|
Senators compromise on filibusters
|
|
Topic Started: May 24 2005, 07:39 AM (433 Views)
|
|
gvok
|
May 24 2005, 07:39 AM
Post #1
|
|
Unregistered
|
source
- Quote:
-
Senators compromise on filibusters Bipartisan group agrees to vote to end debate on 3 nominees Tuesday, May 24, 2005 Posted: 4:24 AM EDT (0824 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The looming Senate showdown over filibustered judicial nominees has been averted by a bipartisan agreement that gives both sides some -- but not all -- of what they wanted.
The agreement, announced late Monday, came after days of talks among a group of centrist senators.
The crisis had prompted bitter debate over partisan power that could have permanently changed the rules, and perhaps the character, of the Senate.
Under the agreement, three of President Bush's nominees for appellate courts stalled by Democratic filibusters will go forward and two others will remain subject to filibuster.
The group's members also agreed that they would oppose attempts to filibuster future judicial nominees except under "extraordinary circumstances."
What would constitute "extraordinary circumstances" was not defined.
Fourteen senators -- seven Democrats and seven Republicans -- signed on to the deal.
That bloc is large enough to derail both Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees and any GOP attempt to employ the so-called "nuclear option" to change Senate rules through procedural maneuvers to prevent the tactic from being used.
The deal came a day before Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was expected to invoke the option to preclude a Democratic filibuster blocking the nomination of federal appeals court nominee Priscilla Owen.
Under the deal, the senators will allow three of Bush's controversial nominees to come to a vote: Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor.
The group made no commitment to vote for or against a filibuster on two nominees, William Myers and Henry Saad.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid later welcomed the deal and indicated Democrats would continue to filibuster Myers and Saad, likely dooming their nominations.
"This is really good news for every American," the Nevada Democrat told reporters. "Checks and balances have been protected."
Reid said the agreement sent President Bush, Vice President Cheney and what he called the "radical arm of the Republican base" the "undeniable" message that "abuse of power will not be tolerated."
Frist was less enthusiastic, saying the agreement "falls short" of the principle that all judicial nominees should receive a vote on the Senate floor.
But he said he was "very pleased" the nominations of three Bush appointees will finally come to a vote.
"It has some good news, and it has some disappointing news, and it will require careful monitoring," Frist said.
Across town, White House counsel Harriet Meirs briefed Bush on the details of the deal, which the White House called a "positive development."
"Nominees that have been waiting for a long time for an up or down vote are now going to get one. That's progress," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told CNN.
"We will continue working to push for an up-or-down vote on all our nominees."
In announcing the deal, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona singled out a senator from each party for their "vital" roles in the negotiations: Republican John Warner of Virginia and Democrat Robert Byrd of West Virginia.
Warner said he was led to compromise because of one unanswered question that guided him through the process: "What would happen to this Senate if the nuclear option were done?"
"No one was able to answer that to my satisfaction," he said.
Byrd, the chamber's most senior lawmaker, applauded the group of 14.
"We have lifted ourselves above politics, and we have signed this document in the interests of the United States Senate, in the interest of freedom of speech, freedom of debate and freedom to dissent in the United States Senate," Byrd said.
"Thank God for this moment and for these colleagues of mine."
McCain said the senators agreed that filibusters would only be used under "extraordinary circumstances" and that they would "try to do everything in our power to prevent filibusters in the future."
He applauded Warner and Byrd for bringing both sides together to forge an agreement based on Senate principles: "trust, respect and a mutual desire to see the institution of the Senate function in ways that protect the rights of the minority."
"We have reached an agreement to try to avert a crisis in the United States Senate and pull the institution back from a precipice that would have had -- in the view of all 14 of us -- lasting impact, damaging impact on the institution," McCain said.
Vote set for Tuesday Democrats filibustered 10 of Bush's 218 nominees in his first term, saying they were too radical for a lifetime appointment to the bench.
Forty-four Democrats and one independent in the current Senate have stuck to that position.
Bush renominated seven of the judges -- including Owen, a Texas Supreme Court justice, whose nomination to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals the Senate began debating last week.
Frist said Monday he expected the nominees not specifically covered by the bipartisan compromise would get a vote on the Senate floor.
With 55 seats, Republicans have been unable to garner the 60 votes that Senate rules specify are necessary to end a filibuster -- a form of extended debate that has been part of Senate rules since the early 19th century.
Frist thus had put into motion what some call the "nuclear option."
Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, moved Friday for cloture to end debate on Owen's nomination. The vote was set for Tuesday. (Full story)
If the cloture vote were to fail, Frist would use some parliamentary maneuvering -- with help from Cheney as the body's presiding officer -- to get a vote on a procedural motion to limit debate, according to a scenario cited in The Washington Post.
Such a vote, assuming Frist was successful, would set a precedent by cutting off debate with a simple majority of 51, instead of the three-fifths supermajority required for cloture on a filibuster.
The "nuclear" aspect of the scenario is that it would effectively circumvent a Senate rule that requires a two-thirds vote of 67 to change a rule.
If the Republican majority eliminated the filibuster, Democrats threatened to use Senate rules to push their agenda and disrupt the GOP's -- effectively slowing the chamber's business to a crawl.
Earlier Monday, Bush called for the full Senate to vote on his judicial picks, saying his nominees deserve "a fair hearing."
"I expect them to get an up-or-down vote," Bush said at a news conference. "And I think the American people expect that as well."
The nominees under consideration have been tapped for federal appellate courts. But Supreme Court nominations -- including the chief justice post -- are likely at stake down the road.
|
|
|
| |
|
psyfi
|
May 24 2005, 07:55 AM
Post #2
|
psyfi
- Posts:
- 4,336
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #374
- Joined:
- March 8, 2005
|
- gvok
- May 24 2005, 07:39 AM
"It has some good news, and it has some disappointing news, and it will require careful monitoring," Frist said.
May he monitor it so closely he brings in the electron microscopes!
|
|
|
| |
|
Wichita
|
May 24 2005, 08:57 AM
Post #3
|
The Adminstrator wRench
- Posts:
- 9,878
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- May 1, 2003
|
- Quote:
-
"This is really good news for every American," the Nevada Democrat told reporters. "Checks and balances have been protected."
Reid said the agreement sent President Bush, Vice President Cheney and what he called the "radical arm of the Republican base" the "undeniable" message that "abuse of power will not be tolerated."
How absolutely terrifying! The man is a US Senator and doesn't know anything about the US system of government??? "Checks and balances have been protected."????? If he honestly believes that this issue had anything to do with protecting "checks and balances", then he is an idiot.
As for the overall issue ....
I can't remember a time when I've been so disgusted with the US Senate as I am today. BOTH Republicans and Democrats should be ashamed of themselves. :rolleyes:
Patricia Owens (to take ONE example) has waited 4 YEARS for a vote. If the Democrats HONESTLY thought she shouldn't be a judge, then they should have done this, at least, 3 1/2 years ago AND done everything possible to vote her down. The fact they were willing to do this now - but not then - calls into question their integrity for EVERY time they questioned her competence. Since there is no visible reason for the Republicans to go for this compromise, I have to assume the three are not going to see significant opposition.
Conversely, if the Republicans felt she should have gotten the vote, they had the means and ability to do it awhile ago. Were I asked to be a judicial nominee, I would tell them to take a hike - who wants to be allowed to twist in the wind for 4 years by the people who supposedly want you?
She either deserves the vote on her appointment or she doesn't. The fact that BOTH SIDES have played this game for 4 years and came up with this weak alternative speaks ill of all involved.
- Quote:
-
The group made no commitment to vote for or against a filibuster on two nominees, William Myers and Henry Saad.
I don't know much about Myers, but I do know that the Reid made an alternative offer of a different candidate for the position Henry Saad has been suggested for. The senators from that state have their own candidate they have been pushing. Add that to Reid's unsubstantiated claim of what's in Saad's FBI file (which Reid has no authorization to see) and we aren't likely to see that issue resolved soon.
Like I say ... I'm disgusted with the whole group of them.
|
|
|
| |
|
gvok
|
May 24 2005, 09:06 AM
Post #4
|
|
Unregistered
|
source
- Quote:
-
The Top 10 Filibuster Falsehoods
Media Matters for America Posted May 24, 2005.
With Senate debate on two of President Bush's most controversial judicial nominees beginning May 18, the heated rhetoric over the so-called "nuclear option" to ban Senate filibusters on judicial nominations has reached its boiling point. The rules of the Senate thus far remain intact, but filibuster opponents have pulled all rhetorical stops, advancing numerous falsehoods and distortions, and, as Media Matters for America documents below, the media have too often perpetuated that misinformation by unskeptically, and sometimes even deliberately, repeating it.
Falsehood #1: Democrats' filibuster of Bush nominees is "unprecedented."
The most prevalent talking point put forth by advocates of the "nuclear option" is that Democratic filibusters of 10 of President Bush's judicial nominees are "unprecedented" in American history.
But Republicans initiated a filibuster against a judicial nominee in 1968, forcing Democratic president Lyndon Johnson to withdraw the nomination of Associate Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to be chief justice. Then-Sen. Robert Griffin (R-MI) recognized at the time that denying nominees a vote was already an established practice. "It is important to realize that it has not been unusual for the Senate to indicate its lack of approval for a nomination by just making sure that it never came to a vote on the merits. As I said, 21 nominations to the court have failed to win Senate approval. But only nine of that number were rejected on a direct, up-and-down vote," Griffin said, according to a May 10 New York Times op-ed by former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-ME).
Cloture votes were also necessary to obtain floor votes on Clinton judicial nominees Richard A. Paez and Marsha L. Berzon in 2000, and Republicans attempted to filibuster the nomination of U.S. District Judge H. Lee Sarokin to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1994. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), who is leading the Republican opposition to Democratic filibusters, voted against cloture for the Paez nomination.
And these are merely instances when Republicans filibustered Democratic presidents' judicial nominees. The Republican-controlled Senate blocked approximately 60 Clinton nominees through other means. This included strict enforcement under Clinton of the "blue slip" policy, which at the time allowed a senator from a nominee's home state to block a nominee simply by failing to turn in the blue-colored approval papers required for the nomination process. While Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) strictly adhered to the "blue slip" policy to allow Republicans to block Clinton nominees, he relaxed the policy nearly to the point of elimination in his efforts to push through Bush's nominees.
For example, Hatch held committee votes on the nominations of 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Carolyn B. Kuhl over the objections of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), as well as four 6th Circuit nominees over their home state senators' objections.
Because of these numerous responses to Falsehood #1, proponents have honed their message in order to continue arguing that the present Democratic effort is "unprecedented." The argument has now been reduced to: It is unprecedented for a nominee to be blocked who 1) has clear majority support in the Senate; 2) has actually reached the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote; and 3) did not ultimately get confirmed after being filibustered.
The "clear majority" qualifier is designed to discount Fortas, even though "t is impossible to gauge the exact support for Fortas because 12 senators were absent for the 'cloture' or 'closure' vote, which failed to halt the filibuster," as the Washington Post noted on March 18. The qualifier that a nominee reach the Senate floor disregards the approximately 60 Clinton nominees whom the Republican-led Senate blocked in committee. The qualifier that the filibuster be ultimately successful gets around Republican efforts to filibuster Paez and Berzon, who eventually won Senate confirmation.
Falsehood #2: Bush's filibustered nominees have all been rated well-qualified by the ABA; blocking such highly rated nominees is unprecedented.
To make Democratic filibusters appear unwarranted, many "nuclear option" supporters have falsely claimed that some -- or all -- of Bush's judicial nominees have received the American Bar Association's (ABA) highest qualification rating. Others have argued that Texas Supreme Court justice Priscilla Owen is the first judicial nominee to be filibustered who received a unanimous well-qualified (WQ) rating from the ABA.
But of the 10 Bush nominees filibustered by Senate Democrats, only three -- Owen, Miguel Estrada, and David McKeague -- received a unanimous "Well Qualified" rating from the ABA. Conservatives have frequently touted Janice Rogers Brown as highly qualified (see Rush Limbaugh and Rev. Jerry Falwell), but she twice received an "Unqualified" rating from the California judicial evaluation committee and currently has the ABA's lowest "passing" rating of Qm/NQmin (meaning a majority consider her "Qualified" and a minority consider her "Not Qualified").
Contrary to some claims, blocking WQ-rated judicial nominees is not a new practice. Republicans blocked 10 of President Clinton's appeals court nominees with unanimous WQs from receiving a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, and another WQ nominee received a committee hearing but was granted neither a committee vote nor full Senate consideration.
Falsehood #3: Democratic obstructionism has led to far more judicial vacancies during Republican administrations than Democratic administrations.
Nuclear option proponents have also used the "empty courtroom" argument to advance their agenda, claiming an unusual number of judicial vacancies during Republican administrations as a result of Democratic obstructionism. But what "nuclear option" advocates don't mention is that the discrepancy in judicial vacancies over the last three administrations is primarily due to the recent creation of new judgeships and the president's relatively slow rate of nominating candidates to fill open spots.
One such claim, that more judicial vacancies existed at the end of the George H.W. Bush administration than following the Clinton administration, is largely explained by the 85 new judgeships created by Congress in 1990. And the argument completely collapses when one examines appellate nominees alone: There were more circuit court vacancies when Clinton left office then when President George H.W. Bush did.
Comparisons of the number of current judicial vacancies to the number under Clinton are also misleading, if not outright false. Most of the current vacant federal judgeships are vacant because Bush has nominated candidates to fill only about one-third of the vacancies. There were never fewer district and appellate court vacancies during the Clinton administration than the 45 vacancies that presently exist, according to Congressional Research Service data obtained from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. In other words, there were actually more judicial vacancies when Republicans blocked Clinton's nominees than there are right now.
Falsehood #4: "Nuclear option" is a Democratic term.
Following the Republicans' lead, many major media outlets have attributed the term "nuclear option" as a creation of Senate Democrats. In fact, Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), one of the proposed measures' leading advocates, actually coined the term.
Falsehood #5: Democrats oppose Bush nominees because of their faith, race, ethnicity, gender, stance on abortion, stance on parental notification....
Democrats who have filibustered Bush's judicial picks maintain that their opposition stems from the nominees' alleged inability or unwillingness to put aside personal ideological views and follow the law. But that hasn't stopped nuclear option proponents from misrepresenting the rationale for Democratic opposition.
One prominent falsehood is that Democrats have opposed the nominees because of their opposition to abortion rights. But opponents of nominees Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William H. Pryor have cited specific actions and statements related to abortion that run counter to precedent and statutory law. Further, the Senate has confirmed 208 of Bush's judicial nominees -- most with substantial Democratic support -- and few, if any, of these confirmed judges have voiced support for abortion rights. Many Bush appointees approved by the full Senate -- such as Michael W. McConnell, John G. Roberts, and James Leon Holmes -- have voiced opposition to abortion rights.
Conservatives have also accused Democrats of opposing Owen because of her support for Texas' parental notification law for minors seeking abortions. In fact, Democrats claim Owen tried to rewrite the law by imposing obstacles to receiving a judicial bypass that the letter of the law did not require, an accusation first made in an opinion written by her then-colleague on the court, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, in which Gonzales accused the dissenters, including Owen, of trying "to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute" and of advocating "an unconscionable act of judicial activism."
The most frequent distortion has been that Democrats have opposed the 10 filibustered judicial nominees because of their "faith" or their "religion." Additionally, "Nuclear option" advocates have baselessly accused Democrats of blocking Bush's nominees because of their ethnicity, race, or gender.
Falsehood #6: Public opinion polling shows clear opposition to judicial filibusters, support for "nuclear option."
Many media reports have aided nuclear option advocates by selectively citing or mischaracterizing polling results to claim that the public is strongly opposed to judicial filibusters.
A partisan Republican poll, which proponents claim suggests broad public support for the nuclear option, has received significant media coverage. The poll asked respondents whether they agreed with the following statement: "If a nominee for any federal judgeship is well-qualified, he or she deserves an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate." But it is misleading because it offers only the option of supporting or opposing "up or down" votes for judicial nominees without any context or accompanying argument offered in opposition.
In addition, the poll posits that the judges in question are "well qualified." Some coverage of the poll mischaracterized its results by unquestioningly reporting Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman's false suggestion that the poll showed that the vast majority of Americans believe all judicial nominees should receive an up-or-down vote in the Senate.
In fact, another question from Republican polling more directly addresses the debate over judicial nominees and suggests that the public opposes eliminating senators' ability to block a nomination using the filibuster. Private Republican polling indicated that only 37 percent of respondents supported the GOP plan to prevent Democrats from filibustering judicial nominees, while 51 percent opposed.
Nuclear option advocates have also attempted to dismiss an ABC News/Washington Post poll showing even stronger opposition to the rule change by claiming the poll is biased because it didn't specifically mention the terms "filibuster" or "unprecedented." But other polls that specifically mention the filibuster similarly indicate majority opposition to the nuclear option, and the Democrats' use of the filibuster is not unprecedented, as noted above. The most recent poll to specifically mention the term "filibuster," conducted May 10-12 by Time magazine, found that 59 percent of respondents opposed Republican efforts to "eliminate the filibuster" for judicial nominees, compared to 28 percent in favor.
Falsehood #7: Filibustering judicial nominees is unconstitutional.
Another argument made by those supporting the nuclear option is that filibustering judicial nominees is unconstitutional. In fact, the Constitution makes no mention of filibusters, but it explicitly empowers the Senate to determine its own rules. Senate rules allow for unlimited debate on any subject, including judicial nominees. Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, which governs debate and filibusters, explicitly states that the rules apply to "any measure, motion, [or] other matter pending before the Senate," including judicial nominations.
In response to a May 12 question from Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) on the Senate floor, Frist acknowledged that the Constitution does not require an up-or-down vote for all judicial nominees: "To the question, does the Constitution say that every nominee of the President deserves an up-or-down vote, the answer is, no, the language is not there."
Falsehood #8: Clinton's appellate confirmation rate was far better than Bush's rate.
"Nuclear option" advocates have also claimed that the confirmation rate for Clinton's appellate nominees was much higher than for Bush's nominees. But the confirmation rate in Clinton's second term and Bush's first term are nearly identical -- 35 of Clinton's 51 nominees were confirmed, compared to 35 of Bush's 52 nominees.
Another talking point is that "100 percent" of Clinton's appellate nominees were approved once they reached the Senate floor. But that statistic is highly misleading because the Republican-led Judiciary Committee blocked the 16 second-term Clinton appellate nominees by keeping them off the floor and, in all but one case, denying them even committee hearings.
Falsehood #9: Sen. Byrd's alterations to filibuster rules set precedent for "nuclear option."
Yet another faulty claim put forth by opponents of judicial filibusters is that past actions by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) have constituted a precedent for the so-called nuclear option.
For example, columnist and CNN host Robert Novak claimed that a 1977 parliamentary maneuver by Byrd to break a post-cloture filibuster set such a precedent. A standard filibuster occurs when senators exercise their full rights under Senate Standing Rule XXII, which requires a three-fifths majority (60 votes) to invoke cloture, or cut off debate, on any matter pending before the Senate.
But then-Senate Majority Leader Byrd's action in 1977 was a successful attempt to break a post-cloture filibuster; 60 senators had already voted for cloture, but two senators continued to extend debate by offering a series of amendments meant to manipulate a loophole in then-standing Senate rules. In order to end the post-cloture filibuster, Byrd invoked a provision of Rule XXII forbidding dilatory amendments. The precedent Byrd set was novel only because he interpreted Rule XXII to allow the chair of the Senate to rule the dilatory amendments out of order without first requiring a point of order from a senator on the floor.
By contrast, Republican senators are currently considering the "nuclear option" precisely because they lack the 60 votes to invoke cloture on the initial filibuster of the 10 judicial nominees.
Novak's claim is just one instance of opponents of judicial filibusters claiming that actions by Byrd set a precedent for the "nuclear option." The various claims originated in a fall 2004 article by lawyers Martin B. Gold and Dimple Gupta published in the conservative Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Gold is a former floor adviser to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), and Gupta is a former employee of the Bush Justice Department. The progressive advocacy group People for the American Way rebutted the other arguments for a "nuclear precedent" put forth in Gold and Gupta's article in a February 22 report.
Falsehood #10: Democrats have opposed "all" or "most" of Bush's judicial nominees.
"Nuclear option" proponents have drastically exaggerated Democratic efforts to block Bush's judicial nominees, suggesting that they have opposed all of his nominees or all of his conservative nominees.
In fact, the Senate has to date approved 208 judicial nominees, with Senate Democrats filibustering 10. The vast majority of Bush's nominees have received strong bipartisan support. For example, in April district court nominee Paul Crotty was confirmed by a vote of 95-0. Even among Bush's first-term appellate nominees, the Senate confirmed more than 70 percent.
|
|
|
| |
|
Wichita
|
May 24 2005, 09:20 AM
Post #5
|
The Adminstrator wRench
- Posts:
- 9,878
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- May 1, 2003
|
^^^
Gvok, have forgotten that you yourself argued the irrelevance of one of the issues that you now are posting about as if it is important?
Basically, your article PROVES my point. Rather than simply "take care of the business of the government", BOTH SIDES have made this a partisian mess. I have a quote in my signature from a Democrat who has switched SIDES 180 degrees because now his party has switched their position.
I have no doubt we are going to see quotesfrom conservative posters on this board "proving the myths" coming from Democrats on this issue. They are plentiful and readily available.
But why?
When are Americans going to get fed up with people who supposedly represent us "playing this game"?
I don't care one iota about whether Patricia Owens is appointed or not. Quite probably there are dozens of other people equally or more capable as she is. There are 290 million people in this country - statistics are on my side.
What I want to know is WHY it is taking 4 years (close to 5 years) to get to this "compromise"? Who else could get away with that lack of results and still hold their job? A year would be a GENEROUS period of time in which to make the decision; over 4 years is obscene.
Again, I am disgusted with the whole group ...
|
|
|
| |
|
Admiralbill_gomec
|
May 24 2005, 10:17 AM
Post #6
|
UberAdmiral
- Posts:
- 26,022
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
I feel betrayed by the Senate.
When will Republicans start acting like the MAJORITY party instead of a bunch of spineless wimps? I've already fired off an irate e-mail to John McCain, "leader" of the traitorous seven.
Do they really think the Democrats will keep up their end of the bargain, like they have done so many times in the past (remember 1991 and the pledge to raise taxes only one dollar for every two dollars in cuts?)?
|
|
|
| |
|
gvok
|
May 24 2005, 10:19 AM
Post #7
|
|
Unregistered
|
Wasn't one of the terms in the Republican's "Contract with America" a balanced budget amendment?
|
|
|
| |
|
psyfi
|
May 24 2005, 10:26 AM
Post #8
|
psyfi
- Posts:
- 4,336
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #374
- Joined:
- March 8, 2005
|
- Admiralbill_gomec
- May 24 2005, 10:17 AM
When will Republicans start acting like the MAJORITY party instead of a bunch of spineless wimps?
I must have asked myself that question at least 10 times this morning. The only glimmer of hope that I see is that once the compromise doesn't work and of course it will not, Frist will say that having monitored the situation, there are problems and go for the rule change.
|
|
|
| |
|
CV6 Enterprise
|
May 24 2005, 11:00 AM
Post #9
|
Captain
- Posts:
- 1,208
- Group:
- Senior Officer
- Member
- #76
- Joined:
- October 16, 2003
|
I agree, I wish they had gone through with the constitutional option. I find it funny when Democrats talk about how bad it is that Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress. But, it wasn't that long ago that the Dems controled everything. They just can't get it through their heads that they are no longer the party in power. The Dems are really starting to piss me off with them obstruting every little thing that the President wants to do. It'd be a differnt story if they controlled Congress, but they don't, they are the minority party. Just like the Republicans were a couple of decades ago. But they are't in the majority anymore.
And, what exactly is an 'extrodenary situation'? We'll come right back to this again because there'll be some judge that the Dems will deem to be 'extreme'
And, what exactly about these judges are so extreme?
|
|
|
| |
|
gvok
|
May 24 2005, 11:07 AM
Post #10
|
|
Unregistered
|
- Quote:
-
The Dems are really starting to piss me off with them obstruting every little thing that the President wants to do.
Actually, the vast majority (i.e. 95%) of the President's nominees have been approved by the Senate.
|
|
|
| |
|
psyfi
|
May 24 2005, 11:20 AM
Post #11
|
psyfi
- Posts:
- 4,336
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #374
- Joined:
- March 8, 2005
|
^^^ Actually, if you look at the Appellate Court, these figures are incorrect. This link:http://fairjudiciary.campsol.com/cfj_contents/reports/041305.shtml (which cites another link to the Oregonian) states that:
President Bush's Confirmation Rate For Appellate Judges Is The "Lowest" Of Any Modern President. "A better figure would compare Bush's four-year appellate confirmation rate to recent presidents. According to the American Enterprise Institute's John Lott Jr., Bush's four-year rate was 69 percent, the lowest of any modern president. Bill Clinton's rate was 74 percent." (David Reinhard, Op-Ed, "Judge Not Lest Ye Be ... Filibuster," The Oregonian, 3/17/05)
|
|
|
| |
|
gvok
|
May 24 2005, 11:39 AM
Post #12
|
|
Unregistered
|
Are you counting the Clinton judicial nominees that the Republicans tied up in committee in your analysis?
|
|
|
| |
|
psyfi
|
May 24 2005, 11:43 AM
Post #13
|
psyfi
- Posts:
- 4,336
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #374
- Joined:
- March 8, 2005
|
- gvok
- May 24 2005, 11:39 AM
Are you counting the Clinton judicial nominees that the Republicans tied up in committee in your analysis?
It's David Reinhard's analysis and I don't know what statistical methods were applied. Hmmm. Reinhard...My maiden name was Reinhart. I spent the better part of elementary school being called "Reinfart" because of it. Little off topic aside due to my very loose associations.
|
|
|
| |
|
gvok
|
May 24 2005, 11:52 AM
Post #14
|
|
Unregistered
|
Well, tying nominations up in committee is every bit of a filibuster as a filibuster is in terms of the ultimate result.
|
|
|
| |
|
24thcenstfan
|
May 24 2005, 12:22 PM
Post #15
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
- Posts:
- 21,481
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #4
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- Admiralbill_gomec
- May 24 2005, 11:17 AM
I feel betrayed by the Senate.
When will Republicans start acting like the MAJORITY party instead of a bunch of spineless wimps? I've already fired off an irate e-mail to John McCain, "leader" of the traitorous seven.
I hope he clicks the delete button if you sent him an e-mail talking trash like that.
Perhaps you should watch this movie when it airs Monday...
Faith of my Fathers
Maybe it will remind you of what side McCain is ACTUALLY on. Our side...the American side.
Get a grip on reality AB. The vile hatred that you spew sometimes works more against our country than John McCain ever could by working with his fellow servants of this nation.
|
|
|
| |