RADIOBLOGGER
Now how can you top this?
On this site, and on talk radio and a whole lot of other great sites, we've made the case for ending the judicial filibuster as factually, historically accurate, passionate, and as fair as possible. May I enter one more audio piece of evidence?
The chief proponent to save the judicial filibuster, the filibuster that never existed before the year 2000, is Robert Byrd of West Virginia. He was once a Kleagle in the Ku Klux Klan. He once filibustered against the Civil Rights Act. He acted without any reservation four times to restrict the minority's rights to filibuster by way of a rule interpretation through the Chair four times, exactly like Frist wants to do now once. He wants unlimited debate. He wants to be able to filibuster endlessly. Keep that in mind. Then listen to this:
byrdesther [mp3]
I did nothing to this audio other than shorten the long pauses. This is what constitutes debate on the Senate floor. And people wonder why nothing gets done in the upper chamber.
If this is an example of why to save the filibuster, I rest my case for now. Esther was a Jew? He's the only guy I know that pronounces the word Jew with four syllables.
Hugh Hewitt & Jon Kyl
HH: Now, Senator, I've asked everyone, Mitch McConnell, Rick Santorum, you, I'm going to ask you again. Have you got the votes when, if it has to go to a vote?
JK: Yes we do. And I remember you were talking to me about this when folks were getting really frustrated and we kind of backed it up and said first of all, we have to get the people through the committee, to the floor. We have now done that, except for one person, as you noted. And so now, it's ready. It's teed up. We've got the votes, and the only thing that really we've been waiting for is to just see if there's any hope for compromise here. It appears to me that the Democrats actually want the confrontation. Bill Frist has put out the most reasonable proposals you can imagine. They've been rejected. And if you have just a moment, I'd like to tell you what one of them is.
HH: Sure.
JK: Central to the Democrats' offers, every one of them, every single one of them, is that of the ten judges that have been filibustered, six of them have to be thrown overboard. And by that I mean not even have a vote and defeat it. They have to be withdrawn at Republicans' insistance. And it's not just that six of the ten have to be withdrawn, but three out of four specifically named judges. Three out of these four. You pick the three that you want to throw overboard. Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, Myers and Pryor. Bill Pryor, that just came out today. Bill Myers and Bill Pryor. Now you decide which one of those you're going to take, and then the other three have to be thrown over. That's the Democrats' principled argument. We're filibustering these judges because they're no good. And yet they say spin the bottle, pick one of the four, you can have him, you can't have the others. That is unprincipled. It's wrong, and it's not going to be part of any offer that I certainly have anything to do with accepting. And I just don't think our side will accept it.
HH: And Senator Kyl, it's kind of stupid, too, because it undercuts their extremism argument completely. If these judges aren't acceptable, you can't take one, two, three or four.
JK: That's right. I mean, first of all, none of these judges are extreme.
HH: Agreed.
JK: But to the extent that they've made that argument, you're exactly right. They're saying well, we'll take one extremist, but not four. So you're right. I mean, they have not based their offers here on principle at all. It's the crass, partisan politics that we've known all along lay at the base of this filibuster.
Question: I heard Boxer say she had placed a hold on Bolton's nomination coming to the floor of the Senate. Why would she do this now, and publicly? It would seem counterintuitive to what the dems are trying to do.