Owens, Pryor and Brown are openly religious.
Biden yesterday claimed that one of them (Brown, I think) is dangerous because she stated somewhere in her career that Social Security is a socialist program. He acted like this was the end of the world.
Of course, it is socialist as they come but Joe had the job of jumping up and down like an organ grinder monkey.
The bottom line is that the Democrats crossed a new line in filibustering in committee judicial nominees.
This will give you a feel for it:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505180004
Last edited:
Pete
Repete
The saving grace is that all judges, even supreme court justices are able to be overruled.Tonio said:I agree with you about compromise. The system works when neither side gets everything it wants and both sides yield a little ground to get some of what they want.
Your example is
A radical decision by a judge on the 9th Circuit first must make it past his fellow judges (it takes 3 to decide a case) and then can be appealed to the supreme court where it takes a majority. If the Supreme Court was poluted with Liberals congress can reshape laws or ammend the constitution.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Larry, I agree with most all of your comments above, but that's just between you, me, and the fenceposts... which is to say what we see in all of this doesn't matter. What's important is the public perception that will be manicured by the media. This will not be portrayed in any way as positive for the Republicans, and the Dems will have a victory handed to them. I already saw this on Nightline last night. They showed a clip of Reid congratulating the senators for rising to the occasion and finding compromise, then showed a clip of Frist being in opposition to the agreement. This was followed by guest commentary on how great it was that the Democrats were supporting compromise while the Republicans were against it.
This also puts the Democrats into the driver's seat for threatening fillibusters in the future as this agreement has actually legitimized the practice of fillibustering judical appointments! Remember that this was a new practice that ran contrary to normal Senate practices, and now, by trying to look like nice guys, these senators have made the practice legitimate and even specified (in terms benefitting Democrats) the conditions when this can happen! That's total victory!!!
Now when Bush nominates any Supreme Court justice that the Democrats don't like, which will be anyone who thinks like Scalia, they can invoke the fillibuster. Not because the judge isn't qualified for the post, but because he/she poses a threat to their political position. And what will the public portrayal of this action be? It won't be that the Democrats are misusing the fillibuster again because the use of the fillibuster is now accepted practice in "extreme circumstances", and who's to say that the Democrats' perception of extreme circumstances isn't valid? The media will just jump on the "what does it hurt to have an open discussion of this?" regardless of what "this" is. And what position will the Republicans be in if they try to go nuclear again? Yesterday afternoon they were going to change the rules as a result of the Democrats misusing the fillibuster rules. But now they can't misuse them because it's now okay to fillibuster judicial nominees, and the Republicans will be portrayed as wanting to have total power with no defense to the charge. That's a total loss!!!
This also puts the Democrats into the driver's seat for threatening fillibusters in the future as this agreement has actually legitimized the practice of fillibustering judical appointments! Remember that this was a new practice that ran contrary to normal Senate practices, and now, by trying to look like nice guys, these senators have made the practice legitimate and even specified (in terms benefitting Democrats) the conditions when this can happen! That's total victory!!!
Now when Bush nominates any Supreme Court justice that the Democrats don't like, which will be anyone who thinks like Scalia, they can invoke the fillibuster. Not because the judge isn't qualified for the post, but because he/she poses a threat to their political position. And what will the public portrayal of this action be? It won't be that the Democrats are misusing the fillibuster again because the use of the fillibuster is now accepted practice in "extreme circumstances", and who's to say that the Democrats' perception of extreme circumstances isn't valid? The media will just jump on the "what does it hurt to have an open discussion of this?" regardless of what "this" is. And what position will the Republicans be in if they try to go nuclear again? Yesterday afternoon they were going to change the rules as a result of the Democrats misusing the fillibuster rules. But now they can't misuse them because it's now okay to fillibuster judicial nominees, and the Republicans will be portrayed as wanting to have total power with no defense to the charge. That's a total loss!!!
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Well let's just wait until public perception...
...gets the Democrats anything more than friendly press.
Fact is these most contested folks are gonna get a vote.
There is simply no way to get around the perception the media WILL paint no matter what is said or done or why.
There is benefit in givng them as little ammunition as possible if results are coming to fruition, which is the case now.
Getting these folks confirmed WITHOUT triggering the dreaded 'nuclear' option is far preferable to getting them with it.
Let the media call it what they will. They're gonna do that anyway.
...gets the Democrats anything more than friendly press.
Fact is these most contested folks are gonna get a vote.
There is simply no way to get around the perception the media WILL paint no matter what is said or done or why.
There is benefit in givng them as little ammunition as possible if results are coming to fruition, which is the case now.
Getting these folks confirmed WITHOUT triggering the dreaded 'nuclear' option is far preferable to getting them with it.
Let the media call it what they will. They're gonna do that anyway.
Given that each body of the Congress is left to decide the rules that they follow it would not be "nuclear" to change any rule by which they operate. Hell, cloture didn't even exist in the Senate until 1917 with the creation of Rule 22. Up until that time endless debate was the Senate's rule of the day.
Presidential appointments deserve the vote of the Senate and should not be subjected to either endless debate or obstruction. They should, once brought forward, receive debate with each Senator chosing to speak offering their opinion and then be voted upon up or down.
Presidential appointments deserve the vote of the Senate and should not be subjected to either endless debate or obstruction. They should, once brought forward, receive debate with each Senator chosing to speak offering their opinion and then be voted upon up or down.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Amen...
...unless it's some damn Democrat.
JUST KIDDING
sort of
Hell, the asinine rule battle being waged here is not whether the person is to be consented on or not but simply as to whether or not they'll get to the Senate floor vote.
The really funny part is that of these three, two are very likely to get in 60 plus votes anyway!!!
Ken King said:
...unless it's some damn Democrat.
JUST KIDDING
sort of
Hell, the asinine rule battle being waged here is not whether the person is to be consented on or not but simply as to whether or not they'll get to the Senate floor vote.
The really funny part is that of these three, two are very likely to get in 60 plus votes anyway!!!
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Democrats are also quick to forget that it was they who lowered the number of votes needed to end a fillibuster from 66 to 60 back when they had the Senate. They weren't worried about the fabled Senate history then.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Yeah....
...flippin' power mad *******s! Senate killers! Constitution rapers! Jaywalkers!
Bruzilla said:
...flippin' power mad *******s! Senate killers! Constitution rapers! Jaywalkers!
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Ain't this rich!!! Senator Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, one of the seven Democrats who said that he would vote to stop debate in order to avoid the nuclear option didn't vote when his name was called. What a surprise... another Democrat lied.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
This morning Kennedy waddled up to the mic...
...and asked that Republicans of good faith and conscience vote AGAINST these folks.
Bruzilla said:
...and asked that Republicans of good faith and conscience vote AGAINST these folks.
I'd like to add some to this conversation...hope I don't piss too many people off my comments...
First of all, two general statements. 1) I strongly support the spirit of compromise and centrism; I believe that it is vital to the development of our nation, 2) I strongly support the right of the Senate to employ the filibuster, which can only be broken with the votes of sixty members; such a supermajority requires that the majority acquire at least minimal support from the minority to ensure passage of absolutely vital pieces of legislation and nominations because this encourages that spirit of compromise I mentioned in number one.
This question regarding the nuclear option involves the usage of the filibuster by Senate Democrats to prevent judicial nominees with records that were far too rightward leaning and activist from entering the federal bench. Democrats, Republicans, or any other minority of 41 senators, has the legal right to filibuster any nominee or legislation it sees fit. The 3rd Article of the US Constitution states that the Senate has the right to "advise and consent" to judicial nominees, which means that these nominations must move through the same process as any bill. As such, nominees must move through the Judiciary Committee and then reach a supermajority to pass through the full Senate floor. In the late 1990s Judiciary Committee Republicans prevented liberal judicial nominees from reaching the federal bench by not scheduling committee hearings. This was when they were in the majority. In 1968, Senate Republicans filibustered Abe Fortas, who was nominated to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, when they were in the minority. Furthermore, many, many Republicans voted to filibuster some of President Clinton's judicial nominees (though they did not prevail). Today these same Republicans say that there should be no filibuster for judicial nominees. Republicans in history have taken action to prevent judicial nominees from coming into a federal courtroom as they were well within their rights to do.
As such, I saw the nuclear option as a blatant power grab that ignored precedent, tradition, and the concept of minority rights. It would be wrong for either Democrats or Republicans to invoke it. I saw it as even more wrong for Republicans to manipulate the rules by a simple majority vote. Senate rules require a 2/3 vote to change any Senate rule, which is what Bobby Byrd used in the 1970s in order to change the cloture vote from 67 votes to 60 votes. Using a simple majority to change Senate rules would be just entirely incorrect.
If I were to judge the Senate deal solely based on the issue of whether it maintained the right to filibuster or not, then this deal would be a tremendous victory for the Democratic Party currently and the minority for the future. But I can't just do that. Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and William H. Pryor, three judicial nominees whose records are blatantly outside of the mainstream, should not sit in any federal courtroom. The two nominees who are not covered in the deal, meanwhile, are not nearly as extremist as these first three. It seems like the Democrats said well we won't let Bush have all eight of the filibustered nominees...so let's pick two out of a random hat. All I know is that there were three nominees who absolutely deserved to be filibustered, the other five were murky, and this deal gives those three that should be filibustered a free ride into the courts and gives two of the five who aren't extremist a ticket out. In that regard, this deal is a complete failure from my position. But thankfully the media is portraying this as being a Democratic victory (mostly due to Reid's successful manipulation of the deal), so my party looks good in this thing, though I really don't believe that that is the case. Nor, meanwhile, do I think that this makes the Republicans look good. Bill Frist's crusade to make the religious right is biggest backer in the 2008 primaries (which, Uncle Larry, the Schiavo case was all about) will not back him now because he failed to get all the judicial nominees an up or down vote.
So this is my take...I am ultimately glad that we have seven Republicans who understand that the filibuster is a right that the minority has.
First of all, two general statements. 1) I strongly support the spirit of compromise and centrism; I believe that it is vital to the development of our nation, 2) I strongly support the right of the Senate to employ the filibuster, which can only be broken with the votes of sixty members; such a supermajority requires that the majority acquire at least minimal support from the minority to ensure passage of absolutely vital pieces of legislation and nominations because this encourages that spirit of compromise I mentioned in number one.
This question regarding the nuclear option involves the usage of the filibuster by Senate Democrats to prevent judicial nominees with records that were far too rightward leaning and activist from entering the federal bench. Democrats, Republicans, or any other minority of 41 senators, has the legal right to filibuster any nominee or legislation it sees fit. The 3rd Article of the US Constitution states that the Senate has the right to "advise and consent" to judicial nominees, which means that these nominations must move through the same process as any bill. As such, nominees must move through the Judiciary Committee and then reach a supermajority to pass through the full Senate floor. In the late 1990s Judiciary Committee Republicans prevented liberal judicial nominees from reaching the federal bench by not scheduling committee hearings. This was when they were in the majority. In 1968, Senate Republicans filibustered Abe Fortas, who was nominated to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, when they were in the minority. Furthermore, many, many Republicans voted to filibuster some of President Clinton's judicial nominees (though they did not prevail). Today these same Republicans say that there should be no filibuster for judicial nominees. Republicans in history have taken action to prevent judicial nominees from coming into a federal courtroom as they were well within their rights to do.
As such, I saw the nuclear option as a blatant power grab that ignored precedent, tradition, and the concept of minority rights. It would be wrong for either Democrats or Republicans to invoke it. I saw it as even more wrong for Republicans to manipulate the rules by a simple majority vote. Senate rules require a 2/3 vote to change any Senate rule, which is what Bobby Byrd used in the 1970s in order to change the cloture vote from 67 votes to 60 votes. Using a simple majority to change Senate rules would be just entirely incorrect.
If I were to judge the Senate deal solely based on the issue of whether it maintained the right to filibuster or not, then this deal would be a tremendous victory for the Democratic Party currently and the minority for the future. But I can't just do that. Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and William H. Pryor, three judicial nominees whose records are blatantly outside of the mainstream, should not sit in any federal courtroom. The two nominees who are not covered in the deal, meanwhile, are not nearly as extremist as these first three. It seems like the Democrats said well we won't let Bush have all eight of the filibustered nominees...so let's pick two out of a random hat. All I know is that there were three nominees who absolutely deserved to be filibustered, the other five were murky, and this deal gives those three that should be filibustered a free ride into the courts and gives two of the five who aren't extremist a ticket out. In that regard, this deal is a complete failure from my position. But thankfully the media is portraying this as being a Democratic victory (mostly due to Reid's successful manipulation of the deal), so my party looks good in this thing, though I really don't believe that that is the case. Nor, meanwhile, do I think that this makes the Republicans look good. Bill Frist's crusade to make the religious right is biggest backer in the 2008 primaries (which, Uncle Larry, the Schiavo case was all about) will not back him now because he failed to get all the judicial nominees an up or down vote.
So this is my take...I am ultimately glad that we have seven Republicans who understand that the filibuster is a right that the minority has.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
rraley said:
Hmmmm... Byrd is older and he voted, and Inouye wasn't so old that he wasn't able to attend all of the meetings of these 14 Senators. He signed the pledge to vote, and didn't.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Well... here's the official take from Moveon.org -
Dear MoveOn member,
President Bush, Bill Frist and the radical right-wing of the Republican Party have failed in their attempt to seize absolute power over the courts. Together, we've stopped the "nuclear option" — for now.
Last night at 7:30pm, with only hours to go before Senator Frist rose in the Senate to try to break the rules and seize power to appoint extreme judges, 14 senators announced they had struck a deal. As powerful far-right leader James Dobson put it, "This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats...The rules that blocked conservative nominees remain in effect, and nothing of significance has changed."
For once, we agree with Mr. Dobson. With 7 Republicans pledging to oppose Frist's scheme as long as the Democrats stick to the standard for filibusters they've used all along — only using them in extraordinary circumstances — the "nuclear option" is dead unless Republicans break their word. And if that happens we will be in a much stronger position to stop them.
Over the past months, hundreds of thousands of us have made calls, wrote letters, supported ads, and gone to local events to help stop the nuclear option. So tonight, we'd like to invite you to a victory conference call and debriefing session at 8:00 pm ET / 5:00 PM PT with Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic Leader in the Senate, to talk about what this really means and what's coming next, and answer your questions. We hope you can join us.
To join the conference call with Senator Reid, just go to:
http://www.moveonpac.org/victorywebcast?id=5564-3592688-lyBkdxUAFEgPLCJu4.qzZQ&t=2
Last night's resolution was a real victory, but it came at a heavy price. Three of the nominees the Democrats agreed not to filibuster, Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and William Pryor, will now head to confirmation votes in the Senate where they may well be approved. Their record of corporate bias and outright hostility to the basic rights of ordinary Americans poses a serious threat that we will have to contend with for years to come.
You can see the full, original text of the agreement at:
http://www.c-span.org/pdf/senatecompromise.pdf)
Had Senator Frist succeeded in executing the "nuclear option" we wouldn't just be facing three terrible judges on the US Courts of Appeals — we'd be watching one party take absolute control of all branches of government for the first time ever. And radical Republicans would have had complete power to stack the Supreme Court with unchecked extremists and to roll back decades of progress on all our most cherished rights.
Of course, the Republicans could still decide to go back on their word and break the agreement at some point in the future. But even if that happens they have already failed in their primary goal: to eliminate the filibuster now, before there's a vacancy on the Supreme Court -- before Americans are watching and it's clear how much is at stake.
So why wasn't Republican Leader Frist able to translate his 10-vote advantage in the Senate into 51 votes for his "nuclear" scheme? A large part of the answer is you.
Over the last few months MoveOn members have racked up a simply amazing string of accomplishments in our fight to save the courts. Together, we have:
Submitted 59,645 letters to the editors of 3,162 newspapers
Placed 118,016 calls to Congress (that we know of!)
Held 1,539 house meetings to form local organizing teams
Placed tens of thousands of signs in your windows, all across the country
Gathered at over 1,000 theaters to pass out "Save the Republic" flyers to Star Wars fans
Knocked on thousands of doors to spread the word, in almost 1,000 neighborhoods nationwide
Raised $1.3 million to fund the campaign, with an average contribution of $43
Supported the creation and placement of 4 television commercials, radio commercials, and 2 print ads running in target states and nationwide
Organized 192 simultaneous rallies in all 50 states
Submitted 580,371 signatures and comments opposing the nuclear option
Organized round-the-clock emergency "Citizen Filibusters" in key target states, and signed up to organize 108 more nation-wide — before breathing a sigh of relief when we won before it was time to start.
Frist couldn't get 50 of his 55 Republicans to support the "nuclear option" in large part because we and our allies convinced them it would be political suicide to do so. If there had been no grassroots movement to stop the "nuclear option," it's almost certain that today George Bush and Bill Frist would hold absolute power to stack the Supreme Court and we would be powerless to protect our most basic rights. Preventing that nightmare is an accomplishment to feel proud of.
The fight to protect our courts and, as the Star Wars fans say, to "Save the Republic," goes on. There are more Republican assaults we need to block, from John Bolton to Social Security privitization, and we'll need all hands on deck to help shift the balance in Washington in the 2006 elections. Our next immediate focus will be on Tom DeLay and Republican leaders' abuse of power in the House — starting with petition deliveries to local Republican offices next Wednesday (more on this soon).
With a failed Republican leadership transparently consumed with power and out of touch with the nation, and a growing, powerful grassroots community churning out victories against overwhelming odds — the prospects for change are looking good.
Thank you — really, THANK YOU — for everything you've done. Democracy won the night, because of you.
Sincerely,
–-Ben, Eli, Carrie, Matt and the MoveOn PAC Team
Tuesday, May 24th, 2005
PAID FOR BY MOVEON PAC
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Dear MoveOn member,
President Bush, Bill Frist and the radical right-wing of the Republican Party have failed in their attempt to seize absolute power over the courts. Together, we've stopped the "nuclear option" — for now.
Last night at 7:30pm, with only hours to go before Senator Frist rose in the Senate to try to break the rules and seize power to appoint extreme judges, 14 senators announced they had struck a deal. As powerful far-right leader James Dobson put it, "This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats...The rules that blocked conservative nominees remain in effect, and nothing of significance has changed."
For once, we agree with Mr. Dobson. With 7 Republicans pledging to oppose Frist's scheme as long as the Democrats stick to the standard for filibusters they've used all along — only using them in extraordinary circumstances — the "nuclear option" is dead unless Republicans break their word. And if that happens we will be in a much stronger position to stop them.
Over the past months, hundreds of thousands of us have made calls, wrote letters, supported ads, and gone to local events to help stop the nuclear option. So tonight, we'd like to invite you to a victory conference call and debriefing session at 8:00 pm ET / 5:00 PM PT with Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic Leader in the Senate, to talk about what this really means and what's coming next, and answer your questions. We hope you can join us.
To join the conference call with Senator Reid, just go to:
http://www.moveonpac.org/victorywebcast?id=5564-3592688-lyBkdxUAFEgPLCJu4.qzZQ&t=2
Last night's resolution was a real victory, but it came at a heavy price. Three of the nominees the Democrats agreed not to filibuster, Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and William Pryor, will now head to confirmation votes in the Senate where they may well be approved. Their record of corporate bias and outright hostility to the basic rights of ordinary Americans poses a serious threat that we will have to contend with for years to come.
You can see the full, original text of the agreement at:
http://www.c-span.org/pdf/senatecompromise.pdf)
Had Senator Frist succeeded in executing the "nuclear option" we wouldn't just be facing three terrible judges on the US Courts of Appeals — we'd be watching one party take absolute control of all branches of government for the first time ever. And radical Republicans would have had complete power to stack the Supreme Court with unchecked extremists and to roll back decades of progress on all our most cherished rights.
Of course, the Republicans could still decide to go back on their word and break the agreement at some point in the future. But even if that happens they have already failed in their primary goal: to eliminate the filibuster now, before there's a vacancy on the Supreme Court -- before Americans are watching and it's clear how much is at stake.
So why wasn't Republican Leader Frist able to translate his 10-vote advantage in the Senate into 51 votes for his "nuclear" scheme? A large part of the answer is you.
Over the last few months MoveOn members have racked up a simply amazing string of accomplishments in our fight to save the courts. Together, we have:
Submitted 59,645 letters to the editors of 3,162 newspapers
Placed 118,016 calls to Congress (that we know of!)
Held 1,539 house meetings to form local organizing teams
Placed tens of thousands of signs in your windows, all across the country
Gathered at over 1,000 theaters to pass out "Save the Republic" flyers to Star Wars fans
Knocked on thousands of doors to spread the word, in almost 1,000 neighborhoods nationwide
Raised $1.3 million to fund the campaign, with an average contribution of $43
Supported the creation and placement of 4 television commercials, radio commercials, and 2 print ads running in target states and nationwide
Organized 192 simultaneous rallies in all 50 states
Submitted 580,371 signatures and comments opposing the nuclear option
Organized round-the-clock emergency "Citizen Filibusters" in key target states, and signed up to organize 108 more nation-wide — before breathing a sigh of relief when we won before it was time to start.
Frist couldn't get 50 of his 55 Republicans to support the "nuclear option" in large part because we and our allies convinced them it would be political suicide to do so. If there had been no grassroots movement to stop the "nuclear option," it's almost certain that today George Bush and Bill Frist would hold absolute power to stack the Supreme Court and we would be powerless to protect our most basic rights. Preventing that nightmare is an accomplishment to feel proud of.
The fight to protect our courts and, as the Star Wars fans say, to "Save the Republic," goes on. There are more Republican assaults we need to block, from John Bolton to Social Security privitization, and we'll need all hands on deck to help shift the balance in Washington in the 2006 elections. Our next immediate focus will be on Tom DeLay and Republican leaders' abuse of power in the House — starting with petition deliveries to local Republican offices next Wednesday (more on this soon).
With a failed Republican leadership transparently consumed with power and out of touch with the nation, and a growing, powerful grassroots community churning out victories against overwhelming odds — the prospects for change are looking good.
Thank you — really, THANK YOU — for everything you've done. Democracy won the night, because of you.
Sincerely,
–-Ben, Eli, Carrie, Matt and the MoveOn PAC Team
Tuesday, May 24th, 2005
PAID FOR BY MOVEON PAC
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.