LOL. Actually I meant that fat, disgusting hillbillie butter-hog that does all the lame "documentaries"....and I say that with the greatest of respect.
Both Michael Moore and Michael Moorer are fat disgusting hillbilly butter-hogs. It's just that one is a fighter and the other makes movies.
I think its time for Bush to choose someone else to appoint, Estrada is not the right choice. There is no reason at all to make this issue more complicated than that. If this was someone besides Estrada and the Dems were holding it up, I would consider that politically motivated nonsense. In this case I support what the Dems are doing to keep Estrada out.
he's put up two nominees recently, correct? neither one has been approved. it is politically motivated nonsense...again, neither side is above it...but have the ability to call it equally when you see it.
Why does Bush continue to force feed Estrada down the Democrates throats? He has other choices it would not be the greatest defeat of his political career.
How am I not calling this equally? Most of Bush's nominees have been accepted, because of some views the Dems think are outlandish Estrada is rightfully being delayed in his confirmation. This is a good move by the Dems...deal with it.
Okay, but when the situation is reversed and the Republicans do this to the Dems in power, I don't want to hear about it.
Unless the democrats start nominating judges who are active members of green peace I don't think the repubs will have much to contest.
Or maybe nominees who have positive feelings about Roe. There are plenty of policies that many Dem judges would support that would be completely objectionable to a large portion of the Republican Party, at least that part of it in the Senate.
are you even remotely serious??? you think that's the only area of concern for republican lawmakers and judges??
First Estrada...then Owen...now Kuhl. Unless Bush nominates a liberal, the Dems will use a filibuster to keep them from ever being even voted on. That's just flat out ridiculous. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030509-786855.htm Frist to seek rules change to end filibusters on judges By Charles Hurt THE WASHINGTON TIMES Republicans plan to begin the process today of using their so-called "nuclear option" to end the Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees by changing Senate rules governing how many votes are required to break such blockades. Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, plans to introduce the rules change today, according to two Senate aides involved in the Republican planning. Currently, 60 votes are required to break a filibuster, which is also called invoking cloture. The resolution, co-sponsored by several senators, will require 60 votes only in the first attempt at invoking cloture. In each attempt after that, the vote requirement will drop by three until it reaches a simple majority of 51 votes. This rule change will apply only to executive nominations, not legislative business. Republicans hope the plan will be greeted favorably by some Democrats and thus increase their chances of getting it passed. The idea was first floated by Sen. Zell Miller, Georgia Democrat, in an Op-Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal several months ago. Mr. Miller has consistently voted with Republicans to end the filibusters. In 1995, a similar plan was introduced by Democratic Sens. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Tom Harkin of Iowa. Both sides have referred to the plan as the "nuclear option" because it has such potential to wreak havoc in the Senate and even further intensify partisan discord over judicial nominees. What makes the plan even more incendiary is that Republicans are considering parliamentary maneuvers that would allow them to make the rule change with a simple majority of votes. The issue has come to a head in the past several months with Democrats conducting simultaneous filibusters on two of President Bush's nominees — Washington lawyer Miguel Estrada, nominated to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, nominated to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Today marks two years since Mr. Estrada and Judge Owen were nominated by Mr. Bush. The president plans to talk about the problem in a Rose Garden speech today, calling the judicial-nominating process "broken." "The Senate has a constitutional responsibility to vote on nominees," said one White House official last night, adding that the process "is worse than it's ever been before." Meanwhile, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee narrowly failed to spike one of Mr. Bush's nominees in committee yesterday, setting the stage for yet another filibuster on the Senate floor. The panel voted 10-9 along party lines to approve California Judge Carolyn Kuhl to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals over the objection of all committee Democrats and both of her home-state senators. Democratic leaders declined to say whether they will filibuster Judge Kuhl's nomination, but Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, said last week that it is a good indication that nominees will be blocked if they come out of committee on a strict party-line vote. Democrats and liberal interest groups have criticized Judge Kuhl for questioning — as a lawyer in the Reagan Department of Justice — the settlement of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision enshrining a woman's right to an abortion. They have also said she is insensitive to women because she ruled against a breast cancer patient who sued the employer of a man who observed her being examined. Two senators on the committee flirted with the other side, but in the end voted with their parties. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, earlier signaled her support for Judge Kuhl. But yesterday, she voted to kill Judge Kuhl's nomination in committee. In particular, Mrs. Feinstein noted concerns about Judge Kuhl's views on abortion and civil rights. "I simply cannot make the leap of faith that Judge Kuhl will suddenly reverse course and evaluate cases on these key issues impartially and without regard to her strongly held personal beliefs," Mrs. Feinstein said. Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, also said he was troubled by some aspects of Judge Kuhl's record. But in the end, Mr. Specter said her nomination should be decided on the floor by the full Senate. He voted her out of committee, but said he might still vote against her on the Senate floor.
This seems like changing rules on the fly to me--- This rule change should not happen this session, but a simple majority works both ways. That could seriously haunt the Republicans in two years if Bush loses.
they should not do that!! make no mistake about it...they shouldn't stoop low enough to do that. i'm hoping they won't. i'm hoping enough democrats will realize how ridiculous this whole thing is and the new filibuster rules will be voted in properly.
This business with Kuhl seems very political to me--- I really can't stand Schumer- there will definitely be another filibuster. All of this really has to do with Estrada, the Dems feel like they were bullied and now they are going to make everything as difficult as possible. If Estrada would answer a few questions and Bush would end some of his cloak of administration secrecy this would all go away.
This sounds like something from high school. Bush's poor selections (Estrada and Owen) are the reason for the hold-up, he is responsible for the "broken" process. Frisk trying to change the filibuster rules mid-session is a complete joke.
Daschle said this morning on the floor of the Senate that 124 of the 126 judges nominated by Bush have been confirmed.
Bush Decries Tactics to Block Judicial Nominees President Calls Some Senators' Actions a 'Disgrace' According the issue the prominence of a speech in the White House's Rose Garden, Bush said that it was a "disgrace" that three of his initial 11 nominees to the nation's federal appellate courts have been blocked so far "by a group of senators." The president used the sharp rhetoric that has come to typify the partisan debate over the handling of judicial nominations, saying that "American justice is suffering" and that the independence of the federal judiciary was at stake. Meanwhile, Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) today proposed changes in Senate rules that would make it easier to surmount resistance to presidential nominees. Under the plan, a vote on any nominee could be forced within about two weeks, eliminating the ability of a minority of senators to block a confirmation vote indefinitely. "The need to reform is obvious, and it is now urgent," Frist said this morning from the Senate floor. Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), said the change wasn't necessary, because the nomination process "ain't broke." Under current rules, unlimited debate on the Senate floor can be curtailed only by votes of 60 of the 100 senators. Democrats have used these rules to block final votes on the nominations of Michael Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and Priscilla R. Owen for the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. During his own remarks this morning, Bush did not explicitly endorse the method Frist proposed, although the president praised both the Senate majority leader and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin B. Hatch (R-Utah), calling them "reformers" who were "pushing hard on the issue." Instead, Bush pressed for the Senate to agree to a plan the White House set forth last fall in an attempt to accelerate the confirmation of the judges any president wants. Under that plan, sitting judges would give earlier notice of their plans to retire, the White House would name their replacement within 180 days and -- in a major change of procedure -- the Senate would guarantee a floor vote to every nominee within six months. Bush today renewed his assertion that "the Senate has a constitutional responsibility to hold an up-or-down vote" on all nominees, a viewpoint that Democrats dispute. Bush also objected to Democrats' insistence that candidates explain their judicial philosophy more fully. "Some senators have tried to force nominees to take positions on controversial issues before they even take the bench," the president said. "This is contrary to the constitutional design of a separate and independent judicial branch." Democrats, on the other hand, have criticized the administration for not sending them adequate background materials to help the Senate evaluate some of the nominees. © 2003 The Washington Post Company It is urgent only if Bush isn't reelected, this is an issue the Democrats can dig in on--- hopefully they won't mess up the opportunity. Bush calling Senators disgraceful for using political moves and filibustering is pretty bold. Is it not to much to ask that there is a full background check on a judicial nominee?
