Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democrats Threaten to Stop Senate Business if GOP Changes Rules on Judge Confirmations
TBO.COM ^

Posted on 03/15/2005 12:22:27 PM PST by Sub-Driver

Democrats Threaten to Stop Senate Business if GOP Changes Rules on Judge Confirmations By David Espo The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats served notice Tuesday that they will slow or stop most Senate business if Republicans unilaterally change the rules to assure confirmation of President Bush's controversial court appointments.

Any such change would mark "an unprecedented abuse of power," Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., wrote Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

Reid, the Democratic leader, exempted military and national security legislation from the threat, and said Democrats would not block passage of measures needed to assure continuation of critical government services.

"To shut down the Senate would be irresponsible and partisan," Frist said in swift rebuttal. "The solution is simple: return to 200 years of tradition and allow up or down votes on judges."

The exchange marked the latest development in a long-simmering struggle over Bush's court appointments. Democrats blocked votes on 10 nominees during the last Congress, attacking them as too conservative to warrant lifetime appointments.

Accusing Democrats of obstruction, Republicans sought to make an issue of it in the elections last fall, in which they gained four seats.

Bush has already renominated some of the judges, and Reid has said previously the Democrats' position has not changed.

(Excerpt) Read more at ap.tbo.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 109th; dirtyrats; doit; doomsdayoption; govwatch; obstructionistdems; rats; sorelosers; ussenate; winwin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 301 next last
To: Bigh4u2; IrishGOP; RoseofTexas; pabianice; SandyInSeattle

181 posted on 03/15/2005 2:58:52 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham (Protagoras was the leading SOPHIST of his day. Think about it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2

You are exactly correct. If they don't want to show up - we can do this without them.

And .. I believe Rush is right when he said that if the repubs do this - several more dems will retire from the senate - because losing the power of judges will mean they are really totally out of power.


182 posted on 03/15/2005 2:59:41 PM PST by CyberAnt (President Bush: "America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend

That was priceless....Had to share with friends.


183 posted on 03/15/2005 3:07:20 PM PST by hoosiermama (Party affiliation merits stating only if unique not common place.... R = unique. D=common place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: NeoConDave; Puppage

A few tips in credibility:

Don't be telling old timers how to post when this is (maybe) your first day here.


184 posted on 03/15/2005 3:07:35 PM PST by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: atomic_dog
I offer 10 to 1 odds that the Republicans cave.

I will raise it to 100 to one. The Reps are truly weak men who deserve our contempt. They are pushing our once great Republic towards rabid Socialism as fast as the demoRats. I bet very few Senators even know what the 10th Amendment means. I will also take 100000000000 to 1 odds that the excrement known as Specter will BLOCK any judge that believe in original intent. Yea, we have the three branches of government -- does any one see shrinking spending and employees?

185 posted on 03/15/2005 3:14:26 PM PST by liberty2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

bttt


186 posted on 03/15/2005 3:15:31 PM PST by Christian4Bush ("Dear Liberals: I want to feel pity for you...nope...my 'give-a-damn's busted.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr
f they stop Senate business, they're finished as a party. Americans will remember who shut down the government for no good reason.

lol. your'e kidding right? the MSM will twist this around and blame the Reps. Sadly, most of the public will believe the MSM. You forget that very few people are as informed as Freepers.

187 posted on 03/15/2005 3:16:35 PM PST by liberty2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Do it. Call their bluff. They'll be portrayed as cry babies.


188 posted on 03/15/2005 3:22:18 PM PST by PokeyJoe (Please send me any extra Korans. I'm almost out of crap paper, and I don't want to pay a tax.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pylot

Go ahead and do it...We are majority and they can all
go to hell. Kennedy-Kerry-Boxer-Clinton...etc. all a
bunch of power hungry ingrates...Worry about helping
the American people..Yeah..just like they help all the
Blacks....President Bush has done more for minorities
than all the Presidents this centuury...even since Abe
Lincoln..Jake


189 posted on 03/15/2005 3:23:28 PM PST by sanjacjake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Flanked by fellow Democrats, Senate Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., prepares to talk to reporters on Capitol Hill Tuesday, March 15, 2005, Democrats intend to slow or stop most Senate business if Republicans change rules to assure the confirmation of President Bush's controversial court appointments. Left to right are Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., Reid, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. Others who are partially obscured are unidentified (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)


Democratic Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. tells reporters on Capitol Hill Tuesday, March 15, 2005, that Democrats intend to slow or stop most Senate business if Republicans change rules to assure confirmation of President Bush's controversial court appointments. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)

190 posted on 03/15/2005 3:25:08 PM PST by Libloather (Start Hillary's recount now - just to get it out of the way...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver; PhilDragoo; Happy2BMe; devolve; yall


From the article:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats served notice Tuesday that they will slow or stop most Senate business if Republicans unilaterally change the rules to assure confirmation of President Bush's controversial court appointments.

Any such change would mark "an unprecedented abuse of power," Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., wrote Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

< snip >

"To shut down the Senate would be irresponsible and partisan," Frist said in swift rebuttal. "The solution is simple: return to 200 years of tradition and allow up or down votes on judges."


Check THIS out. A recent speech by John Cornyn (R-Texas):

(Texas Senator John Cornyn's)
Floor Speech: Judicial Nominations

Excerpt:

So my question is, to whom is the distinguished Democratic leader [Harry Reid] referring? None of President Bush's nominees have been turned down by the Senate-- none, zero. The nominees he referred to were denied a vote altogether. In fact, all of these nominees would have been confirmed last Congress had majorities been allowed to govern as they have during the entire history of this country and the entire history of the Senate -- save and except for the time when Democrats chose to deny a majority the opportunity for an up-or-down vote.

So I would say, correcting the record, it is a little difficult to turn down a nominee, as the minority leader has said, if the nominee never gets an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

Now, the second part I would like to correct is that when the Democratic leader was asked whether obstruction would create a 60-vote threshold for all future judicial nominees, he said:

It's always been a 60-vote for judges. There is -- nothing change[d].

He said:

Go back many, many, many years. Go back decades and it's always been that way.

Well, we took his advice, and we did go back over the years.

It turns out it has not always been that way. Indeed, there has never, ever, ever been a refusal to permit an up-or-down vote with a bipartisan majority standing ready to confirm judges in the history of the Senate until these last 2 years. Many nominees have, in fact, been confirmed by a vote of less than 60 Senators.

In fact, the Senate has consistently confirmed judges who enjoyed a majority but not 60-vote support, including Clinton appointees Richard Paez, William Fletcher, and Susan Oki Mollway; and Carter appointees Abner Mikva and L.T. Senter.


Click HERE for the full article.


191 posted on 03/15/2005 3:26:04 PM PST by MeekOneGOP (There is only one GOOD 'RAT: one that has been voted OUT of POWER !! Straight ticket GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
>>Democrats Threaten to Stop Senate Business if GOP Changes Rules on Judge Confirmations By David Espo The Associated Press<<

An absolute WIN-WIN.

Bring it on!

PLEASE!!!

192 posted on 03/15/2005 3:28:16 PM PST by evad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

This is what happens when a traitor like
Hanoi Kerry is left in the US Senate.


193 posted on 03/15/2005 3:30:48 PM PST by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub (Be wary of the "Move On " FReepers. They want to give Hanoi Kerry a free pass? mmmm WHY?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sanjacjake

Let the Dems go on strike. When they don't show up, garnish their pay as the Senate rules require! We'll see how long they stand up for principle.


194 posted on 03/15/2005 3:31:14 PM PST by Wristpin ( Varitek says to A-Rod: "We don't throw at .260 hitters.....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

Comment #195 Removed by Moderator

To: Drango
Will the NYTimes & Wa Post savage the rats?

No, in fact they will hypocritically savage the Rs. But there is a fundamental difference between then and now called the New Media. We can win this one.

196 posted on 03/15/2005 3:32:14 PM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: uscabjd
Traditionally, almost all procedural actions are carried out under the unanimous consent rule. To bring action to a virtual halt, they would simply need to have a Senator object to all proposed actions. This would require debate and vote on everything, from approving the minutes of the previous day to inserting documents into the record or even adjourning for the day.
197 posted on 03/15/2005 3:34:56 PM PST by etcb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Bring. It. On.

The only thing better than a more conservative judiciary is a crippled legislature.


198 posted on 03/15/2005 3:37:09 PM PST by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Husker24

After what happened to that judge in Atlanta, I think they have a lot of gall. They should be portrayed as thugs when they stand in the way of the court appointees, who deserve more respect.


199 posted on 03/15/2005 3:37:33 PM PST by REPANDPROUDOFIT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: JimRed
.."Them critters are dumb as an old jackass i had back in '79. Dadgum democrats give me bad gas. The Missus won't sleep with me when i get all stirred up from them no-count varmints."
200 posted on 03/15/2005 3:39:04 PM PST by kingattax (If you're cross-eyed and dyslexic, can you read all right ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 301 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson