Posted on 05/23/2005 7:38:21 PM PDT by disraeligears
Since Pryor, Brown and Owen are "approved" as far as being filibuster proof; won't the Dems be violating their own agreement if they filibuster Saad and Meyers.........
You have Pryor, Brown and Owen as the new "litmus test." If a nominee is not clearly in excess as far as ideology of these three, then you can't filibuster. We will have the last laugh yet. P.S. If you want to feel better about this unfortunate deal, go over to DU and you'll see that most of them are on suicide watch.
We just need to keep up the pressure and also try to defeat McCain and especially Graham.
And then we find out if the GOP is serious about getting nominees an up or down vote. There is no ducking the issue. It just keeps coming back, like a bad penny.
This battle is between the president and the Senate - his nominations deserve a vote. He's shown mettle by renominating judges. I don' think he's going to be the one to blink.
But . . . but . . . Flynn is a divisive extremist. Neither Saad, Myers nor Flynn will get a floor vote thanks to the deal between the RINOs and the RATs.
Don't mind me, I'm just getting ready for when Bush nominates someone called Flynn. : )
BTW, Cream is one of my favorite 60s bands.
"If a nominee is not clearly in excess as far as ideology of these three, then you can't filibuster."
I'm sorry, I missed that part of the agreement. Which section is it in?
Any attorney will know an "abuse of discretion" when they see it. Moreover, Graham et al. are going to be hearing so much sh** from the base in the near future that they won't dare NOT vote to go "nuclear" if there is, at this point, a filibuster of a quasi-rationale nominee.
Hell, I live in North Carolina and I'm so mad at Graham that I am thinking about volunteering against any reasonable primary challenger.
But you forget...the democrats hadn't "discovered" the 226 year-old judicial filibuster when Bork and Thomas were up for votes.
"against" should read "for"
Graham screwed up during the impeachment hearing/trial and he is doing it again!!!!!!!
They're only painted into a corner if McCain & Co. say they're painted into a corner. The seven rinos are the kingmakers here; no one else's opinion matters.
right.
After being saved from crushing defeat the Dems and RINO's are going to confirm Meyers and Saad, reputations defamed for years by these unconscionable elitists.
And McCain is a Republican.
As to DU for ONCE I actually agree they have every right to be ticked off. It is one thing to lose if you don't have the votes. It is another for your people to betray you when they said they wouldn't. But at least they got more out of the deal than we did. they would have gotten nothing otherwise, whereas we would have gotten EVERYTHING.
Will someone please explain how this was a compromise and what we got?
If Meyers and Saad are not put up for a vote, there will be a serious revolt. I do not think that Frist et al. are that stupid.
Reid indicated to a a reporter earlier tonight in a presser that Saad and Meyer would be filibustered.
Saad and Meyer are more conservative than Brown or Owen.
Reid indicated to a a reporter earlier tonight in a presser that Saad and Meyer would be filibustered.
Saad and Meyer are more conservative than Brown or Owen.
You won't find the "right to eat" explicitly in the Constitution - but you wouldn't deny its existance, would you? You should understand that rights are more plentiful than only those stated in the Constitution. In fact, the rights referred to in the Constitution were only those the federal government was explicitly forbidden from affecting. The only "right" granted by the Constituion is the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers - as the judiciary is a creation of the government. The text of the Amendments presupposes individual rights.
Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Soon the GOPollyanna FReepers will realize we were screwed again. Remember "don't worry, the SCOTUS will shoot down CFR". Uhhh-huhhh...
I don't know how it's possible for those 7 republicans to have made an agreement like that. I don't believe they have any say who the Judiciary Committee puts up or when.
Same for the "Right to Take Life.
The (D)s have established that view is NOT extraordinary.
Exactly--How can their nomination meet the "exceptional circumstances" test for a filibuster when this is what the Dems said about Owens and Brown and Pryor. (If they try it the Reps who signed on are free to vote for a rules change)
“[Reid] calls five judges Democrats have blocked - including Texas Supreme Court Justice [Priscilla] Owen and California Supreme Court Associate Justice Janice Rogers Brown - the ‘worst of the worst.’” (Rebecca Walsh, “Reid Blasts Hatch, Tries To Reassure Utah Dems,” The Salt Lake Tribune, 5/7/05)
“I say as respectfully as I can that Priscilla Owen is not going to be approved. Fact. I don’t know everything, but one thing I do know is where the votes are most of the time. Priscilla Owen is not going to be approved. We should get off of her and go to something else.” (Senator Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 4/29/03)
“[Reid] California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, ‘She is a woman who wants to take us back to the Civil War days,’ Reid said.” (Erin Neff, “Del Sol High School Appearance: Reid Calls Bush ‘A Loser,’” Las Vegas Review-Journal, 5/7/05)
Brown “Too Far Out Of The Mainstream.” (Sen. Harry Reid Official Website, http://reid.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=236962, Accessed 5/20/05)
Reid said Brown “is using her seat on the bench to wage an ideological war against America’s social safety net. She wants to take America back to the 19th century and undo the New Deal which includes Social Security and vital protections for working Americans like the minimum wage. Every Senator in this body should tell the more than 10 million working Americans already living in poverty on the minimum wage why someone who wants to make their life harder and destroy their hopes and dreams should be elevated for a lifetime to one of most powerful courts in the country.” (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 5/19/05)
“Now, let me talk a little bit about Priscilla Owen. She is the nominee before us today. This is the third time we have considered the nomination of Priscilla Owen. … On the merits, nothing has changed. There is no question she is immoderate and that she is a judicial activist. I continue to believe Justice Owen will fail my litmus test, my only litmus test in terms of nominating judges; that is, will they interpret law, not make law? Will they not impose their own views and have enough respect for the Constitution and the laws of this land that they will not impose their own views? Well, do not ask me. Ask the people who served with Justice Owen. They believe that she, time and time again, cast aside decades of legal reasoning, miles of legislation, to impose her own views.” (Sen. Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, 5/18/05)
“As extreme as Justice Owen is, Justice Janice Rogers Brown is even more so. The things she has said are unbelievable. She is an activist judge, more committed to advancing her own extreme beliefs and ideas than guaranteeing a fair shake for millions of Americans who would be affected by her decisions on the DC circuit. … She doesn’t want to roll back the clock to the 1950s or even the 1930s. She wants to go back to the 1800s.” (Sen. Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, 5/18/05)
KENNEDY: “Priscilla Owen … is another candidate on the far fringes of legal thinking. Her record raises equally grave concerns that she would try to remake the law.” (Sen. Edward Kennedy, Congressional Record, 5/18/05)
KENNEDY: “Janice Rogers Brown’s record shows a deep hostility to civil rights, to workers’ rights, to consumer protection, and to a wide variety of governmental actions in many other areas--the very issues that predominate in the D.C. Circuit. Perhaps most disturbing is the contempt she has repeatedly expressed for the very idea of democratic self-government.” (Sen. Edward Kennedy, Congressional Record, 5/11/05)
LEAHY: “The President has often spoken of judicial activism without acknowledging that ends-oriented decision-making can come easily to extreme ideological nominees. In the case of Priscilla Owen, we see a perfect example of such an approach to the law, and I cannot support it. The oath taken by federal judges affirms their commitment to ‘administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.’ No one who enters a federal courtroom should have to wonder whether he or she will be fairly heard by the judge. Justice Priscilla Owen’s record of judicial activism and ends-oriented decision making leaves me with grave doubt about her ability to be a fair judge. The President says he opposes putting judicial activists on the Federal bench, yet Justice Priscilla Owen unquestionably is a judicial activist. I cannot vote to confirm her for this appointment to one of the highest courts in the land.” (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 5/18/05)
“My opposition is not about whether Justice Brown would vote like me if she were a member of the United States Senate. I have voted to confirm probably hundreds of nominees with whom I differ. Nor is this about one dissent or one speech. This is about Justice Brown’s approach to the law – an approach which she has consistently used to promote her own ideological agenda, an extreme agenda that is out of the mainstream. Her hostility both to Supreme Court precedent and to the intent of the legislature does not entitle her to a lifetime appointment to this very important appellate court.” (Senator Patrick Leahy, Press Release, “Democrats Oppose Brown Nomination, Panel Approves Nominee,” 4/21/05)
DURBIN: “I oppose [Owen] because I don’t believe she has taken an evenhanded or moderate approach to applying the law. What distinguishes this nominee, Priscilla Owen, from other judges being confirmed is that she has repeatedly demonstrated her unwillingness to apply statutes and court decisions faithfully--on the issue of abortion and many other issues. … The question before the Senate, however, is whether she exhibits the balance and freedom from rigid ideology that must be the bedrock of a strong Federal judiciary. The answer, regrettably, is no.” (Sen. Richard Durbin, Congressional Record, 5/18/05)
DURBIN: “I served as the ranking Democrat at Justice Brown’s hearing in October of 2003. I asked her a lot of questions. Her answers offered little assurance that she will be anything other than a judicial activist with a very extreme agenda. Her views on Government, courts, and the Constitution are troubling. … Her rhetoric makes it clear she is inspired and guided by Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and the Road to Serfdom, more than the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.” (Sen. Richard Durbin, Congressional Record, 5/19/05)
KERRY: “Is it worth undermining our democracy on behalf of Priscilla Owen, who took contributions from Enron and Halliburton and then ruled in their favor?” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 4/21/05)
MURRAY: “Mr. President, time and time again, these nominees have sided against the American people and the values we hold dear. They have taken extreme positions that run counter to mainstream values. Not one of these nominees has the experience or the temperament to administer justice in an impartial way to the citizens that they would serve.” (Sen. Patty Murray, Congressional Record, 4/27/05)
MURRAY: “Justice Owen’s record shows she has consistently put huge corporations ahead of people. She took campaign contributions from companies including Enron and Halliburton, and then she issued rulings in their favor. Many of her campaign contributions came from a small group of special business interests that advanced very clear anti-consumer and anti-choice agendas. Critically, her record has shown that her donors enjoy greater success before her than before the majority of the court. Again, it is very clear to me that Justice Owen will not protect the rights of the people against these huge special interests and is not deserving of being promoted to a lifetime appointment by this body.” (Sen. Patty Murray, Congressional Record, 5/18/05)
BOXER: “Janice Rogers Brown – way outside of the mainstream to the extreme. . . . Her life story is amazing. It is remarkable. What I don’t like is what she is doing to other people’s lives. Her story is amazing, but for whatever reason, she is hurting the people of this country, particularly, right now, in my state. … This woman is living on another planet, and we were right to stop her from getting on the bench.” (Sen. Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, 5/17/05)
BOXER: “She (Brown)never protected women. She doesn’t protect our children. She doesn’t protect our consumers. She doesn’t protect our workers. Why do we want someone such as that to get a promotion?” (Sen. Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, 5/17/05)
FEINSTEIN: “In the case of this particular nominee, out of all the nominations, Justice Brown, in my view, is the clearest cut. She has given numerous speeches over the years that express an extreme ideology, I believe an out-of-the-mainstream ideology. … Justice Brown’s statements and actions demonstrate that she is an activist judge with an unfortunate tendency to replace the law as written with her own extreme personal beliefs. This is not the kind of judge who should be on the nation’s second most powerful court.” (Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Congressional Record, 5/18/05)
CORZINE: “Let me be specific as to the judicial nominees before the Senate: Justice Priscilla Owen and Justice Janice Rogers Brown. Both may be remarkable people in their own right, but that is not my concern. Good people may not be fit to serve as federal judges because of their interpretation of the Constitution, how they apply it or don’t apply law, and the activist approach they take.” (Sen. Jon Corzine, Congressional Record, 5/19/05)
CORZINE: “Let’s start with Justice Owen. This is a judge who has consistently inserted her political views into judicial opinions. That is how I read the record. She has had a record distinguished by conservative judicial activism. . . . Justice Owen has participated in cases involving companies that have been involved in her own political activities, including Enron and Halliburton decisions.” (Sen. Jon Corzine, Congressional Record, 5/19/05)
CORZINE: “As for Justice Janice Rogers Brown, a California Supreme Court justice nominated to the DC Circuit, she has spent the better part of her time as a judge attacking America’s social safety net. . . . Most of the folks who speak here on this floor have political views. But when you go to the bench, you are asked to bring an impartiality, an independence as to how you deal with a case and how you apply the law and interpret the law. Justice Brown, through her opinions as a judge has made it clear that she has a disregard for legal precedent. … I simply cannot support placing such an immoderate judge on the Federal appeals court for a lifetime tenure.” (Sen. Jon Corzine, Congressional Record, 5/19/05)
BLANCHE LINCOLN (D-AR)
Lincoln Wanted The Opportunity To Stop Brown From Taking Her Seat On The Bench. LINCOLN: “I met with Miss Owen. She is a nice woman. This is not to say that she is not a nice person. We are here to say, when the opportunity comes, we need a clear and substantial amount of this body to say this is the person for this job. Her peers from her own party have labeled her a judicial activist. We are not here to say she is not a nice lady. We are here to say she is not the right person for the job. That should be the opportunity we have in the Senate.” (Sen. Blanche Lincoln, Congressional Record, 5/20/05)
What a difference a day makes. They are going to be confirmed and some Dems make that possible without changing the Senate rules.
I half expect that.
Then watch the Party People spin themselves into tiny tornadoes.
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.