Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 The Constitution requires only a majority vote on all judicial nominations. The Democrats are trying to force it to a super majority, which is a violation of the Constitution. Nothing like typical MoveOn scare tactics to cloud the actual issue. 342375[/snapback] DING DING DING! I saw an ad directed at Specter here in PA calling him the "last line of defense" against the right that simply hopes to usurp all constitutional checks and balances. It was laughable, really, to anyone that knows ANYTHING about the constitution. But the problem is most suckers out there don't and will believe this dreck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Sounds like Teddy in the day when the Dems ruled the world. He'd never say that today! 342393[/snapback] You mean, he is a hypocrite. It is like a bunch of the Dems who are staunchly in favor of filibustering these nominees. They are also on record stating that judicial nominees deserve an up or down vote. They are praying on the fact that people will not actually pay attention to things they said in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Again, I would agree with the Fillibuster as a parliamentarian action intended to give the minority a voice. But I would struggle to find much evidence that it was intended for or used (as often as it has in the last 5 years) for the purpose of denying a hearing before Congress on Presidential court nominees. There are a bunch of moderate Republican Senators that the Dems can utilize to vote down an inappropriate judicial nominee. A 'yes' or 'no' vote on these nominees needs to happen. Use the fillibuster to block only the most ridiculous nominees, not everyone. The Dems might just be shooting themselves in the foot by continuing to overuse the fillibuster. 342382[/snapback] Question: What do H. Alston Johnson (5th Circuit), James Duffy (9th Circuit), Kathleen McCree-Lewis (6th Circuit), Enrique Moreno (5th Circuit), James Lyons (10th Circuit), Robert Cindrich (3rd Circuit), Stephen Orlofsky (3rd Circuit), Andre Davis (4th Circuit), James Beaty (4th Circuit), and J. Rich Leonard (4th Circuit) and Allen Snyder (D.C. Circuit) all have in common? Answer: They all recieved the American Bar Association's unanimous "well-qualified" rating, yet they were all denied an up or down vote by Republicans after being nominated by President Clinton. Here are more Circuit Court judges who received satisfactory ABA ratings but were denied a vote: Helene White (6th Circuit), Jorge Rangel (5th Circuit), Robert Raymer (3rd Circuit), Barry Goode (9th Circuit), Christine Arguello (10th Circuit), Elizabeth Gibson (4th Circuit), Elana Kagan (D.C. Circuit), James Wynn (4th Circuit), Bonnie Campbell (8th Circuit), Kent Markus (6th Circuit), and Roger Gregory (4th Circuit). In all, there were 60 (yes, 60) Clinton nominees that were blocked by Republicans. But now the GOP is claiming that denying an up or down vote is unfair? That's pretty funny - almost as funny as those who buy into that line of crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Sounds like Teddy in the day when the Dems ruled the world. He'd never say that today! 342393[/snapback] Back in the Clinton administration, when the Democrats controlled the Senate, there was just the sort of fillibuster by the Republicans that they're now trying to break. The Democrats broke the fillibuster, by the way, when Barbara Boxer essentially blackmailed Trent Lott with blocking every single appointment he made for the rest of his term unless he lifted the fillibuster. Of course, in government it's not called "blackmail", it's called "negotiation". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 The Senate can make rules, as long as they do not violate the Constitution. It is specified in the Constitution that a majority vote is required for judicial nominees, not a super majority. Super majorities are only for treaties. In the words of Ted Kennedy, "The filibuster rule is not enshrined in the Constitution. Instead, it is a rule that was made by the Senate, and it is a rule that can be unmade by the Senate." He also said, "The Constitution is clear that only individuals acceptable to both the President and the Senate should be confirmed. The President and the Senate do not always agree. But we should resolve these disagreements by voting on these nominees – yes or no." 342391[/snapback] it just sounds like the dems are using the fillibuster to keep the republicans from doing what they want to do. so the republicans say ok, we will just get rid of the fillibuster option all together. and its my understanding (granted its limited) the fillibuster option, overall, is on the books for a reason. i dont think it matters whether the topic of argument is something as large as confirming judges or something as small as deciding where to build a monument. and all these arguments about "the constitution says"... might be a valid argument, but the fillibuster has been on the books for YEARS, and its only now being argued agenst because its keeping some law makers from doing what they want to do. if it was really that bad, we would have had this argumetn several years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkwwjd Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 No, the fillibuster is entirely intended to block action. Else, why would they do such meaningless crap as reading the entire phone book into the Congressional Record (which has been done in fillibusters before, when they were true fillibusters.) 342394[/snapback] So, you're saying that the fillibuster is only intended to delay action? Never meant to block? What's the purpose of an action if it only delays the vote? To rally more support for the losing side? I'm not sure I'm grasping the point, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 They are also on record stating that judicial nominees deserve an up or down vote. They are praying on the fact that people will not actually pay attention to things they said in the past. 342399[/snapback] They are also on record saying that the nominees don't deserve an up or down vote. I do agree that they bank on the fact that the average American won't remember what they said in the past. Refresh my memory, is the "they" Republicans or Democrats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Refresh my memory, is the "they" Republicans or Democrats? 342407[/snapback] Uh...yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 it just sounds like the dems are using the fillibuster to keep the republicans from doing what they want to do. so the republicans say ok, we will just get rid of the fillibuster option all together. and its my understanding (granted its limited) the fillibuster option, overall, is on the books for a reason. i dont think it matters whether the topic of argument is something as large as confirming judges or something as small as deciding where to build a monument. 342404[/snapback] Why? The filibuster is just another way these career crooks keep things from getting done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 it just sounds like the dems are using the fillibuster to keep the republicans from doing what they want to do. so the republicans say ok, we will just get rid of the fillibuster option all together. and its my understanding (granted its limited) the fillibuster option, overall, is on the books for a reason. i dont think it matters whether the topic of argument is something as large as confirming judges or something as small as deciding where to build a monument. 342404[/snapback] The Dems are doing exactly what the Republicans did during Clinton. It wasn't right then, and it isn't right now. Again, the Senate can only make rules that do not violate the Constitution. Filibustering judicial nominees is a violation of the Constitution. They are required a majority vote, not a super majority. Filibustering other topics is acceptable, just not for judicial nominees. I agree with the monkey in that it should be a true filibuster, not this faux filibuster being used now. Make these people earn their salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 So, you're saying that the fillibuster is only intended to delay action? Never meant to block? What's the purpose of an action if it only delays the vote? To rally more support for the losing side? I'm not sure I'm grasping the point, sorry. 342405[/snapback] Basically, it's a petulant little temper tantrum. The equivalent of holding their breath until they turn blue so they won't have to eat their peas. Ultimately, one side or the other caves, and they either eat their peas or have them taken away (and if they're REALLY good little boys and girls, they might even get a cookie). But if all they wanted was a voice...open debate's a better choice. Even an actual fillibuster discoursing on the topic the prompts it would be a better choice. But when they monopolize the floor to read from the phone book...it's kind of tough to argue that a fillibuster is simply a means for the minority party to be heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 They are also on record saying that the nominees don't deserve an up or down vote. I do agree that they bank on the fact that the average American won't remember what they said in the past. Refresh my memory, is the "they" Republicans or Democrats? 342407[/snapback] "They" refers to both parties, Republicans and Democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Why? The filibuster is just another way these career crooks keep things from getting done. 342410[/snapback] the problem with democracy is that not everyone agrees on everything. democracy is slow. we accept that. i do think they are carrer crooks, but would you rather have a dictatorship? everything gets done alot faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Basically, it's a petulant little temper tantrum. The equivalent of holding their breath until they turn blue so they won't have to eat their peas. Ultimately, one side or the other caves, and they either eat their peas or have them taken away (and if they're REALLY good little boys and girls, they might even get a cookie). But if all they wanted was a voice...open debate's a better choice. Even an actual fillibuster discoursing on the topic the prompts it would be a better choice. But when they monopolize the floor to read from the phone book...it's kind of tough to argue that a fillibuster is simply a means for the minority party to be heard. 342414[/snapback] Like I said, it's just a way for these career crooks to keep from getting anything done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OBXBILLSFAN Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 It's typical of the liberal Democrats - who have no agenda, no new ideas, and no plan to move this country forward - to try to obstruct appointment of the President's judicial nominees by breaking a 200 year tradition of a simple up or down vote. Many of the candidates have represented minorities, but they are viewed as "too conservative," so the liberals move off their alleged principals of diversity and equal opportunity faster that Bill Clinton in a room of beautiful women. The liberal Democrats will only support liberal minorities, just like they will only support social security reform that entails higher taxes and more government control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Like I said, it's just a way for these career crooks to keep from getting anything done. 342420[/snapback] Personally, I don't see where that's a bad thing. Given the calibre of people we have in Congress these days, I'd support just about anything that makes it harder for them to accomplish anything. And you know what's scary? Anyone reading this thread can learn more about the issue in ten minutes than they would have learned in the past six weeks of watching the news... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 It's typical of the liberal Democrats - who have no agenda, no new ideas, and no plan to move this country forward - to try to obstruct appointment of the President's judicial nominees by breaking a 200 year tradition of a simple up or down vote. Many of the candidates have represented minorities, but they are viewed as "too conservative," so the liberals move off their alleged principals of diversity and equal opportunity faster that Bill Clinton in a room of beautiful women. The liberal Democrats will only support liberal minorities, just like they will only support social security reform that entails higher taxes and more government control. 342421[/snapback] Nice meaningless "liberals suck" rant. You have anything to say about the fillibuster rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Filibustering other topics is acceptable, just not for judicial nominees. 342413[/snapback] ok, so does this "nuclear option" make a law that keeps the fillibuster from being used to appoint judicial nominees? or to simply get rid of the fillibuster all together? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkwwjd Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Sad, but very true CTM -- speaking about your comment on this thread vs. the news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Since we are discussing the Constitution, lets look at the exact clause which applies here: Section II Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts