Home › Blogs › Rob Richards's blog

Byrd Warns Frist Against 'Nuclear Option'

Tue, 12/13/2005 - 10:16am — Rob Richards
The AP picked this up yesterday.

-------------------------------------------------------------- Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia said Monday he doesn't expect Democrats to filibuster the nomination of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, but he still chastised Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist for threatening to stop any such effort through a drastic parliamentary effort that has been dubbed the "nuclear option."

"If he ever tries to exercise that, he's going to see a real filibuster if I'm living and able to stand on my feet or sit in my seat," Byrd said in a Senate debate with Frist, R-Tenn.

"If the senator wants a fight, let him try it," said Byrd, the Senate's senior Democrat. "I'm 88 years old, but I can still fight, and fight I will for freedom of speech. I haven't been here for 47 years to see that freedom of speech whittled away and undermined. "
----------------------------------------------------------------

The amazing thing is he said this while looking Frist right in the eyes across the table from him. Looks like a battle is getting ready to happen in Congress. A battle for our hearts and minds. (and wallets) This could get interesting. Does anyone remember the 'Gang of Fourteen'? The 7dems/7repubs who stopped the nuclear option last time it was brought up, they still have regular meetings to stay in touch. I wouldn't worry about the nuclear option. The smart Republicans aren't going to go along with the removal of the filibuster from our process for the simple reason that they know they won't always be in power and might want to use it someday in the future.

Comments

Tue, 12/13/2005 - 11:43am — The Fire Inside

Robert Byrd is a big-time bel

Robert Byrd is a big-time believer in free speech, being a former Klansman and all.
Tue, 12/13/2005 - 12:44pm — Robert Whitlock

Regarding Free Speech: Thi

Regarding Free Speech: This can be found here.
Section 602 makes holding an un-authorised sign at a Democratic or Republican National Convention, a Presidential, VP, or Candidate appearance, and any other event designated by the Secret Service as a "national special security event". a felony punishable by a year imprisonment. A not much more farfetched interpretation would have made felons of the entire Wisconsin Delegation to the 1968 Democratic Convention when Mayor Daley ruled them out of order for moving to adjourn the Convention and reconvene outside Daley's bailiwick.

Section 603 makes a seperate offence of entering the Convention (or other designated event) with forged credentials, possessing such, or even perhaps the time-honored tradition of passing ones' entry pass to a friend.

Full text of the Conference Report revised PATRIOT ACT, with the "Joint Explanatory Statement" from the GOPers on the Conference Committee can be found at http://www.fas.org/...

—




Tue, 12/13/2005 - 12:46pm — The Fire Inside

Section 602 would appear to b

Section 602 would appear to be idiotic.

You're telling me you're against Section 603, though?

Tue, 12/13/2005 - 3:00pm — Robert Whitlock

Yeah, I can be press if I wan

Yeah, I can be press if I want to be. If I want to be an independent reporter for olyblog, I make myself a Press badge; so what? They can lock me up for that? That's a crock of BS.

Just because the news medium that I report for doesn't have official press badges doesn't mean I should be turned away or intimidating against reporting!

—




Tue, 12/13/2005 - 3:47pm — The Fire Inside

It states "forged" credential

It states "forged" credentials. I'm sure there's a process to go about getting authorized credentials, even if you're representing Olyblog.

It's simply saying you need to have an authorized press badge, not that you have to be from CBS, NBC, et cetera.

For instance, if I wanted to cover the Super Bowl for Olyblog, I would need to apply through the NFL for a press badge. More than likely I would get one (especially if the 'Hawks are there).

What they're trying to do is add some teeth to the punishment for someone who would forge/illegally receive a press badge that is not authorized to have one.

Tue, 12/13/2005 - 5:46pm — Sarah

I'll jump in here with some a

I'll jump in here with some added info on bloggers and press passes, then jump back out.
Tue, 12/13/2005 - 12:43pm — Robert Whitlock

Way to stick it to these fasc

Way to stick it to these fascists Byrd!
—




Tue, 12/13/2005 - 12:47pm — The Fire Inside

This comment just makes the f

This comment just makes the fact Byrd used to be in the Klan even more funny.
Tue, 12/13/2005 - 3:04pm — Robert Whitlock

I think you're "funny" too, T

I think you're "funny" too, TFI. Is it okay for people to change? Or are our lives and life decisions permanently etched in stone, fixing us and our characters indefinitely?
—




Tue, 12/13/2005 - 3:34pm — The Fire Inside

Are you as apologetic for mem

Are you as apologetic for members of the GOP?

EDIT: I missed an opportunity to ask you, funny ha-ha or funny like a clown? Do I amuse you?

Tue, 12/13/2005 - 3:28pm — Rob Richards

TFI, I didn't know this, how

TFI, I didn't know this, how did you find this out?
Tue, 12/13/2005 - 3:36pm — The Fire Inside

http://www.answers.com/topic/

http://www.answers.com/topic/robert-byrd

Scroll down, about halfway through the page. It's pretty common knowledge.

I will point out that the Klan was originally a political organization and it wasn't until later that it became the cross-burning, "We're gonna run you out of town"-type group we're more familiar with.

Fri, 01/13/2006 - 11:47pm — Rob Richards

Thank you for the info. It d

Thank you for the info. It does seem to be fairly well known, somehow I missed it. I do agree with RobW. People can change. If not, then how can a sinner be saved?
Sat, 01/14/2006 - 12:02am — The Fire Inside

I don't disagree that people

I don't disagree that people can change. As an individual, this is possible. It's more difficult, though, to have a questionable past and then attempt to lecture other people on matters.

For instance, I think it's almost comical when Senator Kennedy goes on the offensive about people needing to be under oath to answer questions related to their past. There's a lot of questions a many number would like to ask Senator Kennedy about his past.

The same for someone who has been fiscally irresponsible in the past. Would you even bother to listen to them about how to balance your checkbook?