Good morning . .
New Feature
Starting today there will be a new feature on Check This Out!
A new section called Briefs will be included in the updates that appear in the afternoon or evening. This new section will provide readers with a brief headline and a link to a story. The Briefs section will give readers and opportunity to view stories not always covered by the daily briefings and updates.
As always, any comments on the stories or features on Check This Out! are appreciated. Simply send comments to pgsroufe@hotmail.com.
--
Speculation on Capitol Hill is there may be a compromise on Senate filibuster for judicial nominees. Staff for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will only say conversations continue between the two leaders.
Sources close to Reid say the compromise, if agreed to, will have Democrats support two of the President's nominees only if the President will withdraw the names of other judges renominated by the President. Other parts of the compromise include the nomination of a judge approved of by Michigan Democrat senators and a guarantee the Republicans will not move forward on a ban on filibusters for judicial nominees.
Sounds like a bad deal for Republicans and for anyone who believes in the Constitution. The only right the Constitution gives the Senate is to "advise and consent" on the President's nominees. It does not give the minority party the right to block nominees nor does it give the Democrats the right to suggest or nominate political friends and allies to the bench.
The proposed "compromise" may never see the light of day.
In an interview with USA Today, White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, dismissed suggestions from Democrats that they may drop threats to filibuster judicial nominees if the President withdraws the names of controversial nominees.
“We believe that every judicial nominee deserves an up or down vote,” Rove said. “The process is not well served by these political games.”
Frist, Reid work on deal over judge approvals - Politics - MSNBC.com
USATODAY.com
--
Is Hillary Clinton (D-NY) using the Pro-Life movement as a political maneuver? It would seem so, but is that unusual for the presidential hopeful?
A pro-life activist is disappointed that the junior senator from New York will not meet with pro-life groups after expressing interest in the cause.
The Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, said pro-life leaders have been attempting to meet with Clinton, but she has continually declines.
In late January, Sen. Clinton urged a group of abortion rights supporters to find common ground with pro-lifers. "We should be able to agree that we want every child born in this country to be wanted, cherished and loved."
In the same speech, Clinton called abortion "as ad and tragic choice" for women.
In a press release Mahoney said that it now appears that Senator Clinton's remarks were "politically motivated."
Rev. Mahoney, Sen. Clinton is only motivated by politics and ambition. You should have known this.
Pro-Life Activists Question Hillary Clinton's Sincerity -- 04/26/2005
--
Conservative talk show host and author Laura Ingraham will undergo treatment for breast cancer today in a New York hospital.
On her website, she said the diagnosis was Friday during a routine exam. Saying that the diagnosis was a "total shock" she is asking for your prayers a she battles the disease.
Check This Out! is a fan of Ingraham and offers a prayer for her speedy recovery.
--
More later.
No comments:
Post a Comment