All night rave/reverse-filibuster in Senate

[Guest MikeSC]

to completely stop a vote on them via filibuster is not what was intended. It should be voted up or down.

Did they give these nominees a hearing?

 

 

See, this is why I say it's pure poltiics. A metric fuckload of Clinton nominees never went anywhere either because the Republicans either wouldn't give them a hearing or simply did not show up to vote.

Not letting the nominee out of committee is one thing. That is what the committee is FOR --- to determine if the nominee even DESERVES a vote. They are a gatekeeper.

 

Filibustering them when they GET out of committe is entirely different.

 

I can't believe you are defending this.

-=Mike

[Guest BDC]

They were arguing about this when I was working in the Hart Building this past summer. The whole thing on one nominee was that he was a staunch Catholic. The protest was that he couldn't set his beliefs aside. The Republicans said: "He's done it in the past."

[Guest MikeSC]

They were arguing about this when I was working in the Hart Building this past summer. The whole thing on one nominee was that he was a staunch Catholic. The protest was that he couldn't set his beliefs aside. The Republicans said: "He's done it in the past."

Heck, if I were a nominee, I'd just lie through my teeth ad infinitum.

-=Mike

..."Abortion? I'm all for it. Up to the delivery date, as a matter of fact. In fact, here's footage of me PERFORMING an abortion. No, she didn't WANT one, but..."

[Justice 0]

They were arguing about this when I was working in the Hart Building this past summer. The whole thing on one nominee was that he was a staunch Catholic. The protest was that he couldn't set his beliefs aside. The Republicans said: "He's done it in the past."

To ask, isn't that some sort of Religious Discrimination? I'm not sure, but that really seems to cross the line...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And this needs changing. Badly.

 

The Senate has a right to "Advise and consent". The Dems, presently, are refusing to allow that to happen. That definitely is NOT what the founders foresaw.

But shit, that's not the beginning of it, man. Besides filibustering, they could do as I previously mentioned and just not show up to vote. What then? Amend it again to allow people to be pulled out of their houses when a judicial nominee is up for vote?

 

The problem with amending this is that there's still other ways to do the same goddamn thing, no matter how bad it is.

 

PowerPlay was going on about how shocked he was that Dems seem to think it's all right. I don't think it's all right. I think it's purely political. I think it's funny in a hypocritical sort of way that NOW the Republicans are complaining about it, but both sides do it and it's not any better when one side does it than the other.

 

But outlawing it isn't a fix-all. It will not cure the symptom and it will add another piece of legislature to a system that is already overburdened as it is.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

They've approved 163 judicial nominees. They've blocked 6 radical justices through perfectly legal means. On disputed justices, the rules require 60 senators to vote "yes" to bring him to a vote. MMKAY.

 

By the way, Chaffee, McCain, etc... while they're more neutral than the rest of conservatives, still have a very conservative record on social issues. We like McCain for his fiscal ideas and straight talk, we like Chaffee because he'll speak out against the Republicans occasionally, and we like Jeffords because he's basically a Democrat anyways.

 

And by the way, you people are bitching at the Democrats about this when the GOP was the party who decided to back up debate in the Senate for OVER two days, when there's important business on the docket that ISN'T getting done. Congratulations, your blatant partisanship in nominating 6 justices who are severely right wing and trying to muscle them through by your 51-48 margin (really 52-47 though, since Zell Miller is a de facto Republican -- he votes with the President 93% of the time) in the Senate is now backing up the business that affects everyone, including the medicare reform, some economic programs, and apparently an infrastructure bill that I heard a few Democrats mention during the debates.

 

So it's REALLY worth it to get six ideologues on the bench, right?

 

These guys couldn't be... say... less partisan, like the other 163? In other words, STFU and stop complaining. Your President brought it on himself.

[Guest Ghettoman]

Filibuster's a funny word.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

According to Orrin Hatch, it comes from the Spanish word "filibustero" which means TO HIJACK!

 

I know this because he had that stupid fucking billboard behind him every time he spoke.

[Guest Ghettoman]

Well then I've found my replacement word for hijack! I was getting tired of it anyway...

 

"OMG remember when those terrorists filibustered that plain!?....."

 

It's like new life!

[Guest MikeSC]

But shit, that's not the beginning of it, man. Besides filibustering, they could do as I previously mentioned and just not show up to vote. What then? Amend it again to allow people to be pulled out of their houses when a judicial nominee is up for vote?

 

The votes are scheduled. If they choose to not show up, then those that ARE present will vote on the nominees. The majority party won't schedule votes at absurd times due to the political fallout of doing so. If the minority party chooses to not show, it is their problem.

 

The problem with amending this is that there's still other ways to do the same goddamn thing, no matter how bad it is.

 

Then, set a hard and fast rule.

 

Two weeks after his confirmation hearings, a vote is set. Period. You don't show up, then you don't vote. Quorums will NOT be necessary to avoid the problem you mentioned.

 

PowerPlay was going on about how shocked he was that Dems seem to think it's all right. I don't think it's all right. I think it's purely political. I think it's funny in a hypocritical sort of way that NOW the Republicans are complaining about it, but both sides do it and it's not any better when one side does it than the other.

 

GOP has NEVER done this.

 

NOBODY has ever done this before.

 

But outlawing it isn't a fix-all. It will not cure the symptom and it will add another piece of legislature to a system that is already overburdened as it is.

 

And allowing it to continue ensures that the Supreme Court will get NO new justices in the foreseeable future.

-=Mike

...Since when has "You can do the bad thing other ways" ever been a justification for inaction?

[Guest MikeSC]

They've approved 163 judicial nominees. They've blocked 6 radical justices through perfectly legal means. On disputed justices, the rules require 60 senators to vote "yes" to bring him to a vote. MMKAY.

 

Of course, in this case, "radical" means one of those coloreds who don't think like the rest (Estrada and Brown) or who they simply smeared about his civil rights record when it was, in fact, GLOWINGLY good (Pickering)

 

By the way, Chaffee, McCain, etc... while they're more neutral than the rest of conservatives, still have a very conservative record  on social issues. We like McCain for his fiscal ideas and straight talk, we like Chaffee because he'll speak out against the Republicans occasionally, and we like Jeffords because he's basically a Democrat anyways.

 

You like McCain's "straight talk"?

 

That is hilarious.

 

And by the way, you people are bitching at the Democrats about this when the GOP was the party who decided to back up debate in the Senate for OVER two days, when there's important business on the docket that ISN'T getting done.

 

Such as? And, the DEMOCRATS are the one filibustering, not the GOP. THEY are the ones preventing anything from getting done.

 

Keep the blame where it belongs.

 

Congratulations, your blatant partisanship in nominating 6 justices who are severely right wing

 

"Severely right-wing" being anybody to the right of Jeffords.

 

and trying to muscle them through by your 51-48 margin

 

Because, God knows, the Dems didn't try to "muscle" things through when Jeffords defected.

 

(really 52-47 though, since Zell Miller is a de facto Republican -- he votes with the President 93% of the time) in the Senate is now backing up the business that affects everyone, including the medicare reform, some economic programs, and apparently an infrastructure bill that I heard a few Democrats mention during the debates.

 

Blame the Dems for filibustering. Allow an up-and-down vote and you have problem over.

 

So it's REALLY worth it to get six ideologues on the bench, right?

 

Idealogue, of course, being anybody to the right of Jeffords.

 

These guys couldn't be... say... less partisan, like the other 163? In other words, STFU and stop complaining. Your President  brought it on himself.

 

Can you name the extreme views Estrada had? Or Pickering?

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

They've approved 163 judicial nominees. They've blocked 6 radical justices through perfectly legal means. On disputed justices, the rules require 60 senators to vote "yes" to bring him to a vote. MMKAY.

First off, this is a dangerous precedent. Argue all you like about "Disputed" or "Radical" judges (I didn't remember Miguel Estrada or whoever he was being too radical, and apparently one was disputed because 'Hey, he's a Catholic!'), but this can easily turn into the minority saying "Well, we don't want this to go through so Filibuster time!" Seriously, Tyler, a 59-41 vote wouldn't be able to stop it, and that's a difference of 18 votes. I can't understand how you can ride the slippery slope like you do so much.

 

Secondly, as stated before, Judicial nominees are much different than regular business. The Senate is supposed to "Advise and Consent", not stop a vote because they don't think they'll win. This shouldn't be a partisan issue, if they got out of committee they should give them a vote and move on to other business. If you get thrown down in a committee, then so be it; Mike is right, that's what they are there for, so you can't bitch about that. I don't approve of walk-outs, but Filibustering is the most dangerous threat in the Senate that can be made: Many times bills won't be brought up just because of the implied threat of one. When one does this to a Judicial nominee, you threaten to impose a gridlock on the Judicial system because if one has even the hint of a leaning towards one side or the other you can just

 

And by the way, you people are bitching at the Democrats about this when the GOP was the party who decided to back up debate in the Senate for OVER two days, when there's important business on the docket that ISN'T getting done. Congratulations, your blatant partisanship in nominating 6 justices who are severely right wing and trying to muscle them through by your 51-48 margin (really 52-47 though, since Zell Miller is a de facto Republican -- he votes with the President 93% of the time) in the Senate is now backing up the business that affects everyone, including the medicare reform, some economic programs, and apparently an infrastructure bill that I heard a few Democrats mention during the debates.

 

Pot, meet Kettle.

 

Blantant partisanship in nominating 6 judges? Just fucking let them go up or down in a vote and let it be OVER with. The Republicans don't exactly hold a moral highground here, but you certainly don't either. They passed through committee, and through that they deserve a vote on the damn issue. I didn't approve of the walkouts, nor do I approve of threatening a filibuster something that was never intended to be filibustered because you can't somehow convince two or three guys to come over to your side. Of course, this would have happened anyways since the Dems were going to Filibuster if these people came to the floor, but I'm sure it would have been all right then, right? Face it, this is exactly what the Dems wanted, and now they got it. Live with it.

 

Simple Solution? Just vote on it, up or down. Again, even Al fucking Sharpton sides with the Republicans here.

 

So it's REALLY worth it to get six ideologues on the bench, right?

 

Is it REALLY worth threatening to hamper the entire Judicial System into gridlock with your precedent because of 6 Judgeships?

 

These guys couldn't be... say... less partisan, like the other 163? In other words, STFU and stop complaining. Your President brought it on himself.

 

Should it matter if one is a Catholic? You STFU. Your minority is making a desperate grab for more power and politicizing a process that shoudn't be. Because hey, what's the problem with making Judicial nominees look political?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

They've approved 163 judicial nominees. They've blocked 6 radical justices through perfectly legal means.

Time for the GOP to play the Dem's game.

 

More than half of those judges blocked are women/minority.

 

I'm sure more than half of those judges that got through are not women/minority.

 

What does this tell me? Dems are racist and Anti-woman because the block a disproportionate amount of women/minority judicial candidates...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

GOP has NEVER done this.

 

NOBODY has ever done this before.

Then what about those several dozen Clinton justices which got the same shit, just in a different pile?

 

It's completely irrelevant and stupid politics. Republican senators have far more to deal with from the war to balancing budgets. Republicans should be angry that they're bothering to waste such an amazing amount of time on this stupidity and move on.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

NOBODY has ever done this before.

Then what about those several dozen Clinton justices which got the same shit, just in a different pile?

GOP didn't filibuster regarding Clinton because they were in control

 

My primary beef with this whole situation is that I remember back then Leahy was whining like a little bitch over the GOP blocking nominees and was shouting RACISM because some of these candidates the GOP blocked were minority/women.

 

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, Pat...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

GOP didn't filibuster regarding Clinton because they were in control

Doesn't make it any better.

 

My primary beef with this whole situation is that I remember back then Leahy was whining like a little bitch over the GOP blocking nominees and was shouting RACISM because some of these candidates the GOP blocked were minority/women.

 

Well, I wouldn't call Catholics a huge minority. Although the funny thing about that is Pryor, who allegedly can't keep his own faith out of his decisionmaking, was the one who prosecuted against Roy Moore and got him kicked off the judge's bench this week.

[Guest MikeSC]

Then what about those several dozen Clinton justices which got the same shit, just in a different pile?

 

GOP didn't filibuster anything. The purpose of a COMMITTEE is to determine if a nominee is WORTHY of a floor vote. If they let EVERY nominee through, there would be no need for a committee --- and the floor would be littered with absurd nominations.

 

What the GOP did is fair. They followed the rules as had been in place for a long, long time.

 

The Dems are violating rules and violating the Senate's place in the whole "checks and balances" here.

 

It's completely irrelevant and stupid politics. Republican senators have far more to deal with from the war to balancing budgets.

 

So do the Dems. Doesn't slow them down from filibustering.

 

Republicans should be angry that they're bothering to waste such an amazing amount of time on this stupidity and move on.

 

Dems should be mad that their party won't allow a nominee approved by the committee to face a floot vote he or she would EASILY win.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

GOP didn't filibuster regarding Clinton because they were in control

Doesn't make it any better.

 

They served their role. The committe's job is to approve a floor vote for a nominee. If the nominee can't pass committee, they won't pass a floor vote, either.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

GOP didn't filibuster anything.

K, look at this:

 

Republicans prevent votes on 60 Clinton judges. Democrats angry.

 

Democrats prevent votes on 4 Bush judges. Republicans angry.

 

Now, all along I've never said one party was better than the other. Just that currently it's the Republicans who are looking like idiots crying about the injustice of it all.

[Justice 0]

GOP didn't filibuster anything.

K, look at this:

 

Republicans prevent votes on 60 Clinton judges. Democrats angry.

 

Democrats prevent votes on 4 Bush judges. Republicans angry.

 

Now, all along I've never said one party was better than the other. Just that currently it's the Republicans who are looking like idiots crying about the injustice of it all.

Wait, did all those judge's pass through committee or no? If they didn't pass committee then they likely aren't going to the floor. If they passed committee, I'll agree. But I don't remember that many ever passing committee with him...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Wait, did all those judge's pass through committee or no? If they didn't pass committee then they likely aren't going to the floor. If they passed committee, I'll agree. But I don't remember that many ever passing committee with him...

In the late 80s the Democrats didn't give hearing to one Reagan nominee, though, which is how I think the whole thing started. Around 60 guys were nixed by Republicans in Clinton's term: Some were refused a committee hearing. Others were never brought up for a vote because many GOP Senators simply stayed home.

 

This is totally partisan and ugly politics, but the whining from both the Republican senators and those supporting them shows the whole "it's okay until it's my side suffering for it" sort of thing. If the shoe was on the other foot, I would not bitch about the Republicans not playing along like what happened in the 90s. I'd just be bitching about how stupid it is.

 

However, I stll don't think legislating workaround is going to do. Especially if the Democrats win either the White House or the Senate in 2004 and the Republicans are going to find themselves staying home or filibustering.

[Justice 0]

Oh, I know this started with Reagan. No problem there. The thing is, this is taking it to a new level: This isn't an opposing President fighting against the Senate like Reagan or Clinton. Both branches are the same party, and now that the Democrats are filibustering, something that was pretty much taboo when talking about judicial nominees, you are escalating this even further. These people are getting through committees, people are showing up for the votes, they should get a vote, but the minority is blocking this. This can so easily slide down the slippery slope it's not even funny: What defines a "radical" judge? How about Supreme Court Nominees. Do you think either party is going to give up a Supreme Court seat when they can stop it simply with a filibuster? The Dems played the game in the 80's, the Republicans played the game in the 90's, but this is going past this. When the Dems start filibustering nominees that would get passed, they will get the same thing if they get the Presidency and even the Senate. It's a big escalation for this squabble and it's one of the moves the Democrats are going to regret for the rest of their careers.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Oh, I know this started with Reagan. No problem there. The thing is, this is taking it to a new level

Is it?

 

The Senate has confirmed 168 of Bush's judicial nominees, and Democrats have blocked four. Senators in both parties acknowledge their wrangling over judges in the past two years hasn't caught the general public's attention the way a Supreme Court nomination fight would.

 

Since the first Congress, about a quarter of Supreme Court nominees have been rejected. The Congressional Research Service tracked the confirmation rates for district and circuit judges and found that they've "steadily declined" over the last five presidencies. Some 93.7 percent of President Jimmy Carter's judicial nominees were confirmed, and 88.2 percent of President Ronald Reagan's were.

 

Only 69.5 percent of President Bill Clinton's nominees were approved during his last two years in office. Bush averaged 72.5 percent in his first two years but only 46.8 percent so far this year, according to the Congressional Research Service

 

http://www.azstarnet.com/star/Wed/31112Nse...natebuster.html

 

now that the Democrats are filibustering, something that was pretty much taboo when talking about judicial nominees, you are escalating this even further.

 

Not really. Same shit, different pile. Add in that Clinton nominees were held up because Hatch was exploiting the blue slip and now that Republicans are fighting the filibuster with a filibuster of their own for publicity reasons and I don't understand where you see this moral high ground.

[Justice 0]

The Senate has confirmed 168 of Bush's judicial nominees, and Democrats have blocked four. Senators in both parties acknowledge their wrangling over judges in the past two years hasn't caught the general public's attention the way a Supreme Court nomination fight would.

 

Since the first Congress, about a quarter of Supreme Court nominees have been rejected. The Congressional Research Service tracked the confirmation rates for district and circuit judges and found that they've "steadily declined" over the last five presidencies. Some 93.7 percent of President Jimmy Carter's judicial nominees were confirmed, and 88.2 percent of President Ronald Reagan's were.

 

Only 69.5 percent of President Bill Clinton's nominees were approved during his last two years in office. Bush averaged 72.5 percent in his first two years but only 46.8 percent so far this year, according to the Congressional Research Service.

 

Wow, information that lacks any substance on the issue (Using a filibuster on a Judicial nominee, not the number of nominees getting through). w00t!

 

Not really. Same shit, different pile.

 

That's basically comparing one dog turd and a load of hippo crap. Again this isn't a hostile majority Senate vs. the President like Reagan or Clinton. This is a minority Senate curtailing Judicial nominees that actually got through the committee process and that are entitled to a vote. It's inherently different in that respect. This sets a precedent for anyone who is in the minority to do this to any Judicial nominee because they don't like him, even if he has a 59-41 majority vote on his side.

 

This is going to hinder both parties because now they've crossed over to another level of judicial gridlock with the minority party stopping judicial nominees through filibuster. Of course, it doesn't seem to register with you that I don't care as much about the nominees themselves as the precedent that is started with this of "Filibustering is okay if you think the guy doesn't seem to share your views", which is going to make it almost impossible for anyone to nominate a Supreme Court Justice anytime soon because the minority can easily stop them from coming to a vote.

[Guest MikeSC]

GOP didn't filibuster anything.

K, look at this:

 

Republicans prevent votes on 60 Clinton judges. Democrats angry.

 

Democrats prevent votes on 4 Bush judges. Republicans angry.

 

Now, all along I've never said one party was better than the other. Just that currently it's the Republicans who are looking like idiots crying about the injustice of it all.

Clinton's judges didn't make it out of committee.

 

Bush's has.

 

It is amazing how much you will sell out any sense of right and wrong here.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Is it?

 

The Senate has confirmed 168 of Bush's judicial nominees, and Democrats have blocked four. Senators in both parties acknowledge their wrangling over judges in the past two years hasn't caught the general public's attention the way a Supreme Court nomination fight would.

 

Since the first Congress, about a quarter of Supreme Court nominees have been rejected. The Congressional Research Service tracked the confirmation rates for district and circuit judges and found that they've "steadily declined" over the last five presidencies. Some 93.7 percent of President Jimmy Carter's judicial nominees were confirmed, and 88.2 percent of President Ronald Reagan's were.

 

Only 69.5 percent of President Bill Clinton's nominees were approved during his last two years in office. Bush averaged 72.5 percent in his first two years but only 46.8 percent so far this year, according to the Congressional Research Service

 

http://www.azstarnet.com/star/Wed/31112Nse...natebuster.html

 

Or, in REALLY simple terms, with a majority in the Senate and the nominees passing committee, Bush can't even get HALF of his nominees approved?

 

I'm telling you, this will make filling Supreme Court vacancies an impossibility. No judge in America could get 60 Senatorial votes.

 

now that the Democrats are filibustering, something that was pretty much taboo when talking about judicial nominees, you are escalating this even further.

 

Not really. Same shit, different pile.

 

No, smellier shit.

 

Filibustering a nominee already approved by committee goes FAR beyond the Constitutional mandate for the Senate.

 

Add in that Clinton nominees were held up because Hatch was exploiting the blue slip and now that Republicans are fighting the filibuster with a filibuster of their own for publicity reasons and I don't understand where you see this moral high ground.

 

If a nominee doesn't pass committee, it's one thing. Presidents in the past have LOVED committee's shooting down popular, but utterly asinine, ideas and laws.

 

A nominee who is out of committee DESERVES AN UP AND DOWN VOTE.

 

And the Dems acknowledge with this that ALL of the nominees would win fairly handidly.

-=Mike

...If the eyes re the window to the soul, you might need to wipe yours a little

[Guest MikeSC]

This is going to hinder both parties because now they've crossed over to another level of judicial gridlock with the minority party stopping judicial nominees through filibuster. Of course, it doesn't seem to register with you that I don't care as much about the nominees themselves as the precedent that is started with this of "Filibustering is okay if you think the guy doesn't seem to share your views", which is going to make it almost impossible for anyone to nominate a Supreme Court Justice anytime soon because the minority can easily stop them from coming to a vote.

 

That is the biggest beef. As it stands, with this new precedent, Supreme Court vacancies can NOT be filled by ANY candidate with ANY worthwhile qualifications.

 

They have opened Pandora's Box.

 

This is a BIG problem.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

I heard the mention of the Supreme Court today several times, and it just made my blood run cold.

 

I swear to God, I don't want to have to witness the royal bloodbath of a battle it will be if Bush has to try and pass a Supreme Court nominee through this mess.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

EDIT: Scroll down.

Edited November 15, 2003 by Jobber of the Week

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Okay, I've done something I find myself doing a lot lately, throwing a subject into Google News and reading some of the more credible articles that come out (and believe me, Google reports every wacky left and right wing site out there as news.)

 

I understand what you guys are trying to say now. I don't exactly agree with it and I think you're just now pissed that it's happening to you, but I understand it. My big posting comparing what happened under Clinton to this has been removed, but I'm still curious what you guys consider never refusing a blue slip from a Judge's home state senator and thus never going to vote as being "beyond the Constitutional mandate for the Senate" or not.