[Peach]

This is a list of what Democrats used to think about filibustering judicial nominations.

(I didn't do the research; other freepers did the hard work)

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) March 19, 1997: “But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled 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.”

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Illinois)September 28, 1998: “We should meet our responsibility. I think that responsibility requires us to act in a timely fashion on nominees sent before us. ... Vote the person up or down.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) September 11, 1997: “Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.”

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)February 3, 1998: “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.”

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) May 10, 2000: “The Founding Fathers certainly intended that the Senate advise as to judicial nominations, i.e., consider, debate, and vote up or down. They surely did not intend that the Senate, for partisan or factional reasons, would remain silent and simply refuse to give any advice or consider and vote at all.”

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) 5/14/97 : “It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.”

Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): “I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination.” (Congressional Record, 10/5/99)

Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): “Hispanic or non-Hispanic, African American or non-African American, woman or man, it is wrong not to have a vote on the Senate floor.” (Congressional Record, 10/28/99)

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): “My expectation is that we’re not going to hold up judicial nominations. …You will not see us do what was done to us in recent years in the Senate with judicial nominations.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 6/4/01)

Richard Durbin (D-IL) "If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down." (Cong. Rec., 9/28/98, S11021)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.” (Congressional Record, 9/11/97)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don’t like them, we can vote against them.” (Congressional Record, 9/16/99)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Our institutional integrity requires an up-or-down vote.” (Congressional Record, 10/4/99)

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “[The filibuster process] is used … as blackmail for one Senator to get his or her way on something that they could not rightfully win through the normal processes.” (Congressional Record, 1/4/95)

Tom Harkin (D-IA) "Have the guts to come out and vote up or down….And once and for all, put behind us this filibuster procedure on nominations." (Cong. Rec., 6/22/95, S8861)

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “I urge the Republican leadership to take the steps necessary to allow the full Senate to vote up or down on these important nominations.” (Congressional Record, 9/11/00)

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “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, 2/3/98)

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “It is true that some Senators have voiced concerns about these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call vote which gives every Senator the opportunity to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ ... Parties with cases, waiting to be heard by the federal courts deserve a decision by the Senate.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)

Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI): “These nominees, who have to put their lives on hold waiting for us to act, deserve an ‘up or down’ vote.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “I hope we … will accept our responsibility and vote people up or vote them down. … If we want to vote against them, vote against them.” (Congressional Record, 10/22/97)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “Now, every Senator can vote against any nominee. … But it is the responsibility of the U.S. Senate to at least bring them to a vote.” (Congressional Record, 10/22/97)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “ "I have stated over and over again … that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported …” (Congressional Record, 6/18/98)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “[E]arlier this year … I noted how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination.” (Congressional Record, 10/14/98)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “[I]f the person is otherwise qualified, he or she gets the vote. … Vote them up, vote them down.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): “[W]e should have up-or-down votes in the committee and on the floor.” (CNN’s “Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields,” 6/9/01)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): “[W]e are charged with voting on the nominees. The Constitution does not say if the Congress is controlled by a different party than the President there shall be no judges chosen.” (Congressional Record, 3/7/00)

Carl Levin (D-MI) "If a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate is prepared to vote to confirm the President's appointment, that vote should occur." (Cong. Rec., 6/21/95, S8806)

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

"Reinvent reality?" What the hell is Reid smoking?

Please Daschle, come back...

[NormsRevenge]

[cripplecreek]

Coming from the man who claims that our founding fathers "cherished the filibuster" before it existed.

[kevkrom]

"power grab"

Yeah, imagine the nerve of the President, just because he won the election, of thinking that he can just go and nominate judges who match his philosopy! What gall!

[jdsteel]

Thanks for the post; you beat me to it! As for the Dems & their "alternate reality": Republicans have the ability to alter Senate RULES (nothing to do with the Constitution) to assert the power given them by the voters. C'MON, PUNK, MAKE MY DAY!!!

[1Old Pro]

Reid and the Dems are trying to re-write representative government. They want the minority to rule over the majority, Bizarro world.

[Tall_Texan]

I prefer to think they are trying to reintroduce reality to a Senate that sometimes seems totally out of touch.

[soloNYer]

But Democrats worry that Republicans want to get rid of judicial filibusters so the White House can use the Senate's GOP majority to ram through a nominee that Democrats will find extreme and objectionable.

Democrats "worry," Republicans "ram."

[Maigrey]

You mean, they have the power to reinvent reality? D@mn. No wonder a few people want to become president - they are given superpowers.

[peacebaby]

""Rather, we're the one institution where the minority has a voice and the ability to check the power of the majority... ."

Janice Brown - female and black
Priscilla Owen - female

What exactly is his definitition of the word "minority?"

[TheDon]

Another case of Demorat projection.

[longtermmemmory]

actually this is very useful.

Demcrcats acuse the acuser of the same "crime".

Demcrats have a very left wing radical world view. The REALITY now is that Republicans have won election after election since 1980. Reid is trying to keep HIS REALITY from shattering.

This is no longer about filibusters or even judges. This is now about whose reality will control. This is about the BASELINE of all future debates.

For democrats it will be starting all debates from a communist/socialist start point. What government regulations can restrict an individual into compliance.

For republicans, if they have the testicular fortitude to want victory, all debates will start from a capitalist/individualistic(not libertarian) start point. Taxes are bad and the military is good and unleash businesses.

Reid's objective is to deny a reality that began with the expulsion of Jimmy Carter.

Reid is desperate to protect the ability of senate democrats to perform "favors", curry favor with government patronage jobs, and basically to show somehow that a democrat in DC is somehow relevant. Reid never got the memo, Kerry lost.

[An.American.Expatriate]

I notice that (surprise!!) the AP is either unwilling (likely) or unable (ideologically) to research and include a few basic facts, like maybe the actual WORDING of the constitution itself.

Instead it, predictably, parrots the DNC talking points.

[nosofar]

Reid says that the Constitution does not require that judicial nominees get confirmation votes, allowing the minority to block them.

So what? Neither does the Constitution require a supermajority approval. At least not explicitly.

[Wiser now]

Why yes, the Republicans are going to reinvent the Democrat's "reality" that they continue to control the judiciary even though they lost the election.
Bout time too!

[TravisBickle]

"If Republicans roll back our rights in this chamber, there will be no check on their power," Reid said. "The radical right wing will be free to pursue any agenda they want. And not just on judges. Their power will be unchecked on Supreme Court nominees, the president's nominees in general and legislation like Social Security privatization."

This shows how little respect Reid has for all the Republican senators as well as the people who elect them.

I am certain that if there was a matter that was not preferred by the majority of the public, there would be GOP senators opposed. Even in his example of Social Security reform, there is opposition.

[frithguild]

Reid says that the Constitution does not require that judicial nominees get confirmation votes

He's right. So let's have 51 Senators sign a letter to the President, which says, "We hereby advise favorably and consent to the appointment of X to the Judiciary" Yet another Constitutional solution.

[Mister Baredog]

Can you get the Senate back to more of a normal working situation?"

YES, by electing more Republicans, then what will the "minority" say?

[America's Resolve]

But more importantly, both sides would have to operate on "good faith"

The Democrats haven't operated in good faith since the Kennedy years. Why do these boneheads on the hill think they will suddenly see the light and begin now?????

Remember the anthrax attacks after 911 both R's and D's decided that they needed to recess because of concerns for the lives of staff? The R's announced it and the D's said pretty much, "Hey you pussies, we didn't agree to that?"

If the Republican leadership is looking for good-faith from the Democrats, they all need to be replaced for being moronic,idiotic, stupid imbiciles.