Republicans lose 39-hour talkathon

WND ^ | 11/14/03

[the bottle let me down]

As far I know, this is another lie. Didn't these judges lose on an up/down vote allowed by the pubs?...Please correct me if I'm misinformed.

You are correct. The Republicans did bottle people up in committee, but if anyone of them had the support of 51 senators, the majority could have ordered the committee to report the nomination to the floor for a vote. The GOP never denied a Clinton nominee with majority support a floor vote.

[MarkL]

The talkathon had very little to do with getting democrats to change their votes. That is not going to happen.

This is about changing votes in senate elections in 2004.

If a few more votes of hispanics, blacks, and women can be pried away from the Democrats on this issue, it may be possible to pick up 5 or 6 seats in the senat in 2004.

Not going to happen... Just like in the movie, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," the press is in the hip pocket of the demonRATs, but this time, there's no "Boy Rangers" to get the word out... Well, almost... Fox News played the part of the Boy Rangers, but that was it...

Every bit of news coverage that I heard either made light of what the republicans were doing, or droned on and on over how many Bush appointees have been approved, versus how many Clinton appointees were denied... Of course, they never mention how many of the Clinton appointees were DENIED A VOTE!!! (for those of you not keeping track, i.e. DU Trolls, ZERO! All the Clinton appointees who were refused were voted down by the Senate, just like the Constitution demands!

I honestly believe that the Republicans did one thing wrong here, and that was in their timing. They should have timed it so that the debate was still going on when Rush gets back on the air! He could have focused far more attention on it then just Fox News alone. Hopefully, he'll start beating on the topic when he first gets back.

Mark

[bvw]

A "victory" that marks the final stage of the Democratic Party ... they have tied themselves to the tracks and the Zeitgeist Zephyr is bearing down on them.

Can Howard Dean rescue them in time?

[Rummyfan]

Really! Why not just keep it going - one benefit would have been to make a lot of the Dem Senators miss the conclave in Iowa this weekend.

[Rummyfan]

Here's an old Ann Coulter column which shows the kind of 'moderate' the Democrats want in the judiciary:

Ann Coulter 10 May 2001

'Centrist' In Liberal-Speak

The New York Times has demanded that Senate Democrats block Bush's "judicial ideologues," whom, the Times predicts, will compare unfavorably to "Clinton's centrist judicial choices."

As one Clinton "centrist" nominee said to a female prosecutor appearing in her courtroom: "Shut your f***ing mouth." Another lawyer received this admonition from the centrist judge: "I don't give a s**t." That was the criminal's messiah: Judge Frederica A. Massiah-Jackson of the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court.

One time, Massiah-Jackson betrayed the identity of two undercover officers in her courtroom, announcing to the assembled criminals -- "take a good look at these guys ... and be careful out there."

When asked about this episode by a stunned Senate Judiciary Committee, Massiah-Jackson first said she did not recall the incident, twice refused to comment, once categorically denied it (despite contemporaneous news accounts), and finally gave a cockamamy account of having been misunderstood.

Only after the undercover officers had submitted statements to the committee describing how Massiah-Jackson had flamboyantly exposed them in open court did the judge begin to recall the incident with greater clarity. In "reconstructing the incident," she said she had been instructing school children present in the courtroom to respect police officers.

The story didn't really hang together because, on account of being undercover and all, undercover officers would not be identifiable to schoolchildren as police officers.

Be that as it may, it turned out Massiah-Jackson had already stated on the record that she was talking to criminal defendants, not any alleged school children in the courtroom. At a later hearing, the D.A. had raised the incident with Massiah-Jackson, and she cavalierly dismissed the D.A.'s outrage, saying: "I do say that to certain defendants."

In another classic Massiah-Jackson moment, Commonwealth vs. Johnson, the judge sentenced the brutal rapist of a 10-year-old girl to the statutory minimum. She apologized to the rapist for even that much time: "I just don't think the five to 10 years is appropriate in this case even assuming you were found guilty." She refused the D.A.'s offer to present a pre-sentence report and victim-impact statement, saying: "What would be the point of that?" (The five-year sentence was not crippling. After his release, the defendant was re-arrested for raping a 9-year-old boy.)

In another special moment for the whole Rainbow Coalition, when Massiah-Jackson was informed that both the defendant and victim in a rape case had AIDS, she said: "Why are we having a trial? We are talking about life expectancy of three years for both of them. What difference? What kind of punishment can we give (the defendant)? ... What's the purpose of the trial long range?"

In light of the fact that Massiah-Jackson had just announced there was no purpose in trying the defendant, the prosecutor requested that the judge recuse herself. She refused, and the victim died while the recusal motion was on appeal. The trial proceeded before Massiah-Jackson, who sentenced the defendant to one year of probation, allowing him to serve no time for a vicious rape and beating. ("What's the purpose?")

Sentencing a defendant who had slashed a woman in the face with a straight razor while stealing her purse, Massiah-Jackson refused to apply a sentence enhancement for use of a deadly weapon. When the D.A. noted that the enhancement was required, the centrist judge accused her of being "vindictive." Massiah-Jackson was reversed on appeal for ignoring the enhancement.

Indeed, Massiah-Jackson was reversed in a number of criminal cases. But in response to the Judiciary Committee request that she provide a list of her reversals -- a pro forma request -- she repeatedly claimed she had not been reversed in a single criminal case.

After having been caught in this and other lies, "centrist" Massiah-Jackson decided to withdraw her nomination. The New York Times was in a high dudgeon. Not because Massiah-Jackson had sneered at AIDS victims and rape victims, shouted obscenities from the bench or outed undercover cops, but because of the "judicial mugging" the Senate had put her through. The judge at least would return to the state bench "with her honor intact," the Times editorialized. "Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Senate."

Indeed, even after all this came out about Massiah-Jackson (despite the encumbrance of the judge's tendency to lie), she was avidly supported for a life-tenured federal judgeship by: The New York Times, top Philadelphia law firms, judges, Philadelphia Mayor Edward G. Rendell, the NAACP, the Barristers' Association of Philadelphia Inc., the Hispanic Bar Association, the Asian American Bar Association of the Delaware Valley and -- surprise -- the Philadelphia Bar Association.

When Bush's judicial nominees come under attack from the same groups for failing to be duly "centrist," remember what they mean by that.

[StriperSniper]

It's long past time to get down and dirty with the bastards..

Patience, there are some appropriations bills, the energy bill, and the Medicare bill(In know, but if they gets some reforms started, it won't be too bad) that have to get done.

After that, I don't think Frist will be able to hold some of them back. :)

[Intolerant in NJ]

The Constitution says only that the Senate should advise and consent to nominees - it says nothing about actively undertaking to defeat them in any way other than by refusing to consent - i.e. to vote for them - the 'rats' filibuster should simply be declared out of order and an up-or-down vote initiated on each nominee....

[WOSG]

Well, Presidency, Senate and House are all important.

Clinton would nominate 100 ACLU-Lefist-Judicial tyrants, Hatch would grumble about a few, and let practically all the leftist Judicial tyrants pass.

Ginsburg was voted on with a large majority - for shame, she disgraces the court on a regular basis.

[WOSG]

an energy bill without ANWR because the Democrats dont like it, a prescription drug benefit with huge new costs, and that is the "good" stuff?!? ... it's just depressing to see how the Democrats are controlling the agenda here.

At LEAST let us get some good 2004 issues out of this debacle.
The Democrats are the extremists, no doubt!

[nightdriver]

"Frist can't force them to talk."

Maybe what's needed is a constitutional way around the senate confirmation process under certain conditions. I have no idea what that would be, though.

[Hank Rearden]

"I have told these three ladies I will stand with them to the bitter end because they're the absolute right pick for their respective positions," Bush told reporters in the Oval Office

Isn't it great that we have a president who can make such a statement, without inspiring a case of the giggles?

Yeah, yeah. Just like he stood with Miguel Estrada to the bitter end.

Bush also used to talk about "limited government", too. Seen any of THAT coming out of a Republican-controlled government?

Just another blathering gasbag politician.

[StriperSniper]

At LEAST let us get some good 2004 issues out of this debacle.

I think that was the reason to end it when they did. I'm pretty sure Santorum and his crew were ready to take it over the line right then, but were pulled back for the long term stratergy. Even if those bills would be better off 'withering on the vine', it gives the leftists less ammo for '04. If we can get four more years and strong majority in the Senate(which I think we will do both) we can ram through what's needed and squash those in the way.

The most important thing the 39 hours did was the battle is now joined.

Let the games begin!

[Republican Wildcat]

Force a REAL filibuster

That's exactly what the Democrats are doing.

I'm really getting puzzled by these repeated calls for a 'real filibuster' when that is exactly what is going on. They have been blocking votes on judicial nominees by refusing to grant cloture. Ergo, a real filibuster has occurred. I think you are confusing this with another tactic of a Senator holding and refusing to yield the floor. That's not what the Democrats are doing in this case.

[Republican Wildcat]

Why not 39 DAYS like when the democrats fiabustered the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT!!

They've been filibustering the judicial nominees for far longer than that.

[billbears]

limited government

We don't use that phrase anymore. It's quite evident the Republican party only used it as a code phrase for 'we want to be in control'. As evidenced by the 20+ percent in government spending over the past two years