Yep, he sure appears to be dead, Jim.
Posted on 05/21/2005 9:06:37 AM PDT by gutted catfish
Regarding "Filibuster's traditional use is ignored" (Letters, Wednesday):
The writer said the filibuster has never been used before to block a judicial nominee. The truth is that during the Clinton administration, 60 judicial nominees were blocked by Republicans, using means including the filibuster. In fact, Bill Frist even joined in the filibuster of 9th Circuit nominee Richard Paez.
Also, Democrats have approved more than 200 of President Bush's judicial nominees while only 10 have been blocked. For Republicans to make such a big deal over those 10 nominations while they blocked 60 of Clinton's nominees is extremely misleading and hypocritical.
It would also be in their best interest to preserve the filibuster, since they will be in the minority someday and I'm sure they will wish they had.
Welcome to FreeRepublic
Since 5-21-05
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?id=209306
There_Is_No_God
Since 5-21-05
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?id=209301
gutted catfish
Yep, he sure appears to be dead, Jim.
No, just a general ZOT! Your post happened to be where it landed. I think you may have posted a pic. I like to post pics where others know how to do the same. Figure they appreciate it more.
Again, certainly not aimed at you. By the way, here is my cat. His name is Fetch.
You may have also seen him as the model for the unofficial seal of the FR Deptartment of Troll Patrol
Nothing new here. Move on...................
Thanks Fellow FReeper - I had to ask...Mississippymuddy ZOTTED! me with his first post. LOL! It was a hoot!
(growls and digs up his two dead cats)
You haven't been zotted until you've bee zotted by the undead... >:^(
Speaking of bottom-dwelling scum suckers, what are the chances of a Kerry/Edwards re-run in 08?
From doing a quick google on "60 judicial nominees were blocked by Republicans", it appears that the source is the online edition of the Arizona Republic at http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0520frilets204.html. I don't know why gutted catfish did not post the link.
Speaking of bottom-dwelling scum suckers, what
are the chances of a Kerry/Edwards re-run in 08?H. Clinton/N. Pelosi, more likely. :)
That's not a source for the claim. That's just a LTTE from a Dim puppet.
percentage = zero
Failure is not tolerated by the commissariat, I mean democrats. There will be no second chance.
That's not a source for the claim. That's just a LTTE from a Dim puppet.
Concerning the "60 judicial nominees were blocked by Republicans" following is an excerpt from Media Matters at http://mediamatters.org/items/200505180004:
And these are merely instances when Republicans filibustered Democratic presidents' judicial nominees. The Republican-controlled Senate blocked approximately 60 Clinton nominees through other means. This included strict enforcement under Clinton of the "blue slip" policy, which at the time allowed a senator from a nominee's home state to block a nominee simply by failing to turn in the blue-colored approval papers required for the nomination process. While Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) strictly adhered to the "blue slip" policy to allow Republicans to block Clinton nominees, he relaxed the policy nearly to the point of elimination in his efforts to push through Bush's nominees.
Also, following is an excerpt from an American Prospect article on the CBS News web site at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/25/opinion/main683182.shtml.
Frist's solution to the current stalemate on judicial nominations is a "simple return to the 200-year of tradition on judges." Frist's memory and history are obviously selective. It was just five years ago, in March 2000, that Frist himself participated in the filibuster against Paez after Lott finally overrode the Smith hold. In light of the ferocity with which Republicans stonewalled Clinton's nominees, Frist's entire case folds; the 10 nominees filibustered by Democrats hardly compare to the 65 Clinton nominees denied a vote by the Republicans' under-the-radar procedural maneuvers.
In any case, I think that this all misses the basic problem. That problem is that a President elected to a four-year term, perhaps assisted by Senators elected to six-year terms, are making lifetime appointments of judges. This leads to problems such as Supreme Court justices putting off retirement when the party they prefer is not in power or possibly retiring a little early when the party they prefer IS in power but an election is approaching. More troublesome, it motivates Senators to block nominations by opposing party Presidents toward the end of their terms in the hopes that their party's candidate will win the next election and be able to fill the posts.
From the little I've read on the matter, it seems that the Constitution does not spell out how the Senate should "advise and consent". For the long-term perhaps they could come up with a method by which each party consents on a percentage of the judges according to their numbers in the Senate. However, this may not be workable in the current framework and may just lead to a polarization of the court into very liberal and very conservative judges. Another possibility would be for the minority party to be allowed to reject a certain percentage of nominees, sort of like how lawyers are allowed to reject a certain number of potential jurors before a trial. Whatever the solution, I don't think that "tyranny of the majority" is the proper way to handle lifetime appointments.
The letter writer is a sneak and a liar.
When the Democrats are in the majority, THEY will change the parliamentary rule and laugh right in the Republicans' faces.
Anybody who thinks that the party which invented the art of the smear now known as "Borking", and the party which attempted the "high-tech lynching" of Clarence Thomas, and the same party which has now taken the unprecedented step of routinely filibustering lower court nominations would NOT "go nuclear" if the shoes were on the other feet is a hopeless naive.
It is the Democrats who have ratcheted down the judicial confirmation process to the low point we have today and it is absolutely necessary that the Republicans respond appropriately. The future of the party depends on it. No joke.
2) I read nothing on the CBS link that disproves the point that the Dims' current filibustering is unprecedented. It refers to other procedures the Republicans used to keep some of the Cigarella Man's nominees from getting on the bench, but it doesn't offer any evidence that the Republicans ever did what the Dims are doing this term.
3) If your sources for "reliable" information include Media Matters, what are you doing here on FR?
OK, I'll bite. Who's the hot chick with the lightsaber?
Green-hazed gutted catfish with a hugh ZOT planted between the whiskers.
Bottom feeding catfish are HIGHLY sensitive to electrical ZOTS.
Let me define the Senate's advise and consent role for you. Advise, meaning meet with the president to discuss those from their states who they think might make good appointments. Advise, also meaning give feedback on those the president has nominated. Consent, meaning VOTE on the president's nominees. That's pretty much it.
The Constitution surely doesn't call for the 'tyranny of the minority' or does it?..... That's what is happening when they deny
This is nothing but crap being spread by the democrats and the media regarding the 60 or so judicial nominees left over by
President Clinton's administration. They don't tell you that President GWH Bush had 58 nominees pending at the end
of his four year administration do they?
Over time if the Senate does it's job and allows the up/down vote on nominees that have cleared the Committee then it offers
a check and balance as long as we continue to see Presidents from both parties being elected.
A look at the current makeup of the Federal Judiciary and the appointing President which shows that maybe in an eight
year term the President will appoint some 1/3 or so of the judicary.
 |
FEDERAL JUDICIARY BY COURT AND APPOINTING PRESIDENT |
|
|
The following report shows a breakout of the Federal Judiciary by Court, Circuit, District and Appointing President. |
|
|
|
|
Mara Jade. Portrayed by model Shannon Baksra.
Look, this whole conversation started when I made the obvious mistake of giving you the apparent source for this thread in response to your request in post 25 to "Please post the source for this ludicrous and fact-free claim. Or admit you made it up". The sources I provided show that neither the letter nor the claims (regardless of their validity) were made up by the person who started this thread or the person who wrote the letter.
In any case, you have now moved the goalposts again to the claim that the "Dims' current filibustering is unprecedented". The fact is, both sides are engaging in a great deal of word-parsing. A Knight Ridder story at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002283969_judges22.html states that "Frist, in his condemnation of filibusters, omitted the fact that he joined an unsuccessful Republican filibuster in 2000 against Clinton judicial nominee Richard Paez". Of course, Frist and other Republicans claim that this doesn't count. Meanwhile, a number of Democrats who are now in favor of the filibuster opposed it when it was to their advantage to do so. It's because of this tendency toward a partisan interpretation of the facts that the Senate would do well to codify the rules as clearly as possible. In any case, this appears to be a moot point at the moment since the two parties have come to a temporary compromise on this issue.
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.