She has the job on the Cal supreme court, that doesn't mean she's doing a good job there, which would lead some to question her qualifications for that job, much less give her a lifetime appointment to the circuit court. She hasn't done a steller job at the state level, why nominate her for the job on the federal level.
and by "she hasn't done a stellar job" you mean, among other things, her propensity to overturn precendent? do you believe then that precedent is sacrosanct? for instance, Bush v. Gore set a precedent. i'm assuming you think it was a good, fair, and wise decision, correct?
Her propensity to try and overturn supreme court decisions. I can disagree with a supreme court decision, but when it becomes commonplace it goes beyond the moderate and into the extreme.
And you are apparently not going to protest the leaders of your party going against over two centuries of tradition and rules, centuries that have seen slavery end, a civil war, two world wars, and countless other minor and major crises. For all that time, the filibuster has been an accepted parliamentary procedure and until now, nobody has advocated "restat[ing]" the rules. This is a naked power grab by embittered Republicans who are upset because the Democrats still have the power to do what the GOP did to six times as many Clinton nominees. It is disgusting and your willingness to support those leaders in the face of said action is unconscionable.
I haven't taken the time to check these out, but they seem legitimately sourced: Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) March 19, 1997: “But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor.” Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Illinois)September 28, 1998: “We should meet our responsibility. I think that responsibility requires us to act in a timely fashion on nominees sent before us. ... Vote the person up or down.” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) September 11, 1997: “Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.” Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)February 3, 1998: “We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.” Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) May 10, 2000: “The Founding Fathers certainly intended that the Senate advise as to judicial nominations, i.e., consider, debate, and vote up or down. They surely did not intend that the Senate, for partisan or factional reasons, would remain silent and simply refuse to give any advice or consider and vote at all.” Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) 5/14/97 : “It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.” Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): “I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination.” (Congressional Record, 10/5/99) Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): “Hispanic or non-Hispanic, African American or non-African American, woman or man, it is wrong not to have a vote on the Senate floor.” (Congressional Record, 10/28/99) Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): “My expectation is that we’re not going to hold up judicial nominations. …You will not see us do what was done to us in recent years in the Senate with judicial nominations.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 6/4/01) Richard Durbin (D-IL) "If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down." (Cong. Rec., 9/28/98, S11021) Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.” (Congressional Record, 9/11/97) Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don’t like them, we can vote against them.” (Congressional Record, 9/16/99) Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Our institutional integrity requires an up-or-down vote.” (Congressional Record, 10/4/99) Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “ is used … as blackmail for one Senator to get his or her way on something that they could not rightfully win through the normal processes.” (Congressional Record, 1/4/95) Tom Harkin (D-IA) "Have the guts to come out and vote up or down….And once and for all, put behind us this filibuster procedure on nominations." (Cong. Rec., 6/22/95, S8861) Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “I urge the Republican leadership to take the steps necessary to allow the full Senate to vote up or down on these important nominations.” (Congressional Record, 9/11/00) Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.” (Congressional Record, 2/3/9 Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “It is true that some Senators have voiced concerns about these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call vote which gives every Senator the opportunity to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ ... Parties with cases, waiting to be heard by the federal courts deserve a decision by the Senate.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99) Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI): “These nominees, who have to put their lives on hold waiting for us to act, deserve an ‘up or down’ vote.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99) Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “I hope we … will accept our responsibility and vote people up or vote them down. … If we want to vote against them, vote against them.” (Congressional Record, 10/22/97) Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “Now, every Senator can vote against any nominee. … But it is the responsibility of the U.S. Senate to at least bring them to a vote.” (Congressional Record, 10/22/97) Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “ "I have stated over and over again … that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported …” (Congressional Record, 6/18/9 Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “arlier this year … I noted how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination.” (Congressional Record, 10/14/9 Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “f the person is otherwise qualified, he or she gets the vote. … Vote them up, vote them down.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99) Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): “e should have up-or-down votes in the committee and on the floor.” (CNN’s “Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields,” 6/9/01) Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): “e are charged with voting on the nominees. The Constitution does not say if the Congress is controlled by a different party than the President there shall be no judges chosen.” (Congressional Record, 3/7/00) Carl Levin (D-MI) "If a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate is prepared to vote to confirm the President's appointment, that vote should occur." (Cong. Rec., 6/21/95, S8806)
Bravo giddyup, with all those quotes you have completely exposed the liberal hypocrasy. The Constitution says that the Senate will vote to comfirm exectutive nominees with a simple majority(with the Vice President breaking a 50 - 50 tie). In no place does it say that 60 votes are needed to confirm nominees. All those quotes come from a time when the Republicans had a majority in the Senate and certain Clinton nominees were not voted on because they never made it out of the judicial committee. These Bush nominees have made it out of committee and are ready to be voted on by the Senate. The minority in Senate are trying to chage the rules by forcing the majority have 60 votes as opposed to the simple 51 votes the Constitution calls for. The filibuster was made to help the minority oppose legislation that they vehemently opposed, not executive nominees.
This string of quotes was "originally" posted at DemocraticUnderground.com but it go quickly deleted by a moderator with no explanation that I know of. I picked it up at AnnCoulter.com... that should make some people here very h-a-p-p-y.
The GOP had the majority when they opposed Clintons nominees. The Dems are in the minority now. They are the ones trying to circumvent the Constitution by using the filibuster to stop a vote for executive nominees. I challenge you to show where it says 60 votes are needed to confirm executive nominees in the Constitution. It is not in there. The nominees should be put up for debate and then an up or down vote. The Dems are the ones being obstructionist. If the nominees have a reason to be voted down then it will come out in the debates. The Dems won't even let it come up for debate. The filibuster is supposed to be used to help the minority when it opposes legislation not executive nominees. If our founding fathers wanted there to be 60 votes to confirm nominees then they would have put that in the Constitution. Liberals are so good at twisting the facts and the liberal media plays right along with them. No matter wwhat goes on the liberal media always trys to paint the conservatives as the bad guy. The problem is that the silent majority has spoken the last few elections and the liberals are going down kicking and screaming!!!
I challenge you to show where it says that judicial nominees are exempt from the rules that the Senate sets. Just like the GOP allowed the Clinton nominees to have an "up or down vote," huh? As they have every right to by the rules of the Senate. Whatever. The GOP has become a Bush rubber stamp and that is what the Democrats are trying to defeat. They are only holding up ten nominees out of over 200 that they already confirmed. That happens to be six times less nominees than the GOP held up for Clinton. If that were true, then the Senate rules would not allow for filibuster on judicial nominees. The filibuster is there to allow the minority a say in ALL matters of the Senate. Riiiight. They gave the Senate the right to make their rules and filibuster has been a rule of the Senate for over two centuries. Now the GOP is setting up for a nked power grab because they don't want to play by the rules that have been in effect for those two centuries. The Republicans are the ones going against two hundred years of tradition, not the Democrats. The Democrats are using established parliamentary rules to block idealogically driven, partisan, activist judges and the GOP now wants to change a rule that has been in place for two centuries in order to confirm judges that have no place on the Federal bench. You are sounding like t_j and texxx. Just keep on whining about the "evil liberals" and the "liberal media" if it makes you feel better. No, the problem is that the majority doesn't want to play by the rules and is now planning on changing the rules as part of a blatant power grab.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505180004 The Top 10 filibuster falsehoods With Senate debate on two of President Bush's most controversial judicial nominees beginning May 18, the heated rhetoric over the so-called "nuclear option" to ban Senate filibusters on judicial nominations has reached its boiling point. The rules of the Senate thus far remain intact, but filibuster opponents have pulled all rhetorical stops, advancing numerous falsehoods and distortions, and, as Media Matters for America documents below, the media have too often perpetuated that misinformation by unskeptically, and sometimes even deliberately, repeating 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. Falsehood #2: Bush's filibustered nominees have all been rated well-qualified by the ABA; blocking such highly rated nominees is unprecedented To make Democratic filibusters appear unwarranted, many "nuclear option" supporters have falsely claimed that some -- or all -- of Bush's judicial nominees have received the American Bar Association's (ABA) highest qualification rating. Others have argued that Texas Supreme Court justice Priscilla Owen is the first judicial nominee to be filibustered who received a unanimous well-qualified (WQ) rating from the ABA. But of the 10 Bush nominees filibustered by Senate Democrats, only three -- Owen, Miguel Estrada, and David McKeague -- received a unanimous "Well Qualified" rating from the ABA. Conservatives have frequently touted Janice Rogers Brown as highly qualified (see Rush Limbaugh and Rev. Jerry Falwell), but she twice received an "Unqualified" rating from the California judicial evaluation committee and currently has the ABA's lowest "passing" rating of Qm/NQmin (meaning a majority consider her "Qualified" and a minority consider her "Not Qualified"). Contrary to some claims, blocking WQ-rated judicial nominees is not a new practice. Republicans blocked 10 of President Clinton's appeals court nominees with unanimous WQs from receiving a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, and another WQ nominee received a committee hearing but was granted neither a committee vote nor full Senate consideration. Falsehood #3: Democratic obstructionism has led to far more judicial vacancies during Republican administrations than Democratic administrations "Nuclear option" proponents have also used the "empty courtroom" argument to advance their agenda, claiming an unusual number of judicial vacancies during Republican administrations as a result of Democratic obstructionism. But what "nuclear option" advocates don't mention is that the discrepancy in judicial vacancies over the last three administrations is primarily due to the recent creation of new judgeships and the president's relatively slow rate of nominating candidates to fill open spots. One such claim, that more judicial vacancies existed at the end of the George H.W. Bush administration than following the Clinton administration, is largely explained by the 85 new judgeships created by Congress in 1990. And the argument completely collapses when one examines appellate nominees alone: There were more circuit court vacancies when Clinton left office then when President George H.W. Bush did. Comparisons of the number of current judicial vacancies to the number under Clinton are also misleading, if not outright false. Most of the current vacant federal judgeships are vacant because Bush has nominated candidates to fill only about one-third of the vacancies. There were never fewer district and appellate court vacancies during the Clinton administration than the 45 vacancies that presently exist, according to Congressional Research Service data obtained from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. In other words, there were actually more judicial vacancies when Republicans blocked Clinton's nominees than there are right now. Falsehood #4: "Nuclear Option" is a Democratic term Following the Republicans' lead, many major media outlets have attributed the term "nuclear option" as a creation of Senate Democrats. In fact, Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), one of the proposed measures' leading advocates, actually coined the term. Falsehood #5: Democrats oppose Bush nominees because of their faith, race, ethnicity, gender, stance on abortion, stance on parental notification ... Democrats who have filibustered Bush's judicial picks maintain that their opposition stems from the nominees' alleged inability or unwillingness to put aside personal ideological views and follow the law. But that hasn't stopped "nuclear option" proponents from misrepresenting the rationale for Democratic opposition. One prominent falsehood is that Democrats have opposed the nominees because of their opposition to abortion rights. But opponents of nominees Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William H. Pryor have cited specific actions and statements related to abortion that run counter to precedent and statutory law. Further, the Senate has confirmed 208 of Bush's judicial nominees -- most with substantial Democratic support -- and few, if any, of these confirmed judges have voiced support for abortion rights. Many Bush appointees approved by the full Senate -- such as Michael W. McConnell, John G. Roberts, and James Leon Holmes -- have voiced opposition to abortion rights. Conservatives have also accused Democrats of opposing Owen because of her support for Texas' parental notification law for minors seeking abortions. In fact, Democrats claim Owen tried to rewrite the law by imposing obstacles to receiving a judicial bypass that the letter of the law did not require, an accusation first made in an opinion written by her then-colleague on the court, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, in which Gonzales accused the dissenters, including Owen, of trying "to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute" and of advocating "an unconscionable act of judicial activism." The most frequent distortion has been that Democrats have opposed the 10 filibustered judicial nominees because of their "faith" or their "religion." Additionally, "Nuclear option" advocates have baselessly accused Democrats of blocking Bush's nominees because of their ethnicity, race, or gender. Falsehood #6: Public opinion polling shows clear opposition to judicial filibusters, support for "nuclear option" Many media reports have aided "nuclear option" advocates by selectively citing or mischaracterizing polling results to claim that the public is strongly opposed to judicial filibusters. A partisan Republican poll, which proponents claim suggests broad public support for the "nuclear option," has received significant media coverage. The poll asked respondents whether they agreed with the following statement: "If a nominee for any federal judgeship is well-qualified, he or she deserves an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate [underline in original]." But it is misleading because it offers only the option of supporting or opposing "up or down" votes for judicial nominees without any context or accompanying argument offered in opposition. In addition, the poll posits that the judges in question are "well qualified." Some coverage of the poll mischaracterized its results by unquestioningly reporting Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman's false suggestion that the poll showed that the vast majority of Americans believe all judicial nominees should receive an up-or-down vote in the Senate. In fact, another question from Republican polling more directly addresses the debate over judicial nominees and suggests that the public opposes eliminating senators' ability to block a nomination using the filibuster. Private Republican polling indicated that only 37 percent of respondents supported the GOP plan to prevent Democrats from filibustering judicial nominees, while 51 percent opposed. "Nuclear option" advocates have also attempted to dismiss an ABC News/Washington Post poll showing even stronger opposition to the rule change by claiming the poll is biased because it didn't specifically mention the terms "filibuster" or "unprecedented." But other polls that specifically mention the filibuster similarly indicate majority opposition to the "nuclear option," and the Democrats' use of the filibuster is not unprecedented, as noted above. The most recent poll to specifically mention the term "filibuster," conducted May 10-12 by Time magazine, found that 59 percent of respondents opposed Republican efforts to "eliminate the filibuster" for judicial nominees, compared to 28 percent in favor. Falsehood #7: Filibustering judicial nominees is unconstitutional Another argument made by those supporting the "nuclear option" is that filibustering judicial nominees is unconstitutional. In fact, the Constitution makes no mention of filibusters, but it explicitly empowers the Senate to determine its own rules. Senate rules allow for unlimited debate on any subject, including judicial nominees. Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, which governs debate and filibusters, explicitly states that the rules apply to "any measure, motion, [or] other matter pending before the Senate," including judicial nominations. In response to a May 12 question from Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) on the Senate floor, Frist acknowledged that the Constitution does not require an up-or-down vote for all judicial nominees: "To the question, does the Constitution say that every nominee of the President deserves an up-or-down vote, the answer is, no, the language is not there." Falsehood #8: Clinton's appellate confirmation rate was far better than Bush's rate "Nuclear option" advocates have also claimed that the confirmation rate for Clinton's appellate nominees was much higher than for Bush's nominees. But the confirmation rate in Clinton's second term and Bush's first term are nearly identical -- 35 of Clinton's 51 nominees were confirmed, compared to 35 of Bush's 52 nominees. Another talking point is that "100 percent" of Clinton's appellate nominees were approved once they reached the Senate floor. But that statistic is highly misleading because the Republican-led Judiciary Committee blocked the 16 second-term Clinton appellate nominees by keeping them off the floor and, in all but one case, denying them even committee hearings. Falsehood #9: Sen. Byrd's alterations to filibuster rules set precedent for "nuclear option" Yet another faulty claim put forth by opponents of judicial filibusters is that past actions by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) have constituted a precedent for the so-called "nuclear option." For example, columnist and CNN host Robert Novak claimed that a 1977 parliamentary maneuver by Byrd to break a post-cloture filibuster set such a precedent. A standard filibuster occurs when senators exercise their full rights under Senate Standing Rule XXII, which requires a three-fifths majority (60 votes) to invoke cloture, or cut off debate, on any matter pending before the Senate. But then-Senate Majority Leader Byrd's action in 1977 was a successful attempt to break a post-cloture filibuster; 60 senators had already voted for cloture, but two senators continued to extend debate by offering a series of amendments meant to manipulate a loophole in then-standing Senate rules. In order to end the post-cloture filibuster, Byrd invoked a provision of Rule XXII forbidding dilatory amendments. The precedent Byrd set was novel only because he interpreted Rule XXII to allow the chair of the Senate to rule the dilatory amendments out of order without first requiring a point of order from a senator on the floor. By contrast, Republican senators are currently considering the "nuclear option" precisely because they lack the 60 votes to invoke cloture on the initial filibuster of the 10 judicial nominees. Novak's claim is just one instance of opponents of judicial filibusters claiming that actions by Byrd set a precedent for the "nuclear option." The various claims originated in a fall 2004 article by lawyers Martin B. Gold and Dimple Gupta published in the conservative Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Gold is a former floor adviser to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), and Gupta is a former employee of the Bush Justice Department. The progressive advocacy group People for the American Way rebutted the other arguments for a "nuclear precedent" put forth in Gold and Gupta's article in a February 22 report. Falsehood #10: Democrats have opposed "all" or "most" of Bush's judicial nominees "Nuclear option" proponents have drastically exaggerated Democratic efforts to block Bush's judicial nominees, suggesting that they have opposed all of his nominees or all of his conservative nominees. In fact, the Senate has to date approved 208 judicial nominees, with Senate Democrats filibustering 10. The vast majority of Bush's nominees have received strong bipartisan support. For example, in April district court nominee Paul Crotty was confirmed by a vote of 95-0. Even among Bush's first-term appellate nominees, the Senate confirmed more than 70 percent. — A.S. Posted to the web on Wednesday May 18, 2005 at 1:45 PM EST It doesn't look like either party has a leg to stand on. Both have been guilty of same.
Partisan politics at its worst. The GOP did it back in the '90s and are now getting a taste of their own medicine now. If the parties were willing to work with each other as was the case decades ago, this would not happen, but as a result of the people who talk about "evil liberals" and "right-wing nutjobs," we will not see such comity. YOU and people like you are the problem. You will decry anything and everything the other side does or says, as will the people on the left fringe. Everyone involved is more interested in sound bites than compromise and as long as that is the case, we will continue to see politics devolve into ever more bitter pissing matches.
The Democrats were protecting their power and spouting their sound bites just as the GOP now is. The Democrats never threatened to change the rules in a blatant grab for power, however.
Who cares? John McCain specifically said that the GOP did the exact same thing "for all intents and purposes" by keeping Clinton nominees from reaching the Seante floor. As you said, neither party has a leg to stand on.
Giddyup, I give you credit. It does appear that that the Dems have been talking out of both sides of their face on this one. But the only thing that proves is that they are as bad as the GOP. Frist was the one who during that period voted to filibuster Clinton nominees and apparently has no regrets about his vote. Yet he is the one now who has rejected every attempt at comprimise(the dems have offered 3 that I am aware of.) and is pushing for the nuclear option. Just like the GOP hypocrasy where Bill 'no compromise' Frist voted to filibuster the Clinton nominees.
