Today the Senate approved the controversial nomination of Priscilla Owen after a filibuster was ended — the result of a “compromise” by 14 senators Monday night. Democrats filibustered Owen’s nomination twice in the past four years, and it is worth noting that they again garnered more than the 41 votes needed to maintain a filibuster, had that option not been removed by the compromise.

“Our democracy and our rights were compromised by the machinations of a power-hungry administration and its lackeys in the Senate who put their allegiance to George W. Bush above their oath of office,” Gandy said. “The fight is not over. Moderate senators must put the interests of their constituents ahead of the Republican leadership’s slash-and-burn politics, and refuse to be strong-armed into approving any more extremist nominees.”

WHEW! Enough untrue mischaracterizations and accusations and smears that you’d be mentally ill reading more than you just read ….

He is probably the only Republican right now that can keep the Presidency for us in 2008.

That has similar problems, perhaps not as bad, since not only are there sampling problems but there isn’t the imbalance in the samples that there is in the senate.

I think I’m losing my marbles here – when the hell did I think it was OK to trust John McCain to serve the interests of the Republican party? Bumbling, wishy-washy morons just handed control over to the Democrats in this entire(ly unwatched by Americ…

Lots of people think the Republicans got played for suckers. Not me. I think the Republicans got just what they wanted.

All too often — a lot more within the last 4 years, when I see him talking that psuedo-maverick crap, I just wanna reach inside the boobtube and smack his face back into symetry.

John McCain has done what John McCain does best…

This was gutless self-gratification by some Senators to make themselves look better. For the GOP sellouts, there will be a day of reckoning.

The Dems and Reps have settled, some court appointees will be voted on, other’s remain in limbo, but probably won’t get a vote anytime soon. The Dems claim victory – the filibuster remains in place. The Reps claim victory, several “controversial” j…

If it was just the Democrats, I would say that was their problem but they are dragging everybody else with them.

Activist Judges are a problem that can and will destroy this contry unless they can be stopped. I just don’t see anyway to do that if the Republicans refuse to get a backbone and continue to let the likes of John McCain stab them in the back and then they turn and THANK HIM.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.

This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.

We have agreed to the following:

Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations

A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).

B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).

Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations

A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word “Advice” speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.

If a judge asserts his own outcome determinative view and covers it up with ‘lip service’ to the constitution, yet acts extra-constitutional, wouldn’t that judge be reversed?

I know the 9th Circuit’s decision that “Under God…” was unconstitutional was looney, but guess what? So did the rest of the 9th.

Was the Mass. Supreme Court out of line? I dunno. I haven’t read the Ma. Constitution, nor the decision.

Unless you are reading the decisions of these judges, it is hard to say who’s activist and who’s principled. Often an otherwise principled judge may make an activist move, or an otherwise activist judge may make a principled one.

I think the crux of your arguments lies with the differences between strict constructionalist, originalists and modernists.

Other than Reinquist, no man is a true strict constructionalist.

Everyone else may be considered activist according to the definitions I’m seeing here.