if a court rules the districts to be illegal..and it stands up under appeal...why would't they redraw the lines? Republicans are just fine with illegal districts and just fine with fraudulate elections then ?
If the districts are overturned by the courts, they cannot be used for elections. The likely scenario would be that the courts would order a return to the districts that were found to be legal previous to this map (since they were drawn at the appropriate time and withstood court scrutiny, there would be no reason to order a new map be drawn). But if that weren't the case, a panel of judges would once again draw up a map that would be used if the Legislature failed to produce another map.
is this what Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst was refering to when he said they wouldn't revisit the issue this decade? just that Congress wouldn't revisit the issue ?
The Texas Legislature won't revisit it. Congress has nothing to do with drawing their own districts (thank God!).
Just that the Texas Legislature wouldn't revisit it. Actually, he was likely just referring to the State Senate since that's the chamber he's in charge of. The Texas House could take up redistricting without Dewhurst's approval. The Governor could even order another special session to take up redistricting without Dewhurst's approval.
I was refering to the Texas Legislature...not the US Congress... is the Texas Legislature never refered to as Congress?
I've never heard any Legislature referred to as Congress. Though technically, I guess the Legislature could be considered a "congress", but without the capital letter. But in practical usage, the Congress is the thing in D.C. only.
Back on topic, Prof. Sunstein has been a leading voice on this issue and puts it far better than I ever could: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY June 26, 2001 SENATE JUDICIARY ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT AND THE COURTS IDEALOGY AND JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS Statement of Cass R. Sunstein Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of Jurisprudence University of Chicago, Law School and Department of Political Science Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am grateful to have the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the issue whether "ideology" should matter in the process of appointing and confirming federal judges. My basic conclusion is simple. "Ideology" should certainly matter, both for the President and for the Senate. At least. this is so if "ideology" means the expected approach, and general patterns of votes, of a potential judge. Almost everyone would agree that the President should not nominate, and the Senate should not confirm, someone who thinks that the Constitution does not protect private property, or permits schools to be segregated on the basis of race, or allows government to suppress political dissent. Because of his unique constitutional position, the President's choices are certainly due a large measure of deference. But it is perfectly appropriate for the Senate to ask whether a nominee's general approach, or likely pattern of votes, fits within the acceptable range of views, given the current nature of the federal judiciary, and existing trends within the federal courts as a whole. To offer somewhat more detail: In an era in which the federal judiciary is dominated by left-wing judges, interpreting the Constitution to fit with their own views of public policy, it would be perfectly appropriate for Senators to insist that the President appoint people who will have a more modest view of the judges' role in the constitutional order. In an era in which the federal judiciary has a good deal of diversity, is respectful of its own limitations, and has no particular "tilt," it would be appropriate for the Senate to allow the President to appoint the judges he prefers, so long as they are competent and have views that do not go beyond the pale. But in an era, like our own, in which the federal judiciary is showing too little respect for the prerogatives of Congress, an excessive willingness to intrude into democratic processes, and a tendency toward conservative judicial activism, it is fully appropriate for the Senate to try to assure more balance, and more moderation, within the federal courts. My testimony will come in three parts. Part I briefly discusses the constitutional background. Part R discusses the nature of the federal judiciary. Part III discusses the appropriate posture, from the Senate, toward nominees by President Bush. [section 1 omitted but available in full here: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/sunstein-capitolhill.html ] II. The Contemporary Federal Judiciary None of the foregoing discussion suggests that in all periods, the Senate should give careful consideration to the "ideology" of prospective judges. If the federal judiciary were appropriately diverse, and if it were showing appropriate respect for the prerogatives of the elected branches of government, there would be great reason to defer to presidential choices. If the Court were left-of-center, and pressing its own will in the guise of constitutional interpretation, the Senate should certainly respect any presidential efforts to redress the balance. But we are in the midst of a different and quite unusual situation. This is a period of conservative judicial activism, in which federal judges appear far from reluctant to reject the judgments of other branches of government. The Supreme Court is leading this unfortunate tendency, but the lower federal courts are entirely willing to strike down acts of Congress as well. Because this is a period of conservative judicial activism, it is very different from other eras. For example, the period from 1935 to 1950 was generally one of judicial caution, in which the Court tended to uphold whatever the elected branches did. The period from 195 8 to 1968 saw a great deal of left-wing judicial activism. We might even say that the Rehnquist Court is the conservative counterpart to the Warren Court, showing an even greater willingness to strike down legislation. In terms of sheer competence, no one should doubt that the current Supreme Court is unusually distinguished. But there are two disturbing facts about the current Court and indeed the current federal judiciary as a whole. First it does not defer to democratically elected branches. Second, it shows a distinctive ideological tilt. It is fair to say that it has a heavy right wing, a heavy center, but no left at all. Let me take these points in sequence. The simplest fact about the Rehnquist Court is that it has struck down more federal laws per year than any other Supreme Court in the last half century. Indeed, the Rehnquist Court has been significantly more aggressive in invalidating federal statutes that the Warren Court itself. Because the Supreme Court struck down only one federal statute between the founding and 1856, there is a good chance that the Rehnquist Court is the all-time national champion, in terms of its sheer willingness to strike down federal statutes.2'Many of the statutes invalidated by the Court have had strong bipartisan support within Congress, and in many of the relevant cases, there was a powerful argument on behalf of constitutionality. Consider a few simple illustrations: -The Rehnquist Court has reinvigorated the commerce clause as a serious limitation on congressional power, for the first time since the New Deal itself.3 As a result, a number of existing federal statutes have been thrown into constitutional doubt. -The Rehnquist Court has sharply limited congressional authority under section 5 of the fourteenth amendment, in the process striking down key provisions of the America is With Disabilities Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,4 and the Violence Against Women Act,5 all of which received bipartisan support. In fact section 5 of the fourteenth amendment has a narrower reach than at any time in the nation's history, because of the Rehnquist Court's decisions. -The Relinjuist Court has imposed serious barriers to campaign finance legislation — with Justices Scalia and Thomas suggesting that they would be prepared to strike down almost all legislation limiting campaign contributions and expenditures. Many people do not believe that campaign finance legislation is a good idea. But many of those who would question it in principle (as I do) also believe that this is not a subject to be settled by federal judges. -The Rehnquist Court has thrown affirmative action programs into extremely serious doubt,8 raising the possibility that public employers, public schools, and public universities will not be able to operate such programs. Many people reasonably doubt the sense, wisdom, and fairness of affirmative action programs. But those who have these doubts usually do not believe that the issue should be resolved by federal judges, as it now threatens to be. The Rehnquist Court has given heightened protection to commercial advertising, to the point where advertising does not have much less constitutional protection than political dissent.9 - In many cases, the Rehnquist Court has interpreted regulatory statutes extremely narrowly, choosing the interpretation that gives as little as possible to victims of discrimination, pollution, and other misconduct. On the basis of all this, there can be no doubt that this is a quite activist Court— activist in the sense that it does not have a modest conception of its role in the constitutional design- 10. Now to the issue of "tilt." It is notable that the Supreme Court has moderates but no liberals - no one who stands as a jurisprudential successor to Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall. The so-called "liberal wing" actually consists of two moderate, precedent-respecting Republicans (John Paul Stevens and David Souter) and two moderate Democrats who are respectful of precedent and represent centrist thinking (Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer). The Court has no liberals in the sense that none of its members would follow in the path set by Brennan and Marshall." If we put the Court's activist inclinations together with its title we reach a simple conclusion: The Court is all too willing to federal statutes, and the statutes that it is willing to strike down are usually those that diverge from a conservative orthodoxy. It is unsettling but true to find a considerable overlap between the general directions charted by the current Court and the general directions charted by Republican Party platforms over the last two decades. There can be no doubt that the transformation in the federal judiciary, produced over the last twenty years, has been a product of political forces, and in particular of a self-conscious effort, by Republicans in the White House and the Senate, to ensure a judiciary of a certain stripe. This effort to transform the federal judiciary has been quite successful - in part because President Clinton, to his credit, generally made centrist appointments, on the Supreme Court and on the lower courts. In fact it is hard to think of any non-centrist appointment by President Clinton within his eight years in the White House. By contrast, President Bush and particularly President Reagan made a sustained effort to appoint young, conservative judges, many of whom continue to have a dominant influence on the lower courts, charting its basic directions. III. The Senate's Current Role If President Bush follows the path set by his predecessors, and if the Senate remains passive, what might the future look like? We could easily imagine a situation In which federal judges - strike down affirmative action programs, perhaps eliminating such programs entirely; is strike down campaign finance reform; 2invalidate portions of the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act; .3reinvigorate a controversial understanding of the Second Amendment, so as to disable Congress and the states from enacting gun control legislation; -elevate commercial advertising to the same basic status as political speech, thus preventing controls on commercials by tobacco companies (among others); -further reduce congressional power under the commerce clause; -generally limit democratic efforts to prevent disabled people, women and the elderly from various forms of discrimination; -significantly extend the reach of the "takings" clause, thus limiting environmental and other regulatory legislation; -ban Congress from allowing citizens to sue to ensure enforcement of the law; -and much more. From the constitutional point of view, what would be most troublesome about such a future would not be the results. It would be the large transfer of power from democratic branches to the federal judiciary. For people of varying political commitments, this transfer of power should be quite troublesome. The conservative attack on "liberal judicial activism" is now out of date, but it had a great deal of merit. Conservative judicial activism is not better. Should anything be done about the situation? In an ideal world, neither Democrats and Republicans would have to think, most of the time, about the political convictions of judicial nominees. In such a world, both Republicans and Democrats would insist on high-quality judges who would decide cases based on legal grounds that could be accepted by people with diverse views. As I have suggested, rule by left-wing judges is as bad as rule by right- wing judges. In the 1970's, I believe that Republicans were right to attack undemocratic, overly ambitious rulings of the Warren Court. Yet by focusing so carefully on judicial appointments, recent officials have also produced undemocratic judiciary, one with far too little respect for the prerogatives of the elected branches. If President Bush seeks judges with political missions, there is only one remedy. As a minimal step, the Senate should be prepared to block any effort by Mr. Bush to fill the courts with people of a particular ideological stripe. Of course the Senate has the power to refuse to consent to a presidential appointment; and the Senate should deny its consent to nominees who cannot demonstrate that they have a healthy respect for democratic prerogatives, and will refuse to participate in any general effort to engraft new constitutional limitations on congressional power. Justices Scalia and Thomas have been distinguished members of the Court, and their voices deserve to be heard. But a federal judiciary that follows their lead would make unacceptable inroads on democratic self- government. The Senate should not permit this to happen. Under the Constitution, the Senate also has power to provide "advice" to the president. As we have seen, the Constitution's framers intended the Senate's "advice and consent" role to provide security against what they greatly feared: an overreaching president willing to dominate the judiciary. The Senate should reclaim its advisory role, collaborating to ensure the creation of a modest and properly balanced, federal judiciary. The Senate would be well within its rights to insist on a role in "advising" the President about the appropriate mix of federal judges, on the lower courts as well as the Supreme Court. It would be most surprising if mutual agreeable accommodations could not be worked out. A clarification: If the Court lacked anyone with Justice Scalia's views, and if it was tilted to the left, it would be appropriate to confirm someone like Justice Scalia, and perhaps even appropriate to insist on someone like Justice Scalia. A successful effort by Democrats, to create a left-wing judiciary with similar hubris, would properly meet with an aggressive Republican response. Conclusion La the context of the judiciary, the idea of "ideology" is a complicated one. Some people seem to think that they really know how to interpret the Constitution, and speak and write as if everyone who disagrees has an "ideology." But it is better to think that there are several reasonable approaches to interpreting the Constitution, and that in a democratic society, it is desirable to ensure a reasonable mix. No one really doubts that "ideology," in terms of general approach, or patterns of likely votes, is relevant to the nomination and confirmation of federal judges. Everyone would consider certain views out of bounds. In the present circumstances, it is appropriate for the Senate to impose a high burden of proof on presidential nominees, in order to ensure that the federal judiciary has an appropriate mix of views, and does not accelerate the current trend toward an unacceptably aggressive role for federal judges in the constitutional order. Copyright 2001 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
This is funny. I'm guessing Majority Leader Frist will think twice before putting another poll up on his website, or at least get the question right the first time. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=3818327 Senate Leader Learns Lesson in Online Activism By Andrew Clark WASHINGTON (Reuters) - According to an old adage, there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers. But, as U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist may have learned this week, on the Internet it can be hard to tell which is which. On Wednesday, Frist's Senate Web site had posed visitors a simple, if somewhat leading, yes-or-no proposition: "Should the president's nominees to the federal bench be allowed an up or down vote on confirmation as specified in the Constitution?" But, with the Senate locked in a marathon debate over Democrats' blocking of four of President Bush's conservative judicial nominees, the question quickly set off a online political brawl marked by allegations, firmly denied, of high-tech ballot rigging in the Tennessee Republican's office. The online poll, a regular feature of Frist's site, normally generates limited interest. The previous day, a question about honoring veterans drew just 35 votes. But the nominee question was spotted by a liberal weblogger, or online diarist, known as Atrios, who linked to Frist's site and asked his readers to weigh in. By early evening, over 9,000 people had responded, with some 60 percent voting "No." That wasn't lost on Democrats, who took to the Senate floor to bait Republicans. "Even the majority leader's Web site indicates that what is going on here is absolutely wrong," said Assistant Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. On the other side of the Web's ideological divide, however, users of a conservative Web forum, FreeRepublic.com, were also paying attention. "The poll needs our help," exhorted one poster going by the screen name outinyellowdogcountry. VOTING OFTEN VIRTUALLY Both sides quickly noted that a simple change in their computers' settings would allow them to cast multiple votes and both, apparently, activated programs that allow for the automatic stuffing of virtual ballot boxes. Meanwhile, according to Web records and people following the skirmish, the poll was doing some changing of its own. -- First, temporarily daunting "No" voters, the question was flipped, to: "Should the Senate be prevented from exercising its Constitutional duty to provide the president's judicial nominees with an up or down vote?" -- It was soon restored to the original sense, if not wording, then reading: "Should the Senate exercise its Constitutional duty to provide the president's judicial nominees with an up or down vote?" -- But a few hours later, the question was again coming from the opposite tack, asking: "Should the Senate minority block the body's Constitutional duty to provide the president's judicial nominees with an up or down vote?" -- Finally, late Wednesday night, with thousands of votes pouring in every minute, the poll was closed and the result recorded as: "Should the Senate perform its constitutional duty to provide the president's judicial nominees with an up or down vote. Yes: 54 percent. No: 46 percent. 106,615 votes." Frist's spokesman, Bob Stevenson, denied on Thursday the poll had been changed to try to ensure any particular result, attributing the initial back-and-forth to efforts to foil the automatic voting programs that were being used. "They are up there to allow people to give their honest feedback. Wherever the chips may fall, that's fine," he said. "However, after going through last night's experience, we've recommitted ourselves to the 'Do not spam' law," he said, referring to efforts to ban automated Internet junk mail.
True to form, Republicans now want to change to rules pathetic how tatics they've used are now outragous when the Dems use them..
This article captures the absurdity... (my favorite graf is bolded.) ________ The Big Filibluster The Greatest Deliberative Body Shows What It Does Best: Talk Itself Silly By Peter Carlson Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, November 14, 2003; Page C01 The great Senate 30-hour anti-filibuster filibuster started at 6 o'clock Wednesday evening, and the much-touted dignity of the Senate reigned supreme until, oh, about 6:10, when Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) held up a sign that revealed his plans for the night: "I'll Be Home Watching The Bachelor." Perhaps Harkin's choice made sense on a purely artistic level -- "The Bachelor" has the virtue of brevity -- but it meant that Harkin missed one of the strangest nights in Senate history, plus some nifty souvenirs: filibuster buttons, a filibuster children's book, two rival filibuster T-shirts and a filibuster bingo game. To laymen, the anti-filibuster filibuster might have seemed a bit silly. But to the cognoscenti, who understand the mysterious ways of the United States Senate, it seemed downright bizarre. It was, after all, a filibuster designed to protest the possibility of a filibuster. Or, as its strongest proponent, Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), dubbed it: a "reverse filibuster." The filibuster is, of course, a time-honored Senate tradition -- an attempt by a minority to stop Senate action by delaying it, frequently by yakking on and on. But this "reverse filibuster" was different. It was, in effect, a publicity stunt designed by the majority (the Republicans) to pressure the minority (the Democrats) to give up its threat to filibuster against four of President Bush's nominees for judgeships. "We are launching an historic justice-for-justice marathon," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), touting the Republican plan for a 30-hour debate on the judge issue, from Wednesday night through midnight on Thursday. "This is a travesty," said Minority Whip Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Reid was so angry at what he considered a Republican waste of time that he responded by launching a time-wasting filibuster of his own last Monday, talking for more than eight hours -- a speech that included goulash recipes, advice on how to keep rabbits out of a garden, and a dramatic reading of six chapters of "Searchlight: The Camp That Didn't Fail," his 1998 book about his Nevada home town. Undaunted by Reid's filibuster to protest the anti-filibuster filibuster, the Republicans marched to the Senate floor en masse promptly at 6 on Wednesday night to start their talkathon. They were greeted by a gaggle of scornful Democrats, including Harkin, who was armed with his "Bachelor" sign. And the long, weird show began. 6:30 -- Faced with filling 30 hours of debate -- 15 hours allotted for each party -- Frist and Reid argue over who will get to go next and for how long. Reid wants the next half-hour for the Democrats, but Frist wants Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) to go first. After several minutes of semi-heated debate, Hatch comes up with a solution: "I'll take four minutes now and then I'll take 11 minutes after you get a half-hour." 6:35 -- "We should be voting on the nominations, not debating," says Hatch, whose laryngitis-plagued voice is so raspy that he sounds like Tom Waits. The Democrats, he adds, have treated Bush's four blocked nominees "like dirt." 6:45 -- Promising that "one sign will equal 30 hours of gibberish," Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) displays a garish purple-and-yellow sign that says "168 to 4." "The bottom line is very simple," he says. "We have supported 168 judges that President Bush has sent us. We have blocked four. All this talk of angels on the head of a pin can't equal that." 7:05 -- Downstairs, in the Mansfield Room, the Democrats are holding a pep rally for supporters, some of whom wear T-shirts that read: "We Confirmed 98% of Bush's Judges And All We Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt." Pumping his pasty fist into the air, Ted Kennedy bellows, "We are not going to be a rubber stamp for right-wing ideological judges." Democrats hand out a "Fili-Bingo" board game and a mock children's book called "Republican Senators and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Night." There's also a box billed as a "Care Package for Courageous Senators." Its contents include coffee, candy bars, a copy of the Constitution and Pepto-Bismol tablets that are said to counteract the nausea induced by Republican rhetoric. 7:45 -- On the Senate floor, Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) denounces this marathon as a "Let's all get together and hold our breath and turn blue for 30 hours" session. 9:08 -- Hatch argues that the Democrats' opposition to Bush nominees "all comes down to abortion." His voice is getting raspier. Now he sounds like Captain Beefheart. He says the Democrats are "treating the president like dirt." 9:40 -- In Frist's office, just off the Senate floor, two cots are set up, one covered with blue sheets, the other with a green sleeping bag. Nobody is sleeping in either one yet. On a table are bowls of fruit, candy, chips and white cheddar popcorn. Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and Andrew Jackson gaze down from paintings on the walls. 10:05 -- Santorum has responded to Schumer's purple and yellow "168 to 4" sign with a purple and yellow sign of his own. It reads: "2,372-0." The 2,372 represents the number of judicial nominees sent to the Senate in U.S. history, he says. The zero represents the number of filibusters of judicial nominees before George W. Bush took office. "Look at the precedent!" he hollers. "NO FILIBUSTERS!" he hollers louder. All pumped up, Santorum predicts that the dastardly Dems won't stop with these four nominees. "The 168 to 4 will be 168 to 6! And 168 to 7! And 168 to 8!" he yells. "There's no end to this complete debasement!" 10:20 -- "A militant minority is thwarting the will of the majority," says Hatch. His voice is getting even raspier. Now he sounds like Howlin' Wolf. 10:50 -- "This is just a repetition of arguments we've heard over and over and over," says Schumer. As if to prove his point, he refers again to his "168 to 4" sign. "This chart is worth 30 hours of palaver, of gibberish." 11:45 -- "Here we are," says Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). "It's quarter of 12 at night and I feel all perky." The Republicans just aren't perky enough, she suggests. "You get 168 and you don't get four," she says, "and you're whining and you're crying." She points to a sign reading, "2.6 million manufacturing jobs lost," and she asks the Senate to give unanimous consent to a bill that would raise the minimum wage. A Republican immediately objects, killing the motion. "That just proves the point," Boxer says. "They just want to complain about four people who already have jobs. They don't want to talk about people who are unemployed." 12:05 -- Schumer has responded to Santorum's "2,372-0" sign with a blowup of a New York Times front page from the 1960s that refers to the bipartisan "filibuster" of the judicial nomination of Abe Fortas. That proves, Schumer says, that the zero in Santorum's sign is baloney. He says the Republicans killed dozens of Bill Clinton's judicial nominations in committee with no hearing and no floor vote. "The senator from New York," counters Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), "could make soup out of slop." Sessions proceeds to read quotes by Sens. Boxer, Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) -- all of them denouncing Republicans for filibustering against Clinton nominees. "And now Senator Leahy is leading this filibuster and so is Senator Daschle." 12:45 -- Up in the press gallery, somebody has put a six-pack of beer on ice, creating a quandary for those reporters who are still awake: If they drink a beer, they could doze off and miss some of this scintillating debate. If they don't drink a beer, they have to watch the debate stone-cold sober. 1:30 -- The Mansfield Room is packed again, this time with Republicans, many of them high school and college students wearing blue T-shirts that read: "Justice for Judges Marathon." "You can tell your grandkids about this," says Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who has just come in off the Senate floor, where he orated for half an hour. "You're here tonight at 1:30 in the morning, and you're witnessing history." Some of the students aren't quite clear exactly what they're witnessing. "It's been amazing to be inside and see everybody," says Kelly Flynn, 19, a Catholic University student. "But I don't know very much about what they're talking about." 3:00 -- Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), the Democrat with the least seniority, has drawn the graveyard shift of this marathon -- he's assigned to take the floor from 2 to 4 in the morning. Now he's run out of rhetoric and announces that he's going to read from "Master of the Senate," Volume 3 of Robert Caro's biography of Lyndon Johnson. "It's 1,040 pages," he says. "I assure you, I'm not going to read all thousand pages." He starts at the beginning, with Caro's long, lyrical description of the Senate chamber -- the very room he's standing in as he reads. "Daniel Webster's hands," he reads, "rested on one of those desks." 3:45 -- In the Mansfield Room, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council says: "We signed up to keep watch while most of America sleeps." Perkins is one of dozens of folks from conservative religious groups who are packing the Mansfield Room. He denounces "an out-of-control judiciary that's chipping away at our religious liberties." When Santorum, a Catholic, comes out to address the group, somebody asks him how some senators who profess to be religious can be on the other side on this issue. "There are those who are orthodox and those who are not," he says. "There are those within these faiths who believe in a transcendent God and those who don't." 5:45 -- "The sun's rising on the East Coast," says George Allen (R-Va.). "Country singer Charley Pride urged us to 'kiss an angel good morning.' I don't see any angels around here. My angel's at home, getting the kids up." 6:51 -- Schumer is back on the floor with his "168 to 4" sign. "We can do all the arguments you want," he says. "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" 7:20 -- Outside, the sun is fighting through heavy gray clouds, illuminating the magnificent dome of the Capitol. Police in heavy coats are standing guard. One of them has been watching the debates on and off through the long night. "I could see if it was something important like the budget or Iraq," the cop says, "but who cares about judicial appointments?" This marathon has been going on for more than 13 hours now. There's still nearly 17 hours to go, and some Republicans are talking about continuing past midnight. "They should get a life," the cop says.
you're right, the senate was so much less absurd when the democrats ran it. fortunately, that's an eventuality (democratic control) that won't recur for a long time!
Make it six! ___________ Senate Stops Bush Nominees, Ends Long Debate 2 hours, 53 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo! By Thomas Ferraro WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats blocked two more of President Bush (news - web sites)'s federal appeals court nominees on Friday after a nonstop U.S. Senate debate of nearly 40 hours, boosting to six the number stonewalled so far. On each of two votes, Republicans fell seven short of the 60 votes needed in the 100-member chamber to stop delaying tactics against California jurists Carolyn Kuhl and Janice Rogers Brown and clear the way for their confirmation. Democrats also sustained, by the same margin, a procedural hurdle known as a filibuster against another nominee, Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, first blocked in May. The three votes followed the Senate's longest nonstop debate since a 57-hour, 24-minute marathon in 1988 over campaign legislation. The talkathon began on Wednesday night and focused on Bush's stalled judicial nominees and what Republicans called unprecedented and unconstitutional Democratic obstructionism. Republicans decided to hold the around-the-clock debate following criticism from conservative activists that they were not doing enough to take on Democrats. Democrats said they had simply exercised a constitutional right to "advise and consent" to stop Bush from packing the courts with what they called right-wing ideologues who could not be trusted to uphold civil rights, abortion rights, worker rights and environmental protections. They also noted they had joined Republicans in confirming 168 of Bush's other judicial nominees, to reduce the vacancy rate on the federal bench to less than 5 percent, its lowest level in more than a decade. Republicans argued, however, that Democrats had entered new and dangerous territory by blocking judicial nominees on the Senate floor who were backed by a majority of lawmakers. "STOP NOW" "Stop now," said Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record), a Pennsylvania Republican. "You have a chance to save this country and this judiciary. Stop now." Democrats countered that Republicans had themselves blocked 63 of Democratic President Bill Clinton (news - web sites)'s judicial nominees, preventing most of them from even getting a hearing. "I find it incredibly remarkable ... that the very people who lament not getting a vote for (the blocked Bush's nominees) were participants in the effort" to stop Clinton's candidates, said Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota. But Democrats figured the Republican maneuvering made them look good with their political base as well. "This debate, make no mistake about it, strengthened our side," said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), a New York Democrat. "We are energized. So I think this has boomeranged." Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), a Massachusetts Democrat, noting the approach of the Thanksgiving holiday, said: "My suggestion is that this president release all of his right-wing turkeys." James Thurber of American University's Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies said he believes both sides hurt themselves, as well as the Senate, with the debate, saying the public sees "them all as too partisan." Republicans had planned to vote on Friday on a proposed rule change to effectively eliminate filibusters on judicial nominees. But they later postponed a vote indefinitely. They conceded Democrats could defeat it, and some admitted they would also like to be able retaliate by using such filibusters in any future Democratic-led Senate. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said he plans to challenge the constitutionality of filibusters on judicial nominations. "It is time for the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) to give us their view about what is going on here," Graham said.
I am in the exception group. I don't like what I see. I see a bigger divide, hatred and detest on both sides of the isle. There is nothing good about it. I don't really know how politics is run in other country but I am begining to wonder if the 2-major party system is the best. This country, USA, is now divided heavily along partisan lines and it looks like it is getting worse. You can see this in the work place and hiring processes. Everything is now politicized. I don't know who to trust. Both side are hypocrites and they would do the EXACT SAME THING if the shoe was in the other foot. Yet they crticize each others actions? Why? Why bicker? Why complain and hate each other? I am sick of the self righteousness and distorted lies floating around. I and sick of the morality and "I am more humane" game. I am sick of the left and right. I consider myself an independent but I am currently leaning towards the currently minority party because of their underdog status and because of the bullish attitude of the majority. But in all, I will like see the hate I see and read on tv and print media outlets respectively gone and the issues affecting all and sundry dealt with. What about doing what is in the best interest of ALL Resident of America void of cronyism, favoritism, ethnicism, lobbyism and all the ISMs that are not beneficial to all concerned?
Funny article from TNR online: DAILY EXPRESS Theater of the Absurd by Michael Crowley Only at TNR Online Post date: 11.13.03 It's nearly 1:30 in the morning, and a group of bleary-eyed young boys and girls--who by now should be asleep, dreaming of rocket ships and ponies--have found themselves in the presumably baffling circumstance of being lined up for a press conference in the U.S. Capitol. They file into a rank-smelling meeting room just a few yards from the Senate floor, where a classic exercise in Washington Kabuki theatre is underway. Republicans are staging a marathon 30-hour debate to protest Democratic filibusters of four conservative judicial nominees. The meeting room, normally reserved for private GOP strategy sessions, has been transformed into a bustling propaganda center for the pro-judge forces. Inside, activists wear dark blue "Justice For Judges Marathon" T-shirts. The room stinks horribly of people, coffee, and decaying munchies. At the far end of the room is a large, flat-screen television tuned to the main event. Currently on the floor is South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. Graham flaps his arms and points to various charts. But no one pays any attention. In fact, the sound's not even on. Which is telling. The point of all this is not anything that will be said or done on the floor; there are sure to be no surprises. The Democrats are dug in, and there's no hope of actually confirming any judges. So the point is ... well, the point is to make a point. Particularly one that will please conservative activists steamed that Senate Republicans can't simply crush the hated Daschle Democrats. The children, perhaps 20 of them, line up behind a lectern. Above them hangs a TV-friendly sign reading: "Fair Up or Down Vote." Through a door comes Graham, and the room bursts into loud applause. The senators are getting tired--"It's 1:30 and I can't believe anybody's here," Graham says--but the activists here seem to be having the time of their lives. ("I have been in Washington since 1984 and I have never seen so much excitement in one room--ever," one of them declares to me.) Several digital cameras beep and whir. Graham himself seems puzzled that such young kids--many of whom are now rubbing their eyes, yawning, and fidgeting around--are here at this wee hour. "You can tell your grandkids about this," he consoles them, to little evident effect. Then he lambastes the Democratic obstructionists: "There's never a good time to hijack the Constitution for partisan politics," Graham declares sanctimoniously, perhaps forgetting, at this late hour, his own role as a manager of Bill Clinton's impeachment. "But now is the worst time." Then things get sleazy. Graham pulls out a blown-up version of a cartoon that appeared on an obscure black political website (www.blackcommentator.com). It depicts one of the stymied nominees, Janice Rogers Brown, as an absurdly stereotyped housemaid with a huge Afro. It's an offensive cartoon, no doubt about it. But no mainstream Democrat had anything to do with it. That hasn't stopped Republicans like Graham from repeatedly implying otherwise. Graham now says the cartoon came from "a liberal paper"--as if it had run in The New York Times--and then smears Democrats with it. "The Senate is sick," he says. "Our Democratic friends have gone too far." It's a truly revolting performance. I keep thinking about the kids. The obvious question is, Don't you have school tomorrow? Then another speaker, an activist whose name I don't catch, clears that one up. He notes in passing that most of the youngsters present are home-schooled. Trying to be open-minded, I do my best to suppress Children of the Corn jokes. * * * * * By now, the "debate" on the floor has slowed to tedious, repetitive speeches--mostly by freshman members of both parties who got stuck with the debate's worst time slots. Earlier in the evening, however, there had been a few delicious moments as Democrats mocked the phoniness of the marathon. At one point Nevada Democrat Harry Reid noted that when Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist conducted a poll about judicial filibusters on his website, the Democratic position won a 60 percent majority--thanks to some well-coordinated mischief, no doubt--before the posted results mysteriously vanished. With evident delight, Reid also quoted from a GOP email that Democrats had somehow acquired that day. It is important to double your efforts to get your boss to S-230 on time. Fox News channel is really excited about the marathon. Britt [sic] Hume at 6 would love to open the door to all our 51 Senators walking on to the floor. The producer wants to know, will we walk in exactly at 6:02 when the show starts so we can get it live to open Britt Hume's show? Or, if not, can we give them an exact time for the walk-in start? Illinois Democrat Richard Durbin then asked Reid, with a funny faux-earnestness, whether "we [will] get updates from time to time how Fox News would like to orchestrate the rest of this?" "Perhaps so," Reid replied with a smile. "If not, maybe we could check with the Federalist Society, which, coincidentally, is starting their convention tomorrow." This was masterful stuff. Later in the night I would overhear one irked Republican staffer mutter to another "How did they get that email?" * * * * * * Down the hall, Democrats have set up their own headquarters. Theirs is dubbed the "Judges Action Room." But as 2 a.m. approaches, there's not a lot of action here--just a few TV reporters and cameraman watching Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln speak on a video monitor. As in the GOP war room, the "the debate" is barely audible. But the room does make the Democrats' point clear. Its centerpiece is a large blue placard with the word JOBS printed on it perhaps 100 times in yellow--what Andy Warhol might have produced if he'd been a media consultant. I run into a Democratic aide and tell her about all the children down the hall. "It's kind of..." I begin, searching for a mature phrase. "Creepy?" she asks with a smile. Yes, creepy. Thank you. Harry Reid shows up for a TV interview, looking wilted. He says that Republicans have privately apologized to him for what's happening. A secret ballot would send everyone home to bed right away, he says. A bit later reporters and cameramen are ushered into the office of Democratic leader Tom Daschle. Dressed in shirtsleeves, Daschle has a cup of Starbucks coffee on his desk and looks his usual chipper self. Daschle has heroically claimed a 2 a.m. speaking slot, and it's time for him to go. More empty theater follows, as a pack of cameramen dutifully record Daschle's half-dozen steps from his office foyer to the Senate floor. In the dark hall their flashes give Daschle's short walk a weird strobe-action quality. It's 2:30 and I'm ready for bed. I make one last swing through the GOP nerve center. There I see an adorable brown-haired girl, maybe 10 years old. Her eyes are swollen and red. She's crying. An older woman crouches down. "What's the matter honey?" "I just wanna go home," the poor girl whimpers. "I know. So do I." Michael Crowley is an associate editor at TNR
Do we ever need to debate Fox News being fair and balanced ever again? Is that argument finally settled once and for all?
Yeah, my personal favorite was this part: How pathetic that they staged this little stunt for their benefit as well. For those of you who don't know, the Federalist society is a little professional/social club for right wing lawyers & law students. Scalia, Starr, Olsen, Bork; all those guys cut their teeth in the Federalist society which acts like a far right wing version of the ABA. They've made it one of their missions to get as many activists ideologues into the federal courts as they can and they've undoubtedly had significant input into most, if not all, of Bush's nominees. Given the 100-4 (I guess now its 100-6?) record of Bush so far, they've been pretty successful.
Well despite the the dog and pony show for the dittoheads and the Fox News Channel, the Demcorats didn't budge and blocked these right wingers. Very good to see. Expect to see crocodile tears from Jorge and Big Texx and the rest who supported similar hardball tactics on the TX redistricting. As they do when decrying such Democratic responses as attacks on personal life style issues of GOP politicians or ther rare times Demos outspending their poor GOP opponents (Remember Jorge lamenting poor Orlando?) expect them to claim that just because the GOP does it, doesn't mean the Demos should to. ********** ASHINGTON, Nov. 14 — After almost 40 hours of wearying, temper-fraying debate, Senate Democrats succeeded today in blocking three of President Bush's nominees to federal appeals courts, and they appeared to be in good position to block more nominations. link
I don't know what's more important in next year's election. Getting Bush out of office or the democrats getting the majority in the Senate.
