is the senate enough?

[Thanatoast]

the current split in the senate is 51-48-1, republican. presidents traditionally gain seats in election years, and lose them in midterms. 2002 was unique in that bush gained 6 seats. i was wondering, what if bush remained president, but considering our still out-of-sorts circumstances, senate control went to the democrats? would this provide enough counter-weight to offset bush's pull?

i ask, because i just read an article (http://alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18534) on the commie liberal alternet.org (http://alternet.org) that talks of kerry's first term after winning consisting of cleaning up bush's messes. if bush remained in office, would he self-destruct? how much blame could he shift to a democrat controlled senate? would the senate be willing to stand up and be democrat-ruled, rather than republican lite?

so in essence, would it be better for kerry to lose, to let bush drag the country ever farther down the rabbit hole, and then to let a democrat who's willing to be a democrat return triumphantly in 2008? will the pendulum have swung far enough out for a return trip by then?

[zimv20]

regarding blame shifting, we've already seen the GOP continue to blame the dems for, well, everything, even as the WH and congress are GOP-controlled.

i've got some friends, bush-haters, who do point to the positives of a bush second term. basically, everything will come unglued and, w/ no one to blame but the GOP, a dem president is inevitable in '08. probably a dem-controlled senate, too.

though i'm not sure we can survive another 4 years of this. and the supreme court makeup (given retirement of ginsburg, o'connor and possibly stevens) will haunt us for years to come.

predictions in bush 2nd term:
- military draft
- use of US nuke
- major domestic terrorist attack
- stock market crash / depression (devaluation > 40%)
- further devaluing of USD (target: $1.50USD = 1 euro)
- housing market crash (devaluation > 20%)
- bankruptcies: Ford Motor Co., JP Morgan

except for the nuke, it'll all probably happen regardless of who's in office. might as well be bush and the GOP in office. maybe the voting public might actually wake up. ah, who am i kidding? the voting public actually flip-flop?!?!

[Desertrat]

zim sez, in part,

"predictions in bush 2nd term:
- military draft
- use of US nuke
- major domestic terrorist attack
- stock market crash / depression (devaluation > 40%)
- further devaluing of USD (target: $1.50USD = 1 euro)
- housing market crash (devaluation > 20%)
- bankruptcies: Ford Motor Co., JP Morgan"

I still don't see why the BigWigs think a draft is necessary; anyway, I sure don't. I see any use of a nuke as retaliatory, and I don't see a target for retaliation if terrorism is the involvement. Are you thinking of a first-strike against North Korea?

The others, but for bankruptcies, seem possible, although your numbers are open to debate. I'm not saying I think you're necessarily wrong, though.

Where did you pick up on FoMoCo's potential for bankruptcy? JPM, yeah; they're overly exposed to a bunch of potential losses, although I'm a bit out of touch on the specifics.

"except for the nuke, it'll all probably happen regardless of who's in office. might as well be bush and the GOP in office."

Lemme leave the nuke out of it for the moment, and remember I doubt a renewal of the Draft: If the rest come about in 2005, that means there are three years for some sort of rebuilding/renaissance/whatever. Couldn't that mean that by 2008 things are looking good--or, at least, better? "It's the economy..." might even be a plus for the next Repube.

My view here comes from having heard umpteen dire predictions "If so-and-so is elected, we're all gonna suffer The Horribles." Somehow, we keep muddling through. It never gets really better, no matter who's elected, but it's never as bad as the Cassandras would have it.

'Rat

[mactastic]

Divided government is the way to go. Goddess help us if the GOP gets over the 60 seat hurdle in the Senate.

[zimv20]

I see any use of a nuke as retaliatory, and I don't see a target for retaliation if terrorism is the involvement. Are you thinking of a first-strike against North Korea?
i'm thinking of any nuke against any non-testing target. i won't guess at the circumstances. he'll find a way.


The others, but for bankruptcies, seem possible, although your numbers are open to debate. I'm not saying I think you're necessarily wrong, though.

definitely open to debate. i used the 20% and 40% figures to illustrate what i thought the severity might be and to provide a guideline. my 20% housing "crash" figure may conflict w/ someone else's idea (e.g. "i'd call 80% reduction in housing prices a crash").


Where did you pick up on FoMoCo's potential for bankruptcy? JPM, yeah;
for ford, it would be a direct result of a consumer debt problem. ford makes all their money from financing and i'm predicting massive default. jp morgan writes most of (if not all) ford's loans.


If the rest come about in 2005, that means there are three years for some sort of rebuilding/renaissance/whatever. Couldn't that mean that by 2008 things are looking good--or, at least, better?
i'm not necessarily predicting a 2005 date for all the above but, yes, things can, and eventually will, always get better. but we'd need a reversal of just about all economy-things-bush for it to happen.

[SlyHunter]

Divided government is the way to go. Goddess help us if the GOP gets over the 60 seat hurdle in the Senate.
Yeah they might actually start voting yea or nea on judges instead of fillibustering em all.

[mactastic]

Yeah they might actually start voting yea or nea on judges instead of fillibustering em all.

Huh? How is that related to divided government? Oh that's right, the GOP was SO accomodating to Clinton's nominees....

[SlyHunter]

I wouldn't mind a republican senate and a democrat congress. The government works best when they can't get anything passed but we need judges who believe in the constitution.

[mactastic]

I wouldn't mind a republican senate and a democrat congress.

You do realize that the Senate is one half of Congress don't you?

[SlyHunter]

You do realize that the Senate is one half of Congress don't you?
ok I meant house of representatives. Sorry I'm not perfect.
Around here we tend to call the Senate the Senate and the House Congress.

[Rower_CPU]

Yeah they might actually start voting yea or nea on judges instead of fillibustering em all.

You do realize that something like 98% of the appointments were OKed without trouble and that Democrats were only filibustering a handful of appointees, don't you? Is Congress supposed to be a rubber stamp for anything the President puts forward?

It's funny how people jump up and down about the Constitution and then want to override the system of checks and balances when it's convenient for them.

[SlyHunter]

You do realize that something like 98% of the appointments were OKed without trouble and that Democrats were only filibustering a handful of appointees, don't you? Is Congress supposed to be a rubber stamp for anything the President puts forward?

It's funny how people jump up and down about the Constitution and then want to override the system of checks and balances when it's convenient for them.
Right checks and balances let them come up for vote and vote on them. That is the check and balance.

[Rower_CPU]

Right checks and balances let them come up for vote and vote on them. That is the check and balance.

Filibuster is also a key part of the checks and balances in that the houses of Congress can set their own rules - and the filibuster is a long standing tradition. You can't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you want to adhere to.

No comment on the number confirmed vs those being filibustered?

Edit: Not to mention the fact that Republicans pulled this same kind of maneuver with Clinton appointees - kinda hypocritical to cry foul, dontcha think?
Leahy summarizes the situation nicely. (http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200402/022504.html)

[zimv20]

from the lie database (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=45294)


Topic:**Judges

Speaker:**Frist, Bill - Senate Majority Leader (R-TN)

Date:**10/26/2003

Quote/Claim:
"What the Democrats are doing, and they clearly have a strategy that is laid out, is to obstruct by engaging in a filibuster which is unprecedented, a partisan filibuster, one after another, sequentially, of candidates...It's unprecedented, in the 219 years in this country, that we have a denial of the very simple concept of advice and consent."

Fact:
As of 11/6/03, President Bush had already had 168 judges confirmed during his presidency - more than President Regan had confirmed in his entire first term. In 2003 alone, 68 judges were confirmed - more than President Clinton had confirmed in seven of the eight years of his presidency. - LA Times, 11/6/03

[SlyHunter]

Filibuster is also a key part of the checks and balances in that the houses of Congress can set their own rules - and the filibuster is a long standing tradition. You can't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you want to adhere to.

No comment on the number confirmed vs those being filibustered?

Edit: Not to mention the fact that Republicans pulled this same kind of maneuver with Clinton appointees - kinda hypocritical to cry foul, dontcha think?
Leahy summarizes the situation nicely. (http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200402/022504.html)
The rules say that the guy becomes a judge based on a simple majority not a super majority. By slipping in filibuster where it wasn't originally intended to be they, the democrats, changed the rules so that now you need a super majority. Yes technically there was a loophole and the democrats found it. There is even couple of defenses to it but the Republicans are wimping out and not doing their job. Like for example forcing these filibusters into being real filibuster and not allowing anyone to go home until there is a vote. I'm thinking they are counting on winning the election.

I also heard that some republican could sue on constitutionality point of the filibuster or something like that and then the speaker would immediately state no and deny the motion but then some other republican could secound it and demand that the measure be put to a vote and in doing so they can bypass the filibuster. I'm sure I skipped an important step. I heard they didn't want to set precedent which is why they didn't try this strategy. Course then couldn't they filibuster that vote?

I don't know how many confirmed vs how many filibustered. The ones they are filibustering they are doing so simply because they are pro lifers or some such as that. Something like that should be voted on. I remember in one case they demanded the entire case history of a judge and his reasoning on issues that might come before the bench. Had he answered it he would no longer have been qualified to sit on the bench because he isn't allowed to talk about things that may come before him. An abortion case I think. So they filibustered him for not answering a question had he answered would've immediately disqualified him from sitting on that bench.

Whatever this is the main reason why I won't vote libertarian this year. I want the Republicans to get the 60 votes necessary to place memberships on all the benches of those who will abide by the constitution instead of trying to legislate from the bench.

[SlyHunter]

Filibuster is also a key part of the checks and balances in that the houses of Congress can set their own rules - and the filibuster is a long standing tradition. You can't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you want to adhere to.

Edit: Not to mention the fact that Republicans pulled this same kind of maneuver with Clinton appointees - kinda hypocritical to cry foul, dontcha think?
Leahy summarizes the situation nicely. (http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200402/022504.html)
Oh and Republicans to my knowledge have never filibustered a potential jurist in open senate.

[Rower_CPU]

...
I don't know how many confirmed vs how many filibustered.
...

It was in the links zimv20 and I posted - over 170 confirmed versus less than 10 filibustered.

Guess a "the rules" say the President gets his way 100% of the time...

[SlyHunter]

It was in the links zimv20 and I posted - over 170 confirmed versus less than 10 filibustered.

Guess a "the rules" say the President gets his way 100% of the time...
Nope only if the senate votes 51% in his favor a simple majority like the rules say for validating appointed judges to the bench.

On a side note another thing thats bothers me is if the Republicans had done a fillibuster of an appointee for any office for Clinton or anyone else every news station in the country would be repeating each other about how rotten they are etc etc etc. But I havn't heard a peep about the Democrats doing it except for Fox and even they don't talk about it much. Prior to 9/11 that should've been the number one news story of the day.

[Rower_CPU]

Do me a favor and read Leahy's statement and then we'll continue this.

If you won't even bother to read the facts of this issue, why should we bother to put up with your "I heard a guy" and "I think I remember" justifications for your positions?

[Thanatoast]

fillibustering is a perfectly acceptable technique used to keep the majority from walking all over the minority in the senate. it has been used to great effect (though not always for the best causes) over the last 200 years. if the republicans have found a way around it and have declined to use it, then don't you think the consequences to the power structure of the senate would be pretty severe? all they'd have to do is lose two seats and the democrats could pass any bill they wanted without fear of reprisal. sounds like even they have figured out that this would be shooting themselves in the foot.

as for clinton nominees, the republicans blocked an unprecedented number of them, and now have the gall to claim the democrats aren't playing by the rules. Here's a link (http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200305/050803.html) with actual numbers quoted. Quite frankly, the Democrats have played the nice guys for far too long, and I'm glad they're sticking to Bush. Let him and his radical right wing nominees rot.

[Frohickey]

Divided government is the way to go. Goddess help us if the GOP gets over the 60 seat hurdle in the Senate.

Would that be Gaia? ;)

Actually, we already have a divided government, as in separation of powers and checks and balances. There were rumblings from Congress, when it came to GWBush's budget recently, and they were already GOP dominated.

Here's to hoping for a Rice/Barbour 2008. :p
Some women just look sexy, even if they have a gap in their front teeth. :D :eek: :D

[mactastic]

Some women just look sexy, even if they have a gap in their front teeth. :D :eek: :D

Ahh the male counterpart to the women who vote for a candidate because he looks good. Glad to hear you'll be voting with your little head Frohickey. :eek: :D :rolleyes:

[Frohickey]

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law[/b]: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

No where in the US Constititution does it say that a super-majority would be required of the Senate in order to seat a judge.

Actually, I would like for a real, honest to goodness filibuster, where the Senator would not yield the floor, and ramble on and on, as a delaying tactic. Maybe we can have Senator Robert Byrd haul out the Washington DC yellow pages and start reading from it until he drops from exhaustion, or he manages to pass the floor to someone else. ;)

Allow an up-or-down vote in the full Senate, instead of a 2-step or 3-step process of passing the Judicial Committee, then maybe a filibuster, then on to a full up-or-down vote. Heck, I would go as far as saying, if a judicial position is not filled within 9 months of a vacancy, that judicial position is permanently removed, until another 9 months have passed. Thats one way of shrinking government. :D

[Frohickey]

Ahh the male counterpart to the women who vote for a candidate because he looks good. Glad to hear you'll be voting with your little head Frohickey. :eek: :D :rolleyes:

Condi is sexy. Conservatives are usually sexy. Case in point... Ann Coulter. :p

[mactastic]

Now where was this kind of outrage when the GOP was bottling up Clinton nominees in the committees that they held the majority on? If you guys want the filibustering to stop just give the Dems back the committee chair positions so they can go back to blocking judicial nominees the old fashioned way!

[mactastic]

And here's another question for you guys... If the situations were reversed, do you think the GOP faithful would sit idly by while Dems confirmed 'activist' judge after 'pro abortion' judge, or do you think they would demand that one of their representative take a principled stand and put a stop to it with a fillibuster?

What say you, do you vote for sit idly by, or do you vote for stopping those pinko ba$tards?

[Thanatoast]

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law[/b]: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

No where in the US Constititution does it say that a super-majority would be required of the Senate in order to seat a judge.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Senate *can't* require a super-majority, either. The Senate is its own entity, and follows its own rules. If you wanna do a literal reading of the Constitution, you gotta remember it reads both ways.

[Frohickey]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Senate *can't* require a super-majority, either. The Senate is its own entity, and follows its own rules. If you wanna do a literal reading of the Constitution, you gotta remember it reads both ways.

There lies the issue.

Do you treat the US Constitution as a document that lists the powers granted to the Federal government, and if the powers are not listed, then its fair game to be co-opted?

Or...

Do you treat the US Constitution as a document that limits the powers granted to the Federal government, and if the powers are not listed, then its forbidden to it?

My interpretation of the US Constitution, as well as those of the Founding Fathers that wrote it and lived during the ratification period, is the 2nd.

[SlyHunter]

Do me a favor and read Leahy's statement and then we'll continue this.

If you won't even bother to read the facts of this issue, why should we bother to put up with your "I heard a guy" and "I think I remember" justifications for your positions?
Stalled does not mean filibuster. I read it not every word the thing runs on and on and on and well I have a time limit on how much time I can spend on this stuff.


Such overreaching by this Administration is hurting the courts and the country. President Bush and his partisans have disrespected the Senate, its constitutional role of advice and consent on lifetime appointments to the federal courts, the federal courts, and the representative democracy that is so important to the American people. It is indicative of the confrontational and “by any means necessary” attitude that underlies so many actions by this Administration and that created the atmosphere on this Committee in which Republican staff felt justified in spying upon their counterparts and stealing computer files.

I thought a staff member of a democrat was the one responsible for passing unsecurred, unpassword protected memos to republicans or the press. I don't recall any proof that Republicans spied on the Democrats and/or stole computer files.

Also everyone stalls the nomination process towards the end of a presidents tenure. They do it in committee. I don't know of a single case where republicans ever filibustered a vote in the senate on a presidential appointee.

[SlyHunter]

And here's another question for you guys... If the situations were reversed, do you think the GOP faithful would sit idly by while Dems confirmed 'activist' judge after 'pro abortion' judge, or do you think they would demand that one of their representative take a principled stand and put a stop to it with a fillibuster?

What say you, do you vote for sit idly by, or do you vote for stopping those pinko ba$tards?
How about the answer = They didn't and they havn't. And Clinton and others have appointed pro abortion judges.

[SlyHunter]

fillibustering is a perfectly acceptable technique used to keep the majority from walking all over the minority in the senate. it has been used to great effect (though not always for the best causes) over the last 200 years. if the republicans have found a way around it and have declined to use it, then don't you think the consequences to the power structure of the senate would be pretty severe? all they'd have to do is lose two seats and the democrats could pass any bill they wanted without fear of reprisal. sounds like even they have figured out that this would be shooting themselves in the foot.

as for clinton nominees, the republicans blocked an unprecedented number of them, and now have the gall to claim the democrats aren't playing by the rules. Here's a link (http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200305/050803.html) with actual numbers quoted. Quite frankly, the Democrats have played the nice guys for far too long, and I'm glad they're sticking to Bush. Let him and his radical right wing nominees rot.
How many of them were via filibustering?

[SlyHunter]

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law[/b]: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

No where in the US Constititution does it say that a super-majority would be required of the Senate in order to seat a judge.

Actually, I would like for a real, honest to goodness filibuster, where the Senator would not yield the floor, and ramble on and on, as a delaying tactic. Maybe we can have Senator Robert Byrd haul out the Washington DC yellow pages and start reading from it until he drops from exhaustion, or he manages to pass the floor to someone else. ;)

Allow an up-or-down vote in the full Senate, instead of a 2-step or 3-step process of passing the Judicial Committee, then maybe a filibuster, then on to a full up-or-down vote. Heck, I would go as far as saying, if a judicial position is not filled within 9 months of a vacancy, that judicial position is permanently removed, until another 9 months have passed. Thats one way of shrinking government. :D
Ditto
Except for that last paragraph our supreme court could get really really small and do you want just 2 members on it, for example, having the say over everything they judge over.

[SlyHunter]

Now where was this kind of outrage when the GOP was bottling up Clinton nominees in the committees that they held the majority on? If you guys want the filibustering to stop just give the Dems back the committee chair positions so they can go back to blocking judicial nominees the old fashioned way!
I never seen a republican filibuster anyone.

[mactastic]

I never seen a republican filibuster anyone.

I never said they did.

[SlyHunter]

And here's another question for you guys... If the situations were reversed, do you think the GOP faithful would sit idly by while Dems confirmed 'activist' judge after 'pro abortion' judge, or do you think they would demand that one of their representative take a principled stand and put a stop to it with a fillibuster?

What say you, do you vote for sit idly by, or do you vote for stopping those pinko ba$tards?
I was currious what is the difference between calling someone or a group of people pinko ba$stards and neo nazi?

[SlyHunter]

Originally Posted by SlyHunter
I never seen a republican filibuster anyone.

I never said they did.
well my point was they are abusing the filibuster in a way its never been used before and I wish they would go do a straight up/down vote. Not my fault they lost members in the last election and can no longer stall them in committee nor is it anyone elses but their own. No excuss for being spoilled loosers and not allowing Democracy to run. Democrats filibustering to prevent a democratic election of appointed judicial members. Eeek.

[Thanatoast]

My interpretation of the US Constitution, as well as those of the Founding Fathers that wrote it and lived during the ratification period, is the 2nd.That's fine. It still doesn't mean the Senate is constitutionally required to approve Bush's nominees. If they don't give their consent, then the nominees are out. Done. Except when Bush circumvents the process by his recess nominations, of course. :)

How many of them were via filibustering? Doesn't matter. Nominees are blocked either way. The Republicans have blocked many more than the Democrats. Let them have their hissy fit, they brought it on themselves.

[SlyHunter]

While Senate Democrats are filibustering against the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the federal appeals court, liberals in the media are filibustering against conservative judges in general. The hallmark of these liberal media filibusters is that they can find little or nothing specific to criticize about how the judges have interpreted the laws, so the critics resort to rhetoric, confusion and guilt by association.

"Judicial activism" is one of those confused terms that have come to mean all things to all people. Its initial meaning was quite clear: Judges who make rulings based on their own personal assumptions, beliefs, and preferences, rather than on the written statutes or the Constitution, are judicial activists. They are a threat to the very concept of law or of a self-governing democracy.

The fact that it was liberals who did this most often in the era that began during the New Deal and reached its peak in the Warren court years led to the phrase "liberal judicial activism." Now, those who promote moral equivalence have countered with charges of "conservative judicial activism."

Examples of liberal judicial activism are easy to find. When Justice William Brennan decided the 1979 Weber case by "interpreting" the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to mean the direct opposite of what its words plainly said, that was substituting what Brennan wanted for what Congress had voted to enact into law.

No such cases are brought forward by those who proclaim that "conservative judicial activism" is a threat. Instead, most do what the New York Times article does -- cite cases whose outcomes they wish had been different, such as a ruling upholding laws on parental notification before a child can get an abortion.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20030312.shtml


THE DEMOCRATS have gone where no party ever has: It has become the party whose senators routinely filibuster nominations to the circuit courts of appeals.

The obvious intention is to make it harder to confirm a nominee. Indeed, where a simple majority always has sufficed for Senate approval, 60 votes now are necessary, since that is the number of votes needed to break a filibuster and permit an up-or-down vote.

The prospect for the next year, then, is that the 44 filibustering Democrats in the Senate (four Democrats oppose using the filibuster) will continue to deny votes to selected circuit court nominees. But as they do that, they will be doing damage to their party's long-term interests.

One is retaking the Senate in 2004. In the 2002 elections, Bush made judges an issue as he campaigned for Republican candidates in key states. He
repeatedly hammered Democrats--then in charge of the Senate--for their slow and unfair processing of his circuit court nominees. The Judiciary Committee had held up nominees, actually rejecting two of them (5th Circuit nominees Charles Pickering and Priscilla Owen). All of those nominees would have been confirmed, albeit narrowly, had floor votes been held.

Republicans say the judges issue helped rally their base last fall and may have pulled in voters from the political middle. To what extent it might have done those things isn't really known. But we do know the election results: Democrats lost key states and their Senate majority.

Meanwhile, the Democrats face another problem, which would arise if a Democrat is elected president, and if Democrats--in 2004 or 2006--were to regain control of the Senate. Why would anyone think a Republican minority, remembering the precedent set by the Democratic minority during the 108th Senate, wouldn't be tempted to filibuster a Democratic president's circuit court nominees?

And who in the Democratic party would have the credibility to argue against filibustering judges? Not John Edwards or Joe Lieberman or John Kerry or Bob Graham, all of them senators who filibuster judges--and all of them presidential candidates.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/118bpwmh.asp

[SlyHunter]

That's fine. It still doesn't mean the Senate is constitutionally required to approve Bush's nominees. If they don't give their consent, then the nominees are out. Done. Except when Bush circumvents the process by his recess nominations, of course. :)

Doesn't matter. Nominees are blocked either way. The Republicans have blocked many more than the Democrats. Let them have their hissy fit, they brought it on themselves.
Read your own signature.

Certain ends preclude certain means or else victory becomes a meaningless word.

[zimv20]

Conservatives are usually sexy. Case in point... Ann Coulter. :p
sorry, i always find hate ugly

in other news, i got to ignore 9 of the last 11 posts! woo-hoo!

[Thanatoast]

Read your own signature.If the Democrats had done anything wrong or illegal, as Bush has done, then you'd have a point. Read my second quote.

[pseudobrit]

Condi is sexy. Conservatives are usually sexy. Case in point... Ann Coulter. :p

She kinda scares me. It's that creepy walleyed thing where she looks like she's talking to someone she's not.

I'm just not turned on by the creepy insane bitch look. But there's a bun for every hot dog I guess...

[pseudobrit]

in other news, i got to ignore 9 of the last 11 posts! woo-hoo!

Cool. Me too. The ignore list is like a spam filter in this thread.

[mactastic]

I was currious what is the difference between calling someone or a group of people pinko ba$stards and neo nazi?

I didn't say there were pinko ba$tards here in this forum. And if you've been here for any length of time, you'd recognize that as sarcasm.

[mactastic]

I wish they would go do a straight up/down vote.

So where was this outrage when the GOP was bottling up (http://www.totse.com/en/politics/political_spew/162623.html) Clinton nominees in committee? Isn't that denying the Senate an 'up or down vote'? I think you're just playing politics with this issue.
Calls by Attorney General Ashcroft, Republican senators, Religious Right groups, and right-wing legal activists for quick action on President Bush's nominees, and their efforts to discourage substantial inquiry by the Senate Judiciary Committee, display remarkable chutzpah, if not outright hypocrisy. Right-wing organizations demanded, and right-wing Senators implemented, a delaying campaign of unprecedented scope against Clinton administration judicial nominees, particularly for the appeals courts. The slowdown began in 1995 after Republicans took the majority in the Senate. Senate leaders' failure to allow nominees to come up for a vote was so extensive that it drew unusual criticism from Chief Justice William Rehnquist in late 1997. There was a brief period of improvement after Rehnquist's comments, but during the final two years of President Clinton's term, the blockade was even tighter, with less than half of Clinton's appeals courts nominees being confirmed.


Blockade leaders were not shy about their efforts. In 1997, former Senate Judiciary Committee chair Orrin Hatch, who now protests Democratic Senators' suggestions that the judicial ideology and philosophy of nominees be carefully reviewed, emphasized the need for Senators to "ascertain the jurisprudential views a nominee will bring to the bench" through "extensive" questioning and investigation, with "no set time" to complete the process. "No set time" for some nominees meant that they waited years without even being granted a hearing by the Judiciary Committee. Many others were prevented from coming before the Senate.


Then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott was quite blunt in 1998. "Should we take our time on these federal judges?" Lott asked rhetorically. "Yes. Do I have any apologies? Only one: I probably moved too many already."


Ashcroft himself routinely blocked nominations, reportedly helping to delay the confirmation of William Fletcher to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for over three years and the confirmation of Richard Paez to the same court for more than four years. Among his other targets were the nominations of Margaret Morrow to the federal district court, Margaret McKeown to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Sonia Sotomayor for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.


Although Senators Hatch, Ashcroft and others claimed that they were seeking to avoid liberal "activist" judges nominated by President Clinton, these assertions do not withstand scrutiny. Academic studies and reviews by legal scholars have concluded that Clinton's appointees were exceptionally well-qualified and were generally less liberal than those of other Democratic presidents. In fact, they most closely resembled the judicial appointments made by President Gerald Ford. Nevertheless, even these centrist judges, primarily those nominated to the courts of appeals, ran into the Senate slowdown.


The situation became even worse during 1999 and 2000, as Radical Right groups stepped up their efforts to prevent Clinton nominees from being confirmed for the federal bench. In 1999, Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum began a "Court Alert" campaign that called for conservatives in the Senate to block all of Clinton's judicial nominees. Right-wing groups like the Christian Coalition, Free Congress Foundation, and the Family Research Council joined the effort, sometimes opposing individual nominees and sometimes calling for a halt to confirmations entirely. Ashcroft supported Senator James Inhofe's threats in early 2000 to block all Clinton nominees for the remainder of his term.


They were effective. During the first half of 1999, the Senate Judiciary Committee did not hold a single confirmation hearing. In fact, the number of hearings dropped from 11 in 1998 to seven in 1999 and eight in 2000.


The delays worsened as well. It took only 77 days for an appeals court nominee to receive a hearing during the first Bush Administration, and 81 days during Clinton's first term. That figure ballooned to 231 days during 1997-98 and even further to 247 days during 1999-2000. A number of nominees experienced significant delays and never received a hearing or a vote. For example, no hearing was held on the 1999 nominations of Enrique Moreno to the Fifth Circuit, Elena Kagan to the D.C. Circuit, and James Wynn to the Fourth Circuit. Helene White was originally nominated to the Sixth Circuit in January, 1996, and never even received a hearing despite waiting for four years.


One notable example of the hypocrisy surrounding judicial nominations is the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers the Carolinas, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia. Until 2001, the 4th Circuit had never had a non-white judge. Right-wing Senator Jesse Helms had repeatedly used his power to block African American nominees to the court. The 1999 nomination of James A. Wynn, who would have become the first African American judge to serve on the 4th Circuit, was Clinton's second attempt to integrate the court. An earlier African American nominee to the court, James A. Beaty, Jr., was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee but was blocked from reaching a full Senate vote by Helms. Helms also blocked Wynn's nomination, this time before Wynn even received a hearing from the Judiciary Committee. Two other African American nominees, Roger Gregory and Andre Davis, were nominated to the 4th Circuit in 2000, but neither received a hearing. For years, Helms and Sen. Strom Thurmond routinely blocked Clinton's nominees to the 4th Circuit, repeatedly claiming that the court did not need more judges. Yet, when President George W. Bush took office, both Helms and Thurmond switched their positions, with Helms claiming he was now "look[ing] forward to working with the Bush administration on matters regarding the 4th Circuit," and Thurmond promoting U.S. District Judge Dennis W. Shedd for a position on the court.


Although a number of right-wing Senators and organizations are trying to devise statistics to show that there was no significant slowdown against Clinton nominees, even Bush Administration officials have acknowledged what happened. In August, White House counsel Alberto Gonzalez told CNN that the "conduct of the Republican Senators" in delaying and refusing to vote on Clinton nominees was "improper" and "wrong."

[SlyHunter]

So where was this outrage when the GOP was bottling up (http://www.totse.com/en/politics/political_spew/162623.html) Clinton nominees in committee? Isn't that denying the Senate an 'up or down vote'? I think you're just playing politics with this issue.
I think I mentioned they have never filibustered an appointee.
Think now what is there to stop the republicans from doing the same thing to the democrats if the democrats ever gain a majority. The fact that you don't have a majority thus don't have chairmanship is no excuss to fillibuster in this way. They have started a path where its possible to have no judges on the bench.

[mactastic]

I think I mentioned they have never filibustered an appointee.
Think now what is there to stop the republicans from doing the same thing to the democrats if the democrats ever gain a majority. The fact that you don't have a majority thus don't have chairmanship is no excuss to fillibuster in this way. They have started a path where its possible to have no judges on the bench.

The fact that you have the majority is no reason to deny an up or down vote either, wouldn't you agree?

[mactastic]

I think I mentioned they have never filibustered an appointee.

If they had, would that change your argument at all?

[SlyHunter]

Originally Posted by SlyHunter
I think I mentioned they have never filibustered an appointee.

If they had, would that change your argument at all?
that is my argument.

[mactastic]

that is my argument.

Then consider your argument shot down.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch continues the tactic of GOP revisionist history, saying October 23 on Fox News: “There’s never been a filibuster before of any federal judicial nominee. Never, not in the history of this country, until now.” Poppycock. The filibuster has been used by both parties on judicial nominations for decades and is crucial to our constitutional system of checks and balances.

In 1968, Senate Republicans successfully filibustered the nomination of Judge Abe Fortas to the United States Supreme Court.

In 1986, Senate Democrats unsuccessfully used the filibuster to try to block a vote on William Rehnquist’s confirmation as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

From the start of the Reagan Administration in 1980 to the end of the Clinton Administration, 14 cloture motions were filed to break actual or threatened filibusters of judicial nominees. Senator Frist himself supported a filibuster against Clinton nominee Richard Paez in 2000.
Link (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=12694)

[SlyHunter]

Then consider your argument shot down.

Link (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=12694)
I knew you would pull a rabbit out of a hat when I said that. And no its not. If they are going to filibuster I want the republicans to force it to be a real filibuster 24/7 till it comes to a vote. The democrats are filibustering every candidate that believes in pro life just because they believe in pro life completly ignoring the fact that these candidates will follow the constitution first.

[mactastic]

I knew you would pull a rabbit out of a hat when I said that. And no its not. If they are going to filibuster I want the republicans to force it to be a real filibuster 24/7 till it comes to a vote. The democrats are filibustering every candidate that believes in pro life just because they believe in pro life completly ignoring the fact that these candidates will follow the constitution first.

And the link that I posted earlier stated that the GOP was blocking Clinton nominees because they were pro-choice, completly ignoring the fact that these candidates will follow the constitution first. Did you care about that? Are you actually trying to argue that this is all the Democrats fault and the GOP is blameless here?

[SlyHunter]

And the link that I posted earlier stated that the GOP was blocking Clinton nominees because they were pro-choice, completly ignoring the fact that these candidates will follow the constitution first. Did you care about that? Are you actually trying to argue that this is all the Democrats fault and the GOP is blameless here?
The Democrats are the ones filibustering. And the argument that a judge is pro choice is not a valid one for keeping him out of office, next they'll be saying they should filibuster all catholics or all religious people. That is prejudice.

[mactastic]

The Democrats are the ones filibustering. And the argument that a judge is pro choice is not a valid one for keeping him out of office, next they'll be saying they should filibuster all catholics or all religious people. That is prejudice.

The GOP were the ones denying committee hearing to Democratic nominees. Apparently you have a problem with the Democrats tactics but not the outcome?

You'll be singing a different tune the next time the GOP is in the minority.

[zimv20]

we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.
- George Orwell, In Front of Your Nose (http://orwell.ru/library/articles/nose/e/e_nose.htm)

(thanks to mr. krugman for the reference)

[SlyHunter]

The GOP were the ones denying committee hearing to Democratic nominees. Apparently you have a problem with the Democrats tactics but not the outcome?

You'll be singing a different tune the next time the GOP is in the minority.
Next time the GOP is in the minority if that time should come I would hope they would use the Democrats own tactics against them.

[mactastic]

Next time the GOP is in the minority if that time should come I would hope they would use the Democrats own tactics against them.

Me too. The filibuster is a part of the checks and balances of our system of government.

[SlyHunter]

Originally Posted by SlyHunter
Next time the GOP is in the minority if that time should come I would hope they would use the Democrats own tactics against them.

Me too. The filibuster is a part of the checks and balances of our system of government.
You aren't looking at the consequences which is that then no judge will be brought to a bench without a 60 vote super majority for the other party would filibuster every selection.

[mactastic]

You aren't looking at the consequences which is that then no judge will be brought to a bench without a 60 vote super majority for the other party would filibuster every selection.

BS. How about moderate judges that could be COMPROMISED on? Or is compromise no longer in the GOP vocabulary?

Bush seems intent on pushing the most conservative judicial nominees he can find. Clintons were surprisingly moderate, yet the GOP still saw fit to block his choices.

[SlyHunter]

BS. How about moderate judges that could be COMPROMISED on? Or is compromise no longer in the GOP vocabulary?

Bush seems intent on pushing the most conservative judicial nominees he can find. Clintons were surprisingly moderate, yet the GOP still saw fit to block his choices.
It appears to me that you define moderate where I define left.