Senate Foreign Relations Committee ~ nomination of John Bolton [LIVE Thread]

Thanks for the pings

Ok I'll look.

turn on c-span 2 right now if you want to see the spectical with Frist, Reid, and Byrd!!!!

Thanks

Don't know if you saw the spectical on the Senate floor today with Frist, Reid and Byrd....if not, you can on c-span 2 right now....

Did I tell you, or did I tell you?

Sorry to miss all the fun, but I am the proud papa of a brand new H2 to replace my older one.

I've been trying to get caught up and am ASTOUNDED that Reid mentioned FBI files. I cannot post what I'd like to say or I'd get banned, but what is this all about anyway?

I've never heard FBI files referenced in such a manner before.

you da man! Yeppers- when you are right, you're right!

I am enjoying watching Reid again right now---he is such a nerd!

If you turn on c-span 2 right now, you should be able to hear ole Harry REid reference the FBI files, if he hasn't already--I don't think so, though...

If I had been able to stick around today, I would have certainly been banned from this site.

Dang, I think we might have missed Reid's mention of the famous FBI files---he must have said it in his opening remarks...I know I heard it this afternoon...

I guess I will have to wait and get the transcript from today's debate...

Voinovitch slandering Bolton on C-SPAN right now.

Ohio is conservative laning but the leadership in Ohio has been corrupted.

The only good thing we can hope for in Ohio is, with Taft being the most hated governor in the country, including by his own party, that Ken Blackwell will be able readily to run against him and his abortion of an administration in 2006, and more credibly than the 'rats will be able to.

Blackwell, after all, led an attempt to repeal an unneeded tax increase, when the 'rats were happy to let it stand.

What the hell is this about Reid mentioning on the Senate Floor about looking at Saud's (sp?) FBI/CIA Files??? ------- WTH ????

As, I believe, George Will said the other day ...... "Harry Reid is not big enough for the job."

He is out of his league.

I hope you caught the replay last night, it was priceless..

What the hell is this about Reid mentioning on the Senate Floor about looking at Saud's (sp?) FBI/CIA Files???

His comment is near the end of this lengthy excerpt from the Congressional Record. Reid's comments indicate a commitment to fight against the constitutional option. Understanding of the events when that battle is underway will require an understanding of Senate parliamentary procedure, something I wish I had more of.

Anyway, Reid offers a "tit-for-tat" excuse for the nominees to the 6th Circuit (Michigan). Clinton nominees White and Lewis were never voted out of committee. He admits supporting Senators Levin and Stabenow of Michigan objections to Bush's nominations, not because the nominees were unqualified, but as tit-for-tat (he calls it "the principle of fair treatment") for White and Lewis. The ultimate conclusion is that Reid offers to vote on 3 of the nominees for the 6th (Griffin, McKeague, and Neilson) after 6 hours of debate, but will not agree to vote on the 4th, Saad. In that context, he asserts that Saad has a problem anyway.

I don't know much about Saad. Here is some brief material from the DOJ ... http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/saad.htm

Judicial Nominations
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I once again want to persuade my Republican colleagues that the so-called nuclear option to break the Senate rules regarding judicial nominations is unnecessary and unwise. Earlier this week, I came to the floor of the Senate and offered to enter into a unanimous consent agreement that will allow an up-or-down vote on controversial nominee Thomas Griffith to the DC Court of Appeals.
We have confirmed 208 of President Bush's nominations to the Federal court, but this record near 100 percent is enough, and the Republican leaders have brought us to the brink of a nuclear showdown. There will be a lot of nuclear fallout if this happens, which would be bad for the Senate and bad for the country.
As I said on the Senate floor earlier this week, Democrats understand the meaning of checks and balances and our constitutional role in ensuring a fair and independent judiciary. We know the difference between opposing nominees and blocking nominees. We will oppose bad nominees, but we will only block unacceptable nominees. Unfortunately, my effort to demonstrate good faith to this point has been rejected.
My statement earlier this week was immediately rejected. The distinguished majority leader, my friend, has indicated that the Senate would not be allowed to vote on Griffith unless Senate Democrats agree to an up-or-down vote on all judicial nominees. What that means is the majority leader will not compromise unless Democrats agree to give up the last check in Washington against abuse of power: the right for extended debate. This is not about seven radical judges. In some people's minds, it is paving the way to the Supreme Court.
Our position is clear: Let us find common ground and confirm judges. Their position appears to be: Let us threaten to break the rules until we get everything we want.
Let us find common ground to confirm judges. That does not mean everybody. If we cannot find compromise, as I said 2 days ago, then we have to vote. We will fight to protect the Nation's constitutional system of checks and balances and depend on Republicans of good will who serve in the Senate who do not want to break the rules to change the rules. That is what the people sent us to do, and we will live up to our responsibility to the American people.
Today, I want to try to do what my Republican colleagues say they want to do, and that is confirm Federal judges. Today, I am prepared to enter into an agreement that would be in respect to two and possibly three nominees to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has had tremendous problems for going on 13 years. David McKeague, Robert Griffin, and likely Susan Neilson, Sixth Circuit nominees from Michigan, have been caught up in a dispute that began when the Republican Senate failed to vote on either of the two eminently qualified women President Clinton had nominated to the Michigan seats on that court: Helene White and Kathleen McCree Lewis.
Helene White is a distinguished judge on the Michigan Court of Appeals. Her nomination was pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee for more than 4 years--I repeat, more than 4 years. Kathleen McCree Lewis is a highly regarded appellate litigator at a prominent Detroit law firm. Her nomination was pending for more than a year.
Despite their outstanding qualifications, both of these nominees, along
[[Page S5030]]
with over 60 other Clinton nominees, were buried in the Republican- controlled Judiciary Committee. They were never given the courtesy of consideration by the Judiciary Committee, not even a hearing, much less the courtesy of an up-or-down vote by the full Senate.
It seems as if each day a Republican Senator comes to the floor and says that every judicial nominee is entitled to an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. I challenge these Senators to explain why Helene White, Kathleen Lewis, and 67 others were denied up-or-down votes on the Senate floor.
I have said that what was done in the last 12 years let us put behind us. The 69 Clinton nominees and the 10 Bush nominees, let us put them behind us and go forward. We have a new Congress. We have new leaders, at least two new leaders, Senator Durbin and I, and we have a number of new Senators. Let us move forward on a new note.
The failure of the Senate to confirm these two outstanding Clinton nominees meant that there were vacancies on the Sixth Circuit when President Bush took office more than 4 years ago. President Bush nominated candidates to fill those unjustified vacancies, and as other judges have left the court, the President has eventually sent four Sixth Circuit nominees to the Senate. In light of the shameful treatment of President Clinton's Sixth Circuit nominees, Senators Levin and Stabenow objected to the Bush nominees to this court, and three of them were filibustered in the last Congress. They were determined that the GOP tactic of denying hearings and votes to qualified nominees should not succeed.
I have talked about these on the Senate floor earlier. These were procedural objections. It had nothing to do with the qualifications of two of these Sixth Circuit nominees.
I supported the two Senators from Michigan. They have been fighting a grave injustice that has been perpetrated on White and Lewis. They have been fighting for the principle of fair treatment. I and all Democrats have been proud to stand with them in that fight.
Now with the Senate facing the threat of a nuclear option, we have to remember why we are here. We are here to govern, not endlessly engage in political bickering that brings us to the brink of a Republican shutdown. The American people face great challenges each and every day: escalating health care costs; record high gas prices; skyrocketing tuition; as we learned today on the national news, pensions that are being thrown out the windows of major companies that have tens of thousands of employees; mounting debts that will be handed down to our children and our grandchildren. Under President Bush's leadership, middle-class Americans have gone backward, not forward. Instead of helping them, we are bickering over seven judges and, in my estimation, many radical judges.
For the sake of the American people and the dignity of the Senate, Democrats have been and will be reasonable. We believe too much is at stake. Our very system of constitutional checks and balances is at stake in this dispute. In granting an up-or-down vote on two and likely three of these circuit court judges--and let me say, the nominee I have talked about, Susan Neilson, from everything we know, is a fine woman. She was just grievously ill, and therefore she was not able to have the hearing before the Judiciary Committee. We are confident that will take place quickly. Once that is done and the two Senators from Michigan have had a chance to vet her, that will take care of our being able to move forward on three, not just two.
Henry Saad would have been filibustered anyway. He is one of those nominees. All one needs to do is have a Member go upstairs and look at his confidential report from the FBI, and I think we would all agree that there is a problem there.
The other two nominees, Griffin and McKeague, would not have been filibustered but for the treatment of the Clinton nominees.
Accordingly, I want the majority leader to be aware that Democrats are prepared to enter into the following unanimous consent agreement: If the nominations of Griffin, McKeague, and Neilson are reported from the Judiciary Committee, we agree to limit floor debate on all three nominations to a total of 6 hours equally divided. Following the use or yielding back of that time, there would be a vote on each of these three nominations. Once again, I say to my Republican colleagues, do they want to confirm judges or do they just want to provoke a fight?
We have confirmed all but four of the judicial nominees the majority leader has brought to the Senate floor this year. We are prepared to vote on the nomination of Griffith to the DC Circuit. We are prepared to vote on two and likely three of the nominees to the Sixth Circuit. Why are we being denied the opportunity to confirm these judges? We have already confirmed 208 of President Bush's judicial nominations. If the majority leader will accept our offer to vote on Griffith and these Sixth Circuit nominees, we would have confirmed 212 of President Bush's nominees and rejected only 5. Is the majority leader prepared to break the rules and violate 217 years of Senate tradition, all for five extreme judges? I hope not.
I have great admiration and respect for my Republican counterpart, and I am hopeful and confident that somehow we can work our way through this morass.
Senate Record Page 5029 <-- Clickit
Senate Record Page 5030 <-- Clickit

" I trust Pukin Dog's sources because he is a man of his word."

That's quite enough for me.