Mr. Frist goes to Washington (Whiner Alert)

USA Today | April 7, 2005

[RWR8189]

Title and link only

[RWR8189]

In President Clinton's second term, the Republicans confirmed 35 out of 51 nominations to the appellate courts. In Bush's first term, 35 out of 52 have been confirmed. Republicans routinely killed nominations in committee rather than the floor, but there was no practical difference in the result.

No practical difference???

How about the fact that we had the majority in the Senate and rejected nominees in committee that would have just the same been rejected outright on the floor?

There is no practical difference, we're not even talking about the same thing!

[mblaise]

"How about the fact that we had the majority in the Senate and rejected nominees in committee that would have just the same been rejected outright on the floor?"

good point. one would have to compare '95-'96 (repub. maj.) years with '01-'02 (dem. maj.) sessions.

that said, retiring the filibuster may be a double-edged sword. if the unthinkable happens and the senate goes back to dems in '06 (out of power party gains are typical midterm), the retaliation could get ugly. and god knows what havoc on our judicial system happens if it's hitlery in '08.

[jmaroneps37]

If Frist doesn't pull the triger, he must be replaced immediately. Saxby Chambliss or Jon Kyl come to mind.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Except the Republicans have never used a filibuster to block nominees before, because IT WOULD BE WRONG. So we let a bunch of really liberal judges onto the bench.

Back when Clinton was president the republicans wouldn't support filibusters, and the democrats gave long-winded speeches about how bad filibusters were for judges.

Now that Bush is president the republicans won't support filibusters, and the democrats give long-winded speeches about the grand history and tradition of filibusters for judges.

That's what I like about democrats, their dogged consistancy. Meaning of course they are consistantly hypocritical.

[mblaise]

"Now that Bush is president the republicans won't support filibusters, and the democrats give long-winded speeches about the grand history and tradition of filibusters for judges."

of course, but would you really want to be "disarmed" if the senate/WH goes back to dems?

[FastCoyote]

"but would you really want to be "disarmed" if the senate/WH goes back to dems?"

Actually, yes. The consequences of elections would be much bolder then.

[Namyak]

Any person with an elementary grasp of Senate history can see through the lies these people are spewing. Truth is, the filibuster rules have already been altered in the past, and can continue to be altered. Robert "Sheets" Byrd rewrote the rules in 1975 to bring the number of votes necessary for a cloture down to 60 from 67... of course, I still love ambushing clueless liberals by asking them to explain the filibuster to me, and whenever they bring up the magic number "2/3rds" I always jump on them with "But isn't 60 only 3/5ths?". At that point they either have to cede the argument to me that they are clueless as to simple math and the history of the topic they're arguing, or they have to agree with me that Senate rules have been changed in the past for political reasonings and can continue to change. Senate procedural rules are not, as they are so desperately trying to portray, immutable and unchanging.

[mblaise]

"Senate procedural rules are not, as they are so desperately trying to portray, immutable and unchanging."

very true! and politicians will always find ways of holding one position when they're the majority and the opposite position when they're the minority! but we shouldn't always make changes that may be to our immediate advantage, that may be to our long-term disadvantage.

[mblaise]

"Leave the filibuster alone. If the dems can keep snooping big gummint right wingers off the bench, that's probably good."

power is a huge temptation, and everyone wants to expand their influence over others, given the chance. always a good thing to put the breaks on that, regardless of the partisan stripe.

[RWR8189]

What in the world makes you think that Dems wouldn't do this to us if they ever got 51 votes in the Senate and a Dem in the WH?

[WOSG]

"Except the Republicans have never used a filibuster to block nominees before, because IT WOULD BE WRONG. "

Correction: IT WOULD BE POLITICS.

The GOP has a rulebook that apparently tells them that they can't engage in politics, as if it is something beneath them.

Democrats have a rulebook. one rule:
"1. The Ends Justify the Means."

[WOSG]

1. 61 Senators for the GOP will never happen.

2. The "right-winger" are the ones for small Govt. You are confused (by liberal bias?) into thinking right-wing judges like Scalia do anything but interpret the constitution the way it should be interpreted.

3. The 'filibuster' as it exists today was created in the 1970s. I'm for keeping the filibuster - of the old-fashioned Jimmy Stewart era. Make the filibusterers sweat for their obstructionism.

[WOSG]

"of course, but would you really want to be "disarmed" if the senate/WH goes back to dems?"

Silly argument ... when the dems become the majority - of COURSE they will demand we not filibuster their judges - WHETHER WE MAKE THE SAME DEMAND OR NOT. And in fact, the history is that we did NOT use that particular power, as too 'political', 'wrong' and unfair to a President's nominees.

Dems never had those qualms when power is at stake.

You are foolishly thinking that if the GOP were consistent, the Dems would follow. Never happened; never will happen.

[CharlesWayneCT]

We will be disarmed. If we use the filibuster, the democrats (who again have no consistant principles other than power) won't think twice before "reluctantly" changing the rules due to the petty partisan tactics used by the republicans against eminently qualified candidates for office.

If they hadn't figured out before how to do it, we've certainly told them now.

And the MSM won't ever use the term "nuclear option" against them (of course nobody on their side will be stupid enough to CALL it that).

[Lancey Howard]

In President Clinton's second term, the Republicans confirmed 35 out of 51 nominations to the appellate courts. In Bush's first term, 35 out of 52 have been confirmed. Republicans routinely killed nominations in committee rather than the floor, but there was no practical difference in the result.

So, the Republican-controlled Senate actually confirmed a slightly higher percentage of Democrat President Clinton's nominees than they have Republican President Bush's nominees ???

How utterly pathetic....

[WOSG]

And the MSM won't ever use the term "nuclear option" against them " of course not ... the MSM will only use the scary adjectives for things the GOP does. For example, let's suppose the GOP becomes the minority, and then the GOP decides to 'aha, let's do what the Democrats did to us'. ... one can easily predict a future New York Times headline, should it come to pass:

"Filibuster: Tactic of segregationists now used by GOP"

and

"GOP stubbornly denies (LibDem) President their 'advice and consent' with unprecedented and controversial Filibusters"

Of course, it will be called 'unprecedented' even if the Dems did the same. It is 'controverisal' because the MSM makes it so ... They will go on to show that 80% of people polled are against the GOPs filibuster tactics (after calling them a 'denial of an up or down vote for Presidential nominees as required in the Constitution'), etc. "