No Republican compromise

Over the last couple of weeks I have been posting on the current situation in the Senate re filibustering judicial nominees. I have posted that if the dem/leftists want to control the agenda on nominees, then they should get more dem/leftist elected. Elections have meaning. Over the last few elections, the American people have sent more republicans to the House and Senate. In 2002, the republicans took back control of the Senate, with a republican in the White House, something that had not happened since 1913. The Washington Times expands on this in their editorial.

"How many presidential and senatorial elections must Republicans win before the Democratic Party accepts the fact that elections have consequences?

George W. Bush won the presidency in 2000. Four years later, with the prospect of several Supreme Court nominations an issue in the campaign, Mr. Bush increased his vote total by nearly 25 percent, winning re-election by more than 3 million votes."

The dem/leftists need to understand that their agenda is being rejected. The republicans continue to increase the number of seats they hold in Congress. 2006 is looming and there are more dems up for re-election then republicans in the Senate, which does not bode well for the dem/leftists.

"Consider this reasonable scenario: In the event Chief Justice William Rehnquist retires after the court's current session, Mr. Bush would elevate a like-mined associate justice as the chief, and fill the vacancy on the court with a conservative. This would not change the ideological makeup of the court at all.

Nevertheless, it is inconceivable that Senate Democrats would resist the intense pressure exerted upon them by the abortion lobby and other left-wing interest groups. They would almost certainly declare that either one -- and probably both -- of the nominees, whoever they were, represented "extreme or extraordinary cases," triggering the filibuster. Under no circumstances should such an outrageous "compromise" be considered by any Republican."

If anyone needs to learn to compromise, it is the minority party. All this hogwash about checks and balances is nothing more then a red herring. The minority has the right to speak out in opposition, but the minority does not have the right to force it's agenda on the majority. You want to control the agenda, get enough members elected to be the majority. In the meantime, stop these attempts to usurp the will of the people. - Sailor