Apparently the opening moments were staged fro Fox News. It's almost comic, except for all that other stuff they should be doing and of course, the corruption of "advice and consent" to blanket approval assuming it's your guy making the appointments. __________ Senate debate on judicial nominees has fractious start By Klaus Marre The Hill The 30-hour debate on President Bush's judicial nominees began on a testy note Wednesday night. After Republicans walked into the Senate chamber together to begin the extraordinary session, Democrats argued that their move was not a show of unity but rather a television stunt orchestrated for Fox News. They pointed to a memo from Manuel Miranda, a staffer for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), which said: "It is important to double efforts to get your boss to S-230 on time ... Fox News Channel is really excited about this marathon and Brit Hume at 6 would love to open with all our 51 senators walking onto the floor -- the producer wants to know will we walk in exactly at 6:02 when the show starts so they get it live to open Brit Hume's show? Or if not, can we give them an exact time for the walk-in start?" Democrats had unsuccessfully attempted to delay the debate until 8 p.m. to allow the Senate to first complete its work on the VA/HUD appropriations bill. But even after the debate began, Democrats kept the heat on their GOP counterparts. As Frist spoke on the floor, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) walked into the chamber with a sign that said: "I'll be home watching 'The Bachelor'," which elicited snickers from the press gallery. Republicans also requested that Democrats remove a sign from the floor as Frist addressed the Senate. The sign indicated that Democrats have confirmed 168 of the president's judicial nominees since 2001 and have only blocked four. Democrats initially ignored the request, but later complied, as only the senator currently speaking on the floor is allowed to display any signs. Republicans strongly criticized the Democrats' tactic to filibuster judicial nominees and hoped to highlight the issue in the marathon debate. Frist called the Democratic maneuver "dangerous new ground." Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) added that Democrats are treating Bush "in a ridiculous and unconstitutional" fashion. He noted that "hardly anything [on the Senate agenda] is more important" than the president's right to nominate judges.
Crazy. So much of what we see is orchastrated for TV, but this is just crazy. I wish members of the media would quit relying so much on a 'hook' and actually report, genuinely, about the issues. They may be surprised that the public has a lot more smarts than they're given credit for.
Sam, could you please provide us with some support for those numbers that you cited? Thank you very much.
T_J, could you provide numbers or evidence to support ANY claim you have ever made on this board? Thank you very much.
Sam, if you made the claim that the Senate stonewalled over 60 Clinton nominees, then surely there was some piece of data that led you to this conclusion. If there was not, then you have a little bit of explaining to do.
the issue isn't if clinton's nominees were stonewalled or Bush's are now. the issue is how they're being stonewalled. If i remember correctly, the number of CLinton nominees approved and the number of Bush nominees approved is almost identical. The difference is most of Clinton's failed nominees couldn't get out of committee. Bush's nominees have the votes to be confirmed, but are being stalled by filibusters creating a new standard for confirmation of 60 votes. this is a definite escalation by the dems in the war over judicial appointments. now, you can argue that "ain't turn about a b****", but think about it. it's possible there may someday be another democratic president. it seems much less likely the dems are going to regain control of the senate anytime soon. what will your reaction be when the republicans start to block "extreme, hard-left" nominees made by a democrat?
Sam is correct... Fifty-five Clinton judicial nominees never got a hearing and 10 more never got a vote in the Judiciary Committee. If you don't believe us, look it up yourself. Also, consider the "blue slip" mess... Pre-1994-- Two blue slips needed to kill a nominee. This was the default "Senatorial courtesy" tradition followed by both parties regardless of who was president. If both senators from the judge's home state "blue slipped" a nominee, he was out. 1995-2000--Only one blue slip needed to kill a nominee. Republicans take control of the Senate and decide that the old rule is archaic. Only one blue slip should be required to block a nominee, thus making it easier for them kill Clinton nominees. 2001--Back to two slips. With George Bush in the White House, their shiny new rule suddenly no longer seems like such a good idea: why, it makes it easier for Democrats to block George Bush's nominees! Republicans change the rule back to two blue slips and Democrats threaten to filibuster over this transparent piece of hypocrisy. 2001-2002--Democrats reinstate one blue slip rule. Republicans never really got a chance to enact their power play before Jim Jeffords defected. With Democrats in power, they keep the one blue slip rule. 2002-Present--Two blue slips. Republicans now control the Senate again and make good on their earlier promise to move to a two-blue-slip rule. Democrats cry foul and threaten to filibuster. They do.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/13/senate.nominees/ "Leahy, the Judiciary Committee's ranking Democrat, said Republicans used Senate rules to torpedo 63 judicial nominations made by President Clinton."
So true. The 'but he did it first' defence rarely worked when I was 5. I'm surprised its relyed on so heavily now.
If that is true, then Bush in fours years has got the same as CLinton in 8 years. So the pace has doubled; and they're complaining becuase....? Ah, so there's a nobility in one form of parliamentary stonewalling not found in another? do explain... First, "extreme hard left" nominees are a rarity. Look no further than the supreme court. Stephen Breyer? Yeah, he's a real fringer, Ruth Ginsberg? Oh, she's a wildwoman!!! Oh, but guys like Richard S. Pryor and Thomas Pickering are total moderates. right. The fact is, the republican party, in conjunction w/the federalist society, (effectively it's junior judge training ground) has intentionally pursued a strategy over the last 15 years of promoting hard core, young, extreme right wingers (regardless of qualifications, a lot of the time) DESPITE the fact that they have NO mandate to do so. The country is as evenly divided, partisan wise, as it has ever been, yet they abuse Article III to promote as many hardcore ideologues as possible. The Democrats have a DUTY to prevent this in my opinion But what would my reaction be? It can't get much worse than when they blocked people last time out. Remember when Ashcroft went nuts on Ronny WHite, for no apparent reason, and started printing/circulating outright lies about him? Here's some truth on Judicial nominees, from pat leahy's office but the statistics come from the Congressional Research Service and I invite you to verify them yourself if you doubt them: This is a manufactured crisis by a petty bunch. I'm glad, I hope they block more.
It's a national strategy. And certainly what they've done in Texas. Sounds like some Republicans may be getting tired of it. DALLAS -- Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst has vowed not to allow congressional redistricting to come up again in the Texas Senate this decade, even if the freshly redrawn district boundaries fail to survive court challenges. Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott has told GOP leaders that the new boundaries they sought are sound and will not buckle under legal scrutiny. But Dewhurst, a Republican who presides over the Senate, allowed for the possibility of court defeat Tuesday in addressing the editorial board of The Dallas Morning News. "He says it's defensible," Dewhurst said. "It's difficult for me to argue. ... I know I'm going to take some criticism of this, but if it's not defensible, we are not going to take this up again this decade." ....................... http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.hts/metropolitan/2219457
the figures compare Clinton Bush at the same point in their administrations, but way to jump to snide conclusions... the point is it's a new tactic, and if you're comfortable with republicans doing the same thing down the road, the by all means, they should continue. i think you need to examine your definitions. the fact is, anyone who opposes abortion (and that's what the entire fight over judicial nominations is about), whether or not they'd vote to overturn Roe, is automatically labled "extreme right" by the democrats. Republicans control the White House, Senate, House, a majority of stste legislatures, and 3/5th of the governorships. now, who is really "out side the main stream?" i'd say that's like the pot calling the kettle black, but you'd probably say that was racist...
I didn't jump to a conclusion, be more clear or post some actual numbers. Actually, I think Bush is running slightly ahead, and his guys get through committee almost twice as fast as Clinton's did. just like changing the blue slip rules was a new tactic? I'm not comofortable with them doing the same thing, but they would have before, and would do it again. Republicans launched any number of filibusters and threatened many more from 92-94. This is a new tactic? Wrong. Another baseless generalization. I spoke to one just the other day who was pro life but a moderate by any strech and he had no trouble getting confirmed. Anyway, you fail to appreciate a crucial distinction. It's not just political left-right, and it's about being a reactionary jurist commited to ideology uber alles(Clarence Thomas, Pryor, Owen) or a rational one who is believes that they are there to decide cases (Ginsberg, O'Connor). I prefer the latter. Second, any number of studies has come out in the last few months confirming the partisan/cultural divide in this country and its closeness, I don't feel like looking them up; but if you think a 51-49 majority is huge and justifies this mandate, you need to brush up on your arithmetic. Again, there are fewer vacancies than in any point in time in the last 10 years. Why is it a crisis? Please explain.
Shouldn't this be considered, at least partially, a good thing? He says that if the new districts fail a court challenge, they aren't going to go back to the drawing board and simply live with the districts before the current redistricting. As for the current fillibuster, given some recent laws passed by the Congress, I almost feel like I should applaud and breathe a sigh of relief when they're not getting anything done.
