This editorial sums up much of the farce currently being perpetuated by the Senate Repoublican Leadership: The New York Times May 3, 2005 A No-Compromise Compromise In the Republican legislative dictionary, a "Clear Skies" law means one that allows more pollution, and now "compromise on judicial nominations" means no compromise at all. The Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, wants Senate Democrats to accept a deal that would strip away their role in approving the most important federal judicial nominees. His proposal is an assault on checks and balances, and a power grab. Democrats should not go along. The Bush administration has gotten more than 200 judges confirmed, but the Republican right wing is fuming about a small number of extremist nominees whom Senate Democrats have blocked with filibusters. Senator Frist has threatened to use what is called the nuclear option, changing the Senate rules to forbid filibusters of judicial nominees. Last week, Senator Frist started talking compromise. He may not have the votes to go nuclear: even many Republican senators are reluctant to abandon the filibuster, which has been around since the early days of the Republic. Polls also show that the public does not like the idea of the Republicans' changing the rules to ram through their agenda. What Senator Frist offered, however, is no compromise. He said he would let Democrats block lower court nominees if they gave up the power to block nominees to the appeals courts and the Supreme Court. That would mean ceding control of the courts to the far right because lower court judges are bound to follow the higher courts. He also offered to guarantee up to 100 hours of debate on appeals court and Supreme Court nominees, but that would merely delay the point at which Democrats were cut out. If Senator Frist wants to strike a deal, he should offer Senate Democrats a real voice. That would mean withdrawing the most extreme nominees - and taking the nuclear option off the table - in exchange for the Democrats' promise to support the remaining nominations. But Senator Frist appears to be too beholden to the far right wing of his party to offer anything like that. The Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, was right to call Senator Frist's idea "a big wet kiss to the far right." Senator Frist needs to start showing some love to mainstream Republicans and Democrats, and to the system of checks and balances. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/03/opinion/03tue2.html Keep D&D Civil!!
The President did appoint who he wanted. Some didn't make it out for the vote. He appointed the same ones again. Now they aren't being allowed out once again. However 95% of the presidents nominees have made it. It is ridiculous to claim that Dems are demanding a supermajority for appointees. The supermajority of his appointees have made it. A very tiny minority of his appointees have not made it. The senate is doing its job.
hmmm, do democrats have an oral fixation? On March 5, North Dakota's Byron Dorgan said of President Bush's Social Security ideas, ''This is a big wet kiss to Wall Street." " 'South Park Conservatives: The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias,' by Brian C. Anderson of the conservative think tank the Manhattan Institute [available at the OpinionJournal bookstore], gives a wet kiss to one of the funniest and most foul-mouthed series on television."--Frank rich "Ron Reagan, the president's son, on a talk show wondered why [Florida's state Rep. Dennis] Baxley was giving a big wet kiss to the National Rifle Association with the 'use of force' bill."--Talahassee Democrat "A sloppy wet kiss to the credit card industry."--Loren Steffy , Houston Chronicle, on the bankruptcy-reform law
the president referred to here is clinton, in 1994. this is orin hatch, when republicans were in the minority, say he didn't support filibusters and president clinton won and should be allowed to appoint who he wanted.
It's Republicans that have the oral fixation. Everyone knows a Republican cannot get laid without paying for it. And what was Clinton's Impeachment? Nothing more than a right wing oral fixation on a massive scale......
Right. Clinton did appoint he wanted, and most of them made it. True the GOP failed to give an up or down vote on more of his nominees than the Dems have to Bush, but you didn't see any Dems trying to change the rules of how a nominee makes it from comittee to the floor. The point is that a supermajority of Bush's nominees have made it. The most extreme ones have been held up. It happened when the Dems were in office, and it is happening now. In both cases most of the nominees made it to the floor for a vote. In neither case was the president prevented from appointing who he wanted. The appointments just don't always make it.
