Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democrats Thought it was Improper to Filibuster Judicial Nominees
May 19, 2005 | FR Researchers

Posted on 05/19/2005 8:17:55 AM PDT by Peach

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): “ "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. 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): “[I]f the person is otherwise qualified, he or she gets the vote. … Vote them up, vote them down.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)

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. 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)


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 109th; cary; cnim; democrats; doublestandard; filibuster; filibusterquotes; flipflop; hypocracy; hypocritedemocrats; judicial; nominees; obstructionistdems; quotes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-170 next last
To: Peach
"Well, that was different!" (/sarcasm)

Sarcasm aside, I'm sure this is their claim if someone brings it up. After all, according ABC News, the Republicans were the ones filibustering against civil rights.

51 posted on 05/19/2005 9:00:15 AM PDT by MizSterious (First, the journalists, THEN the lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

I saved that and several more to a word document for a fast backup to the search feature.


52 posted on 05/19/2005 9:00:22 AM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (Give Byrd the Byrd option now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: edwinland

I'll reply to myself ... I managed to get my browser working and I did check one quote which is a little out of context (it's about secret holds not filibusters) but the basic idea is the same.


53 posted on 05/19/2005 9:00:41 AM PDT by edwinland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952
I think I'm going to start saving to Word documents too; it's easier to alphabetize and keep well ordered.

My "favorites" files has simply gotten unusable.
54 posted on 05/19/2005 9:01:27 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Oh, those pesky facts. The MSM is not interested


55 posted on 05/19/2005 9:01:49 AM PDT by P.O.E.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Reid made the observation today that these comments of DEMS were in relation to getting nominees out of Committee, and onto the floor.

So, he is making the argument to get all of the nominees out of committee. That could be the next battle, it certainly is a different battle from getting votes on nominees now on the floor.

56 posted on 05/19/2005 9:02:09 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edwinland

It looks like it's all from the Congressional Record of the late 90s. Pretty unimpeachable source...


57 posted on 05/19/2005 9:02:52 AM PDT by ArmyTeach (NOT ON MY WATCH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Peach

I started doing that way back when, and have several word files just for FR. That is much eaiser to work with and I can find most within minutes.


58 posted on 05/19/2005 9:07:31 AM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (Give Byrd the Byrd option now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Peach

bttt


59 posted on 05/19/2005 9:10:37 AM PDT by PogySailor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA; Peach; Pride in the USA; Stillwaters
I just pulled those quotes from about 4 or 5 right leaning sites that already had them clipped out.

Thought it would be a good idea to put them all together.

Good job! This makes the point so effectively. I hope Rush, Fox and others pick this up, since we know we'll never hear it anywhere else.

60 posted on 05/19/2005 9:11:06 AM PDT by lonevoice (Vast Right Wing Pajama Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952

I'm so glad you reminded me about that option; I'm going to start saving stuff there instead of Favorites.

It's a much smarter way to do it.


61 posted on 05/19/2005 9:11:44 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Ping! Thanks I've been looking for these!!!!


62 posted on 05/19/2005 9:22:28 AM PDT by dannyboy72 (How long will you hold onto the rope when Liberals pull us off the cliff?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Bump


63 posted on 05/19/2005 9:33:02 AM PDT by BROKKANIC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach
I'm on the fly this morning, and haven't had the time to read all the posts to this thread....but am I safe to assume that this list has been "certified" as totally legit?

If so, what ammunition!!

64 posted on 05/19/2005 9:35:08 AM PDT by ErnBatavia (I don't drink and FReep...it just looks that way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ErnBatavia

The list was gathered from several conservative news organization's articles and freepers have compiled the entire list which details the date and where the comments were made.

I haven't independently verified the list, but unless 3-4 conservative news organizations are all using the same lies, then I'm assuming it's correct.

Also, we have enough media and trolls who visit here that if the list was incorrect, we'd be told by now. LOL


65 posted on 05/19/2005 9:37:05 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: ErnBatavia

Most of them come straight out of the Congressional Record.


66 posted on 05/19/2005 9:40:17 AM PDT by OXENinFLA ("And that [Atomic] bomb is a filibuster" ~~~ Sen. Lieberman 1-4-95)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Peach

I just read this quickly and I have a question: Why were the Democrats making these comments? Were the Republicans trying to hold up votes?


67 posted on 05/19/2005 9:43:13 AM PDT by cantfindagoodscreenname
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cantfindagoodscreenname

I don't know the answer to your question but assume that Republicans were holding up the vote of some Democrat nominee.


68 posted on 05/19/2005 9:44:51 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Forward this to Brit Hume.


69 posted on 05/19/2005 9:49:12 AM PDT by Kenny Bunkport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunkport

We need to ALL e-mail to Brit and Rush and the Judicial Committee. They won't read it until they get hundreds of copies.


70 posted on 05/19/2005 9:50:22 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Peach
At the time of those quotes the Republicans were unabashedly blocking every Clinton judicial appointment that they could by delaying committee hearings or refusing the schedule hearings at all. The Republicans had no problems blocking nominees then, and the Democrats were steaming. Now the shoe is on the other foot. The Democrats are blocking appointments and the GOP is suddenly indignant.
71 posted on 05/19/2005 9:50:47 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA

Great job OXEN!


72 posted on 05/19/2005 9:51:19 AM PDT by houeto ("Mr. President , close our borders now!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Then why do we keep hearing that it's never been done before? I'm not doubting you, just asking.


73 posted on 05/19/2005 9:52:01 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Then why do we keep hearing that it's never been done before? I'm not doubting you, just asking.

Filibustering judicial nominees never has been done before, although some claim that it was done with Abe Fortis back in the 1960's. But the GOP didn't need to filibuster. As the majority party they controlled the committee schedule. And Jesse Helms was chairman. So killing judicial nominees at the committee level was a piece of cake.

74 posted on 05/19/2005 9:55:46 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Peach

I guess that I wanted to know if they were doing the same thing that the Democrats are doing right now. I think Rush has been saying that the Democrats are the ones who started doing this six years ago and that it hadn't been done before this. Were the Republicans keeping the vote from getting out of committee so that it could go to a full vote in the Senate? (I know that you don't know, but I'm wondering if anyone else does.)


75 posted on 05/19/2005 9:56:22 AM PDT by cantfindagoodscreenname
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Add Colorado Senator Ken Salazar to the summary.

"I would hope all nominees get up or down votes," Salazar answered. "And the decision on an up-or-down vote should be based on whether or not the president's nominee is qualified for the position."

Source: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/3/26/1020/90795


76 posted on 05/19/2005 9:58:38 AM PDT by mpreston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mpreston

Good find. Thank you!


77 posted on 05/19/2005 9:59:32 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: cantfindagoodscreenname
Were the Republicans keeping the vote from getting out of committee so that it could go to a full vote in the Senate? (I know that you don't know, but I'm wondering if anyone else does.)

Yes. The majority party runs the Judiciary Committee, and the chairman runs the schedule. One one or two occasions nominees that had been voted out of committee were blocked by Senator Helms. Not a single one of these actions violated any Senate rule. But then again, neither does the filibuster.

78 posted on 05/19/2005 10:00:22 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Great list. But the Republicans weren't filibustering, they were holding the names in committee and refusing to send them to the floor.


79 posted on 05/19/2005 10:00:48 AM PDT by lady lawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mpreston

"Should we take our time on these federal judges? Yes. Do I have any apologies? Only one: I probably moved too many already." -- Trent Lott, 1998


80 posted on 05/19/2005 10:01:45 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Bond is up read more quotes on the florr right now.......


81 posted on 05/19/2005 10:02:38 AM PDT by OXENinFLA ("And that [Atomic] bomb is a filibuster" ~~~ Sen. Lieberman 1-4-95)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Thanks for that information.


82 posted on 05/19/2005 10:02:46 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: lady lawyer
Great list. But the Republicans weren't filibustering, they were holding the names in committee and refusing to send them to the floor.

And the difference is? In both cases one party prevented an up or down vote on the other party's nominees.

83 posted on 05/19/2005 10:02:55 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA

Excellent! Switching back to C-Span.


84 posted on 05/19/2005 10:03:10 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

It may be substantively different. It may be that, since the Republicans controlled the Senate, there wouldn't have been enough votes on the floor, anyway. If my memory serves me, Clinton nominated some real nut jobs who happened to be minorities, then were saying that everyone opposing them was a racist. It may be that the Republicans on the committee were preventing those on the floor from having to cast their vote against.

It also may have been that a lot of Republicans were still respecting the time-honored tradition that the President was entitled to name judges whose political leanings were the same as his own, and that political or judicial philosophy was not a legitimate basis for voting down a nominee. Maybe the Republican leadership was afraid they would get the votes. I don't know.


85 posted on 05/19/2005 10:09:27 AM PDT by lady lawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA

Kit Bond is doing GREAT!


86 posted on 05/19/2005 10:12:51 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: lady lawyer
It may be that, since the Republicans controlled the Senate, there wouldn't have been enough votes on the floor, anyway.

Perhaps. But in killing nominees by refusing to schedule committee hearings or voting out of committee then wasn't the GOP doing what they are complaining about now? Denying a nominee an up or down vote in the Senate?

If my memory serves me, Clinton nominated some real nut jobs who happened to be minorities...

And the Democrats claim that they are preventing extremists from the Bench. One party's sober jurist is another party's nut job.

...then were saying that everyone opposing them was a racist.

And the GOP is saying that the Democrats are opposing Republican nominees because they are Hispanic or because they are Catholic. Sad that we're taking pages out of the Democrat playbook, isn't it?

87 posted on 05/19/2005 10:15:24 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Thanks for posting this, great info, and my thanks to all the Freepers who got all of it together.

Best Regards

Sergio
88 posted on 05/19/2005 10:18:32 AM PDT by Sergio (If a tree fell on a mime in the forest, would he make a sound?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sergio

If I knew the freepers to thank for the research, I would do so.

The few I've tried to thank have said THEY got it from others too.


89 posted on 05/19/2005 10:19:27 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Frist needs to read every quote on the floor of the Senate and expose these hypocrites for everyone to see.


90 posted on 05/19/2005 10:30:52 AM PDT by dandiegirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Thanks for the explanation!


91 posted on 05/19/2005 10:33:03 AM PDT by cantfindagoodscreenname
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Great post, thanks. Concerning the filibuster, what scares me the most is the gut feeling that the Repubs don't have 50 votes to support the Constitutional option even though a majority of the country (see Rasmussen) supports it. McCain, Hagel, Collins, Snowe, Chafee, and Graham will probably vote against it. This is why I fear that a compromise is imminent.


92 posted on 05/19/2005 11:02:48 AM PDT by moose2004 (You Can Run But You Can't Hide!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moose2004

Graham is my Senator and a huge disappointment. I never expected to see his name included with Chafee, McCain, et al.


93 posted on 05/19/2005 11:04:05 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Peach

I agree, he reminds me a lot of a young John McCain. Maybe Mark Sanford should challenge Graham for the party's nomination in 2008, what do you think?


94 posted on 05/19/2005 11:09:41 AM PDT by moose2004 (You Can Run But You Can't Hide!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: moose2004

I like Sanford right where he is as Governor. And I'm afraid the RNC won't put anyone in a position to run against Graham and we're stuck with him for the foreseeable future.

It's a shame that a state as conservative as S.C. is going to suffer from this RHINO for years to come.


95 posted on 05/19/2005 11:10:58 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Peach
They couldn't win the election, so now they put their hands over their collective ears and say na na na on and on into the night. They are the most spoiled irresponsible group of people around.
96 posted on 05/19/2005 11:11:15 AM PDT by midwyf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

The common thread is that except for two of those quotes, all were made with a Democrat as president, and all were made with the Dems having control. And now...???????


97 posted on 05/19/2005 11:12:58 AM PDT by Christian4Bush (Prayers for Laura Ingraham and her family as she is treated for breast cancer. 5-4-05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Maybe Graham's bucking to be McCain's running mate. I wouldn't vote for either one of them, on any ticket.


98 posted on 05/19/2005 11:14:34 AM PDT by moose2004 (You Can Run But You Can't Hide!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Peach

mark


99 posted on 05/19/2005 11:27:05 AM PDT by raivyn (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Guys we will do fine. There will be no deal and the judicial filibuster will end.
100 posted on 05/19/2005 11:32:26 AM PDT by alwaysrepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-170 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson