I'd like to see bigtexxx and t_j fill in the rest of us on the FACTS (since they are so high on facts these days) regarding the history of the filibuster I suspect their response will be something just like their Leader's was today EXPOSED
i'll answer my own question, from WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50120-2005Jan30.html "In 2000, after Senate conservatives had held up Bill Clinton's nomination of Richard Paez to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit for four years, Frist joined in an unsuccessful attempt to filibuster Paez --"
The point is not whether Paez was filibustered, but rather the fact that Frist attempted to do it. The fact that the filibuster attempt was unsuccessful is immaterial and irrelevant.
how? the point is dem tactics are unprecedented, frist's vote notwithstanding. EDIT: and Paez was confirmed, 59-33.
Sorry but it comes to down to semantics again. Using one parlimentary procedure to hold up a nominee is no worse or better than using a different one. Add to this the fact that filibusters have been used before, and calling the filibuster of LBJ's judge bi-partisan is again only semantics, since in effect it wasn't bi-partisan. There was a great article posted about that in a previous thread. The funny thing is that if it was such a bad idea to Frist, he wouldn't have voted to do it. Frist got busted playing partisan politics and didn't have any room to wiggle away from 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. http://mediamatters.org/items/200505180004
this was covered extensively in the other thread, there was bi-partisan opposition to fortas, on ethical, not partisan grounds, and indeed, those ethicalquestions forced fortas to resign from the court 6 months later.
You keep on bringing this up but this just shows more reason to keep the fillibuster on judicial nominees. The fact that there have been bi-partisan fillibusters just proves the point that this is a power of the Senate available to all Senators and not some partisan abberation of one party twisting the rules. Heck the fact that Frist supported a fillibusters shows that it would be shortsighted and foolhardy to diminish the power of the Senate in this way. You're undermining your own point that judicial fillibusters should be done away with by pointing out how Senators of both parties and even cross party coalitions have used the fillibuster.
yeah, the hitler analogy is pretty lame, and in any case, unnecessarily inflammatory. although i've been ambivalent about the nuclear, or constitutional, option in the past, in fact i'm on record here saying it's a bad idea, i've come to believe it's not only important for the republican party to prevail in this fight, it's important for america as well. what's at stake is nothing less than the future of our representative form of government. since the florida 2000 debacle, democrats have been on an incessant campaign to declare Bush an "illegitimate" president. despite additional losses in 2002 and 2004, the party has resorted to increasingly desparate tactics to try and deny Bush the fruits of his victories. if a defeated and embittered minority can decide they're not going to accept the results of the election and continually try to block appointments, whether judicial or cabinet, on the flimsiest of pretexts (i never thought i'd see the day when democrats would oppose a black woman's appointment to the bench), do elections mean anything anymore?
you are missing the whole point behind the Dem's fight this isn't about being bitter about an election - no matter how much the wingnut bootlickers Rush and Hannity try to paint it as such to date, the Senate has approved 208 judicial nominees, with Senate Democrats filibustering just 10
basso this is low! Do you really think the reason the Dems are denying a vote on her is because she's black? nice...
You have a point Basso, I will cede that the majority does have the right to push through nominations that they want to further their political goals. Obviously, Clinton had numerous appointees’ that were simply killed in committee—not a filibuster, a majority exercising it’s right. However, if they were such a majority, this filibuster showdown wouldn't be an issue--60 votes gets the party of it to cloture...With the Republicans touting their "mandate" to push through any legislation, appointee's, tax breaks and religious doctrine they feel like, why can't they come up with 60 votes?? Yes, 60 votes is a super-majority. However, Republicans feel that they have earned a super majority without those sixty votes since “America has spoken” and the party is somehow entitled to break the rules. Look at allllll the red across this country surrounding the Islands of blue—Democrats are out of touch right? They aren’t the “main stream” and have been soundly defeated….right? This IS a fight for our republic, when one group changes the rules to suit their power grab, then a terrible precedent has been set. I’m not predicting a huge Democratic turn around in 06’, but the results of this filibuster, the voting, and the possible invoking of the “Nuclear Option” to break the filibuster and change Senate rules will have a long-lasting ripple effect. What Frist and Company have forgotten is that the pendulum WILL swing back, one way or another, and the Republican delegation will feel the full brunt of that swing.
what rules have the republicans broken? the so-called nuclear option breaks no rules, it merely restates them, to overcome an abuse of the rules by the other side. it's entirely w/in the rights of the senate to make it's own rules.
if the democrats have had one guiding principle in the past 60 years, it's been equal opportunity for everyone, blacks, women, homosexuals (well, most democrats- not john kerry), etc. yet here is a black woman who is extremely well qualified, and she's being opposed because she doesn't meet some-litmus test of what it means to be "mainstream," and yes, the democrats want to avoid all all costs the possibility of a prominent member of what was once a reliable constituency appearing to reflect the other side. it's why they opposed Thomas so vociferously, and why they've been at such pains to paint condi as an "auntie" tom...
I have no problem with them chaging the rules at all. All rules were made by people and could be broken. Republicans just need to remember what goes around comes around eventaully ALWAYS.
sure, and democrats would be well advised to remember that as well. if they go to the wall here, and republicans invoke the nuclear option, the democrats will lose their ability to filibuster any potential supreme court nominees. are a couple of circuit court judges worth giving up that right?
There's a big difference between being "mainstream" and black. They are not mutually exclusive. You are smart enough to know that. I really feel sorry for you if you truly believe that her being black is the cause to why she is being apposed. I had higher expectations of you.
