Posted on 04/13/2005 5:54:14 PM PDT by Choose Ye This Day
Hewitt: Joining me now is Nan Aron. She is the President of the Alliance for Justice since 1979. I believe the Alliance has been active in matters relating to Washington legislation and judicial confirmation. Nan Aron, welcome to The Hugh Hewitt Show.
Aron: Thank you. It’s a pleasure to be with you.
Hewitt: To start off, can you give us a little idea about what the Alliance for Justice is, how long its been around, how big it is?
Aron: The Alliance for Justice is a national association of over 70 public interests and civil rights advocacy organizations. We have two different programs. One focuses on issues effecting the composition of the Federal Judiciary and access to justice and our other project provides technical assistance, books, trainings to non-profits and foundations around the country on the IRS and FEC rules.
Hewitt: How big is the Alliance in terms of staff?
Aron: We have about 40 staff members here and our budget is something between 4-5 million dollars a year.
Hewitt: Great. Now, Nan Aron you’re in the thick of things. Ralph Neas was my guest last week and along with Ralph you are perhaps most identified with the effort to block President Bush’s nominees to the Circuit Court of Appeals. He’s got the worst record in history of getting Circuit Court of Appeals nominees through the United States Senate. Why is that?
Aron: Well, George Bush? I think George Bush has been extraordinarily successful in getting his nominees through. Both the Courts of Appeals and to the District Courts. There is just a small number of Court of Appeals nominees who were currently being blocked by the Senate but this President, unlike former President Bill Clinton, has been a very lucky guy. These Senators – I should say over our objections have confirmed judges who we believe shouldn’t be on the bench so, no, Bush is very lucky. [unintelligible]
Hewitt: For the benefit of the audience, let’s just do the numbers. The nominees to the Circuit Court of Appeals by Bill Clinton in his first term -- eventually 100% were confirmed. In his first term, 61.3% were confirmed. George W. Bush’s nominees to the Circuit Court of Appeals in his first term only 51.5% were confirmed. It’s clearly a difference in kind, an obstruction on the part of the Democrats which is really without precedent.
Aron: Well, if we’re talking about precedents here, there have only been 10 filibusters against Court of Appeals judges and during the Clinton years, over 60 nominees, both in the Circuit Courts and the District Courts never made it through. But for a minute if we could just clarify for the listeners what we’re talking about when we’re focusing on Court of Appeals judges. We all know, there are 9 Supreme Court Justice, but Court of Appeals judges – listeners should think about two numbers – 200 and 300. There are about 200 Circuit Court judges in the whole United States and there are about 300,000,000 people. So when you think about Court of Appeals judges and how important they are, there are only 200 for 300,000,000 people so that’s only 200 making decisions that effect the lives of so many Americans. The problem with George Bush’s candidates to the Court of Appeals is that they are either individuals who would turn the clock back on our environmental and worker protections, on our civil rights and women’s rights. These are people who will take us backwards and who do not accept the progress and advances that we Americans have met over the years.
Hewitt: Nan Aron, do you agree that each of these nominees—there are 7 of them who have been filibustered with the unprecedented refusal to have cloture invoked in the last Congress—do you agree that all 7 of these have majority support in the United States Senate?
Aron: Yes. I do.
Hewitt: So if they came to a vote, they would be confirmed?
Aron: Yes, they would and that’s because Republicans vote in lock-step and all Republicans voted for all the Court of Appeals judges that President Bush has nominated so far. Democrats usually are a little bit less marching in lock-step and tend to vote both sides.
Hewitt: Let’s talk about the unprecedented use of the filibuster against Court of Appeals judges. Prior to 2003 a vote to invoke cloture had never failed with regards to t a Circuit Court judge. Never. Not in the 217 year history of the United States Senate. Democrats have successfully blocked 20 such votes in the last 3 years. Isn’t that radical and isn’t that unprecedented?
Aron: No. You know filibusters have been used oh going back to 1790 when the Senators filibustered a bill– filibuster to prevent Philadelphia from becoming the nation’s permanent Capitol.
Hewitt: When has a filibuster been used against a Circuit Court of Appeals judge prior to 2003?
Aron: I’ll tell you. Filibuster was successfully used not just the Circuit Court judge but against Abe Fortas in 1968.
Hewitt: I agree with that. But when has it ever been used against a Circuit Court of Appeals judge prior to 2003?
Aron: Well, all I know is that it was used first in 1881. There were 9 other occasions in the Ninteenth Century. I’m not sure whether those were District Court or Court of Appeals judges but we can all accept the fact that filibusters have been used over time – actually going back to the 1880’s on judicial nominations.
Hewitt: No we cannot accept that. We can only accept that in 1968 one vote on cloture on Abe Fortas failed that was because he was corrupt, nominated in Lyndon Johnson’s term nominee, opposed …
Aron: Oh no, he was filibustered because people thought he was too progressive.
Hewitt: Well, there’s quite a lot of history on that one. I’ll leave it up to the audience to look that up, but for the first time ever in 2003 going forward ,radical Democrats have blocked 10 different nominees to the Circuit Courts on 20 different occasions meaning it’s a de novo issue. My question is since we can agree its de novo, whether or not it’s a good thing. And Nan Aron, why are these particular nominees being blocked? Is it because many have religious beliefs?
Aron: Oh, no. In fact, I love the fact that you asked that question. William Pryor nominated for the seat on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has such an extremist record that he offends almost every constituency in the United States. Republicans cried foul when the Democrats filibustered him and said that these Democrats are anti-Catholic. You know, it’s interesting no one even knew that William Pryor was Catholic until Orrin Hatch asked him point blank at his hearing. “Mr. Pryor, are you Catholic?” and I remember sitting in the hearing room, scratching my head thinking what relevance is someone’s religion to their qualification for a lifetime of appointment.
Hewitt: Do you really believe in what you’re saying right now – that no one knew William Pryor was Catholic?
Aron: Sure.
Hewitt: The Alliance for Justice had not done research revealing William Pryor’s record in speeches and his Catholicism?
Aron: You know, it’s just not relevant.
Hewitt: Well, it might not be relevant but you just asserted that nobody knew. I find that just incredible.
Aron: I don’t think it made any difference whatsoever.
Hewitt: But you just said that they did’t know. You did know, didn’t you? Aron: I don’t think I knew. I don’t think I cared much.
Hewitt: You don’t think Chuck Schumer knew?
Aron: No.
Hewitt: And Ralph Neas didn’t know?
Aron: No. But I do believe that he described Roe v. Wade as the worst abomination of constitutional [unintelligible]. We’re upset that he was one of the founders of the Republican Attorney Generals Association which members raise money from corporations that he as an attorney general might have had to investigate or sued or solicited. We were upset that while Attorney General he made every effort to limit congressional authority to past civil rights, worker rights and environmental laws. Those are the things that worried us about William Pryor.
Hewitt: If his record is so bad, why can’t you defeat him on the floor of the Senate in a fair up and down vote?
Aron: Well, you have to ask Republicans that because its shameful that the Republicans simply want rubber stamp every single one of Bush’s nominees and you know, Pryor is just one of several problematic candidates. You’ve got William Haynes in the Fourth Circuit, one of the chief architects in defending the Bush Administration policies on detainees.
Hewitt: And on that basis he should be opposed because he designed the policy on detainees following 9/11?
Aron: Well he paved the way for torture to take place in prisons around the world.
Hewitt: And how did William Haynes pave the way for torture to take place?
Aron: Oh, because he wrote a memo – he was first – he oversaw defense department working groups that redefined torture to include only the intentional infliction of pain equivalent to serious physical injuries such as organ failure _____. He approved dozens of coercive interrogation techniques on detainees. Um, he came out with opinions that detainees have no rights to lawyers. In fact, some of his views were so radical, that they were overturned by the United States Supreme Court.
Hewitt: Nan Aron, wasn’t that the thinnest of [unintelligible]. Don’t you think he wouldn’t stand a chance on the floor of the Senate on an up or down vote which you’ve already admitted that he would win under a majority rule?
Aron; I can only think that there are some Republicans who were saying to themselves ‘thank goodness for the filibuster that I don’t have to vote on the merits for someone like Bill Haynes, who the Supreme Court, whose policies of Supreme Court is already repudiating. I know the Republicans are saying that ‘this is a relief.”
Hewitt: Well, then are you going to win the vote to uphold the ruling of the Chair that 51 votes is all that is necessary?
Aron: I don’t know, but I’m hopeful. I’m hoping that some Republicans like Senator McCain who just yesterday on one of the talk shows saw a slippery slope in banning the filibuster.
Hewitt: And he also said that he would listen to the leadership though.
Aron: Yes, he did. You’re absolutely right. I think that he’s articulating the views that many Republicans share that this is not a road they want to go down.
Hewitt: Do you have any other Senators in mind besides Senator McCain who will support the radical Democrats on this?
Aron: [laughing] I think Senator Chafee, Olympia Snow have indicated that they will not vote for the “nuclear option.”
Hewitt: Are you confident of those?
Aron: Pretty confident.
Hewitt: How about Senator Warner? Are you confident in his vote?
Aron: Well, we know that Senator Warner and Hagel and McCain and Collins mulling this over in their minds and try to think about where they come down. I sure hope that we then get to the better of them and that they vote to defeat this nuclear option which would throw out 200 years of time honored tradition in the United States.
Hewitt: Do you expect Democrats to filibusters Supreme Court nominees as well, Nan Aron?
Aron: You know, that’s a fairly good question because if President Bush did what President Clinton did and share names of prospective candidates to get the Democrats consent as Clinton did, if Bush did that, his nominees would sail through.
Hewitt: A lot of names are out there. For example, Fourth Circuit Court Judge Mike Luttig. Would you oppose and urge a filibuster of Mike Luttig?
Aron: Absolutely, but you see, if this President were to sit down with the Democrats, I assume, I don’t know for sure, but I assume that they would say ‘Mr. President, this guy shouldn’t be elevated. His views are just too outside the constitutional mainstream for us.’ If he were to do that and come up with someone else that met the requirements of the Democrats, the person would sail through.
Hewitt: Would you oppose Judge Mike McConnell if he were nominated and urge a filibuster?
Aron: Yes, we would.
Hewitt: Do you oppose and urge a filibuster for John Roberts?
Aron: Yes, we would.
Hewitt: In essence, people – three judges I’ve just named. Three, if you go down a long list of judges who have already confirmed by the United States Senate. If Alliance for Justice -- Ralph said the same thing by the way last week that he’d have opposed the same three judges. If the radicals are in charge of the Democrats, don’t we need to break this down because in essence unless they nominate someone you like, you’ll urge a filibuster and overturn majority rule.
Aron: You know, you just named three individuals but can’t be the only three people who come to mind. There are dozens and dozens of others.
Hewitt: Miguel Estrada? He comes to mind.
Aron: Miguel Estrada pulled out so he’s not even being…
Hewitt: No – if he was nominated to the Supreme Court, would you oppose and urge a filibuster.
Aron: Of course we would! And so would I assume the vast majority of Americans. I think what you have to do is look at Miguel Estrada’s record – his hearing record before the Senate Judicial Committee. He refused to answer questions. Well, judgeships are too important. Judges have too much influence over our lives. Simply to rubber stamp somebody because the President says that he wants this guy on the Supreme Court…
Hewitt: Nan Aron, would you oppose and urge a filibuster on any nominee who believes that life began at conception?
Aron: Well, I would oppose any nominee who supports the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Hewitt: No, even if they say I understand the law and I would apply the law, but I believe that life begins at conception.
Aron: Oh, I think their personal beliefs are theirs as long as they say that they support the holding in Roe v. Wade.
Hewitt: So as long as they support that, they would not overturn it, but they understand that it is the law, but you would not oppose someone on the basis on their believing that life begins at birth.
Aron: As long as they say that they will uphold Roe v. Wade.
Hewitt: Is that what it comes down to just Roe v. Wade in your eyes? It’s really an abortion litmus test, isn’t it?
Aron: [laughing] No, no, no. It’s not just abortion. It’s environment, it’s civil rights, it’s consumer and worker protections. Abortion is just one of the very significant issues that needs to be reviewed but clearly there are other issues as well. We look at someone’s entire record, not just a record one or two issues.
Hewitt: Can people be religious and not be opposed by the Alliance for Justice?
Aron: Of course they can. Of course they can.
Hewitt: Have you – can you name any such person who you know to be devout Roman Catholic, for example, whose confirmation to the Circuit or Circuit Court of Appeals you’ve supported.
Aron: I can’t figure out that question because we don’t believe that there is any relevance to one’s religion. I’m sure that these Senators have confirmed dozens of Bush nominees and Reagan nominees who are Catholic. Again, we don’t look at religion. It’s not relevant.
Hewitt: I’m sorry if I got this wrong, but I thought you were on record as opposing the radical religious right?
Aron: I don’t know what that means! We’re opposed to judges who would write decision or have views or are harmful to rights and protections that Americans cherish.
Hewitt: But how do you define the religious right in this country? Because I think I’ve seen you speak out against the religious right and their agenda.
Aron: I’m not sure – we don’t have a position on the religious right. We take positions that are different from the religious right when it comes to judicial nominees.
Hewitt: But how do you define this "right?" That’s what I’m trying to get at?
Aron; How do I define "religious right?" I look at the organization, Family Research Council, Christian Coalition – these are individuals who don’t respect the wall of separation between Church and State. They are people who have pretty firm ideas on abortion, school prayer, church/state separation and I guess it’s safe to say that Members of the Alliance for Justice organization holds views at variance with these organizations, but we don’t go after these groups. It’s just that we – when it comes to judicial nominations, we evaluate judicial nominees based on a very different set of criteria.
Hewitt: Are they out of the mainstream, Nan Aron?
Aron: What, those religious right groups?
Hewitt: Yes.
Aron; Are they out of the mainstream. Sure, I think they are out of the mainstream. Most people in America support, are perfectly comfortable allowing the right to choose with women. It’s the vast majority of opinion in this country.
Hewitt: Is it radically religious right to believe in halting partial-birth abortion?
Aron: I’m not actually sure. I assume it is, but I haven’t studied that question and I, again, we don’t go about attacking these organizations because their views are different than ours. This is a wonderful society of very diverse—and different organizations and, in fact, might be interesting to note that there are some issues where we find ourselves on the same side as the Christian coalition.
Hewitt: Sure there are, but you’re trying to define – I look at the Alliance as very effective work over the last 15 years and you have effectively defined as ineligible for the Federal bench a number of people who just happen to hold deeply held beliefs—many of which are religious. You used Chuck Schumer’s language, "deeply held beliefs" and it seems to me that you are enacting or helping to push a prohibited religious test to keep these people of faith out of office, off the judicial bench.
Aron: No, no, I actually don’t think that’s true. What we do do is oppose individuals who can’t separate their religious views from their views on the law.
Hewitt: Which individuals would those be?
Aron: Oh, there was an individual to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Claude Allen, who could not see the difference between—he believed that much of what the—that law was based on religious beliefs as opposed to legal doctrine and precedent and cases and, yes, his views were of tremendous concern to us, and there have been a few other nominees.
Hewitt: Can you name those nominees for me?
Aron: I’m trying to think of someone. It was another individual who went on to the Fourth—I don’t remember but Claude Allen comes to mind and I think if your listeners look at Claude Allen’s record they’ll come to the same conclusion that we do that this individual shouldn’t hold a post on the highest--influential Court of Appeals. We have an obligation of law which doesn’t mean that we at the Alliance for Justice don’t have a healthy respect for religious diversity and religious views.
Hewitt: It’s hard to see that, Nan. Really, it is. I think you have—it might have a healthy respect, but it’s not on the Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. You want people of deep religious faith barred from those courts.
Aron: Of course not. Of course not. So long as they make a distinction in their legal reasoning and in their views between law and religion.
Hewitt: Well it seems to me that Bill Pryor did that with the Ten Commandments case but you still are opposed to him on the basis on his deep seated beliefs. I think that’s just code for he’s Catholic and we don’t like that.
Aron: Oh no. Gosh, no. Absolutely not. No. I mean he was very much a supporter as I recall—the Ten Commandments being housed in open place in the court house.
Hewitt: Once the Federal courts ruled, he insisted that they be removed and he moved against Justice Moore to do so.
Aron: That’s absolutely right but that was after being a very vocal defender of Roy Moore’s efforts to promote Christianity in his courtroom.
Hewitt: But that’s prior to their being a conclusive ruling. I think what I hear you saying is "Don’t advocate for anything in an unsettled area of law that might be interpreted as being pro-religious because subsequent to that the Alliance for Justice will use that as proof positive that you can’t separate your beliefs from religious views."
Aron: No, no, no. William Pryor just did not see the separation of church and state. He very much supported Roy Moore’s efforts to begin court sessions with clergy-led Christian prayer. That doesn’t belong in our nation’s courtrooms. It belongs in our nation’s churches.
Hewitt: You don’t believe that "God save this honorable court" should be said before the Supreme Court?
Aron: Well, I think that’s a very nice symbolic term, but I think that beginning court sessions –Christian led prayer is not appropriate.
Hewitt: What about the Chaplains of the House and Senate?
Aron: I think that’s a matter of great tradition in this country, but again, it doesn’t mean that you’re going to display the Ten Commandments in the great rotunda and…
Hewitt: I’m just confused. Do you oppose Chaplains in the House and Senate?
Aron: I don’t…I don’t…no so long as decisions that are made in the House and Senate are based on reason and law and good judgment. I don’t see – I don’t personally see anything wrong with Chaplains and I think that it may be very appropriate. Again, that has nothing to do with some of these judicial nominees who would turn their courtroom into church sessions, religious meetings and I think that’s wrong.
Hewitt: Is Janice Rodgers Brown such a judge?
Aron: Janice Rodgers Brown?
Hewitt: Yeah.
Aron: Well, that’s – I’m not actually familiar so much with her religious views as I am with her views on the role of the Federal government and of her more rhetorical outrageous statements about government.
Hewitt: Is Priscilla Owens a judge who would turn her courtroom into a church?
Aron: No, well…Priscilla Owens has other problems. She has always anchored the anti-choice laying of the very conservative Texas Supreme Court and, in fact, one opinion of hers was so extreme that recently confirmed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales called it “an unconsciousable act of judicial activism.”
Hewitt: Yes, Ralph went through that talking point with us as well, but she’s not one of your courts into churches judges?
Aron: She’s just not qualified and neither is William Myers and Myers is up for a seat on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and his only problem is that he has devoted his career inside/outside government weakening environmental laws.
Hewitt: Terrence Boyle is he a church/court guy?
Aron: I’m not sure about. Again, I don’t know about his church, but I do know that he the reversed twice the rate of B-average judge in the Fourth Circuit which he is just not qualified for an elevation to the Court of Appeals.
Hewitt: Is that a given rule for Democrats nominees as well that they’ve been reversed twice the rate of their Circuit they should not be confirmed to the Circuit?
Aron: Well, I think you have to look at see at some what some of these decisions are.
Hewitt: So if it’s a Democrat, it’s okay to get reversed, but if it’s a Republican…[laughter]
Aron: Well, I think when you look at some of the reversals, you can only come to the conclusion that this is a individual who is opposed to civil rights, opposed to rights for persons with disabilities, this guy has dozens and dozens of decisions rolling back protections for individual rights.
Hewitt: What about Bret Cavanaugh on the DC Circuit?
Aron: Oh, Bret Cavanaugh! Well, poor Bret Cavanaugh. He wrote the grounds for impeachment section of the Ken Starr report on Monica Lewinsky and then strongly defended that report but his claim to fame—he’s one of the youngest, most inexperienced nominees to be sent up to the United States Senate. He’s just had too limited experience.
Hewitt: Now, Nan Aron, we’re running low on time and I’m assumed because you and Ralph have exactly the same talking points on these judges and it really comes down doesn’t it to the fact that Democrats are out of power, they’ve lost three successive elections, two Presidential, three Congressional elections, have no lever on power left except the filibuster which is illegitimate and unprecedented and radical in its interpretation of use here, but because it’s your last gasp power the Left in this country has got to push the filibuster. Isn’t that what it’s really about?
Aron: No. Not at all. It means that over 40 Senators – we’re not just talking about one or two Democrats , we’re talking about over 40 Democrats have indicated their strong desire to oppose nominees who are out of the constitutional mainstream. I should say the 40+ Democrats is very different from the Clinton years where only one or two Republicans—John Ashcroft was famous for holding up nominees and never given them hearings. Over 60 of their nominees – 60 of the Clinton nominees never made it because of individual Senators like John Ashcroft, John Kyle or Orrin Hatch registered opposition. Compare the one or two Republicans to over 40 now. No, it’s not because it’s their last gas of power. I salute those Democrats for standing up for fair and good judges.
Hewitt: And it does come down though that you are opposed to majority rules in the Senate when it comes to judges?
Aron; Well, I’m just saying that the Senate is the last line of defense to George Bush’s court packing.
Hewitt: But you are opposed to majority rule in the Senate when it comes to judges?
Aron: No. I’m not opposed to it but there are circumstances which the Democrats have to stand up and say no.
Hewitt: But Nan, that’s Orwellian. If you’re supporting the right of 45 Democrats to block it you are against majority rule in the Senate when it comes to judicial nominees. That’s clearly the case.
Aron: Well, I’m just saying there are times when it’s important for the minority party to register it’s opposition. So, I think, we have a system of checks and balances in that Senate, and so it’s not majority rule over minority rule. There are customs, there are traditions.
Hewitt: But you think that 40 Senators, 41 Senators actually, should be able to block any judicial nominee they want.
Aron: Sure. I certainly do. If the nominees…
Hewitt: Is there any precedent in the Federalist Papers at all so support the idea that 41 Senators represent the advice and consent of the Senate?
Aron: No, but there’s nothing in the Federalist Papers that make the other point, either. The fact of the matter is this is the only the minority party can register it’s voice. And I’m proud…
Hewitt: But wouldn’t the framers have written that down? 41 Senators get to advise and consent?
Aron: No, No.
Hewitt: That radical interpretation would not have entered into Hamilton, or Jay, or Madison’s understanding, and they would have put it out there for everyone to understand. Hey, don’t worry, anti-Federalists. 41, or a minority of Senators can block judicial appointments?
Aron: Well, look. At least…we’re not…Where were you, years ago in the Clinton Administration, when just one Senator held up dozens and dozens of these judicial nominees? I want to know where everyone was then. 60 nominees. Here the Senate, particularly the Democrats have confirmed over 200 of Bush’s judicial nominees. Fortunately, in their wisdom, the founders conferred upon the Senate, and the president, the executive branch, co-equal powers. And thank goodness they did. Because you’ve got the president having…able to send up nominees, but you’ve got the Senate, with a co-equal role, saying no.
Hewitt: But the Senate hasn’t said "no." The Senate has not said "no." The Senate, as a body, has not voted because it’s been blocked in doing so by a radical minority led by Patrick Leahy and Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy. You know, Nan, do you think that’s going to work with the American people? That they’re going to fall for this?
Aron: Well, I don’t know how you can call them radical when they’ve confirmed 95% of the Bush judges. I don’t see where you get radical. If they confirm 5% of the Bush judges, I say okay, you’ve got an argument. They’ve confirmed 95% of these judges. That’s not radical.
Hewitt: Well, Nan, we are out of time. I really appreciate your patience. I hope you’ll come back as we get closer to the big day and the big vote from the Chair.
Aron: I would love to, and thank you for having me on your show.
Hewitt: Thank. Nan Aron, president of Alliance for Justice. Alliance for Justice.org.
She comes right out and admits: The Democrats will oppose EVERY SINGLE conservative candidate the president proposes for a higher court. You have to be a rabid abortionista to pass the liberal litmus test.
"No! NO! NO! NO! NO!" That's the DUmmie strategy, like petulant two-year-olds.
Hewitt: But you think that 40 Senators, 41 Senators actually, should be able to block any judicial nominee they want.
Aron: Sure. I certainly do.
Aron: [laughing] No, no, no. It’s not just abortion.
Oh, yes it is.
William Pryor: OPPOSE.
William Haynes: OPPOSE.
Mike Luttig: OPPOSE.
Mike McConnell: OPPOSE.
John Roberts: OPPOSE.
Miguel Estrada: OPPOSE.
Claude Allen: OPPOSE.
Janice Rodgers Brown: OPPOSE.
Priscilla Owens: OPPOSE.
William Meyers: OPPOSE.
Terrence Boyle: OPPOSE.
Bret Cavanaugh: OPPOSE.
If you're keeping score, that's 12 out of 12 that Hugh named that the Alliance for Injustice would oppose, and would encourage the Dems to filibuster.
She had to eventually admit that is hadn't been done-that it is political, that it is about abortion---maybe not overtly---
Just like yesterday when the Ford guy, testifying against Bolton's confirmation HAD to admit that he wasn't even there for the infamous arguement---
Jeez, only dems could look you in the eye, admit they cheated on a test, and then get outraged when you tell them they get a "0" for cheating!!!
Thanks for posting this.
Aron says that Republicans vote in lockstep, as if they're unthinking robots bending to Bush's whim. But then she goes on to talk about those who are bending to the outside pressure and are unsure of what they'll do regarding the "nuclear option."
Of course to Democrats, if you vote against them, you must be stupid, uninformed, or paid off.
And I wonder how often Senate Democrats voted against Clinton's nominees - I'm sure charges of them voting in lockstep would have been denounced as unfair.
I wish the audio of the interview were available on the web somewhere. Her smug, smarmy, obstructionist attitude just oozed through my car speakers and made me want to go off the road.
It's ALWAYS "George Bush" (who happens to be the President) and "President Clinton", who hasn't been President since 2 elections ago.
And .. did you see Brit Hume's report on the Bolton witness testimony ..??
Evidently, I think this was how the event went down: Bolton had given an employee a document, and the employee was to get approval from several intel organizations re some text Bolton had written. But the employee wrote a note and attached it to Bolton's document demanding that the intel organizations CHANGE THE LANGUAGE. When Bolton found out he was quite properly upset. When the employee's boss questioned the guy about what he had done - HE LIED TO HIS BOSS. This was the reason why the boss had written the apology letter to Bolton - and why Bolton had chewed out and waved his finger at the employee.
THAT BLEW THE DEMOCRAT'S WHOLE "WITNESS" PLAN. And then it's determined that the witness who was telling the story - wasn't even there when Bolton got upset at the employee. IT WAS ALL HEARSAY.
Geeeeeee .. where have we heard that word before.
It was a stunning report by Brit!!
That is why I like Brit's show so much---they will show the idiocy of the actions of some of the left!!!
"If he were to do that and come up with someone else that met the requirements of the Democrats, the person would sail through. "
Of course, if Bush implements the democrat agenda, the democrats will agree with Bush. Bunch of IDIOTS!!!!.
Sorry, still learning the vocabulary for politics. What is "filibuster"?. I guess it refers to an action and to the person who carriers out that action. But exactly what?.
A "filibuster" is a legislative stalling technique to prevent a vote from ocurring. Here's the Wikipedia entry:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
A filibuster is a process, typically an extremely long speech, that is used primarily to stall the legislative process and thus derail a particular piece of legislation, rather than to make a particular point in the content of the diversion per se. The term first came into use in the United States Senate, where senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose. The term comes from the early 19th century Spanish and Portuguese pirates, "filibusteros", who held ships hostage for ransom.
Under Senate rules, the speech need not be relevant to the topic under discussion, and there have been cases in which a senator has undertaken part of a speech by reading from a telephone directory. Legendary segregationist Senator Strom Thurmond set a record in 1964 by filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 24 hours and 18 minutes. Thurmond broke the previous record of 22 hours and 26 minutes set by Wayne Morse (I-OR) in 1953 protesting the Tidelands Oil legislation.
Preparations for a filibuster can be elaborate. Sometimes cots are brought into the hallways or cloakrooms for senators to sleep on. According to Newsweek, "They used to call it 'taking to the diaper,' a phrase that referred to the preparation undertaken by a prudent senator before an extended filibuster"[1] (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3474915/). Strom Thurmond visited a steam room before his filibuster in order to dehydrate himself so he drink without urinating. An aide stood by in the cloakroom with a pail in case of emergency.
Filibusters have become much more common in recent decades. Twice as many filibusters took place in the 1991-1992 legislative session as in the entire nineteenth century. (Frozen Republic, 198)
Until 1917, there was no formal mechanism to allow the senate to close debate, and any senator could start a filibuster. From 1917 to 1949, two-thirds of those voting could limit debate on a measure. As civil rights loomed on the Senate agenda, this rule was revised in 1949 to allow cloture on any measure or motion by two-thirds of the entire Senate membership; in 1959 the threshold was restored to two-thirds of those voting. After a series of filibusters in the 1960s over civil rights legislation, the Senate revised its cloture rule so that three-fifths of the Senate (usually 60 senators) could limit debate. Despite this rule, the filibuster or the threat of a filibuster remains an important tactic that allows a large minority to affect legislation.
Filibusters do not occur in legislative bodies in which time for debate is strictly limited by procedural rules, such as the United States House of Representatives.
In current practice, Senate rules permit procedural filibusters, in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate majority leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he so chooses.
Budget bills are governed under special rules called "Reconciliation." Reconciliation theoretically only applies to bills that would reduce the budget deficit, but it has been used for bills that are only tangentially related to budget issues.
The 1939 film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington climaxes with a young senator, played by Jimmy Stewart, falsely accused of corruption, staging a filibuster in order to forestall his expulsion from the chamber.
On the TV show The West Wing, on episode #39 "The Stackhouse Filibuster" (Second Season, aired March 14, 2001) the senator Howard Stackhouse filibusters from a Friday afternoon through a good part of the night The West WIng UnOfficial Continuity Guide (http://westwing.bewarne.com/second/39stackhouse.html)
A unique form of filibuster was pioneered by the Ontario New Democratic Party in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in April, 1997. To protest Progressive Conservative government legislation that would create the megacity of Toronto, Ontario, the small New Democratic caucus introduced 11,500 amendments to the megacity bill, created on computers with mail merge functionality. A typical NDP amendment would name a street in the proposed city, and provide that public hearings be held into the megacity with residents of the street invited to participate.
The Ontario Liberal Party also joined the filibuster with a smaller series of amendments; a typical Liberal amendment would give an historical designation to a named street. The filibuster occupied the legislature day and night for approximately ten days, members alternating in shifts. On the fifth day, tired and often sleepy government members inadvertently let one of the NDP amendments pass, and residents of Cafon Court in Etobicoke were granted the right to a public consultation on the bill.
Although a filibuster is usually effective, it can be defeated by the governing party if they leave the debated issue on the agenda indefinitely, without adding anything else to the agenda. Thurmond's attempt to filibuster the Civil Rights Act was defeated when President Lyndon Baines Johnson refused to refer any further business to the Senate, which required the filibuster to be kept up indefinitely. Instead, the opponents were all given a chance to speak and the matter eventually was forced to a vote.
Did you see Rush's home page this morning - it's hysterical - shows the "witness" with big tears - LOL!
I'll check it out---thanks for the heads up!
Call the Senate switchboard, and let your Senator know you want a vote NOW!!! Call (202) 225-3121. And please PING anybody you can.
We can't let these obstructionist Democrats hamper our judicial system for their political gamesmanship any longer.
I use a toll free # 1-866-808-0065 - and ask for your congress person's office.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1383997/posts
I don't think anybody knows what they're going to do.
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.