Skip to comments.LIVE SENATE THREAD: "Nuclear Wednesday" for judicial nominations: C-span 2 - 9:30 am EST
Posted on 05/18/2005 5:48:45 AM PDT by ken5050
Welcome, all you Freepers, to the continuing C-span soap operas about judicial nominations. "The Guiding SEARCHLIGHT, " "As the SENATE Turns, "One NOMINATION to Live" "GERIATRIC Hospital" (for all you Byrd and Lautenberg fans out there). Follow along with us, as the Dems raise the level of histrionics, bloviation, pontification, and all around bad acting to new highs, er, lows...
Gere is a moron. He can't put 3 words together if it's not from a script. Hubby worked with him briefly once.
I took by shower during Specter, because I had all the goo from Reid speech on me---
This may be a 3-4 shower day....LOL
the first thing that came to mind.....trained gerbils? (sorry, that is bad for this early. I apologize)
Craig Livingstone , Sandy Burglar
percentages, Leahy, percentages. Trying to play games with the reality aren't you?
We'll need a waterfall before this stuff is over.
is = isn't
"Bush is a divider, not a uniter" again. yawn
"You are no ordinary gerbil Lemmiwinks, you are the
leahy- How dare the President not cave to us by re-nominating these Justices!
You completely missed my point. My point had nothing to do with Specter. It had to do with getting to the vote WITHOUT invoking cloture.
My speculation may be all wet. But I think a good political approach is to AVOID cloture, and force the DEM Senators to stand one at a time, in objection to taking the vote.
Hmmm. Thanks for the info. Not sure I understand that LBJ part. BUT....myself must ask if a filibuster was used to deny Fortas a judicial appointment (if I understand this correctly) than on what basis are the Repubs stopping such filibusters now?
Because somewhere, out there, this is being fed to the unknowing public.
Voting for Democracy
The Democratic position on the filibuster comes down to this: Senators should not be allowed to vote up or down on judges, because judges have to stay in the business of keeping voters from being able to decide policy issues. Anti-democratic ends justify anti-democratic means.
Almost everything else in the debate is a diversion. The text of the Constitution does not forbid the Senate to let the majority confirm judges, as Democrats preposterously insist; nor does it require it. Only somewhat less preposterously, the Democrats and their pundits have been arguing that the logic and structure of the Constitution support the filibustering of judges: The Constitution is designed to throw up counter-majoritarian obstacles to action. Thats true at a high altitude of abstraction; it does not mean that the particular obstructionist device of filibustering judges is constitutionally required or wise. Filibusters have never been routinely used against judicial nominees never, that is, until Senate Democrats decided to block as many of the important judicial nominees of this administration as they could.
There is no reason in principle to reject compromise. But no real compromise has been offered. Senate Democrats have floated various proposals, under all of which they reserve the right to filibuster extremist nominees. Their promiscuous use of the filibuster against extremist nominees demonstrates their elastic definition of the term. If Republicans accept these proposals, the Democrats will carry on filibustering and Republicans will face the same choice as today. The Democrats hope is that they will face that choice under worse circumstances than they do now. They are trying to buy time.
For Republicans to leave the filibusters in place now after months of demanding a change would be ignominious. The same pundits who are saying that the majority party should not insist on its prerogatives would turn around and say that the majority party is responsible and should be held accountable for everything the government does. More important, a surrender would tell everyone conservative voters, Democratic senators and interest groups, and the White House that Republican senators were irresolute in their support for judicial conservatism. It would thus set back the urgent cause of a reformation of the federal judiciary.
privileges, the majority is called on
to take corrective action. This is
such a time.
A majority of the Senate has to be able to set the bodys rules. It would be unwise for it to do so without regard for the minority. After all, every senator will be in the minority on some issue, and every senator is one election away from the possibility of being in the minority most of the time. But when the minority abuses its privileges, the majority is called on to take corrective action. This is such a time.
The liberal minority in the Senate is trying to keep the courts in the business of imposing the left-wing agenda that the public wont vote for on its own. This project should be brought to an end by bringing an end to the filibustering of judges.
Leahy says the judiciary is the branch 'most respected by the people'. Yeah, socialists!
Another half our or so of this? Ay-yi-yi
Bookmark....going in for shower #1.Lots of soap. May need to make a run to the store for Lava soap (do they still make that?)
Does anyone still notice Leaky's still speaking? Best I can gather, he's said:
A. George Bush only wants to be king.
B. George Bush unconstitutionally demands that everything goes his way, because he's a bully.
C. The Senate is really, really important. Particularly the "rights" of the party that's been rejected by the voters.
D. How Americans really respect the judiciary and...
(sputter, choke.... spewed coffee all over keyboard... sorry... sorry...)
Oh, Prairie: I must vehemently disagree. There is a huge amount of honest discussion and "loyal obstructionism" - the big problem is that it is empodied solely in the 6-8 RINOs we all get so angry about - and occasionally a few other Republicans. Not one of the Demodogs ever are part of this discussion any more - they are the real mind-numbed robots.
Plus there's that matter of the hamster.
I love Geriatric Hospital, one year Ted Kennedy had amnesia and no one could tell the difference.
>> May need to make a run to the store for Lava soap (do they still make that?)<<
If they don't, there's always bleach.....
BINGO! I wanted to scream at Dingy Harry, "It's mi-nor-i-ty, fool, it means you don't make demands." Thanks for posting that one, I'm not leaving this thread either.
Thanks for the pings
yeah ,... I guess his staff told him that " this looks GOOD" [on paper] now he is shouting
Fortas withdrew before the filibuster began on his nomination.
Yep. If you can't find it, slide on by your local Autozone for some of this:
The hamster's not a moron.. or was it a gerbil?
That's what I meant, that the other party doesn't participate. Yes, you're right, it's the "party of McCain and Co." that opposes. Often, just for the sake of opposition and to get facetime on the lamestream news.
Thanks for posting that!!!
Leaky is demonstrating yet again that Frist has the votes he needs, and confirming Reid's take. ...
MUST READ # 815..Rob..thanks...
He also hasn't had his murder trial yet.
Leahy invoking King George III and starting to shout. Zzzzz.
I wonder if Leakey means by talking about "The rule of Law" he means the law against perjury?
They said they'd go over that bridge when they come to it.
yup , yer correct-a-mundo , ...he is also overmodulating the audio!!
Leaky Leahy wouldn't know perjury if it smacked him in that ugly mug of his...
Ah. It gets clearer now. Thanks.
GOOP is good too.
I went to the kitchen for a snakc and came back to leahy screeching. I need ear plugs.
LOL, we're headed for despotism if we get these judges.
Here are the Democrat Senators' quotes in date order. Just out of curiosity, I spot-checked the accuracy of approximately 1/3rd of them, especially the entries that give only a date but provide no actual source (such as the Congressional Record).
For those entries with no specific source given, I found that these are the actual verbal statements of the Senators on the Senate floor. These Senators' quotes have been used repeatedly on various TV news shows (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) and newspapers over the years.
While I didn't search long enough to track down those original statements in the actual Congressional Record, I have no doubt someone could track them down if they were so inclined.
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, May 4, 1995)
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." (Congressional Record, June 21, 1995, S8806)
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." (Congressional Record, June 22, 1995, S8861)
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) 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. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) May 14, 1997 : 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. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): Lets bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down. (Congressional Record, September 11, 1997)
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, October 22, 1997)
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, October 22, 1997)
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues dont like them, vote against them. But give them a vote. (Congressional Record, February 3, 1998)
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, June 18, 1998)
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) 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.
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." (Congressional Record, September 28, 1998, S11021)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): [E]arlier this year I noted how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination. (Congressional Record, October 14, 1998)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): It is our job to confirm these judges. If we dont like them, we can vote against them. (Congressional Record, September 16, 1999)
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, September 21, 1999)
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, September 21, 1999)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): [I]f the person is otherwise qualified, he or she gets the vote. Vote them up, vote them down. (Congressional Record, September 21, 1999)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): Our institutional integrity requires an up-or-down vote. (Congressional Record, October 4, 1999)
Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination. (Congressional Record, October 5, 1999)
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, October 28, 1999)
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)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) 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. 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. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): My expectation is that were 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, June 6, 2001)
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): [W]e should have up-or-down votes in the committee and on the floor. (CNNs Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields, June 9, 2001)
Uh----watch out ---CHARTS----BIG CHARTS---
Destroy the Senate?! Oh pul-eeze
BUT WHO CHECKS THE COURTS!?!?!?!?!?