My sentiments exactly, JK. When it comes to government entitlements, the only cost control that works is elimination.

The passage of this bill against Democrats' no votes is political slight of hand. Democrats have proven that they "own" this congress since they control over 40 of the votes, but they chose not to prevent passage. If they really opposed it, the bill would've met the same fate as Pryor, Brown, Kuhl, Owen and, thus far, the Energy bill.

Conclusion: The Dems love this thing. To them, its $400B is a mere sapling of wealth re-distribution. They'll nurture it into one of their ubiquitous "mighty oaks."

You're certainly right. You gave me a little hope -- do think there is a chance they might kill the Hooters Subsidy Act of 2003 -- I mean the "Energy Bill?"

Did I hear wrong, or does this Medicare bill effectively restrict Medicare from bargaining for a volume discount on drugs? So what will be the single largest buyer of prescription drugs has to just pay the asking price?

Hey, on the subject of fillibusters and the withholding of judicial appointments has it occured to any of the legislators to attemp to change the rules rather than holding a 30 hour bitch session? They are tasked with making laws and rules are they not?

Silence,

The rule change is really considered the equivalent on a "nuke." I am not sure why and I am not sure why they don't use it anyway.

The bitch session ("30 hour bitch session" may increase my Google hits, thanks!) was deemed necessary to highlight what the minority party was doing. I don't think it was successful but I was happy to see then try.

I am told "Who Is Miguel Estrada?" was an answer on Jeopardy the other night and nobody got it. I hate to say it but if the Republicans were obstructing at this level, keeping African-American women, Hispanic men, Catholics, and qualified women judges from getting a vote, the media would ascertain that people knew their names.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, wouldn't it be prudent for the President to stop doing the same? The Republican senators claim that all they want is a yea or nay vote. I think at this point I would take the continued fillibuster as a nay. Maybe time to move on to new candidates?

I think it is an unfortunate but perhaps natural effect of an increasingly complicated society that judicial appointments have become so political. Interpreting the Constituition is more difficult with the advent of procedures like abortion. Simply put, the right of control over procreation was simply not feasible at the time the Consitituition was written. Yet today this seems like a very basic right which unfortunately conflicts directly with a fetus' most basic right, that to life itself. The old saying that your rights stop at your neighbor's nose gets a bit more complicated when that nose is inside your body.

Judicial interpretation is becoming increasingly important to our everyday lives. Rights and laws that were black and white are now gray. More interpretation is necessary because more possibilities exist. Both sides of the political aisle realize that the power of laws is increasingly controlled by the Judical branch and so just as we want our views supported in the Legislative branch, so do we now need them supported in the Judical branch. Certainly the Founding Fathers did not see the Judical branch as a political body, but neither did they forsee the political party system.

SIlence,

I truly cannot imagine a nomination that Senator Leahy and Ralph Neas would allow. The current nominations are not out of the mainstream conservatives. Patricia Owen voted to require parental consent on abortions for minors (who need consent to be given a Tylenol.) You can certainly disagree but you can not call that "out of the mainstream."

The Senate Dems are rewriting the Constitution to require a super-majority on nominations. When they had the Judicial Committee (post-Jeffords), that obstruction was annoying but legal. This is too far.

A nominee truly outside the mainstream woul not get 50 votes in the 108th Senate.

I cannot and don't mean to argue that the current candidates are out of the mainstream. I can't help but wonder however about the concept of trying to put idealists into the Judicial branch. Wouldn't we all be better served to have our big thinkers in the other two branches and leave the Judicial branch for the pragmatists?