Free Republic
Browse · Search
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

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-170 next last
To: Peach

Thank you, thank you very much. [Elvis]

141 posted on 05/19/2005 4:29:00 PM PDT by Doctor Raoul (Support Our Troops, Spit On A Liberal Reporter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach
"As to why OUR party isn't using these quotes EVERY SINGLE time they stand up to speak and sending out e-mails to Republicans across the country and writing letters to the editors is a mystery to me as well."

I would suspect its because it would lend legitimacy to the lib's tactics. From these quotes it is apparent that we did the same thing to Clinton's nominee's. We have been presenting these tactics as new and inappropriate tactics by the libs.

The statistics we should be incessantly presenting are the actual vote and confirmation tallies. Rush has been doing this for the last couple of weeks. Clinton, IIRC, around 90%, and the libs still bitched about it in the above quotes. Dubya, 53%.

There's a good reason these quotes aren't being used by the Pubs; they would be a bit counter-productive as the opposition would have a swift and credible reply: "They did it, so we're doing it."

The so-called nuclear option is the absolute best respose to the situation. I suspect (and hope) that Frist realizes this, and GETS IT OVER WITH. One of the good parts of winning elections is getting to have your own way. Its time we had our own way.

142 posted on 05/19/2005 4:38:48 PM PDT by yooper (If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Hey, thanks for sending this out. I only caught the last 3 minutes of this when it led on ABC News.

< j/k >

In all seriousness, this is great.

I am particularly amused at the Dems' new found commitment to original intent of the Founding Fathers (though there is no mention about the filibuster in the Constitution).

Also amusing is their commitment to keeping the filibuster around for when the Republicans are in the minority with a Dem President calling the shots. Either for lack of courage, or whatever, we NEVER used it on a judge before (and Lord knows we had LOTS of time in the Senate minority) so I have little reason to believe we would do so in the future anyway.

143 posted on 05/19/2005 5:21:30 PM PDT by GoBucks2002 (MSM now stands for "Muslim Sympathizing Media."
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Hypocrites! great list!

144 posted on 05/19/2005 5:31:52 PM PDT by MEG33 (GOD BLESS OUR ARMED FORCES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Oh, this is rich! Not that surprising, though.
145 posted on 05/19/2005 7:06:38 PM PDT by Termite_Commander (Warning: Cynical Right-winger Ahead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach; All

To what particular situation(s) are these quotes referring? I didn't think the GOP had ever blocked floor votes on judicial nominees when they were in the minority.

146 posted on 05/19/2005 7:07:42 PM PDT by Sloth (I don't post a lot of the threads you read; I make a lot of the threads you read better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chiapet

I hate to sound like a wet blanket, but if the dems were arguing in such force against judicial filibusters, doesn't that imply that the Republicans at the time were either using them, or for them?

Quiet down! (;

147 posted on 05/19/2005 7:53:57 PM PDT by Rumierules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Peach, thank you for this post. It p*sses me off though that the Bush administration hasn't brought this up. "Banging the drums" for a simple up or down vote while quoting these Senators of yesterday SHOULD surely make headlines. Someone needs to hammer a fist on the podium and state these facts!!!

148 posted on 05/19/2005 8:32:57 PM PDT by demkicker (Warning the GOP Senators: Nuke the filibuster!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Actually what this list of quotations could be said to show is that there was once a time when the filibuster saved Republicans from some terrible Democrat justices. We should think carefully before giving up a procedure that might someday save us from a Chief Justice Hillary Clinton.

149 posted on 05/19/2005 10:13:25 PM PDT by Agrarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

News flash...Democrats are hypocrits!

Great research, thanks.

150 posted on 05/19/2005 10:20:33 PM PDT by PFKEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

The question is why aren't the Republican Senators using this material?

Haven't seen any clips of this stuff by any pro Bush judge group. I don't think Fox News has had these clips on the air.

Where is Sean Hannity, doesn't he have years of Fox tape he can use?

151 posted on 05/19/2005 10:20:55 PM PDT by TheEaglehasLanded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Well done!

This just proves what hypocrites the liberals really are.

Justice Bork was on the Hannity show this afternoon and he said that when his name came up to be nominated on, Ted Kennedy made up a pack of lies to impugn his integrity...then said to Bork, "Nothing personal."
152 posted on 05/19/2005 10:46:54 PM PDT by Fruit of the Spirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polybius

Thanks for that link!

153 posted on 05/19/2005 11:42:48 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (This tagline no longer operative....floated away in the flood of 2005 ,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Peach

An absolutely GREAT list! I'm in the process of e-mailing each liberal senator on the list with a message including his/her own words. Somehow I don't expect to get any responses from any of them.

154 posted on 05/19/2005 11:59:01 PM PDT by mysto ("I am ZOT proof" --- famous last words of a troll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: =Intervention=; PianoMan; GOPJ; Miss Marple; Tamsey; William Creel; cyncooper; ...

Sorry for the deluge of PINGs lately. I did try to go easy on the Newsweek threads.

Media Schadenfreude and Media Shenanigans PING

155 posted on 05/20/2005 12:17:00 AM PDT by weegee ("Do you want them to write a piece about how great the military is?" Elizabeth Bumiller - NY Times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Excellant list.

The only problem is, these dolts will not recall, even when confronted with the evidence, that they EVER held a view contrary to the one the now exclaim.

How can they possibly do this? It's quite simple actually, they have mastered:

DOUBLETHINK: the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

156 posted on 05/20/2005 1:13:49 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Excellent post!

157 posted on 05/20/2005 1:15:18 AM PDT by ConservativeMind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA): “According to the U.S. Constitution, the President nominates, and the Senate shall provide advice and consent. 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. Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, 5/14/97, p. S4420)

Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-MD): “It is worse than that. It is not whether you let the President have his nominees confirmed. You will not even let them be considered by the Senate for an up-or-down vote. That is the problem today. In other words, the other side will not let the process work so these nominees can come before the Senate for judgment.” (Sen. Paul Sarbanes, Congressional Record, 3/19/97, p. S2539)

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE): “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. Joe Biden, Congressional Record, 3/19/97, p. S2540)

Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): "This so-called supermajority is the Senate's filibuster rule. All of America had a good taste of how the filibuster rule worked in the 103d Congress. It brought work to a full stop. It put into the hands of a minority the power to bargain for, hold hostage, blackmail or simply block anything they wanted. The Constitution is straightforward about the few instances in which more than a majority of the Congress must vote: A veto override, a treaty, and a finding of guilt in an impeachment proceeding. Every other action by the Congress is taken by majority vote. The Founders debated the idea of requiring more than a majority to approve legislation. They concluded that putting such immense power into the hands of a minority ran squarely against the democratic principle. Democracy means majority rule, not minority gridlock." (Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, 1/30/95, p. S1748)

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “Nominees deserve a vote. … The President and the Senate do not always agree. But we should resolve these disagreements by voting on these nominees--yes or no.” (Sen. Ted Kennedy, Congressional Record, 1/28/98, p. S85)

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “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.” (Sen. Ted Kennedy, Congressional Record, 9/21/99, S11102)

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): “They are simply holding up the President’s appointees because they don’t want them to be selected, or they have some other issue and they are trying to hold the nominee hostage.” (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 4/22/97, p. S3398)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “To delay judicial nominations for months and years and to deny them a vote is wrong.” (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 10/14/98, p. S12578)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): “If, after 150 days languishing in a committee there is no report on an individual, the name should come to the floor. 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. They are qualified or they are not.” (Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, 9/28/98, p. S S11031)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): “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.” (Sen. Chuck Schumer, Congressional Record, 3/7/00, p. S1211)

Credit a Yahoo poster

158 posted on 05/20/2005 5:50:44 AM PDT by ARealMothersSonForever (We shall never forget the atrocity of 11 Sept.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
"Well, that was different!"

Sometimes said as "But that's different"


The motto of the Dem party, and their answer to Every incongruity or U-turn.

159 posted on 05/20/2005 5:58:07 AM PDT by maica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: thecanuck

If I understand the news reporting on this, the Repubs didn't use or threaten a filibuster with the Clinton appointees, they used a parliamentary tactic of a Senator placing a "hold" on the nominee. Likely the same outcome as the filibuster threat we're seeing now, but not a filibuster, just the same.

160 posted on 05/20/2005 6:01:16 AM PDT by USNA74
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-170 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
Topics · Post Article

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