LIVE THREAD U.S. Senate Debate on Judiciary

CSpan ^ | 4/27/2005

[katieanna]

Jim Talent of Missouri currently speaking. John Cornyn on deck. Fifteen minutes remaining for the majority.

[Bahbah]

Joe is getting another 15 minutes. Oh no!

[Mo1]

Who wrote this speech of Joe's???

[Not A Snowbird]

Joes says .. It breaks the rule to change the rule

I'm sick of hearing that phrase, as well. I though I heard him say it was a custom, not a rule.

Dear Joe is forgetting one thing in his dissertation on constitutional history. I don't think we've ever had a minority who was so willing to villify anyone they didn't agree with and cut them off at the knees for political purposes. That's what makes this different. It's not about the judges, it's about their power.

Oh, for God's sake, he's talking abut changing rules midstream. Midstream?! That means rules can NEVER be changed. What an idiot.

[YaYa123]

true, but Biden was only talking about the Senate.

[princess leah]

Biden gives out his smug "we're better than you okies in fly over country"...That elitist attitude is what put you in the MINORITY, you stupid democrats!

[Bahbah]

Who wrote this speech of Joe's???

Some law professors. He learned from his past "mistakes" and admitted it up front.

[TomGuy]

Biden is decrying the change of the Super Majority rule.


Pubbies should ask Biden which former President in history ever had his judicial nominees subjected to a Super Majority.


[Answer: None. That rule never existed until Daschle's last tenure as Majority Leader.]

[Not A Snowbird]

Oh, now I'm really going to barf. Isn't his time up yet?

[YaYa123]

Bill Clinton, not the U.S.Senate, needed "protection from the temporary passions of the moment."

[Bahbah]

Isn't his time up yet?

He asked for, and was granted, another 15 minutes.

[Mo1]

Some law professors.

Did he give any names???

[Bahbah]

Did he give any names???

No, but I'm betting Lawrence Tribe is among them.

[deport]

Has any of the following Senators repeated their comments from the past regarding a nominee getting an up/down vote on the Senate floor?

• Senator Leahy (past Judiciary Chairman and current Ranking Member): "If we want to vote against somebody, vote against them. I respect that. State your reasons. I respect that. But don't hold up a qualified judicial nominee. . . . I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would . . . object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty." (Congressional Record, June 18, 1998.)

• Senator Leahy: "I have said on the floor, although we are different parties, I have agreed with Gov. George Bush, who has said that in the Senate a nominee ought to get a [floor] vote, up or down, within 60 days." (Congressional Record, October 11, 2000.)

• Senator Daschle (Minority Leader): "As Chief Justice Rehnquist has recognized: 'The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down.' An up-or-down vote, that is all we ask for [Clinton judicial nominees] Berzon and Paez." (Congressional Record, October 5, 1999.)

• Senator Biden (past Judiciary Chairman): "But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated ought 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. . . . It is totally appropriate for Republicans to reject every single nominee if they want to. That is within their right. But it is not, I will respectfully request, Madam President, appropriate not to have hearings on them, not to bring them to the floor and not to allow a vote . . . ." (Congressional Record, March 19, 1997.)

• Senator Kennedy (past Judiciary Chairman): "The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said: 'The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down.' Which is exactly what I would like." (Congressional Record, March 7, 2000.)

• Senator Kennedy: "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, February 3, 1998.)

• Senator Feinstein (Judiciary Committee member): "A nominee is entitled to a vote. Vote them up; vote them down." (Congressional Record, September 16, 1999.)

Click

• Senator Leahy (past Judiciary Chairman and current Ranking Member): "If we want to vote against somebody, vote against them. I respect that. State your reasons. I respect that. But don't hold up a qualified judicial nominee. . . . I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would . . . object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty." (Congressional Record, June 18, 1998.)

• Senator Leahy: "I have said on the floor, although we are different parties, I have agreed with Gov. George Bush, who has said that in the Senate a nominee ought to get a [floor] vote, up or down, within 60 days." (Congressional Record, October 11, 2000.)

• Senator Daschle (Minority Leader): "As Chief Justice Rehnquist has recognized: 'The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down.' An up-or-down vote, that is all we ask for [Clinton judicial nominees] Berzon and Paez." (Congressional Record, October 5, 1999.)

• Senator Biden (past Judiciary Chairman): "But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated ought 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. . . . It is totally appropriate for Republicans to reject every single nominee if they want to. That is within their right. But it is not, I will respectfully request, Madam President, appropriate not to have hearings on them, not to bring them to the floor and not to allow a vote . . . ." (Congressional Record, March 19, 1997.)

• Senator Kennedy (past Judiciary Chairman): "The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said: 'The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down.' Which is exactly what I would like." (Congressional Record, March 7, 2000.)

• Senator Kennedy: "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, February 3, 1998.)

• Senator Feinstein (Judiciary Committee member): "A nominee is entitled to a vote. Vote them up; vote them down." (Congressional Record, September 16, 1999.)

[Not A Snowbird]

He asked for, and was granted, another 15 minutes.

This extra 15 minutes has lasted half an hour. What kind of clock are they using?

[Not A Snowbird]

Sorry, gotta turn it off. I can't work and listen to his whining any more.

If he's this exorcised, we must have the votes.

[Bahbah]

This extra 15 minutes has lasted half an hour.

LOL. I wasn't timing it, but Biden could make it feel like more than 15 minutes. He just leveled a put down at Scalia and Thomas. Scalia is possibly the most intelligent SC Justice we have ever had in the history of this country. Biden wants mediocrities who will get overwhelming support.

[CaptainK]

His eyes were so glued to the paper it appeared to be the first time he had seen it.

[deport]

I'd rather the Republicans were in the minority and fighting like hell

---

You aren't one of those Texas secessionist are you?....

[WideGlide]

Joe, I've been to Oklahoma, my father was born in Oklahoma, my grandparents staked their claim in the second great Oklahoma Land Rush. Trust me Joe. Delaware is no Oklahoma.

[EllaMinnow]

I like Orrin Hatch, and Lord knows he's a pleasant change away from Biden's ramblings, but that has got to be one of the ugliest ties I've ever seen.