All night rave/reverse-filibuster in Senate

[Guest Cerebus]

WASHINGTON - With humor, anger and a show of GOP unity, the Senate on Wednesday launched 30 hours of uninterrupted debate on President Bush (news - web sites)'s political nominees not making it to the federal appeals bench, setting up cots and preparing to cast blame at each other throughout the night.

 

Most of Republicans marched into the Senate together just before 6 p.m., sat down and listened to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., open the debate by condemning the filibusters.

 

"Tonight we embark upon an extraordinary session," Frist said. "For the next 30 hours Republicans and Democrats will debate the merits of three judicial nominees. We will be considering the meaning of our constitutional responsibilities to advise and consent on nominations. We will discuss whether there is a need to enact filibuster reform so that nominations taken to the floor can get a vote."

 

Democrats, some appearing amused by the pomp and circumstance, were already in the Senate chamber waiting for the beginning of the debates. The Senate had just finished a vote, and many of the GOP senators had to leave the chamber just to be in the group marching back in.

 

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, held a sign he displayed for television cameras and passing Republican senators as they entered the chamber: "I'll be home watching 'The Bachelor.'"

 

Another Democratic sign, a big purple sign with gold "168 to 4" written on it — the number of judicial nominees confirmed by the Senate as opposed to the number blocked by Democrats — upset Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. "That is clearly against the Senate rules," said Gregg, who had Democrats remove it until their turn to speak.

 

Republicans say the Democrats' filibusters against judicial nominees are also against the rules. "That's why we're standing here tonight, to let the American people know that an abuse is occurring," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

 

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., condemned the Republicans from leaving an appropriations bill to launch the debate. "I'm not participating in this, this marathon, talkathon, blameathon, whatever you want to call this," Byrd said. "I'm not interested in that right now. I'm interested in the appropriations bill."

 

As the night grew late, fewer than 10 lawmakers were left on the floor as senators started preparing for the late night shifts.

 

While most of the focus will be on the Senate floor, senators plan to buttress their cases by holding news conferences throughout the night condemning the opposing side for its tactics: Republicans on the Democratic filibusters, Democrats on the Republicans' "reverse filibuster."

 

Democrats have used the threat of a filibuster to block four U.S. Appeals Court nominees so far: Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, Texas judge Priscilla Owen, Mississippi judge Charles Pickering and lawyer Miguel Estrada. Others, including California judges Carolyn Kuhl and Janice Rogers Brown, are expected to be blocked by Democrats as well.

 

Frustrated at the delays, Estrada withdrew his nomination in September.

 

In turn, Republicans — who control the Senate — scheduled the 30-hour debate despite their effort to finish bills revamping Medicare and energy policy, plus eight overdue spending bills in time to adjourn by Nov. 21.

 

"We only wish they would devote the kind of attention they are to these 30 hours to the matters that the American people care most about," said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D. "They care a lot about the fact that 3 million of them don't have jobs. They care a lot about the fact that their health insurance is rising by more than 15 percent a year."

 

But Republicans want to draw attention to the blockades, having failed multiple times to get the 60 votes to force the confirmations in a Senate split with 51 GOP senators, 48 Democrats and one independent.

 

"Through our actions tonight, Republicans hopefully will be able to focus more attention on this problem, which in turn might stimulate enough outrage by the American public to sway at least a few more Democratic senators to do the right thing and give these nominees a vote," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.

 

Not since 1994 has the Senate been in session past 4 a.m., Senate observers said.

 

Both sides set up strategy rooms right off the Senate floor with large screen televisions and props to help make their case to reporters and late-night C-SPAN viewers. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., for example, had a T-shirt saying "We confirmed 98 percent of President Bush's judges" on the front while the back said "and all we got was this lousy T-shirt."

 

Just in case, advocates of civil and abortion rights that have led the opposition against the four Bush nominees distributed to Senate offices care packages that included coffee, analgesics and breath mints.

 

Wow. Just...wow.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I feel cheated. I wanted to read about a chamber full of geriatric techno lovers after I saw that thread subject.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Damn.

 

The least they could've done was make it a kegger. Though they need to make sure Teddy doesn't drive near water with any women afterwards.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I disagree.

 

Maybe this time Uncle Ted won't come out of it alive...

[Lightning Flik 0]

Man... Americans have one weird ass government. You should just have it like ours, where the Liberials continually control the government for years on end, till we decide to take a change of pace, vote the PC party in for a good 5 years, then put the Liberials back in power. That'd solve all your problems.

 

...oh, wait. You don't have a middle ground party (centralize on the polical left-right scale) like the Liberals. Care on with this wonderfully amusing stuff.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Will they do each others hair, and have pillow fights. Trent Lott can prank call Ted Kennedy.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

This stuff is just absolutely gripping on CSPAN 2.....

 

Well it sure as hell beats the 3 million infomercials that are usually on this time of night...

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Are they reading names from a phonebook yet?...

[Ace309 0]

I've always wanted someone to read The Great Gatsby into the congressional record.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Light as a feather, stiff as a board.

[Guest Cerebus]

My filibusters would rule.

 

"In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit..."

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'm listening to some Republican from Idaho whine about how judicial selection shouldn't be filibuster-able.

 

Yet somehow, we managed to make it through our father's and grandfather's years, allowing it to be filibustered, and we've made it through it just fine.

 

If they're just going to filibuster about filibusters, then I'll accept that, although I wish the NY Phonebook would come in soon.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Yet somehow, we managed to make it through our father's and grandfather's years, allowing it to be filibustered, and we've made it through it just fine.

But that's becasue our father's and grandfather's didn't have RACISTS like Leahy in power.

 

Check that, if Leahy was in power there wouldn't be any filibustering...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

But that's becasue our father's and grandfather's didn't have RACISTS like Leahy in power.

Uh... LOL??

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Maybe Orrin Hatch can get some chums around the Ouija board to talk to Strom.

[Dr. Tom 0]

They should turn filibusters into dirty limerick marathons. How much would it own to see Trent Lott get up on C-SPAN2 and say, "There once was man from Nantucket... "

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

They should turn filibusters into dirty limerick marathons.  How much would it own to see Trent Lott get up on C-SPAN2 and say, "There once was man from Nantucket... "

Tell Uncle Ted it's happy hour and give him a few.

 

I'm sure we'll get some creative lines.

 

There once was this couple in Chappaquiddick

And when their car submerged Ted left in a NY minute

Kennedy said "woah"

I'll see ya' Mary Jo

You wouldn't have drowned in the vehicle if you weren't in it...

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm listening to some Republican from Idaho whine about how judicial selection shouldn't be filibuster-able.

 

Yet somehow, we managed to make it through our father's and grandfather's years, allowing it to be filibustered, and we've made it through it just fine.

 

If they're just going to filibuster about filibusters, then I'll accept that, although I wish the NY Phonebook would come in soon.

Of course, in those times, no judge WAS filibustered.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Of course, in those times, no judge WAS filibustered.

-=Mike

But that doesn't mean it wasn't illegal. I'm against changing our systems unless they really need changing or unless it directly benefits the people. Part of the problem with changing legislation in law is that essentailly to go back to the way it used to be you have to overturn a law, and that's a messier ordeal anymore than making one.

 

This is pure politics, and hopefully nothing will come out of it except maybe sales of No-Doze around DC will go up.

[Justice 0]

I'm listening to some Republican from Idaho whine about how judicial selection shouldn't be filibuster-able.

 

Yet somehow, we managed to make it through our father's and grandfather's years, allowing it to be filibustered, and we've made it through it just fine.

 

If they're just going to filibuster about filibusters, then I'll accept that, although I wish the NY Phonebook would come in soon.

See, the thing is that's arguably going beyond on "Advise and Consent". The minority can bitch about them not being good Judge's and all, but to completely stop a vote on them via filibuster is not what was intended. It should be voted up or down. I mean, the Dems can't get 3 fricken votes? Has anyone called John McCain (I know many of you Dems were salivating at the thought of him becoming Pres), Lincoln Chaffee, or Jim Jeffords? I mean, come on!

[Vern Gagne 0]

McCaine supportd the Iraq War. So the Liberals don't like him anymore.

 

Who got the hand in the warm water while they where sleeping treatment?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

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.

[Guest Cerebus]

"I would object and fight against any filibuster of a judge, whether somebody I opposed or supported. If we don't like somebody the president nominates, vote him or her down."

 

Now was that Lott? First? Hatch? Try Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy in 1998.

[EricMM 0]

I would just like to say that the topic of this thread reminded me of the episode of "Thats My Bush" where the president did some E.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

"I would object and fight against any filibuster of a judge, whether somebody I opposed or supported. If we don't like somebody the president nominates, vote him or her down."

 

Now was that Lott? First? Hatch? Try Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy in 1998.

Yup, and now the guys that stayed home in 1998 are saying lines like that.

 

 

Silly how it works, ain't it?

[Vyce 0]

To think, we gave up a perfectly good monarchy to come here and create a form of government that's degenerated into petty squabbles such as this.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I've always wanted someone to read The Great Gatsby into the congressional record.

Andy Kaufman did that in his act a few times (Reading The Great Gatsby)..he actually read the entire book one time.

[Justice 0]

I just think it's kind of funny how the Dems can approve of this. I really didn't approve of the Repubs holding up the Dems back in the day, and the Dems doing it to Reagan in his day as well, but when one filibusters it sets a real dangerous preceden about how powerful Congress's power with Judicial nominees. Again, "Advise and Consent", not "We are just going to bitch because we can't get 3 bi-partisan votes to agree with us". It's really sad, in my honest opinion.

[Guest Cerebus]

To think, we gave up a perfectly good monarchy to come here and create a form of government that's degenerated into petty squabbles such as this.

 

Best. Comment. Ever.

[Guest MikeSC]

But that doesn't mean it wasn't illegal. I'm against changing our systems unless they really need changing or unless it directly benefits the people.

 

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.

 

Judicial nominations are NOT normal pieces of business and should NOT be subject to the parliamentary procedures the Senate has.

 

If the Dems can't shoot a candidate down, so be it. That's the way it goes.

 

What they're doing is setting up a REAL dangerous precedent.

 

Part of the problem with changing legislation in law is that essentailly to go back to the way it used to be you have to overturn a law, and that's a messier ordeal anymore than making one.

 

This is pure politics, and hopefully nothing will come out of it except maybe sales of No-Doze around DC will go up.

 

What the Dems are doing is wrong. Plain and simple. There is no justification for it.

 

And it's going to make getting judges appointed nigh impossible in the future. I don't see how ANYBODY will get on the Supreme Court if this isn't changed.

-=Mike