Senate debating for 30 hours straight... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ironchef82 · 11-12-2003, 05:38 PM

This is from this Yahoo! article ... bit o' warning: it's a bit lengthy

Quote:

By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - With humor, anger and a show of GOP unity, the Senate on Wednesday launched 30 hours of uninterrupted debate on President Bush (news - web sites)'s political nominees not making it to the federal appeals bench, setting up cots and preparing to cast blame at each other throughout the night.

Most of Republicans marched into the Senate together just before 6 p.m., sat down and listened to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., open the debate by condemning the filibusters.

"Tonight we embark upon an extraordinary session," Frist said. "For the next 30 hours Republicans and Democrats will debate the merits of three judicial nominees. We will be considering the meaning of our constitutional responsibilities to advise and consent on nominations. We will discuss whether there is a need to enact filibuster reform so that nominations taken to the floor can get a vote."

Democrats, some appearing amused by the pomp and circumstance, were already in the Senate chamber waiting for the beginning of the debates. The Senate had just finished a vote, and many of the GOP senators had to leave the chamber just to be in the group marching back in.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, held a sign he displayed for television cameras and passing Republican senators as they entered the chamber: "I'll be home watching 'The Bachelor.'"

Another Democratic sign, a big purple sign with gold "168 to 4" written on it — the number of judicial nominees confirmed by the Senate as opposed to the number blocked by Democrats — upset Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. "That is clearly against the Senate rules," said Gregg, who had Democrats remove it until their turn to speak.

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., and Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., condemned the Republicans from leaving an appropriations bill to launch the debate. "I'm sorry that we can't finish this bill," she said.

While most of the focus will be on the Senate floor, senators plan to buttress their cases by holding news conferences throughout the night condemning the opposing side for its tactics: Republicans on the Democratic filibusters, Democrats on the Republicans' "reverse filibuster."

Democrats have used the threat of a filibuster to block four U.S. Appeals Court nominees so far: Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, Texas judge Priscilla Owen, Mississippi judge Charles Pickering and lawyer Miguel Estrada. Others, including California judges Carolyn Kuhl and Janice Rogers Brown, are expected to be blocked by Democrats as well.

Frustrated at the delays, Estrada withdrew his nomination in September.

In turn, Republicans — who control the Senate — scheduled the 30-hour debate despite their effort to finish bills revamping Medicare and energy policy, plus eight overdue spending bills in time to adjourn by Nov. 21.

"We only wish they would devote the kind of attention they are to these 30 hours to the matters that the American people care most about," said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D. "They care a lot about the fact that 3 million of them don't have jobs. They care a lot about the fact that their health insurance is rising by more than 15 percent a year."

But Republicans want to draw attention to the blockades, having failed multiple times to get the 60 votes to force the confirmations in a Senate split with 51 GOP senators, 48 Democrats and one independent.

"Through our actions tonight, Republicans hopefully will be able to focus more attention on this problem, which in turn might stimulate enough outrage by the American public to sway at least a few more Democratic senators to do the right thing and give these nominees a vote," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.

Not since 1994 has the Senate been in session past 4 a.m., Senate observers said.

Both sides set up strategy rooms right off the Senate floor with large screen televisions and props to help make their case to reporters and late-night C-SPAN viewers. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., for example, had a T-shirt saying "We confirmed 98 percent of President Bush's judges" on the front while the back said "and all we got was this lousy T-shirt."

The Senate has confirmed 168 federal trial and appeals judges since Bush took office, while Democrats have only blocked four.

Just in case someone gets sleepy, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the No. 2 Senate GOP leader, said 12 to 15 senators have asked for cots to be set up so they can nap near the Senate floor.

Advocates of civil and abortion rights that have led the opposition against the four Bush nominees distributed to Senate offices care packages that included coffee, analgesics and breath mints.

A senator from each party will be on the floor at all times until at least midnight Thursday. For example, a Republican will talk from 3 a.m. to 3:30 a.m., while a Democrat watches. They will switch roles for the next 30 minutes and then head home to bed, replaced by two others for the next shift lasting as little as one hour.

This is just infuriating to me as a tax-paying citizen. I thought Senators were supposed to be higher than this immature BS. You know that nothing is going to change after this, and basically you have just wasted away 30 hours of your time, and taxpayer money. There are serious issues facing this country that I think the Senate should pay attention to instead of wasting their time on this load of crap.

What do you all think?

Stare At The Sun · 11-12-2003, 05:50 PM

I couldnt agree more...amen!

Shauk · 11-12-2003, 05:52 PM

its not crap. the fact is, the sentate and the courts should have a relativley equal number of each party in order for a fair representation.

basically they are saying that republicans have taken over the white house and the courts and that there isn't fair representation or fair chances for a democratic viewpoint to pass though.

Liquor Dealer · 11-12-2003, 06:41 PM

Actually what they are saying is that the Democrats have no right to attempt to rewrite the Constitution by changing the rules - They have thrown in this "super majority" that has never been required for judicial appointment - If you want fairness tell the damn Democrats in the Senate to vote! Doesn't make a rat's ass which way the vote goes but VOTE! Vote them in - or vote them out but don't hold the Senate hostage with ridiculous interpretation of the rules! I think it would really be great for this to end up in the Supreme Court for interpretation. It is now at a point that if either one of them blink it will go the other way - Guess we'll have to see who has the strongest coffee and largest supply of No-Doze!!!

lordjeebus · 11-12-2003, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shauk
its not crap. the fact is, the sentate and the courts should have a relativley equal number of each party in order for a fair representation.

I sort of disagree -- I don't think that the court system should be considered in terms of evenly distributing political parties.

Judges should, in my opinion, be as nonpartial as possible in order to fulfill their societal role, and thus should carry no party affiliation.

I am opposed to anyone, liberal or conservative, becoming a judge if their beliefs are extreme enough to produce unfair judgements. Unfortunately, I bet that there are many judges like this out there. Look at the Supreme Court!

When the democrats seek to block the most extreme judicial nominees, I support them. I also support republicans that block the most extreme liberal nominees -- despite the fact that my political beliefs are more liberal than most.

empu · 11-12-2003, 10:40 PM

I believe this is our political system working perfectly, and I wouldn't change it for anything.

Macheath · 11-12-2003, 11:35 PM

Filibusters are a remarkable part of America's political culture. We have some strange and nasty pocedural stuff here in Australia, but nothing beats an American filibuster for theatre. Here's an article that provides some interesting perspective as to what is possibly going on here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...les/index.html

Quote:

Three cheers for the Democrats' filibuster

It's time to depoliticize the judicial appointment process.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By John W. Dean

Nov. 13, 2003 | Most news accounts of the U.S. Senate's planned 30-hour talkathon -- or filibuster, or reverse filibuster, or whatever this exercise in through-the-night speechifying should be called -- have evoked references to Frank Capra's "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." But I keep thinking about Stanley Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove, Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb." No question it's theater -- that's why the Republicans are staging it -- but what's the script?

Ostensibly, Senate Republican leaders are forcing this oratorical marathon to highlight the Democrats' success in using the mere threat of a filibuster to block President Bush's ultraconservative judicial nominees. In fact, the Democrats have only used this threat in four instances, with the Senate confirming 168 of Bush's judicial nominees. Still, Republicans are pouting and pissed, even though they played the same kind of serious hardball with President Clinton's judicial nominees.

Republicans denied confirmation to more than one-third of Clinton's nominees for the Court of Appeals, and in many instances the Republican-controlled Senate during the Clinton years refused to even hold hearings on judicial nominees. Yet by effectively blocking four appellate court nominees -- Miguel Estrada (who has now withdrawn), Charles Pickering, Priscilla Owen and Bill Pryor -- the Democrats have put the Republicans into a tizzy, so they're determined to provide Americans with a 30-hour C-SPAN tantrum.

They claim they plan to talk about the obstructionist Democrats. But I wonder if more could be at stake. For months, rumors have been circulating on Capitol Hill that not only are the Republicans unhappy about the ability of the Democrats to block four of Bush's judicial appointments, but also that they are even more concerned that Democrats may similarly be able to successfully filibuster a Bush nominee for the Supreme Court. Is it possible Republicans are planning to "go nuclear," as they have threatened?

Here's what that means: Senate rules place no limit on debate. The only way to stop a debate, if one or more senators who have the floor refuse to do so, is with a "cloture" vote. Under current Senate rules it takes three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 senators, to invoke cloture -- and end a debate. That's how you stop a filibuster. But Republicans today don't have 60 votes.

Bill Frist, the Republican majority leader, has suggested changing the rules on cloture voting, with graduated reductions from a "super-majority" of three-fifths down to a simple majority, or 51 senators. But Democrats are not about to buy that, because Republicans have 51 votes. Republicans can't change the Senate rules without Democratic support, because it takes a two-thirds vote, or 67 Senators, to change the Senate rules.

Enter Dr. Strangelove, or in this instance Vice President Dick Cheney. He has the power to drop a nuclear device -- in the form of a ruling -- that could change the Senate's rules. Senate Rule XXII, which provides for a cloture vote, could not be invoked for nominations until 1949, for nominations were what was considered "executive business," as opposed to "legislative business." Apparently, it was a ruling of the chair -- the vice president is the president of the Senate, pursuant to the Constitution -- that changed Rule XXII in 1949, making it applicable to both the legislative and executive business of the Senate.

Thus, since the 1949 ruling, nominations have been subject to Rule XXII, and cloture. All Cheney need do is say that the ruling was wrong, and that would become the rule -- because, under the controlling parliamentary procedures, it takes a majority of senators to overrule the chair, which Democrats don't have.

Such an action by Cheney has been described on Capitol Hill as "going nuclear," for it would be an extreme ploy, certain to be accompanied by a "nuclear winter" in the Senate. The Senate, by long tradition, has been a highly collegial body, operating largely by unanimous consent. This sort of tactic would break all tradition. If it is part of a secret Republican agenda, tonight or beyond, it will forever change the way the Senate operates.

In truth, the successful use of the filibuster to block extremist judicial appointees is one of the healthiest developments since our founding fathers required presidents to get the Senate's "advice and consent" to fill judicial seats. Federal judges are given lifetime appointments; thus their influence extends long past the term of the president who selects them. To require a super-majority discourages either party from engaging in politicalization of the judiciary.

During the past four decades, selecting judges and getting them confirmed has become far more contentious. According to a report of the Congressional Reference Service, filibusters and clotures have been involved in 35 nominations, most of them since the late 1980s.

Notwithstanding the finger-pointing by the Republicans for filibustering four Bush nominees, this practice started in 1968 with Republicans, with the help of Southern Democrats (who now come to the Senate as Republicans), filibustering President Lyndon Johnson's nominee for Chief Justice, Abe Fortas. Republicans blocked Fortas so Nixon could get the chief justice appointment, assuming, correctly, he would be elected. (He nominated William Rehnquist, the man who has shaped the court's conservative direction for nearly four decades.)

It was pure politics, and it began the game that is now being played out. Indeed, Frist, the mastermind of this stunt in the Senate tonight, voted against cloture (and for filibuster) during the battle over one of President Clinton's court appointees. But what is a little hypocrisy when wasting the Senate's time pointing fingers?

We need to move beyond the game of playing politics with the federal bench, deliberately trying to influence the philosophical bent of justice. The judiciary was to be the nonpolitical branch, yet for the last four decades both presidents and Congress have worked to politicize it. Studies show that the outcome of lawsuits and prosecutions can be increasingly predicted by the political affiliation of the judges.

There's a way to depoliticize judicial appointments: Both parties in the Senate should adopt the use of the filibuster, not in exceptional cases but as a standard operating procedure for all judicial nominations. Require a super-majority for all judges. A super-majority represents the will of the people, while a one- or two-vote advantage simply jams the will of a slight majority down the throat of the minority. The Constitution requires super-majorities to approve treaties, to override a presidential veto, and to remove an official who has been impeached by the House of Representatives. The Senate has super-majorities in its rule. By imposing a super-majority requirement -- with the threat of a filibuster -- it will end this practice, never contemplated by the nation's founders, of presidents stacking the judiciary.

If Dr. Strangelove shows up at the Senate, however, to pull the trigger on what would be its own form of political terrorism, we will have entered a new era in the Senate, and there is no saying what will happen. But it won't be pretty.

salon.com

I love the mental image of Cheney as legislative Dr Strangelove. I'll be watching to see what happens over the course of this filibuster. I'm always amazed at how much these seemingly arcane procedural rules and (sometimes unwritten) conventions have a massive effect on how the Government is run.

Btw, is there any film coverage of this online?

JamesS · 11-13-2003, 12:38 AM

Both parties have used any number of parlimentary tricks in the past to contest judicial appointments, Liquor.

The democrats are using the filibuster here, just as the Republicans frequently held up Clinton prospects in committee and such. (Don't even get me started on Orrin Hatch's changing 'interpretations' of the blue slip rule.)

The rules allow for all of these precedures - they are entirely legal and with established bipartisan precedent. It is not really morally consistant for the Republican party to now demand a straight vote for all nominees when just a few years ago they were pulling the same stuff that we see from the Dems today.

That having been said, the merits of a check against a tyranny of the majority, in my opinion, outweigh the very real democratic dilemmas. I'm glad that neither major party can monopolize the agenda with only (in the Senate) an equal amount of senators in the opposition (50-50 with VP tiebreak). Checks are a large part of our government's structure.

And obviously, if the people felt that filibustering was not helpful, they would employ the ultimate check (voting) the perpetrators out of office.

2wolves · 11-13-2003, 02:47 AM

Entirely a stunt. I believe the numbers are 168 of 174 judges have been approved by the current minority in the U.S. Senate.

When put into that context it comes off as whining.

2Wolves

Superbelt · 11-13-2003, 04:58 AM

Whining doesn't quite cover the Republican mindset over this to me.

captain · 11-13-2003, 06:17 AM

There is a huge difference in voting a nominee down and filibustering a vote. That is nothing but obstructionism.

Liquor Dealer · 11-13-2003, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt

Whining doesn't quite cover the Republican mindset over this to me.

Check out your own material - Every damned one of those nominees was voted on by the Senate - some were not approved but they were voted on! If I were represented by a Democrat at this time I think I'd be calling my Senator and tell hime to get his lazy ass into the chamber and vote - I dson't give a damn how he votes - I just want him to go vote!

Let's look at just one of those bastions of Democratic leadership - the less than honorable Theodore Kennedy (Democrat from Massachusetts)

He is quoted as saying:

"We are not going to roll over, be stampeded and rubber-stamped by this administration to make the judiciary in this country their sandbox to play in. We are going to insist that those judges that are going to serve on the courts of this country are going to be committed to the fundamental core values of the Constitution of the United States," said Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.
Yet lets look at the position he took in 1999!

In 1999, Kennedy described Republican efforts to bottle up dozens of former President Clinton's judicial nominees as "an abdication of the Senate's constitutional responsibility to work with the president and ensure the integrity of our federal courts."

If this man was your Senator, first off I'd question your sanity for ever having elected him in the first place but, can he spell fuckin' hypocrit'! He's just playin' the party line and couldn't care less about what is right or wrong- and if he is your senator would you ask him which of the above statements actually expresses his belief - if he really has one.

Superbelt · 11-13-2003, 07:31 AM

No, they were not voted on by the Senate, almost all were blocked in committee. They were not afforded the 'right' of a yes or no vote by the full Senate.

Liquor Dealer · 11-13-2003, 08:30 AM

There appears to be a conflict in information, If I'm reading what I think I'm reading. Are you attempting to say that the Republicans prevented Clinton's nominations from being voted on period? or are you saying they refused to approve his nominations? Either way they were subject to a vote being taken - not having the ability to vote being blocked.

It would appear to me that a can of worms has been opened with this that is going to make Pandora's Box look like a joke! Are partisan politics going to become the total rule in the Congress as majorities sway back and forth? Once more term limits look very attractive! The are a few that are far to radical on both the left and the right for our government to function as it was intended.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102938,00.html

For Bush's first 18 months in office, Democrats ran the Senate, and the administration suffered the lowest rate of judicial confirmations since Jimmy Carter.

......

Once they hit the floor, based upon all the history of this country, they deserve a vote up or down," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "We did that for the Clinton administration and all prior administrations. And it's time they do it for this administration, because this is a constitutional disaster waiting to happen unless we stand up and do what has to be done."

Superbelt · 11-13-2003, 08:54 AM

Yes, the Republicans prevented Clinton's nominations from being voted on period. The Republicans who chaired the committee would refuse to even consider most of those 63 judges. Wouldn't even hold proper hearings on them let alone allow the senate to vote on them one way or the other.
Not even a vote in the committee, just blocked

Shauk · 11-13-2003, 10:39 AM

yeah the problem with voting in the senate is that theres quite a majority sitting with the republicans right now. so democrats trying to unite to make a vote, even unanimously, wouldnt be enough to overturn any republican idea.

this is the act of a minority, this is the act of getting equal voice despite being the minority.

Superbelt · 11-13-2003, 10:57 AM

Exactly, someone once said somewhere... I forget who though.

In a democracy two wolves and a sheep decide what's for dinner.

In a republic the three still decide what's for dinner, but the sheep is armed with a shotgun.

Sparhawk · 11-13-2003, 11:14 AM

^ LOL

bish · 11-13-2003, 11:21 AM

Clinton withdrew almost 20 of those "63" nominations "held up" in committee, so the correct number that didn't get a vote is closer to 40. It is normal for nominations to still be in committee when the president leaves office. Especially when Clinton had almost 400 judges appointed!! There isn't enough time to get to them all. When Bush #1 left office there were over 50 nominations still waiting to be voted on!!

Superbelt · 11-13-2003, 11:45 AM

Clinton withdrew them because he knew they would never be let out of committee.

And get off it, the rest of those judges were held in committee on purpose.

Bush managed to get 168 judges through already, and he's only been in office 3 years. That's well more than half of what Clinton could accomplish in 8!

Superbelt · 11-14-2003, 06:16 AM

This is further response to "There isn't enough time to get to them all."

http://leahy.senate.gov/images/charts/comparison.htm

They can get to nominees when the Republicans are in charge, by an average factor of 2:1

Republican filibusters of judicial nominees in the past 35 years. These denied the simple up or down vote to these nominees like the Republicans now want for their candidates.
http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/nomin...libusters.html

Please note that 13 of Clinton's nominees were filibustered by Republicans from 1993 to 2000.

drown_with_me · 11-14-2003, 06:50 AM

I think everyone really needs to re-read lordjeebus' thoughts on this. He/she really hits the nail on the head. No matter what are you political leanings might be, REALLY REALLY think about what it means to have a EXTREME viewpoint our court systems. Is this what America is about?

Quote:

Originally posted by lordjeebus
Judges should, in my opinion, be as nonpartial as possible in order to fulfill their societal role, and thus should carry no party affiliation.

I am opposed to anyone, liberal or conservative, becoming a judge if their beliefs are extreme enough to produce unfair judgements. Unfortunately, I bet that there are many judges like this out there. Look at the Supreme Court!

When the democrats seek to block the most extreme judicial nominees, I support them. I also support republicans that block the most extreme liberal nominees -- despite the fact that my political beliefs are more liberal than most.

JamesS · 11-14-2003, 08:21 AM

drown_with_me, its well and good to say that you don't support extreme judges. The question is how do you define extreme.

Some feel that strict constructionism is the way judges were meant to view the Constitution (and that therefore judicial activism of any sort would be extreme) while others feel it is the duty of judges to interpret and adapt the word of the Constitution to fit today's society.

Each party would consider the other extreme, and their viewpoint to be the reasonable one. And each would have ample precedent to back up their position.

On a more contemporary note, take abortion. If you are pro-abortion, how would you feel if Roe v. Wade was in some way judicially nullified? (Say the balance of the supreme court changes.) If you are anti-abortion, how do you feel that five justices merely sitting on a court allow (in your view) the wholesale murder of fetuses?

Each are within the power of the courts, and each can be considered extreme depending on your viewpoint.

You see the ambiguity of your, still very valid, message.

Conclamo Ludus · 11-14-2003, 12:43 PM

So who won anyway?

I flipped back and forth to check the score every once and a while. It seems like we all lose.

Redlemon · 11-14-2003, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Conclamo Ludus
So who won anyway?

I flipped back and forth to check the score every once and a while. It seems like we all lose.

Well, the Elephants probably made points with their base, and the Donkeys with theirs. I doubt either team gained any new fans, and in fact probably pushed the unaffiliated away. So, call it a draw.

Conclamo Ludus · 11-14-2003, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by redlemon
Well, the Elephants probably made points with their base, and the Donkeys with theirs. I doubt either team gained any new fans, and in fact probably pushed the unaffiliated away. So, call it a draw.

too true

seretogis · 11-14-2003, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shauk
this is the act of a minority, this is the act of getting equal voice despite being the minority.

There is a big difference between the minority seeking an "equal voice", and putting tape over the mouths of those it disagreed with. By refusing to even vote, they are seeking merely to obstruct the political process -- NOT any sort of "equal voice". Yes, Republicans and Democrats have both done it. So, please, vote them out of office.

lordjeebus · 11-14-2003, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JamesS
drown_with_me, its well and good to say that you don't support extreme judges. The question is how do you define extreme.

Some feel that strict constructionism is the way judges were meant to view the Constitution (and that therefore judicial activism of any sort would be extreme) while others feel it is the duty of judges to interpret and adapt the word of the Constitution to fit today's society.

Each party would consider the other extreme, and their viewpoint to be the reasonable one. And each would have ample precedent to back up their position.

On a more contemporary note, take abortion. If you are pro-abortion, how would you feel if Roe v. Wade was in some way judicially nullified? (Say the balance of the supreme court changes.) If you are anti-abortion, how do you feel that five justices merely sitting on a court allow (in your view) the wholesale murder of fetuses?

Each are within the power of the courts, and each can be considered extreme depending on your viewpoint.

You see the ambiguity of your, still very valid, message.

I think that our country has no shortage of potential judges that could be approved by a 2/3 or greater majority. Yes, there are particular issues on which you will be judged "extreme" no matter where you stand. But across all issues, there are many people who could be judges that people across political parties would be comfortable having in the judiciary.

Given the availability of such judges with bipartisan support, why fixate on judges that would be approved by a 51-49 vote? We have better alternatives to these controversial figures.

To directly answer your question, I would define an "extreme" judge as one that could not be confirmed by a supermajority (say 60%, or 2/3) of the legislature.

Sparhawk · 11-21-2003, 11:02 AM

This was a letter to the editor that made me laugh...

Quote:

In the recent marathon debate on judicial nominations, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch earnestly expressed the view that the Democrats' filibuster against several of President Bush's nominations was unprecedented and even unconstitutional. This led me to dig up some old Congressional Records from April 1980, when Senate Republicans mounted a filibuster against President Carter's nominee for general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board -- a man who had served as a career attorney at the board for 27 years.

The senator leading the filibuster said it was his "unfortunate duty to challenge the nomination" because, although he "personally liked" the nominee, he was "too pro-labor" and other qualified nominees would be "acceptable to business." After five days of floor debate, the filibuster was broken on the second cloture vote, and the nominee was confirmed for a four-year term.

The reason I remember this episode so well is that the nominee was William A. Lubbers, my father, and the senator leading the filibuster was Orrin G. Hatch.

JEFFREY S. LUBBERS

Takoma Park

Sparhawk · 11-30-2003, 07:16 PM

No reply to that great letter? Come on now people!

Superbelt · 12-01-2003, 07:05 AM

[Generic comment about the amazingly blatant hypocracy in the Republican leadership.]

Yeah, the democrats can be hypocrites too, but its never so in your face. They don't try to hide it, or deny it when they are.

11-12-2003, 06:41 PM	#4 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	Actually what they are saying is that the Democrats have no right to attempt to rewrite the Constitution by changing the rules - They have thrown in this "super majority" that has never been required for judicial appointment - If you want fairness tell the damn Democrats in the Senate to vote! Doesn't make a rat's ass which way the vote goes but VOTE! Vote them in - or vote them out but don't hold the Senate hostage with ridiculous interpretation of the rules! I think it would really be great for this to end up in the Supreme Court for interpretation. It is now at a point that if either one of them blink it will go the other way - Guess we'll have to see who has the strongest coffee and largest supply of No-Doze!!! __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

11-13-2003, 12:38 AM	#8 (permalink)
JamesS Crazy Location: Land of the Hanging Chad	Both parties have used any number of parlimentary tricks in the past to contest judicial appointments, Liquor. The democrats are using the filibuster here, just as the Republicans frequently held up Clinton prospects in committee and such. (Don't even get me started on Orrin Hatch's changing 'interpretations' of the blue slip rule.) The rules allow for all of these precedures - they are entirely legal and with established bipartisan precedent. It is not really morally consistant for the Republican party to now demand a straight vote for all nominees when just a few years ago they were pulling the same stuff that we see from the Dems today. That having been said, the merits of a check against a tyranny of the majority, in my opinion, outweigh the very real democratic dilemmas. I'm glad that neither major party can monopolize the agenda with only (in the Senate) an equal amount of senators in the opposition (50-50 with VP tiebreak). Checks are a large part of our government's structure. And obviously, if the people felt that filibustering was not helpful, they would employ the ultimate check (voting) the perpetrators out of office. __________________ The tragedy of life is what dies inside a man while he lives. -- Albert Schweitzer

11-13-2003, 06:17 AM	#11 (permalink)
captain Crazy	There is a huge difference in voting a nominee down and filibustering a vote. That is nothing but obstructionism. __________________ captain

11-13-2003, 08:30 AM	#14 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	There appears to be a conflict in information, If I'm reading what I think I'm reading. Are you attempting to say that the Republicans prevented Clinton's nominations from being voted on period? or are you saying they refused to approve his nominations? Either way they were subject to a vote being taken - not having the ability to vote being blocked. It would appear to me that a can of worms has been opened with this that is going to make Pandora's Box look like a joke! Are partisan politics going to become the total rule in the Congress as majorities sway back and forth? Once more term limits look very attractive! The are a few that are far to radical on both the left and the right for our government to function as it was intended. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102938,00.html For Bush's first 18 months in office, Democrats ran the Senate, and the administration suffered the lowest rate of judicial confirmations since Jimmy Carter. ...... Once they hit the floor, based upon all the history of this country, they deserve a vote up or down," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "We did that for the Clinton administration and all prior administrations. And it's time they do it for this administration, because this is a constitutional disaster waiting to happen unless we stand up and do what has to be done." __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

11-13-2003, 10:57 AM	#17 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Exactly, someone once said somewhere... I forget who though. In a democracy two wolves and a sheep decide what's for dinner. In a republic the three still decide what's for dinner, but the sheep is armed with a shotgun. Last edited by Superbelt; 11-13-2003 at 11:41 AM..

11-12-2003, 05:50 PM	#2 (permalink)
Stare At The Sun Eh? Location: Somewhere over the rainbow	I couldnt agree more...amen!

11-12-2003, 05:52 PM	#3 (permalink)
Shauk Confused Adult Location: Spokane, WA	its not crap. the fact is, the sentate and the courts should have a relativley equal number of each party in order for a fair representation. basically they are saying that republicans have taken over the white house and the courts and that there isn't fair representation or fair chances for a democratic viewpoint to pass though.

11-12-2003, 10:40 PM	#6 (permalink)
empu Crazy	I believe this is our political system working perfectly, and I wouldn't change it for anything.

11-13-2003, 02:47 AM	#9 (permalink)
2wolves Psycho Location: Just outside the D.C. belt	Entirely a stunt. I believe the numbers are 168 of 174 judges have been approved by the current minority in the U.S. Senate. When put into that context it comes off as whining. 2Wolves

11-13-2003, 04:58 AM	#10 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Whining doesn't quite cover the Republican mindset over this to me.

11-13-2003, 07:31 AM	#13 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	No, they were not voted on by the Senate, almost all were blocked in committee. They were not afforded the 'right' of a yes or no vote by the full Senate.

11-13-2003, 08:54 AM	#15 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Yes, the Republicans prevented Clinton's nominations from being voted on period. The Republicans who chaired the committee would refuse to even consider most of those 63 judges. Wouldn't even hold proper hearings on them let alone allow the senate to vote on them one way or the other. Not even a vote in the committee, just blocked

11-13-2003, 10:39 AM	#16 (permalink)
Shauk Confused Adult Location: Spokane, WA	yeah the problem with voting in the senate is that theres quite a majority sitting with the republicans right now. so democrats trying to unite to make a vote, even unanimously, wouldnt be enough to overturn any republican idea. this is the act of a minority, this is the act of getting equal voice despite being the minority.

11-13-2003, 11:14 AM	#18 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	^ LOL __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

11-13-2003, 11:21 AM	#19 (permalink)
bish Crazy Location: Indy	Clinton withdrew almost 20 of those "63" nominations "held up" in committee, so the correct number that didn't get a vote is closer to 40. It is normal for nominations to still be in committee when the president leaves office. Especially when Clinton had almost 400 judges appointed!! There isn't enough time to get to them all. When Bush #1 left office there were over 50 nominations still waiting to be voted on!!

11-13-2003, 11:45 AM	#20 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Clinton withdrew them because he knew they would never be let out of committee. And get off it, the rest of those judges were held in committee on purpose. Bush managed to get 168 judges through already, and he's only been in office 3 years. That's well more than half of what Clinton could accomplish in 8!

11-14-2003, 06:16 AM	#21 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	This is further response to "There isn't enough time to get to them all." http://leahy.senate.gov/images/charts/comparison.htm They can get to nominees when the Republicans are in charge, by an average factor of 2:1 Republican filibusters of judicial nominees in the past 35 years. These denied the simple up or down vote to these nominees like the Republicans now want for their candidates. http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/nomin...libusters.html Please note that 13 of Clinton's nominees were filibustered by Republicans from 1993 to 2000.

11-14-2003, 08:21 AM	#23 (permalink)
JamesS Crazy Location: Land of the Hanging Chad	drown_with_me, its well and good to say that you don't support extreme judges. The question is how do you define extreme. Some feel that strict constructionism is the way judges were meant to view the Constitution (and that therefore judicial activism of any sort would be extreme) while others feel it is the duty of judges to interpret and adapt the word of the Constitution to fit today's society. Each party would consider the other extreme, and their viewpoint to be the reasonable one. And each would have ample precedent to back up their position. On a more contemporary note, take abortion. If you are pro-abortion, how would you feel if Roe v. Wade was in some way judicially nullified? (Say the balance of the supreme court changes.) If you are anti-abortion, how do you feel that five justices merely sitting on a court allow (in your view) the wholesale murder of fetuses? Each are within the power of the courts, and each can be considered extreme depending on your viewpoint. You see the ambiguity of your, still very valid, message. __________________ The tragedy of life is what dies inside a man while he lives. -- Albert Schweitzer

11-14-2003, 12:43 PM	#24 (permalink)
Conclamo Ludus Modern Man Location: West Michigan	So who won anyway? I flipped back and forth to check the score every once and a while. It seems like we all lose. __________________ Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold. -Son House, Death Letter Blues

11-30-2003, 07:16 PM	#30 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	No reply to that great letter? Come on now people! __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

12-01-2003, 07:05 AM	#31 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	[Generic comment about the amazingly blatant hypocracy in the Republican leadership.] Yeah, the democrats can be hypocrites too, but its never so in your face. They don't try to hide it, or deny it when they are.