partial victory in senate

[toto2]

If anything, Dobson is promoting a world that is peaceful and glorifies God. You may not agree with him on what does and does not glorify God, but I still contend he cannot be put on the same par as a zealot simply because he is a member of the religious right. I would not label a member of the liberal left who supports the pro-choice movement a zealot; I simply would disagree with them on his or her values.

But isn't it the job of our elected ( and those they elect) to promote a world that is peacefull ang glorifies the laws , that should be the same for each and every citizen of a contry ? Shouldn't they be promomoting equality , justice and equal rights for every citizens , not just for those who " glorifies God" in the same manners that he does ?

 

[WilbyDaniels]

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.

This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.

We have agreed to the following:

Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations

A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).

B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).

Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations

A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word “Advice” speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

That's the only sentence in that article that really matters. It is the hypocritical position the right wing has chosen to take that "all nominees deserve an up or down vote". That is not nearly the same as objecting solely to the use of the fillibuster.

I also find it hilarious that a few pompous members of the right are claiming even "partial victory" for their side. This compromise sends a clear message to the Shrub white house that they can not simply walk all over the minority in the senate. It is not remotely what blowhard Bill Frist was demanding. It guarantees votes for only a handful of Bush's ultra-conservative nominees, while resering the right to fillibuster the remaining candidates. So, how is this a "partial victory" ?

It's actually not much of a victory for either side, which means it is probably a pretty good compromise on both sides' part. Despite wishes to see the other side "have it's teeth kicked in", smarter, more sensible heads prevailed. It's unfortunate that some people have that attitude, but hardly surprising. (And before I'm accused of it...no, I don't want the conservative voice completely silenced. The simple FACT is that most of the best solutions to our problems are somewhere in between the far right and the far left. I'm enough of a realist to admit that. However, the trampling of the voice of the minority and the blatant abuse of power now rampant on the right is something I could never support. Not even if it were coming from my own party.)

Where is this "trampling the voice of the minority and the blatant use of power" that is so rampant on the right?? And of course the nominies are referred to as "ultra-conservative" and our president is referred to as "Scrub."

The voice of compromise.

 

[jrydberg]

wvrevy's partisan comments aside, his analysis is basically on the money as far as I'm concerned.

 

[WilbyDaniels]

A good friend is the cousin of Trent Lott and so I found this fight between Trent and Dobson to be of interest. Our friend is a conservative christian but is reallly mad that dobson has gone after her cousin. Lott goes after Dobson

James Dobson: Who does he think he is, questioning my conservative credentials?" Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said in an interview. Dobson, head of the conservative group Focus on the Family, criticized Lott for his efforts to forge a compromise in the fight over the judges. Lott is still angry. "Some of his language and conduct is quite un-Christian, and I don't appreciate it," the senator said.

 

[peachgirl]

Pretty strong language...and racially coded at that. I'd appreciate you being a little more careful mixing words like "poverty" and "pimp."

It wouldn't be the first time that he's made such racially offensive comments. Sometimes he just can't hold back that venom.

 

[wvrevy]

wvrevy's partisan comments aside, his analysis is basically on the money as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks. Hey, I know I can get just a teensy bit heavy-handed with the rhetoric sometimes. But I'm making a full-throated defense of what I believe in, so I don't really see that as a bad thing. I call him "Shrub" because I have no respect for the man, not because I have none for the office he holds. I point out the hypocrisy of their arguments because it amuses me, frankly, to "hoist them on their own petard", so to speak.

But I've always been one to say that compromise is usually the best route to take in governing. Not always, but usually it's the only real path to statesmanship. People like Frist, Delay, and, yes, Shrub, don't believe in compromise. They believe they have a holy "mandate", both from above and from the electorate, to do with whatever they please. That's not how this country was supposed to be - ever. They do want to silence any voice of opposition...and yes, I have a major problem with that. I'm an idealist...and I would probably make a terrible president because of that. But in the congressional wing, that idealism of the left can be balanced with the practicality of the right (or, at least, before they were over run by religious zealots) to produce better laws and a better country as a result. Unfortunately, it seems that the right is now more inclined to listen only to those that agree with them.

 

[JudicialTyranny]

That's the only sentence in that article that really matters. It is the hypocritical position the right wing has chosen to take that "all nominees deserve an up or down vote".

Let's talk about hypocrisy of the left wing....

Just look below for the names of those who now advocate and defend judicial filibusters!

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): “[W]e should have up-or-down votes in the committee and on the floor.” (CNN’s “Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields,” 6/9/01)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “ "I have stated over and over again … that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported …” (Congressional Record, 6/18/98)

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) March 19, 1997: “But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor.”

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) September 28, 1998: “We should meet our responsibility. I think that responsibility requires us to act in a timely fashion on nominees sent before us. ... Vote the person up or down.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) September 11, 1997: “Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.”

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) February 3, 1998: “We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.”

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) May 10, 2000: “The Founding Fathers certainly intended that the Senate advise as to judicial nominations, i.e., consider, debate, and vote up or down. They surely did not intend that the Senate, for partisan or factional reasons, would remain silent and simply refuse to give any advice or consider and vote at all.”

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) 5/14/97 : “It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.”

Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): “I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination.” (Congressional Record, 10/5/99)

Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): “Hispanic or non-Hispanic, African American or non-African American, woman or man, it is wrong not to have a vote on the Senate floor.” (Congressional Record, 10/28/99)

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): “My expectation is that we’re not going to hold up judicial nominations. …You will not see us do what was done to us in recent years in the Senate with judicial nominations.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 6/4/01)

Richard Durbin (D-IL) "If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down." (Cong. Rec., 9/28/98, S11021)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.” (Congressional Record, 9/11/97)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don’t like them, we can vote against them.” (Congressional Record, 9/16/99)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Our institutional integrity requires an up-or-down vote.” (Congressional Record, 10/4/99)

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “[The filibuster process] is used … as blackmail for one Senator to get his or her way on something that they could not rightfully win through the normal processes.” (Congressional Record, 1/4/95)

Tom Harkin (D-IA) "Have the guts to come out and vote up or down….And once and for all, put behind us this filibuster procedure on nominations." (Cong. Rec., 6/22/95, S8861)

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “I urge the Republican leadership to take the steps necessary to allow the full Senate to vote up or down on these important nominations.” (Congressional Record, 9/11/00)

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.” (Congressional Record, 2/3/98)

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “It is true that some Senators have voiced concerns about these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call vote which gives every Senator the opportunity to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ ... Parties with cases, waiting to be heard by the federal courts deserve a decision by the Senate.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)

Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI): “These nominees, who have to put their lives on hold waiting for us to act, deserve an ‘up or down’ vote.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “I hope we … will accept our responsibility and vote people up or vote them down. … If we want to vote against them, vote against them.” (Congressional Record, 10/22/97)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “Now, every Senator can vote against any nominee. … But it is the responsibility of the U.S. Senate to at least bring them to a vote.” (Congressional Record, 10/22/97)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “[E]arlier this year … I noted how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination.” (Congressional Record, 10/14/98)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “f the person is otherwise qualified, he or she gets the vote. … Vote them up, vote them down.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): “[W]e are charged with voting on the nominees. The Constitution does not say if the Congress is controlled by a different party than the President there shall be no judges chosen.” (Congressional Record, 3/7/00)

Carl Levin (D-MI) "If a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate is prepared to vote to confirm the President's appointment, that vote should occur." (Cong. Rec., 6/21/95, S8806)

 

[peachgirl]

Just look below for the names of those who now advocate and defend judicial filibusters!

Sounds to me like the repub's were giving Clinton nominations just as hard a time as they now want to whine about the Dem's doing. What goes around, comes around.

 

[wvrevy]

Sounds to me like the repub's were giving Clinton nominations just as hard a time as they now want to whine about the Dem's doing. What goes around, comes around.

Exactly ! Is there hypocrisy on both sides of this issue ? Absolutely. But for scum like Bill Frist to sit there and whine about judicial nominees not getting a vote all the while the Repugs blocked more than 60 of President Clinton's nominees from ever getting to the floor...it's just nauseating.

But I'm sure "Judicial Tyranny" (or whatever name he's going by this week) won't acknowledge that little fact any time soon.

 

[iTINKsew]

Pretty strong language...and racially coded at that. I'd appreciate you being a little more careful mixing words like "poverty" and "pimp."

I can understand that you disagree with what this poster thinks of Jackson. But, the comment isn't racists (it is absolutely "name calling"). The assignment of the statement to be racists was originated in your mind. I think it says more about what YOU think of a certain race.

 

[jrydberg]

Thanks. Hey, I know I can get just a teensy bit heavy-handed with the rhetoric sometimes.

Sometimes the rhetoric is warranted. But I wanted to separate the rhetoric that may be dismissed as partisan from several imporant points you made that really have nothing to do with party politics.

In this case, the majority is looking to limit the rights of the minority. I'm with you in that I wouldn't support that action in the Senate regardless of which party is in power. That doesn't mean I support a strategy of broadly using the filibuster either, but that's a separate issue.

 

[peachgirl]

Exactly ! Is there hypocrisy on both sides of this issue ? Absolutely. But for scum like Bill Frist to sit there and whine about judicial nominees not getting a vote all the while the Repugs blocked more than 60 of President Clinton's nominees from ever getting to the floor...it's just nauseating.

But I'm sure "Judicial Tyranny" (or whatever name he's going by this week) won't acknowledge that little fact any time soon.

It might be interesting to take a look at what is really motivating Frist. It has little to do with wanting the bush nominees to get their vote....

RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES CALLING THE SHOTS FOR FRIST



​

Dr. Richard Land, President of Southern Baptist Convention: Frist Must Pull the Trigger. "In the communications that I have been sending to Senator Frist and his staff — and I have reason to believe it has been sent by other social conservative leaders — is that they must pull the trigger, even if they lose, so we will know who to have a primary candidate against in 2006." [NYT, 4/3/05]



Pat Robertson: "It is the ultimate test. [Frist] cannot be a leader and allow Democrats to do what they did in the last session." [Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/13/05]



Tony Perkins, Family Research Council: Frist’s "legacy rests on getting these nominees through the United States Senate, and if he is unable to do that, rightly or wrongly, it will reflect on him." [NYT, 3/7/05]



Lou Sheldon: Frist Needs To Belly Up. "Religious conservatives, an influential bloc of the Republican Party, have made it clear that Frist needs to act quickly to eliminate the judicial filibuster if he is to win their support. ‘Procrastination is a deterrent to winning Republican primaries,’ the Rev. Louis Sheldon, head of the Traditional Values Coalition, said in an interview. ‘If Frist bellies up and does it, it would be to his favor.’" [Philadelphia Inquirer, 4/27/05]



Conservatives Will Be Unforgiving If Frist Does Not Go Ahead With Nuclear Option. "‘If he fails and the Democrats succeed in blocking the Bush judges, including ultimately a Supreme Court nominee … then Bill Frist need not come calling at the conservatives' door in 2008,’ Richard Lessner, executive director of the American Conservative Union, wrote this month in the conservative newspaper Human Events. ‘On this issue conservatives are not in a mood to be forgiving. It's show time and Bill Frist must deliver,’ Lessner said." [LAT, 4/21/05]

CONSERVATIVES IMPOSE NUCLEAR OPTION AS TEST FOR FRIST



​

Conservatives: Nuke Option Is Test of Frist’s Leadership. "And the GOP, notably Senate leader Bill Frist (who has White House aspirations, and thus needs to please conservatives), is under pressure to nuke. Todd Gaziano, who runs the legal-issues shop at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said: ‘Frist has ambitions. So this is a test and he understands that. Republicans have committed (to the nuclear option), and it would be a great sign of their failure of leadership if they don’t get the job done.’" [Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/27/05]



Frist’s Presidential Hopes Rest on Nuclear Option. "If Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist hopes to capture the Republican nomination for president in 2008, then he has to see to it that the Bush judicial nominees are confirmed," Richard Lessner, executive director of the American Conservative Union, wrote in a recent article. "If he fails, then he is dead as a presidential wannabe." [Wash Post, 4/15/05]



Paul Weyrich, President of Free Congress Foundation: "If he delivers on this nuclear option and Bush's judges are confirmed, he will be a hero in conservative circles," Mr. Weyrich said. "If he fails to deliver, his presidential ambitions are down the drain. It is as simple as that." [Washington Times, 4/25/05]



Rush Limbaugh: "Everywhere I go people ask me, ‘Rush, who's going to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2008?’ I say, ‘I have no clue. I have no idea, but I will tell you this: If Bill Frist wants to set himself up as a hero in this party he will invoke this new rule of 51 votes and take on the Democrats.’" [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/1/05]

RIGHT WING ANGERED BY REPUBLICAN DEFEAT



​

Gary Bauer, conservative activist and unsuccessful candidate for president in 2000: "The Republicans who lent their names to this travesty have undercut their president as well as millions of their most loyal voters," he said. "Shame on them all." [Los Angeles Times, 5/24/05]


Paul Weyrich, veteran social conservative organizer and founder of the Free Congress Foundation: "Conservatives are going to be outraged over it…And what do they get for it? This is about the Supreme Court, and the filibuster is still intact for the Supreme Court. This is a big defeat for the Republicans. The Democrats win even though they have got to put a few judges up for confirmation." [New York Times, 5/23/05]


Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of the Christian conservative group Focus on the Family: Dobson called the deal "a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats." He added: "We share the disappointment, outrage and sense of abandonment felt by millions of conservative Americans who helped put Republicans in power last November. I am certain that these voters will remember both Democrats and Republicans who betrayed their trust." [New York Times, 5/23/05]


Family Research Council: "There is no room for compromise in the Senate regarding judicial filibusters. The judicial filibuster is unfair, unfounded and unconstitutional. Concession is not an option." President Tony Perkins warned that a deal could hurt Republicans at the polls by disappointing the very people who had elected them because of their pro-family values. [Chicago Tribune, 5/24/05]



Frist was banking on the power of the religious right to move him into the Presidency and he lost...big time. It would appear now that the very ones he was courting to help him will do all in their power to defeat him. He's getting what he deserves as far as I'm concerned.

 

[WilbyDaniels]

Right-wing reaction to filibuster deal Writing in the conservative National Review, Andrew McCarthy assessed the moderates’ deal: “Let’s say, instead, that they simply gave us the bottom line: (a) three of the president’s nominees get an up-or-down vote (i.e., exactly three of the pending seven left standing after the Democrats — in that spirit of compromise — whittled down from the original ten); (b) the Democrats remain free to filibuster (but only on the strict condition that, uh, well, that the Democrats feel like filibustering); and (c) the Republicans, on the brink of breaking four years of obstruction, decide instead to punt (and on the eve of a likely battle over a Supreme Court vacancy, no less).”Sound familiar? Yes it does: It’s the deal that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid offered a week ago — and that was flatly rejected as paltry and unprincipled.” - National Review, 5/24/05


Focus on the Family Chairman James Dobson calls compromise a “complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans, great victory for Senate Democrats. “This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats. Only three of President Bush’s nominees will be given the courtesy of an up-or-down vote, and it’s business as usual for all the rest. The rules that blocked conservative nominees remain in effect, and nothing of significance has changed. Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist would never have served on the U. S. Supreme Court if this agreement had been in place during their confirmations. The unconstitutional filibuster survives in the arsenal of Senate liberals. - U.S. Newswire, 5/23/05

Disappointment, outrage and sense of abandonment: Dobson goes on: “We are grateful to Majority Leader Frist for courageously fighting to defend the vital principle of basic fairness. That principle has now gone down to defeat. We share the disappointment, outrage and sense of abandonment felt by millions of conservative Americans who helped put Republicans in power last November. I am certain that these voters will remember both Democrats and Republicans who betrayed their trust.” - U.S. Newswire, 5/23/05

Former Republican presidential candidate, Gary Bauer, calls compromise a “travesty.” “Under this agreement it is now more likely that radical social change will continue to be forced on the American people by liberal courts committed to same sex marriage, abortion on demand and hostility to religious expression. The Republicans who lent their names to this travesty have undercut their President as well as millions of their most loyal voters. Shame on them all.” - U.S. Newswire, 5/23/05

Moderate Republicans have thrown victory overboard. Paul Weyrich, veteran conservative organizer, says of the compromise,”Once again, moderate Republicans have taken the victory and thrown it overboard.” - New York Times, 5/24/05

A big defeat for the Republicans, Democrats win even though they put a few judges up for confirmation. “Conservatives are going to be outraged over it,” said Paul Weyrich, a veteran social conservative organizer and founder of the Free Congress Foundation. “And what do they get for it? This is about the Supreme Court, and the filibuster is still intact for the Supreme Court. This is a big defeat for the Republicans. The Democrats win even though they have got to put a few judges up for confirmation.” -New York Times, 5/24/05

Moderate Republicans didn’t have the backbone and the fortitude to stand up for the fact that we are the majority. The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman and founder of the Traditional Values Coalition: said he was sitting with several conservative senators and a dozen Republican House members at the Capitol Hill Club when they learned of the agreement. “I tell you, you would have thought that the World Series had been forfeited for some dumb reason,” Sheldon said. “They slapped their hands against their heads and cried out. They couldn’t believe that this was the agreement.” Of the seven Republicans who signed the compromise agreement, Sheldon said: “They didn’t have the backbone and the fortitude to stand up for the fact that we are the majority.” - L.A. Times 5/24/05

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, says it’s not over. “I think we are going to be back here down the road,” he said. - New York Times, 5/24/04

Iowa Right to Life Committee president, Kim Lehman calls compromise “absurd,” an “abandonment.” In an interview, Lehman called the proposed compromise “absolutely absurd” and said it amounted to “abandonment” of the GOP. “The grassroots worked very hard to elect this Republican Senate. It’s not an accident that we have the majority, and they’ve squandered it,” she said. “When on earth did they decide to compromise the Constitution?” - CNN, Morning Grind 5/24/05

Washington Times announces: “7 Republicans abandon GOP on filibuster. “The deal didn’t satisfy Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has maintained that the Constitution requires up-or-down votes on all judicial nominees. ‘The agreement announced tonight falls short of that principle,’ the Tennessee Republican said on the Senate floor. ‘It falls short. It has some good news, and it has some disappointing news.’ - Washington Times, 5/24/05

Right-wing activists warn compromisers about their chances in the Iowa caucuses. President of Iowa Christian Coalition Steve Scheffler, president of the Christian Coalition of Iowa, said ‘08 caucus-goers have a long memory and little patience for “Republicans who oppose George Bush’s judges.” “We’ll educate people in the caucuses, and this is not going to do them a lot of good in terms of their presidential aspirations,” Scheffler told the Grind. “If they think people who attend caucus are going to forget about this, they’re sadly mistaken.” - CNN, Morning Grind, 5/24/05

 

[swilphil]

I can understand that you disagree with what this poster thinks of Jackson. But, the comment isn't racists (it is absolutely "name calling"). The assignment of the statement to be racists was originated in your mind. I think it says more about what YOU think of a certain race.

Are you saying that FROZONE is racist AGAINST blacks?

 

[frozone]

I can understand that you disagree with what this poster thinks of Jackson. But, the comment isn't racists (it is absolutely "name calling"). The assignment of the statement to be racists was originated in your mind. I think it says more about what YOU think of a certain race.

And what do you think I think?

For the record, I didn't say the statement was racist, I said the words were racially coded, and I thought I was pretty respectful in the way I asked the poster to be careful with those words.

 

[Bayshore Bandit]

If the right is so enamored with the idea of a "straight up or down vote",
then where were they when Clinton's nominee's were being bottled up
in committee??

What scares me are the extreme on the left, the extreme on the right,
and the fact that the moderates in the middle seem to be ever shrinking.

 

[Rokkitsci]

Not even remotely close. There is no plausible argument that a filibsuter was unconstitutional

Actually, there is a very plausible arguement that filibustering judicial nominees is unconstitutional.

First, it is not the prerogative of the Senate to refuse to vote on a judicial nominee. The executive branch nominates = the Senate either confirms or rejects = by voting.

Second, the filibuster is a Senate procedure that is intended to give individual senators a method to slow down a legislative issue. Whatever you may claim today, the filibuster has never been used to obstruct the confirmation of a judicial nominee on a strictly partisan basis.

Third, the democrats have mis-used the filibuster to change the constitutional process. There is nothing in the constitution that requires a super-majority for judicial nominees. Requirements for super-majorities are very specifically enumerated in the constitution.

Equating the Democrat filibuster to the actions of the Judiciary Committee is completely silly. The committees work by rules that were for the most part put into place when the Democrats had a strangle-hold on all congressional activity. What happened to Democrats is that they lost a bunch of elections. They lost representation in congress. They no longer control the activity like they did for forty years or more. This is what happens to any movement when they stray so far away from the mainstream of American thought.

Sure, there was no excitement to rush Clinton's appointees to the floor during his LAST year in office. That is a common process that has been in effect forever. When a president is in his last year, nobody pays much attention to his appointees - especially those for lifetime appointments.

That is politics - the cure is to win more elections.

I repeat - the Democrat use of the filibuster to obstruct judicial nominees as a matter of course is wrong and it is unconstitutional - in my opinion.

There is really no plausible argument that says a minority of senators can impose its will on the the President's constitutional duties. Try to frame such an argument, if you think it is so obvious.

 

[iTINKsew]

And what do you think I think?

For the record, I didn't say the statement was racist, I said the words were racially coded, and I thought I was pretty respectful in the way I asked the poster to be careful with those words.

To keep one from "assuming" which words you think are "racially coded", why don't you name them?

And, FWIW, I too think you are trying to be respectful.

 

[Bayshore Bandit]

So then what is it that the republicans want?? An automatic
up or down vote?? Or the power to control who gets the
up or down votes.
Because it sounds like some on the right think it's O.k. to keep a judicial nominee from an up or down vote as long as a committee does it. So is it then a power grab??

The committee argument really doesn't hold water either, because
those on the extreme right lamblasted Sen. Voinavich when his
"committee" held up the vote on the Senate floor for Bolton as
the UN ambassador.

The republicans used their tactics in the 90's, the democrats are using
different tactics now.....I'm just glad some level headed senators got
together and worked out a compromise. I look at at this way, if they
ticket off the far right, and they ticked off the far left, then something
fair and productive probably was accomplished.