Posted on 03/12/2005 2:02:08 AM PST by SwinneySwitch
LAST NIGHT SENATOR ROBERT BYRD CLAIMED THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT DIRECT THE SENATE TO HOLD UP-OR-DOWN VOTES ON JUDGES . . .
Robert Byrd On The Constitution And Up-Or-Down Votes: “[T]he president is all wrong when he maintains that a nominee should have an up-or-down vote. The Constitution doesn't say that. The Constitution doesn't say that that nominee shall have any vote at all. There doesn't have to even be a vote.” (Fox News’ “Hannity & Colmes,” March 10, 2005)
. . . BUT PROMINENT SENATE DEMOCRATS ONCE BELIEVED OTHERWISE
Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) Thought That Delaying Nominees Was An "Abdication Of The Senate's Constitutional Responsibility." "[D]elays can only be described as an abdication of the Senate's constitutional responsibility to work with the President and ensure the integrity of our federal courts." (Senator Edward Kennedy, Congressional Record, September 21, 1999)
Kennedy Contended That Stalling And Refusing To Act On Judicial Nominations Was Not What The Founders Of The Constitution Had In Mind. "When the Founders wrote the Constitution and gave the Senate the power of advice and consent on Presidential nominations, they never intended the Senate to work against the President, as this Senate is doing, by engaging in a wholesale stall and refusing to act on large numbers of the President's nominees." (Senator Edward Kennedy, Congressional Record, September 21, 1999)
In 2000, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) Said That Failing To Vote On Judicial Nominees Was "An Example Of Government Not Fulfilling Its Constitutional Mandate." "The basic issue of holding up judgeships is the issue before us, not the qualifications of judges, which we can always debate. The problem is it takes so long for us to debate those qualifications. It is an example of Government not fulfilling its constitutional mandate because the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees. . . . I also plead with my colleagues to move judges with alacrity - vote them up or down. But this delay makes a mockery of the Constitution, makes a mockery of the fact that we are here working, and makes a mockery of the lives of very sincere people who have put themselves forward to be judges and then they hang out there in limbo." (Senator Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, March 7, 2000)
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Said Senate Leadership Had A "Responsibility" To "Advise And At Least Vote" On Judicial Nominees. "Two of the women who we're focusing on today are from Michigan. They are nominees for the Sixth Court of Appeals….The truth of the matter is that the leadership of the Senate has a responsibility to do what the Constitution says we should do, which is to advise and at least vote on whether or not to consent to the nomination of nominees for these courts." (Senator Carl Levin, Press Conference, September 14, 2000)
Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) Urged His Colleagues To "Take Their Constitutional Duty Seriously" And To Vote On Judicial Nominees Based Upon Their Qualifications. "I ask my colleagues today to take their constitutional duty seriously and vote for these nominees on the basis of their objective qualifications, and not on the basis of petty politics. This process is much too important to the citizens of this great democracy to do otherwise." (Senator Jack Reed, Congressional Record, March 9, 2000)
Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI) On Voting For Judges On The Senate Floor: "Let's Fulfill Our Constitutional Responsibilities; Justice Demands That At A Minimum." "[L]et's breathe life back into the confirmation process. Let's vote on the nominees who have already been approved by the Judiciary Committee, and let's set a timetable for future hearings on pending judges. Let's fulfill our constitutional responsibilities; justice demands that at a minimum." (Senator Herb Kohl, Congressional Record, May 15, 1997)
Former Democrat Senate Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) Said That Senators Have "A Constitutional Outlet For Antipathy Against A Judicial Nominee - A Vote Against That Nominee." "Today's actions prove that we all understand that we have a constitutional outlet for antipathy against a judicial nominee - a vote against that nominee." (Senator Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, October 5, 1999)
– ### –
FLASH! None of the RATS quoted above can recall making the comments attributed to them! CNN concurs! NYT concurs! Mad Magazine just choked on it's buffalo wings!
These three are desendents of Hitler's Germany.
Is this the "straw" that the GOP leadership needs? Things which do not change (like activist judges) remain the same!!!
Probably not (as in ... What leadership?) ... and Dubya did this to himself and reneged on this issue to those who voted for him and the GOP slate ... Nothing there ... move along!!!
Robert Byrd is a senile idiot.
The senate can "advise" the President they don't like his nominees but must "consent" to them anyway because the Constitution does not call for descent.
Please delete my post #7. It was over the top.
Remember,those idiots considered panties on the head to be torture. A wedgie is assault with a deadly weapon to them.
N U C L E A R I Z E
the quicker the better
Bwahahahahahahah I think its funny as hell thinking about Fat Teddy with his drawers stuffed up his fat crack.
Not to mention cheerleader pyramids, barking dogs, bags on heads, sleep deprivation, blindfolded threats of electrical shock (which didn't happen), showing western breasts, forced masturbation (which the 9/11 crew probably did after hanging at a Florida strip joint), and the all so horrific taunts of their religious beliefs.
The Horror. The Horror.
Ever hear of Nanking?
Simple rules: one set of "beliefs" when there's a Republican President, another set when there's a Dem President.
I'm so sick of all these left-wing phonies!
Demo-Crisy (Democrat Hypocrisy) in action PING!
Can these quotes be verified?
I don't think so. The "consent" part refers to the nominee becoming the officeholder. The president can nominate anyone he pleases independent of the wishes of the Senate. Whether that person goes on to occupy the position for a full term is solely up to the Senate (taking into account "recess appointments", which don't need Senate approval, but which are "more temporary"). If the Senate votes "down", then the nominee does NOT take office, and the process is over. That fully qualifies as "dissent".
Robert KKK Byrd is a senile old fool that needs a keeper. He's not only an embarrassment to the US but he has become an embarrassment to the congress, an entity I long though beyond shame. He needs to be sent back to WV and to a little room in the Robert KKK Byrd home for the terminally looney
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.